User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions with User:AussieLegend. 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.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Hello! With this edit, you stated in your summary that "evolution is not a theory." I realize that opponents of the concept often state that it's "just a theory", but a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." So while I see nothing wrong with the wording to which you reverted, "theory of evolution" is a correct description. —David Levy 06:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I realise that. My edit summary was a bit lazy because the article has been changed a few time lately by opponents of evolution who have targeted this and other articles and it's getting frustrating reverting their attempts to insert their religious beliefs into articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying. —David Levy 14:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, please, please tell me there's a special place in hell for IP editors who don't bother to learn even the most fundamental practices around here. (Beating head against wall.) We've got a doozie editing on two IP's resolving to the same suburban town in New Joisey, and edit warring merrily. You've dealt with them too, over article splits. --Drmargi (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, their "logic" amazes me:

"I think this show should have season pages for each season"

"I agree with that"

"Why don't you help me start them?"

Then, after I reverted the split:

"It's rude to ruin other people's work! I know what WP:SIZERULE is, but there were talks here earlier about the page"

What "talks" were there????? Mind you, this was a series with only one season so far, so it doesn't make sense. Pending changes was a great idea that I really think we need as mandatory on TV lists, as an alternative to blocking IPs altogether. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh I saw that! Most of the time he/she just falls back on accusations of vandalism. There's also the famed "it should be split because of critical acclaim". Am also jousting with one of our serial article-splitters as well. At least we can have our occasional vent-fests. --Drmargi (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you could always ask an admin, protecting overly abused pages from IP nonsense is trivial and may help here. Just ask. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey :) I'm doing a bit of an odd project - collecting municipal border signs/monuments and street signs for Commons. Looking around on Street View I can see there's border signs for Port Stephens on the Pacific Highway at Tomago, and on Nelson Bay Road just south of Fern Bay, while the local signs appear to vary (probably in age) between black writing on white signs, and white writing on smaller black signs (see e.g. [1]). Would it be possible to get photos of any of these for Commons? I have got Newcastle and Lake Macquarie sign exemplars on a previous visit, and intend to get the Central Coast ones later in the year if I can't find someone else to get those (strangely I've only found one Lake Macquarie border sign - on the south side - and no Newcastle ones on Street View.) Orderinchaos 09:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not get rid of Up All Night (season 1) and redirect it to List of Up All Night episodes. Yes, I know what WP:SIZERULE is, but due to hard work and effort for it, the article deserves to be there. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hard work is not an excuse for keeping an article that shouldn't exist. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey there. I've reverted a few of your changes on List of Ringer episodes. Firstly, I re-added the title card (I forgot to add the non-free rationale to it, but have done so now). Also, just because it is a "list of episodes", does not mean it can not include additional information. I was following what List of Awake episodes had going (a FL nomination), as I plan on also cleaning up the article and nominating it for FL. A little bit of info on how the series was received, and how fans tried to save it from being cancelled adds to it, don't you think? If you disagree, surely we can work on an agreement together on whether or not such should be included, and what should be done in its place (because clearly the lead needs to be expanded upon further). Thank you, Statυs (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) One point I would make ahead of Aussie's comments is that the "save the series" campaigns by fans are becoming common as dirt with the advent of online petitions and the popularity of gimmicky mailings to show producers, and lack any notability in the main article much less the list of episodes article. Thusfar, they've worked for only one show, and that renewal, and the subsequent speedy re-cancellation of the show, have become a case study/cautionary tale for producers contemplating rethinking a cancellation. --Drmargi (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you've added a FUR. In my edit summary I said "restored free image - don't replace free content with non-free, no FUR for use of non-free in this article - both of these are WP:NFCC breaches". Lack of a FUR wasn't the only problem. Replacing free content with non-free content is a breach of our non-free content policy, specifically point 1 - "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Free content only has to be an equivalent, not an exact duplicate and, as a free logo was in the article you can't replace it with a non-free logo. You'll note that the image used at List of Awake episodes is a free image. As for the content in the lead, the purpose of the lead is to summarise the key points of the article, not to introduce additional information. Neither Metacritic nor the campaign by fans are mentioned in the article at all so they shouldn't be in the lead. The fan campaign is essentially non-notable trivia. These happen every time a series is cancelled. Again, note that List of Awake episodes doesn't mention Metacritic. It concentrates on the ratings figures that are actually in the article. Moving to the series overview table, there's no reason to unlink series premiere and series finale. These are generally misunderstood terms, so they really should be links, as they are in List of Awake episodes. When I deleted the ratings table after merging it into the series overview table, I said in my edit summary, that the table contained MOS:BOLD and MOS:HASH breaches.[2] MOS:HASH says, "Avoid using the # symbol (known as the number sign, hash sign, or pound sign) when referring to numbers or rankings. Instead use the word "number", or the abbreviation "No."" Adding a hash symbol before the ranking is a clear breach of MOS:HASH. Replacing it with "No." is unnecessary because it's obvious from the column title as to what the number represents. The featured list discussion for List of Awake episodes doesn't seem to have picked up on these violations at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Aussie, a small head scratcher. I notice you're changing out the Food Network Star infobox template. There's a small terminology issue: it lists how many chefs are in the competition. FNS competitors are not generally chefs. These are home cooks, a handful of whom have some professional training, but they're not chefs and FN is very specific about that. Is there some way to change chefs to competitors in the infobox? As "hairsplitty" as this may sound, we are writing an encyclopedia. --Drmargi (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Food Network Star (season 7)
Season 13

A bit of (not completely relevant) background: There were several independent templates that were built because {{Infobox television season}} couldn't handle some of the parameters that people wanted to add. I've fixed that issue with the template and changed 21 articles so they used {{Infobox television season}} directly and the templates have since been deleted. Another 21 articles, including the Food Network Star articles, used {{Infobox television Top Chef}}, which uses "Chef". I created a fork of {{Infobox television season}} that used the same terminology and changed all 21 articles to use that. {{Infobox television Top Chef}} has been deleted as well. The changes that I'm making at the moment are geared towards bypassing the fork altogether. The good news for you is that this enables us to make the heading whatever you want it to be. It's simply a matter of changing the data for cust_label_2 to whatever you want. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Background appreciated. That was easy! I fixed the current FN season infobox, and will get at the rest, but wanted to thank you first. You did a great job on the revised template. School technologists rock! --Drmargi (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No. Season 7 is showing in Russia now. Ed didn't called the best in episode 1, as well as Jay in ep. 5 and Ben in ep. 6. I've seen everything. Look at this series and make sure yourself. KIRILL95 (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with what I wrote on your talk page? You've clearly missed the point here. I don't have issue with you fixing incorrect data in cells, the problem is that you are reinserting incorrect table coding, restoring a MOS:HASH violation and restoring inaccurate quotes. By all means, correct errors that you find, but stop reinserting errors. Wholesale reverting such as this, that reverts quite valid edits,[3][4][5] is inappropriate. It makes your edits look like disruptive editing when you don't bother leaving edit summaries that explain why you are doing what you are doing. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you just reverted all the work that I did. Here's my response to your explanations:

1. Main links to individual character articles were removed because they were overlinks because they were in the table.
2. Headings were changed because they were not the official names, and they are redundant because they are in the first sentence.
3. It's ridiculous to have links in table linking to character sections in the article. That's what the table contents is there for.
4. It's redundant to use "character" in headings, since that's in the title, and invalid to use "cast", since the article is about characters not cast.
5. And (in my opinion) it's unnecessary (and somewhat silly) to have the status of minor characters in a table. They're all "former" anyway.

Please explain how I'm wrong. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated in this edit summary, the purpose of the table was to summarise the status of all characters, not just the few that were listed in the table that you added. That many of them may be "former" characters (#5) might be known to fans, but we have to cater for the general readership, most of whom probably don't watch NCIS and a summary table lets them know which of the 41 characters listed in the article are appearing in current seasons of the series. As a side issue, the table that you added is bound to be problematic. It's the same table used in the main series article and you've obviously copied and pasted it to the characters article. That's fine, but the table shouldn't send readers off to other articles. It should contain links to sections within the current article, as I explained here. If it doesn't, there's little point in including the brief summaries of the main characters. The problem is that in the likely event that somebody decides to update the table by copying and pasting from the main article those links will be broken. It's not ridiculous to include self links in the table at all (#3). It's effectively the lead section for the article and, as the lead section it is supposed to summarise the article. It should therefore include links to the relevant sections within the article. This means that main links are not redundant (#1) and, in any case, main links are appropriate as they indicate to the reader that there is more content elsewhere on the character, which the table that you added disguises. As I indicated in this edit summary, multiple articles link to the headings in the article (#2) and by changing them you broke most of the nearly 200 inward links to the article. To fix this you needed to add anchors to each heading, which is a pointless effort as manual anchoring is made redundant by the current headings. You do have a point with #4 but there are other issues here. There are both level 2 and level 3 headings titled "Other", resulting in two identical anchors in the article in the event that you don't use "character" or "cast" in the heading. With this revision of the article there is no problem as one heading is "Other cast" while the second is "Other characters". I've removed "characters" from the level 3 headings per your suggestion that it's redundant to include "characters" but we need to keep the headings unique to avoid linking problems, so the level 2 heading can't just be "Other" for the reasons that I've stated above. The only way to do this, since you are correct in saying that "cast" is inappropriate for a characters article, is to use "characters" in the level 2 heading. For consistency throughout the article, this means also using "characters" in the other level 2 headings. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Now why would there be so many links to these short descriptions if the character has it's own article? (I don't mean to sound snotty, I just tell it like I see it.) You only give two MOS links (the others for your edit summaries, of course I've read because that's what I based my responses on) and that would seem to indicate that the rest is just based on your opinion. The Lead MOS does not mention using a wikitable where the lead goes. The only table it talks about is the table of contents, and you didn't say why you think it's a good idea to have (essentially) 2 TOCs in the same article. I've never seen that in any other article, and I frankly think it looks bad to have a 3-column table like that here. I considered just moving the table from the main article, because I don't think it really needs to be there and is better to have it here, but I decided against it. Now, I have seen character articles (in fact, I've made a couple) where (after the lead) there's a table that has the character names, what seasons the character is in, how many episodes, and a brief character description summary (and if there isn't an article for the character, there may be a more lengthy summary). And that takes care of all of it in a nice combined package (in my opinion). --Musdan77 (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why there are so many links into the article, you'd have to look at all of the articles that link to the article to check that out, I just know there are. The MOS doesn't say a lot of things, but it's clear from its placement before all of the other content in the article (ie right where the lead is placed) that it's part of the lead, that and the fact that we (ie not just me) decided a long time ago that was the best way to summarise the article. The table is not a TOC. The TOC only links to the character descriptions while the table also lists the name of the actor and the character's current status. If you want, just to avoid any confusion at all, we can always eliminate the TC altogether, but that would lose other identifying information, such as listing those characters who are deceased. This could be added to the table, but it's an added level of complexity. Moving the table out of the article would result in a lead that doesn't summarise the article properly. You'd have to write a whole new lead, and with 41 characters that seems overly complex. The table does it quite simply by summarising pertinent points about each character. Perhaps you'd care to identify some of the character articles that you claim to have created so I can compare them? --AussieLegend (talk) 08:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please ensure that edit summaries are accurate. This recent summary includes implications that are clearly incorrect. As I demonstrated to you on my talk page, these articles were de-linked almost 6 months ago,[6] which is also about 6 months before the AfDs and therefore very obviously not because of the AfDs. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't checked when it was delinked, and I made sure the edit summary didn't say that's why they were delinked, but simply warned they shouldn't be delinked if AfD is in process. Think your reading too much into an edit summary .... Nfitz (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"Just because someone is trying to AfD the articles is no reason to delink them" implies that the article was delinked because of the AfD. A more suitable edit summary might have been "Restoring links to episode articles". There's no need for commentary. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

G'day Aussie Legend, I have been working hard on updating the references and I trust that they are, in the main, up to the standards expected for Wikipedia. Thank you for your feedback and input. Sorry that I have been a slow learner and frustrating for you. I have been able to learn from your links and advice. I am asking if now that the page is up to standard that it is appropriate that the warnings can now be removed. Thanks for your support in making this page look great. Ben Benwebboz (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Since (book 2) has a discussion for it to be deleted (per the sake of it being a future season and all) do you think it would be wise to open a request for deleteion of (Book 1) as well? You, me, geraldo and I saw another editor who have agreed that the split was done prematurely (and without discussion). I would think a requestion for deletion is important as Sandstein thinks the information is duplicated on both the episode list and (Book 1) so he/she wants to redirect it to (Book 1)#episodes and not have a list of episodes page. I made this edit saying we shouldn't have (Book 1) then we wouldn't run into the problem of "duplication". We should wait until all 26 Season 1 episodes have aired and season 2 book 3 has some info before we create separate articles. We also have the fact that there really isn't a lot of info on the (Book 1) page anyway (most of it is taken from the main article and even links to the main article). I'm just not sure how to go about creating this discussion of deleting the page. - Alec (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Am I wrong about this? I've had discussions before about Splitting up "List of episode" pages before and they've always ened up saying "It's too early to split." However A user Sandstein has created a Season page already and linked the "List of episode" pages to the "Episodes" section of (Book 1) of the Legend of Korra so a "list of episodes" does not really have a page. They think there's enough info on the (Book 1) page to keep it but the "List of episodes" page was fine before and it's too early for it to be split. They also said that once we get (Book 2) we can re-create the list of episodes page where it tranluces (spelling?) from the season page to the list of episodes page where all you see is the episodes. Main discussion here but there's more here. - Alec (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Everytime I had a suggestion to split, the answer was that "it's too early" and in the case, it is. Just look at "Suits", "White Collar," "Good Luck Charlie," etc pages and they are not split as of yet. - Alec (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I agree that List of The Legend of Korra episodes should look like User:Alec2011/(Korra Test). The Legend of Korra (Book 1) shouldn't have been split out yet. There isn't enough additional information to justify a split at this time. The content in the lead of The Legend of Korra (Book 1) could easily be accommodated in the main episode list, after the season heading. The reception section could also be accommodated in the list. The ratings graph is pure padding and is redundant to the figures in the episode table. That said, many editors wish to keep that sort of information out of the main list so there is some (but not a lot) of justification for a split on that basis. Parent5446 does make some points in this post. The really wrong thing is redirecting List of The Legend of Korra episodes. If The Legend of Korra (Book 1) is to remain, it should look like this, --AussieLegend (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What I always find fascinating about these pleas for early season articles is that I never see a concrete argument as to why we need them. It's always "someone else did it" (so like a magpie, I have to, too), which is no reason to do anything. And I certainly don't see any commitment to developing well-written, substantial season articles. Throw in the episodes, throw in the cast list and you're done seems to be the order of the day. --Drmargi (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I think we've done the right thing with Castle. I wouldn't want to see it get like the West Wing debacle. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you about what you said. If the (Book 1) page must exist then what you presented is enough for the "List of episodes" page. We should not be redirecting it to the (Book 1) page. - Alec (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've been following that little drama. We've absolutely done the right thing with Castle, and several others. I've also reverted several quickie splits when folks simply seem disinclined to do any more than copy what's already in the main article and add a longer cast list, which at times has rendered me the devil incarnate. Ah, well, So be it. BTW, where do you stand on elaborate ratings table (such as in List of Rizzoli & Isles episodes? I'm foursquare against 'em for a variety of reasons, and am curious what you think. --Drmargi (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind me answering as well? I do not like the ratings tables as well. I mean we already put ratings in the "Ratings" column do we need the "other" information in the ratings tables below? I think a "ratings" column is enough and we do not need the ratings table. I mean what's their purpose? - Alec (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

When we recently changed {{Episode list}} we introduced a Viewers parameter, but retained the Aux4 parameter. Generally, the ratings tables substantially duplicate what is in the episode tables. There are options, depending on how many columns are used. For example, the following works with Rizzoli & Isles season 1:

No. in series	No. in season	Title	Directed by	Written by	Original air date	U.S. viewers (in millions)	18-49 (rating/share)
1	1	"See One. Do One. Teach One"	Michael M. Robin	Janet Tamaro	July 12, 2010 (2010-07-12)	7.55	2.1
Episode summary

It's more complex when a ranking column is included, because of the layout of the Aux1, Aux2, Aux3 and Aux4 parameters.

EpisodeNumber	EpisodeNumber2	"Title"RTitle "AltTitle"RAltTitle	Aux1	DirectedBy	WrittenBy	Aux2	Aux3	OriginalAirDate	AltDate	ProdCode	Viewers	Aux4
ShortSummary

--AussieLegend (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Alec, of course you're welcome to respond! Aussie and I have these little chats now and then. I just reverted the R&I table. Here's the thing with those: aside from the excessive space the take in an article, how much do we really need to document episode-to-episode that can't be found by following the link back to the source? The average reader can't tell you what a rating and a share means. Or what they key demo is all about. That level of detail drifts into fancruft, and certainly indiscriminate information. Viewership figures for each episode and a link to the details for the episode, then a summary of the seasonal ratings, which ultimately govern renewal decisions, are what we need. No more. Someone is adding elaborate ratings tables to the Top Chef articles as well. Why on earth would anyone care, especially after the fact. Time to go, to my way of thinking. --Drmargi (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the table out and have a discussion open on the show's talk page. I've also notified the editor pushing the table, so let's see how that goes. --Drmargi (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

We're off again! What IS IT about the carved up season article that's so appealing? I haven't got a clue. He's taken it to dispute resolution, but it doesn't appear to be set up properly (not sure; never been there before.) --Drmargi (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You're talking about The Legend of Korra right? If not I apologize for butting in ;). - Alec (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, this time it's List of Hart of Dixie episodes. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the intrusion. Do you ind if i comment as well? It's probably already taken care of but adding another opinion may be helpful. I'm with you on this by the way. - Alec (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Dive in! The editor took it to DRN way too soon, and that discussion was quickly closed, so it's back to the talk page. --Drmargi (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I will post something soon. By the way. Have you taken a look at the discussion for The Legend of Korra? It was split way to early but I guess from the discussion (Book 1) is staying. We need a List of episodes page anyway regardless if the information is duplicated. But back on topic. I'm all for splitting season pages up but only after it's "needed" and when there's a lot of information to put on the separate pages. - Alec (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Alec, don't feel like you're intruding. Your interest is more than welcome. Besides, even if we did mind (which we don't) every editor has a right to comment. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

DRN is closed as having been filed to early. I was glad to see that. Alec, are you asking me to comment on Legend of Korra? I'll have to familiarize myself first. --Drmargi (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

May I ask why you deleted an entire article regarding Helena G. Wells that was JUST published tonight? I can understand the argument that her not being a regular is why you wouldn't want to have her listed as a main one in the character list page, but to delete the entire article itself without even approaching the author (me) about it before you did so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electprogeny (talk • contribs) 08:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

To date, character articles have been created only for the main characters in the series. While I understand that you put some work into the article, perhaps you should have asked whether its creation was appropriate at Talk:List of Warehouse 13 characters before putting in the effort. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Aussie, I appreciate your comment on that. This was my first article so I wasn't entirely aware of the etiquette to discuss prior to creation. That said, I would have appreciated the courtesy of discussion before just deleting it. I don't feel that trying to work this out on your talk page is the best way to resolve this. I'm going to see if we can find a better page for this. I'd appreciate your thoughts and will be glad to explain why I think this particular character actually deserves an article (along with the recommendation from another person on a different character page).Electprogeny (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Helena_G._Wells. It's my feeling that there should be an AfD discussion about this, but I'm not sure Electprogeny knows how to initiate it (and I don't either). The deleted article in question doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and ought to be restored. 72.21.131.202 (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion isn't relevant, as the article was redirected, not deleted. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not like I'd know the difference (as I said, it's my first article), but I had the live help chat people look and they never mentioned anything about that. Be that as it may, if you really think the article should not exist - I'm happy to hold a discussion with you about that over on the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electprogeny (talk • contribs) 10:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The reversion you just did was to go back to a mass deletion of arbitrary data removal. When I asked the person in question, whose user talk page reflects a rather interesting history of spurious deletions, the response I got was that it was to rewrite the article so it was not "in-universe" per the tag suggestion at the top of the page. It may very well have been done in good faith, but the deletions merely removed arbitrary sections of data without any rewrites and the deleted data (and references that had been verified by IShadowed) did not - in fact, have any affect whatsoever on the "in-universe" nature of the article that garnered the tag. I spent the better part of the day working with various wiki-helpers to rewrite the entirety of the article for this very purpose. I am currently waiting for a wiki-helper to review the changes that were made for the purpose of removing that tag - which I could have done on my own, but I am - in good faith - trying not to take any action without consensus from the more knowledgeable wiki-helpers.

If you are saying you believe the person made a good faith deletion of over 7,000 words from random areas of the article in 3 different edits in rapid succession - I have no issue with that, but I have watched you revert good faith edits so am unclear as to why you are reverting the change I just made (with the help of a wiki-helper who told me exactly what to do to get to the original state before the deletions). In this particular case, considering the level of effort to improve the article per all the guidelines, I'd like to understand what your take is on whether or not the deletions in question actually made the article less "in-universe" than it already was at the time of the initial deletions. Thank you. Electprogeny (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As I've asked you, please assume good faith. The editor clearly marked his edits as "Trying to condense this section...",[7] and informed you on your talk page that he was "simply trying to rewrite the page without in-universe references, as the template at the top requests."[8] Talk page histories can be deceiving. If we were to look at your talk page history we'd see multiple declined unblock requests with some interesting excuses.[9] --AussieLegend (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So if I had reverted with "reverting good faith edit" as the reason that would have been more appropriate? I'm seriously asking since I'm unclear on when and when not that is considered acceptable. In any regard, I'll just have a wiki-helper assist me with understanding if you will not, since the nature of what effects "in-universe" is the style of the writing and not the content itself per the guidelines. Thanks for your assistance! Electprogeny (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What you mean, I put a source and explained? MichelleTheola (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources need to directly support claims. You can't use a source for "Cattle Calls & Scary Walls" to prove the episode number for "The Secret Life of Mr. Kipling". This is known as synthesis, which is not permitted. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wanted to give you a courtesy note that I reverted despite a good faith assumption since I didn't see anything in the edits actually effecting the in universe question. (Mynameisme91 (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC))

Clearly, other editors do not agree with your reversion. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you are not doing in regard to User talk:Electprogeny. Thank you. (Mynameisme91 (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC))

My only post at User talk:Electprogeny was a quite valid warning,[10] after Electprogeny improperly reverted good faith edits by another user[11] as "spurious deletes"[12] and then accused that editor of vandalism.[13] False warnings, such as that one, and this are inappropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You are once again not assuming good faith. Please practice what you preach. My reminder to you to assume good faith is not a "false warning" nor is it "inappropriate". Please remember that although some wiki users are not as experienced as you, their input is still valid. (Mynameisme91 (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC))

(talk page stalker) Awfully well informed, and focused, for an editor with a handful of edits. I smell socks and hear ducks quacking. Any theories? --Drmargi (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Help! I made a complete mess of a move and now I can't get it to go where I want it. Want to be a pal and either clean up after me or tell me what to do? An editor made a series of moves of old seasons of The Next Food Network Star to its newer title, Food Network Star against consensus. I thought I was moving them back, and instead moved them to The Food Network Star (DUH!) Now I can't get them back to their original title. What'd I do, and how do I fix? I made a COLOSSAL mess! --Drmargi (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC) (ETA: I also left a message on the talk page of the admin who closed the case originally. I can't believe what I did!!)

Stuff happens. I couldn't move the pages back so I've tagged them all with {{db-move}}. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! Next time, I'll make sure I've had a decent night's sleep before I decide to do something that major. --Drmargi (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The editor also created Category:Food Network Star and moved articles into that, instead of proposing a move at WP:CFD, and modified {{The Next Food Network Star}} after moving it to {{Food Network Star}}. I fixed those too, although some of the edits he made to the navbox were valid. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There probably were some valid changes, but it was so chaotic when I found it, I'm sure I overlooked them. Thanks again for the fix. He's left a message on my talk page, and doesn't seem to understand the burden to establish new consensus. --Drmargi (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You do know I can read all this, right? And I do understand new consensus, thank you, but I also understand being bold. Anyway, AL, as far as your edit summary here, where in WP:NAVBOX does it say that's the way it has to work? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes we do, and welcome to the conversation. As should be obvious from the name, and as is explained in the lead of Wikipedia:Navigation templates, a navigation template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles. There is absolutely no point in including plain text in navboxes, as plain text doesn't facilitate navigation, which is why WP:NAV says to avoid them. This has to be applied with some common sense though. For example, "Dan Smith & Steve McDonagh Party Line with The Hearty Boys" doesn't make a lot of sense without the plain text. However, "Tom Pizzica Outrageous Food" doesn't serve any useful purpose. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is not designed to sidestep established consensus. An important caveat is that controversial edits should be discussed and consensus built. You demonstrate a lack of understanding of that key element, particularly in this instance where the consensus build was rather recent. --Drmargi (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Sidestep established consensus"? You just don't get it, do you? And if everyone seems to be so against this, why hasn't anyone participated in the discussion on the actual article talk page yet? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As with all "moves" etc, if they are challenged then we enter an entirely differently kind of discussion, that is, one that needs consensus. As per AussieLegend and Drmargi, we need to ensure that moves like this are good for the reader. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey. In honour of Australia at the 2012 Summer Paralympics, I'm trying to get articles created about members of the team who don't have articles yet. This is a fairly big job and I could use a bit of assistance. If you have time, can you add information and sources to articles, add pictures to articles (Flickr? Commons?), fix prose on articles where sources have been included now (mostly men's athletics) and otherwise help prep them for DYK? I'd be happy to give you credit at DYK for all the articles you help improve. Thanks in advance. --LauraHale (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Athletics - Men User:LauraHale/Damien Bowen User:LauraHale/Matthew Cameron User:LauraHale/Todd Hodgetts User:LauraHale/Jake Lappin User:LauraHale/Simon Patmore User:LauraHale/Michael Roeger User:LauraHale/Matthew Silcocks User:LauraHale/Lindsay Sutton User:LauraHale/Jack Swift (athlete) Athletics - Women User:LauraHale/Carlee Beattie User:LauraHale/Georgia Beikoff User:LauraHale/Kelly Cartwright User:LauraHale/Rachael Dodds User:LauraHale/Jodi Elkington User:LauraHale/Rosemary Little User:LauraHale/Katy Parrish User:LauraHale/Kristy Pond User:LauraHale/Stephanie Schweitzer User:LauraHale/Erinn Walters User:LauraHale/Gabriel Cole (athlete) Cycling - Men User:LauraHale/Nigel Barley (cyclist) User:LauraHale/David Nicholas User:LauraHale/Sam Harding (cyclist) Cycling - Women User:LauraHale/Simone Kennedy User:LauraHale/Susan Powell (cyclist) User:LauraHale/Stephanie Morton User:LauraHale/Carol Cooke User:LauraHale/Alexandra Green Equestrian User:LauraHale/Hannah Dodd User:LauraHale/Joann Formosa User:LauraHale/Grace Bowman (equestrian) User:LauraHale/Rob Oakley Goalball - Women User:LauraHale/Jennifer Blow User:LauraHale/Meica Christensen User:LauraHale/Tyan Taylor User:LauraHale/Nicole Esdaile User:LauraHale/Rachel Henderson User:LauraHale/Michelle Rzepecki User:LauraHale/Georgina Kenaghan Rowing - Men User:LauraHale/Erik Horrie User:LauraHale/Gavin Bellis Sailing - Men User:LauraHale/Stephen Churm User:LauraHale/Jonathan Harris (sailor) User:LauraHale/Matthew Bugg Shooting - Men User:LauraHale/Luke Cain User:LauraHale/Jason Maroney User:LauraHale/Bradley Mark Shooting - Women User:LauraHale/Miro Sipek Table Tennis - Women User:LauraHale/Rebecca McDonnell User:LauraHale/Melissa Tapper Wheelchair Basketball - Men User:LauraHale/Jannik Blair User:LauraHale/Nick Taylor (basketball) Wheelchair Basketball - Women User:LauraHale/Leanne del Toso User:LauraHale/Sarah Vinci User:LauraHale/Amber Merritt Wheelchair Rugby - Men User:LauraHale/Cody Meakin User:LauraHale/Josh Hose User:LauraHale/Ben Newton User:LauraHale/Andrew Harrison (wheelchair rugby) User:LauraHale/Chris Bond (wheelchair rugby) Wheelchair Tennis - Men User:LauraHale/Ben Weekes User:LauraHale/Adam Kelleeman Wheelchair Tennis - Women User:LauraHale/Janel Manns

I've upgraded this site. I've taken an example from NCIS. How do you like it and do you have any other suggestions? Thanks -- LAW CSI (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Any chance that all the West Wing episode noms could be combined into a single group nom? I think we're seeing mostly copy/pasted comments anyway. Just thread by time stamp, and if someone has a not-quite-the-same comment, just thread it directly below their first timestamped comment. - jc37 19:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

They probably could but I'm nominating based on the individual articles, as they don't all share exactly the same problems, although many of the issues are similar. I'd actually rather have some informal discussion about what to do with these articles as a group but nobody seems interested in doing anything while the work is being done, just months afterwards. Nobody said anything when I was building 5 season articles, fixing two more as well as the main episode list, but when I tried redirecting articles that were redundant because the only encyclopaedic content had been merged into the season articles, the shit hit the fan, with editors restoring articles that they weren't prepared to work on themselves. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Nod. In general I don't mind merging to lists, as long as the actual merges are done (we have some editors who just "redirect and run").

But in this case, I don't think merging is the right way to go.

Anyway, I'll see about linking to them all later when I have more free time. - jc37 20:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I really can't understand your opposition to merging the content. The articles that have been nominated are generally unsourced, include original research or contain content sourced to sites that clearly don't meet the requirements of a reliable source. They don't serve any useful purpose and only serve to turn what is supposed to be an encyclopedia into a poor quality fan wiki. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Surely you shouldn't be proceeding with any of these AfDs until the first two are done. I'd have thought going ahead when the original AfDs were in doubt was tantamount to vandalism. Nfitz (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• There's nothing stopping any article being taken to AfD and there's no limit to the number that may be running at the same time. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strictly speakiing, there aren't. Though there are guidelines like WP:RELISTINGISEVIL, WP:SENSE, WP:GAME, and even WP:POINT. Presumably if there are 100 article X's (X1 though X100), and you take 10 of them to AfD ... and they all fail, then there comes a point when taking the other 90 to AfD becomes disruptive. Nfitz (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• None of the articles have been relisted so WP:RELISTINGISEVIL is not relevant. The articles that have been listed have all had their content merged to the season lists so they were redundant to the season articles. Some articles were prodded and deleted, while others were redirected. The links to those articles were then removed from the season articles. The people who restored the articles did not restore the links in the season articles or remove the merged content from the season articles meaning the articles are not connected to the lists and are still redundant to the lists. perhaps you should point them at WP:SENSE. WP:GAME doesn't apply, and if you think it does, you aren't assuming good faith. Similarly, WP:POINT doesn't apply and again, if you think it does, you aren't assuming good faith. You may care to direct the people who restored the articles, but didn't do anything else, to WP:POINT though as their intent seems to be to keep non-compliant, redundant, orphaned from the series articles around at all costs. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• You seem to be focusing on the words of the guidelines, rather than the spirit. Please focus on the spirit. Also, not all the content was merged. Some was simply deleted. And prodded? Really? Tut-tut. Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• What I wrote applies equally to the spirit. True, not all the content was merged but, as I've explained elsewhere, merging isn't simply copying and pasting. However, all of the episodes that I have nominated have been merged into the season articles, as the diffs show:

1. 17 People
2. 18th and Potomac
3. 365 Days
4. 2162 Votes
5. 100,000 Airplanes
6. 20 Hours in L.A.
7. A Change Is Gonna Come (The West Wing)
8. A Proportional Response
9. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (The West Wing)

Some are currently not visible because they need to be pruned to less than 300 words so as to comply with the template instructions, but the content has been merged.

"And prodded? Really? Tut-tut." - Tut-tut yourself. Prodding is a valid way to nominate non-compliant articles for deletion. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Prodding is for non-controversial deletions. Experienced editors should know better than abusing this to do deletions that are controversial. Wait, the template requires the description only being 300 words? Clearly there needs to be an article then. Nfitz (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that there had been no attempt to improve any of the articles, the articles didn't meet the requirements of WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:V, WP:TVEP and so on, and the only encyclopaedic content (the plot) had been merged into the season articles, without any opposition at all, the deletion seemed uncontroversial. After deletion it continued to appear to be uncontroversial, as the articles remained deleted or redirected for almost 6 months. No there doesn't need to be an article. Nowhere is there a requirement to create an article just to accommodate an overly long plot. Episode articles are only justified when the the episode itself is notable. When an episode is notable, the plot section in the episode article can be 500 words long, (not 1,125 as in the case of 2162 Votes) but as per WP:PLOT, articles aren't supposed to be plot only summaries. They need to include real-world treatment of the episode and the episodes are required to pass the general notability guideline. The actual process order for creation of TV series, episode list, season list and episode articles is explained in Wikipedia:Television episodes, which also highlights the need for episodes to be notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how that justifies controversial prods. Off-hand, it's hard to think of a West Wing episode that isn't notable ... it's not like Coronation Street or something. Nfitz (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

??? None of those prods were controversial and I can think of 130 episodes that don't demonstrate notabilty, not to mention failing to meet the requirements of several of our guidelines. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I see you've been involved in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television. I have begun a discussion on spoilers in episode lists and would appreciate your input. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I smell socks: two of the accounts were created within the last 2 hours, and went right to the vandalism; also, when I blocked one, the other stopped editing, as if an autoblocker was triggered. --Rschen7754 06:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised to find that they are all on-campus university students using the uni's internet connection. Even if they aren't actually socks, there's bound to be some meatpuppetry.

• Tone.itdown1901 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Little.shroom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lillywaterpower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Newlove4castle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Waterfirespirit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sundowndawn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An interesting list. I only noticed the first three. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sent to SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tone.itdown1901 All confirmed as socks, all editors indef blocked. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not appreciate that you are going over my edits when adding the spoken wikipedia note to a couple of pages I am passionate about and have done recordings for. You have gone through my edits and done this, and I don't like that. Please don't do it again. TheJoshy (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, when posting please add your post to the end of the page, not at the beginning of an unrelated thread. Your edits to Gerringong, New South Wales were reverted because they were unsourced and incorrect. One of your edits, the addition of an unsourced population figure from the 2009 census (there was no 2009 census) left the article in a "damaged" state.[14] The fact that you had reduced the population from 3,588 at the actual 2006 census to "5,00" at the fictitious 2009 census (According to the ABS the population at the 2011 census was 3,456[15]) seriously made me question your motives. If you don't like people "going through" your edits, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you, as everyone is entitled to revert fictious and unsourced additions. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand that, but the fact you've marked my "spoken" topics as dubious isn't that great... :( --TheJoshy (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You're a new editor, who added unsourced and fictitious content to an article and in only your 4th and 5th edits on Wikipedia, one of which was your first ever edit to the article, you claimed to be creating spoken versions of two articles, which is dubious. How's that going by the way? --AussieLegend (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Sorry about that. I have the Gerringong recording done, and the SSCS recording is in progress. I'm just trying to edit it a bit and make sure it's all good before I stick it on here. --TheJoshy (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright mate, listen up! I don't know what it is you've got against Holden. Unless your a Fraud fan... TollHRT52 (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2012 (AEST)

Well, quite obviously Holden's are all crap, but that's well known. What prompted you to post here? --AussieLegend (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Was reading over your commants about the odd US copyright laws the rest of us are forced to follow. In Canada we created Wikimedia Canada you guys have anything like this? Trying to get this to help us with copyright.Moxy (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

We actually do have Wikimedia.au. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll repost this at WP:AWNB. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

They never learn. --Drmargi (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Yeah that isn't me. Cheers, TheJosh (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help cleaning up my edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society&diff=507882149&oldid=507879825

Do you think it would be better to put it back to the plural of lawyers, since it is on letter head with both lawyers information, or leave it singular, as only one signed it? El Heuro (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And wasn't today an epic fail by a cadre of admins, particularly ItsZippy? --Drmargi (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that's an understatement. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I went through an entire day of harassment, as did at least four other editors, and the IP walks away without so much as a comment by an admin. Our already weak administrator corps just got weaker in my eyes. --Drmargi (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the IP says I'm sorry and that's it. Pardon me if I'm skeptical. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I hear ya. (And I really resent Drmies blind-leading-blind analogy on a couple levels. He's a poor administrator on a good day, and made things worse using a totally inappropriate analogy, not to mention taking side on the issue.) I'm surprised by how angry about this I still am. I gave our little IP friend the word on the article page; prove he's sorry by learning how to edit properly. That lede is a mess and it needs to be rewritten; both versions did. --Drmargi (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Based on the message the IP posted to me, I would conclude that they learned what they were doing was wrong. However, I did not like the action taken by Drmies. I was extremely insulted by the comments of the IP, and feel as though a personal attack/edit warring probation should have been bestowed upon them. I can agree that the analogy was irrelevant. I have had problems with Drmies in the past; when I was fairly unexperienced with WP's editing p/g, an article I made was taken to AFD (rightly so). Drmies took it to himself to leave a very rude comment to me, including repetitious swearing, despite my telling him to calm down. Certainly not my favorite admin. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty much my impression of him, too. As for the IP, the failure to give him a substantial block belongs to the admin corps as a whole. He harassed me, and a simple apology won't cut it. He's going to have to prove to me he can work collaboratively, and that's not going to be easy; words are cheap and came once he hit ANI. He's figured out a nicely timed apology and our weak-kneed admins fold like paper dolls. --Drmargi (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Drmargi, I'm very, very sorry for everything I said to you. I didn't mean any of it. I was just hurt because my edit was removed immediately after I did it. But that was no excuse for my terrible behavior, especially to someone who seems as reasonable and passionate about this project as you. And just so you know, I promise you I had absolutely no idea that TRLIJC19 had filed any type of report when I decided to apologize to him. I had already made that decision shortly before he did that because he was so nice and I read his great user page. When I clicked to submit my apology comment, it said that someone was posting at the same time, so it didn't go through. It was at that very point that I saw the message informing me about the ANI report. But I still wanted to my post my comment because I felt so bad for being so rude to him, and to all of you. I then went to the ANI page and posted it there, too, because I wasn't sure if TRLIJC19 saw it on the other page. And I was totally fine with him reporting me. I totally deserved it. And whatever happened there would have been fine with me. I'm using an IP address, so I didn't apologize because I had to. I did it because I really wanted to, specifically because TRLIJC19 is such a nice person and didn't deserve any of the things I said. But overall, I wanted to apologize because of all the inappropriate things I said to all of you. You're all good people who are trying to help this project and I never really believed that any of you were working together. Again, I was just really hurt that I spent time doing that rewrite and then it was just removed completely a couple minutes later. I felt alone and as though no one understood that I was trying to a good thing, not to harm the article in any way. So, you all can decide what's best for the article. If you think the old version is better then I'll certainly understand if you want to keep it that way. I will leave it in your hands. Again Drmargi, I am very sorry for everything I said to you and to all the other editors. I wish all of you the very best. :) --76.189.121.5 (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"I promise you I had absolutely no idea that TRLIJC19 had filed any type of report when I decided to apologize to him."

• 06:40, 17 August 2012 UTC - IP's last post prior to apologising was "Talk to someone who cares. Don't you have a life?" at TBrandley's talk page.
• 06:54, 17 August 2012 UTC - TRLIJC19 files ANI report
• 06:54-06:57 - TRLIJC19 advises 4 editors of ANI discussion
• 06:57, 17 August 2012 UTC - TRLIJC19 advises IP of ANI discussion
• 07:03, 17 August 2012 UTC - IP starts apologising.

Yeah, I'm convinced. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Prove it. Talk is cheap, and your behavior was vile. --Drmargi (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand if you can't accept my apology. But it is the absolute truth that I had no idea about the ANI report until after I clicked to post my apology on Tbrandly's talk page. It wouldn't let me post it because, as I found out, at the moment I clicked the submit button, TRLIJC19 had just posted the ANI notice. I know that because when I got the error message, I was able to see the talk page and saw his notice that he had just added. If you look at Aussie's times above, you'll see that TRLIJC19 posted the notice at 06:57, so I clicked right after him which is why it wouldn't go through. So I read his notice and the ANI page, then figured out how to copy my apology comment and re-enter it into the box so I could resubmit it. So all that took about five minutes I think. In any case, the whole matter was over more than 12 hours ago, yet I'm still here apologizing to all of you. So I have no reason to apologize now other than because I really want to. I'm truly sorry. And as I said, I'm not even interested in editing the article any more. I already explained that I will leave that in your hands to decide what's best. So anyway, if you can't see that my apology is sincere and that I have nothing to gain by doing it now, long after that ANI matter ended, then I can't do anything about that. But either way, I wish all the best for all of you... Drmargi, Tbrandly, Aussielegend, TRLIJC19 and anyone else I was rude to. I'm sorry. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a note; it makes total sense that an edit conflict was flagged while I was posting the AN/I notice on TBrandley's talk page. The IP has posted numerous detailed apologies, and I think it is time to assume good faith. I am the user who was (arguably) given the most harassment by the IP, and if I can try to assume good faith, I am sure you guys can too. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no dice. The IP pursued me from page to page and harassed me ALL DAY, and a few crocodile tears won't do it. What you experienced doesn't come close. AGF is fine, but he's reaping what he sewed. --Drmargi (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot agree that the comments you were given by the IP were any worst than he/she gave to me. It seems as though the first comment the IP added about you was this, and it certainly was not "harassing". The next was this, which can't be considered harassment either. I don't know if this was targeted at you, but if it was, then it can be considered the start of personal attacks against you. The next to you was this, which isn't really harassment either. When IP posted this on your talk page, it seemed sarcastic. Another personal attack thrown at you was this, which was really sarcastic. His/her complaint to you about a false accusation of a personal attack was not really harassment. This comment was really rude to everyone, but you in particular.

Most of the IP's "harsh" harassment was actually thrown towards me. First he/she brought up my block history, and called my statements meaningless, laughable, and hypocrtical. Then, he/she told me I was like a DWI criminal, and told me to "get a life", and "bring it on". IP then mocked me for my blocks again. This comment the IP left to me was extremely rude, telling me to go talk to myself. The next post left by the IP was really rude as well, and then this was further mocking.

So based on the above diffs, I don't know where you're getting your reasoning that you were given harsher harassment than me; clearly that's a fallacy. Anyways, the point is that AGF is trusting that the IP's apologies were sincere. The IP was probably very frustrated when his/her edits were reverted; it is clear that their initial intentions were in good faith. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Bean counting? Seriously? I'm done. I decline to assume good faith in an editor who demonstrated himself to be totally devoid of good faith himself, and I decline to be chastised by an editor who showed up in the bottom of the eighth inning. Aussie, I'd suggest you archive this whole sorry mess, and let's move on. --Drmargi (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you said to me "Sorry, no dice. [...] What you experienced doesn't come close." even though the IP barely harassed you, made me feel as though you thought I was not being harassed. Oh and please, AussieLegend mapped out every message sent above; there is nothing wrong with trying to prove a point. Your inability to move on and assume that the IP's apologies are sincere is the issue. I had been watching the whole incident unfold, made my comment at the end, and took the worst of the personal attacks. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for those comments. I was only doing the "diff" proving above, because when you said "What you experienced doesn't come close", it hurt me and made me feel as though you think I wasn't harassed and hurt from the IP's comments just as much as you were. Again, sorry that I resorted to that, and I understand that the comments you made were in GF. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

	good work
	Keep up the good wikipedia work bro ImHerelol (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aussie, could you replace the templates of all cycles (seasons) of America's Next Top Model and there will be replace templates: Infobox television to Infobox television season.

Here's the sample of Cycle 1 of America's Next Top Model will look like:

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 1
Season 13
No. of episodes	9
Release
Original network	UPN
Original release	May 20 (2003-05-20) – July 15, 2003 (2003-07-15)
Season chronology
Next → Cycle 2
List of episodes

This template will apply in all cycles of America's Next Top Model and other Top Model franchises (with cycle articles). ApprenticeFan ^work 12:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice catch on this sockpuppet, I'm glad that it was resolved quickly. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It was pretty obvious from the edit history at African Uplands, but he was actually blocked before I had a chance to file an SPI report. These edits brought back horrible memories of my old nemesis, The Verizon vandal™. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aussie, in addition on replacing the wrong {{infobox television}} and replace with the correct {{infobox television season}}.

The articles to be following for replacing the correct templates for order since you contributed for America's Next Top Model:

• There are lots of individual cycles of International Top Model franchises (rather than the original U.S. version). ApprenticeFan ^work 07:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Could we please discuss this on the Warehouse 13 page. I have sources for everything I added - I'm just not sure how to put them in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfmclean (talk • contribs) 07:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you resize this photo to lower than 300 dimension on using per WP:NFCC? ApprenticeFan ^work 14:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done --AussieLegend (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a dispute about the number of episodes that have aired in the ending show Victorious at talk:List of Victorious episodes#Number of episodes in the series basically related to whether or not long special episodes should be counted as a single episode or as multiple episodes for the purpose of the episode list. Any comments you would choose to make there would be welcome because of your knowledge of the issues, involvement in TV series articles and comments you have made at template talk:Episode list. This may also be a wider issue with other TV series articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a proposal currently at Talk:Hell's Kitchen (U.S.) concerning preventative semi-protection on previous seasons. Please look at it and provide feedback. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi AussieLegend. You reverted my good faith changing of the position of Sydney Opera House, and I wonder what map you use? On Google Maps, Bing Maps, OpenStreetMap and Wikimapia, the coordinates I used are right in the middle of the Opera house buildings, whereas the previous coordinates were near the roundabout leading to the opera house. So, on what do you base your claim that the new coordinates point to a spot in the harbour (water)? Which map do you use, and why do you believe that map is more precise than the four maps I used? --Jhertel (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I guess this discussion should take place on the talk page of the opera house instead. I will add it there instead. --Jhertel (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As I've indicated at Talk:Sydney Opera House,[19] I use actual topographic mags and GPS mapping software. I don't rely on Google because it's far less accurate. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey AussieLegend, the chicken song in the BBT is not trivial. Saying it is trivial in that particular episode is your own point of view. They (the writers) didn't choose it randomly. Are you as blind as Sheldon or Amy or can you see there is a meaning why they picked that song ? (not randomly and therefore NOT TRIVIAL). I'm getting tired here on WP to meet so much of (context)blindness Ziyalistix (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

For the purposes of the episode summary, it's trivial information that already makes a overly long episode summary excessively long. Episode summaries are supposed to be an overview of the episode's main events, and minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes and technical detail should be avoided, as per MOS:TV. Summaries should be 100-300 words (with the upper limit being generally for 1 hour episodes) and this one is 299 words for a 22 minute episode without the chicken dance. It really needs to be pruned even more, not expanded with minutiae. Why the writers chose the song is irrelevant, and asserting that there was some reason without a reliable source supporting the reason is original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And I watched the 8th episode of this season. It had again a song in it and I was wondering about. In the end I found out it was the song Everybody Hurts from R.E.M. that was used in that episode. I think it is a very bad thing not wanting to publish the used songs for a tv-program here on Wikipedia. It's something many people search for and blocked by few like you, who have no idea what "wanted" information all is about, I'm sorry to say. You are not helpful to the millions of searchers around the world wide web. Many People want to search and find out what song that was, only you as an individual think it isn't important enough. I'm sad for you. Talk further about the 100 to 300 words, maybe someone will think the same way Ziyalistix (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. Regarding my contribution to The Big Bang Theory article, I would not agree that under my latest revision it bears any difference, regarding citations, to corresponding subsections of the "Elements" section of the show. Please feed back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngyi1983 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

All content added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. Citations must directly support claims that are made. The references that you added do not do that. The entire section consists of original research of it, with much falling under WP:SYNTH. You need to provide reliable, secondary sources that confirms the claims that you have made. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you see the passage as synthetic or novel. Have you considered the fact that it may be descriptive. Please compare it with the existing section on science and religion. I can make it less technical, for one thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngyi1983 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a case of being made less technical. Personal analysis is not permitted. As I have indicated above, you need reliable, secondary sources that support the claims that you have made. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please expose the difference between the description included in the "science"/ "religion" section, and my contribution. I understand that these other sections are disputed too, but they are there... Ngyi1983 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have explained my actions earlier. I reverted your edits to the Degrassi: The Next Generation articles because you claimed that it would "provide for proper linking", but I saw no attempt to fix the links that you had broken by making those changes. Is there a way to search for links to anchors? I would like to fix links I broke when converting from the slashes. 117Avenue (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The best way is probably to use AWB on each of the articles. The links will probably have to be changed manually, but AWB makes it easier to process each article. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the proof that the twenty-sixth episode of season 2 was the season finale: http://dancemoms.wikia.com/wiki/Nationals_90210 and http://thecelebritysizzle.com/dance-moms-spoilers-the-season-2-finale-national-90210/. There was another link, but it wouldn't let me save it. -- KyoXTohru1 —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikis are not reliable sources and thecelebritysizzle.com seems to be an anonymous blog, and therfore not reliable either. Actual reliable sources like TV Guide and The Futon Critic show two parts of a reunion special still to air this season. The official guide shows Part 1 of the reunion.[20] --AussieLegend (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I am curious about your claim ... 'I always thought [radio presenter John Laws] was a bit up himself using the email address "legend@<domain>" so I decided to one-up him and become "Aussie legend". So, this would rightly mean when you decide to one-up John Laws then you become further up yourself than he would ever be? Yes, I think that is the only reasonable conclusion. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Please stop your personal attacks and harassment. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Apparently not resolved. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

sigh. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

All the photoshoot section in all Cycles in ANTM are in bold letter so i think someone just ask me that it is unfair to just average so i switch it to bold, so it will be all fair...if your disturbed then that's not my problem its yours. --GTPMF (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If your gonna switch it all average letters it's fine to me but do it to all the BNTM, ANTM, CNTM, AUSSIE NTM and many other TOP MODEL Shows so it will all fair.--GTPMF (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"Fair" has noting to do with it. The section needs to comply with our Manual of Style. If the other articles don't comply, they should be made to comply, ANTM 19 shouldn't be made non-compliant. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)