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.

This is Detnchris14, but I re-edited Pair Of Kings, and I put Mitchel Musso's final appearance in there, becuase it is true. The last episode of season 2, "The Evil King" proves that it's his last appearance as a main character (Brady) in that finale. In the Season 3, Part 1 episode, Brady only makes a cameo appearance, making it Mitchel's last and FINAL appearance in the series, because of his DUI in real life. please keep that edit, and I kept that one edit the same: "First Appearance: Adam Hicks as Boz." I just had to remove the "last appearance: Mitchel Musso as Brady" because it has already been said in the season 2 finale by someone else. it says: "Note: Last appearance of Brady as a main character." It's true. Ok, so will you keep that "Mitchel Musso's final appearance" in the season 3 episode, The New King, Part 1: Destiny's Child?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Detnchris14 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I asked you to discuss this on the article's talk page, not here. Nobody is disputing what you've said about Musso's final appearances, in fact they were already in the article, in the appropriate format, before your first edit to the article. The problem here is the way that you are changing the way the data is presented, to a format that is inconsistent with the way that other information in the article is presented. Your latest edit added errors and inconsistencies to the article. Bolding "Last appearance of Mitchel Musso as a main character" violates MOS:BOLD and is inappropriate as is the bolding in "When Brady (Mitchel Musso's Final Appearance)". It's also a violation of MOS:CAPS because "appearance" should not be capitalised. "(Mitchel Musso's Final Appearance)" is inconsistent with the rest of the article. Mention of his final appearance should be as a note, in exactly the same way as all other similar notes are presented. It is also out of place in the sentence and should not be there. Factoids that are not part of the plot information should be presented separately to the plot, which is why they are placed as a note. Finally, when content is under discussion, it should not be continually edited and re-edited - that's classed as edit-warring. Instead, when your edits are opposed you should present your changes on the article's talk page and gain consensus for them. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

So will you let me keep the "Final appearance: Mitchel Musso as Brady" on the season 3 episode 1: Destiny's Child? Because it is his final appearance in the series and I know he won't show up in the series finale, I just know it. So is that ok with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Detnchris14 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As I've already said, the information you want to "add" to the episode was already there before you edited. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

But it didn't say Final Appearance, it said Last appearance. So keep it as final appearance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Detnchris14 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Final and last mean the same thing. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Detnchris14 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I think I'm going to go live on a desert island. Between the ISO number mania, "on (date) it was announced" and "#th and final season" hackneyed phrasing, and more, I'm about ready to throw in the towel. What ever happened to remembering the central purpose of all this? I swear, we're becoming a community of adolescent automatons. I've started calling stuff like the article splits and the ISO numbers (and the No/# jazz a while back) the "lemming effect". See someone do it, don't think, just keep doing it. --Drmargi (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It really does get frustrating. I spent several years writing technical publications and even spent time in a national "Centre of Expertise" so I spend a lot of time cringing at the way that some people edit. The apparent complete lack of understanding of how the English language works really gets me. Some editors have obviously never seen an encyclopaedia or even a dictionary. We all make misteakes but some people make nothing but mistakes. It's gotten to the point where I look at some edits and go "Yeah, wat evuh!" --AussieLegend (✉) 04:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm an academic writer, and the rigid, boilerplate expressions send me up a wall. But it's the "we must do it this way..." attitude that's really getting to me. Funnily enough, just as we started the nonsense over the ISOs with Helmboy, I was just about to drop a post here and see if you were familiar with him, after another editor and I went around that same bend with him in another article. It's frustrating, but I guess it's part of the game. --Drmargi (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll appreciate this; I unlinked some common terms ("outdoor recreation", "video games", "bowling", "chess" etc) at The Big Bang Theory. An IP, who has created a massive OR dependent section detailing each and every game ever seen in the show keeps reverting the removal but what's funny is the post he eventually made on his talk page.[1] I'm surprised he doesn't link word. *Sigh* --AussieLegend (✉) 04:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Folly abounds. Outdoor recreation is not rocket science. Is it me, or is that article an absolute magnet for geek fancruft? --Drmargi (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not you. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You're a braver man than I am; I'd sweep out that whole game section with a very stiff broom but we know that's an invitation to an edit war. Oh, and I wish you luck keeping that ordering of the presenters of Top Gear in place. I know it's correct; I'm just not sure much of anyone else is going to give a damn. I'm afraid I'm in the camp that thinks cast should drop down to the end of the list once they leave, and I'm very much in the avoiding in-universe writing camp as a rule. Contradictory, I know, and decidedly not the hill I want to die on. I'm just getting wearier and wearier of editors who show up with an agenda and stir the pot, with not the slightest concern for prevailing practices and not a clue they're editing something far removed from a fan website. Good luck with that, eh? --Drmargi (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Somehow I replaced the prose dates with the start dates on all the other pages. Could you please fix them for me? Let me know what you think. Thank you. AdamDeanHall (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've changed some but since you made the changes, don't you think you should fix the rest? --AussieLegend (✉) 12:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, AussieLegend. You have new messages at MisterShiney's talk page.
Message added 06:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

MisterShiney ✉ 06:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Aussie, when you get a minute, would you take a peek at the little drama over the placement of the key on the elimination table for The Taste? We've got an IP editor who's been around for about 10 days and is clearly a blocked registered editor rather aggressively attempting to keep the key at the top of the table, which doesn't align with other comparable tables (i.e. Top Chef, Next Food Network Star, etc.), citing a very different table from X-Factor. What really worries me is how aggressive the editor is; he/she has already threatened me with a claim of harassment (major over-reaction, major misapplication of the principle.) I am so weary of the table fiends who contribute nothing to articles except pretty colored tables, then edit war when their work is challenged. --Drmargi (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and take a look at my talk page history, too. I actually "banned" them from my talk page, which I've never remotely felt the need to do before, but this is too weird for me. The editor is also IP hopping; do you have any recollection of a blocked editor from the Cleveland area (but using British English) and/or moaning about harassment? Something rings a bell, but I can't place it yet. --Drmargi (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Drmargi, I suggest you stop the false claims you have been making. If you have a disagreement with an article's content, that's fine; discuss it on the article's talk page. But you cannot restore comments a user has removed from their own talk page[2], or make false representations as you have you done twice: saying that the warning I issued to you[3] was inappropriate and a threat,[4] and now making the outrageous accusation that I am a "clearly blocked registered editor". You cannot go around making that accusation without having any evidence whatsoever or reporting it. For the record, I have never had a registered account. As I explained to you, the warning I issued to you was clearly appropriate, per policy, and in no way a threat.[5] In terms of the content issue at The Taste, I provided an edit summary with links to show precedent, while you made several claims without providing any evidence whatsoever. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Drmargi, you "banned" me from your talk page? That's an interesting interpretation. Let's get the facts straight, please. As our edit histories will verify, you initiated all the comments when you posted on my talk page. I removed it and said in my edit comment to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. You then restored it, in clear violation of the harassment policy. That prompted my first posting on your talk page, the warning I issued to you. You posted on my talk page yet again and then finally again to post your bogus "ban" (as you call it).[6] So, please, let's stop all this nonsense. Calm down and try to be honest when you throw around claims and accusations. Remember, anyone can look at our edit histories and easily find the truth. By the way, shopping around to find a friend to support your cause is a big no-no. It's interesting that I provided links as precedence for my edits in the article and you provided no links at all, yet you chose not to discuss it on the talk page and instead decided to look for an editor friend to take your side. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Drmargi also made this outrageous comment: "I am so weary of the table fiends who contribute nothing to articles except pretty colored tables". Do you not realize that one can easily look at the article's edit history and see that I had absolutely nothing to do with the creation or editing of that table? And despite your non-stop implications that I am a disruptive editor, I am the one who not only developed the article's Finalists table into its current layout - which had previously been an overworked mess - but I am also the editor who wrote much of the Format section and other content as it now appears. Also, I have worked hard to improve several other articles, and revert vandalism, as my edit history makes clear. And let's be clear, the warning I issued you was not at all a "major over-reaction, major misapplication of the principle". You blatantly violated an important policy (WP:HUSH) when you restored comments I removed on my talk page. Therefore, the warning was obviously appropriate and applied correctly. You really need to stop your false claims, personal attacks, and mischaracterizations, and focus on facts. I strongly suspect that I am not the first editor who has been on the receiving end of your hostility. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, AussieLegend. You have new messages at Arctic Kangaroo's talk page.
Message added 15:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Arctic Kangaroo 15:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Aussie, I'm trying to figure out how to add a letter or symbol to a color box, so we get, a small box with an N in it and a yellow background. You always know how to do these things -- is there a way? --Drmargi (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I got a bit side-tracked on this. I assume you were trying to achieve this at The Taste and finally sorted it out, from what I can see. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm trying to get the letters into the little colorboxes at the top, so the key is compliant. Right now, a non-color screen reader will see the text, but no differentiating material. Drmargi (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

 N  - How's that? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it really that simple? I thought of trying that, but was away from the computer. Now, not to overcomplicate it, but can I use the style syntax to BF and center the letter? I tried it, but it didn't work. Thank you! --Drmargi (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

 Bolding seems simple enough  but centring eludes me. The template instructions don't help. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I tried all the usual procedures, and no joy either. BF is easy, thankfully. I'm just not awake yet (and it's 31 damned degrees or whatever equivalent that is in Aussie money.) Drmargi (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The User Who put up February 2nd did not read the facebook page correctly or even the main Carlos page. The new Bakery was going to open on the 9th, but do to the snow storm in the North they moved it to the 10th. They added the second intead. Just scrooll down and you will see it. Also another note Facebook doesn't allow you to put in an opening date. So the page preformed as it was opened. Here are all the pages https://www.facebook.com/CarlosBakeryRidgewood https://www.facebook.com/carlosbakery. These are the oficial pages. You can even Check the twitter. Also the second was when the facebook page was running. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I can see a projected opening for the 9th, but nothing about a storm. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the post here https://www.facebook.com/CarlosBakeryRidgewood/posts/366550603453041. Okay it says wheather, but there was a bad snow storm in the area firday night into saturdayWP Editor 2012 (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up: your pal's back, this time with four episodes sourced by a fan site. I've reverted, but we'll see what happens next. --Drmargi (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you, but he'll never respond to your question. Many other users, such as myself and Meggueh69 have tried reasoning with him before, but to no avail. Just thought that I should tell you. 134340Goat (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

If he doesn't, and reverts, then we can settle this at WP:AN3 although, given what I can see from his talk page history, maybe a visit to WP:ANI is more appropriate. If editors won't collaborate with others, as is the case with Eaglestorm, they needs to learn that they have to. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

How do we know that these two editors are not suckpuppets trying to establish a haters club against me? --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid the edit history at your talk page and your general refusal to engage others demonstrates that if there is a "haters club", it's your actions that are building one, not the actions of other editors. Calling other editors trolls, socks and SPAs and accusing other editors (experienced ones at that) of acting on behalf of SPAs is uncivil at best. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and you need to learn that you have to engage other editors in discussion on occasion. Edit-warring simply is NOT appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Eaglestorm has deleted the message that was reposted on his talk page, stating in his edit summary that it does not dignify his response. Thought I should let you know. 134340Goat (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've noted this at the AN3 discussion.[7] --AussieLegend (✉) 06:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

And it now appears that he has deleted your "rant". Amazing, huh? Looks like we're just wasting our time with these short time bans. 134340Goat (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not really possible to block him for longer. He has been blocked twice previously, for 24 hours each time, which was reasonable because the blocks were a year apart. I don't think a 48 hour block is really going to be effective because of the infrequency with which he edits, but an editor can't really be blocked for a longer period based on suspicion that he might not edit in that time. If he returns and starts editing disruptively again he'll be subjected to a longer block. We'll just have to wait and see. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There actually was a similar situation to this last month as it turns out. According to the edit summary, on January 15th, an IP's edit on the "Band or D.J?" episode summary was also reverted because the summary was not specific enough [8] Meggieh69 (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I just wanted to clarify that I didn't add cbsncis.wetpaint.com as a citation to the Ziva David article; it was already there. I did, though, attach the link to other statements in the article needing sources. I had assumed, because it was already in use, that it was accepted as a citation.

Anyway, sorry about that. I'm a little uncertain about which sites, specifically, are considered reliable when it comes to articles that center on a fictional character or subject. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware that you didn't add wetpaint.com. It was already in the article but several more uses of it have been added recently. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was that I added the other uses because wetpaint.com was already there; I thought that meant that it was accepted as a citation in this kind of article. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I will keep in mind that the next time I am to make changes like the most recent. -(talk) 20:39, 28 February 2013

If you are going to make completely unnecessary edits such as this one you should take care to fix every single redirect to the list article that depended on using easily accessible characters, such as this one. There seem to be over 200 redirects that you broke with that one edit. This kind of thing is the reason that the insistence on using en-dashes is destructive and disruptive. I would encourage you to simply undo your original edit and refrain from doing any such edits in the future.—Kww(talk) 20:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

What exactly in that edit was "completely unnecessary"? Removal of unnecessary whitespace, making heading styles consistent and cleaning up table code are all good editing pactice, while making episode tables compliant with MOS:ACCESS and MOS:DTT is considered to be absolutely necessary - see the List of Friends episodes Featured list momination and the subsequent discussion at Template talk:Episode list that lead to a rework of ((Episode list)) so as to ensure compliance. As for en dashes, (I wasn't the one who initially added them to the article[10])the MOS says we should use them in lieu of hyphens and lots of editors are making changes so that articles complu with MOS:DASH. I used to rebel against it, but eventually found a script that eliminates the problem of not having an en dash key on my keyboard. Given the above, categorising my edit as "completely unnecessary" is not only offensive but demonstrates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines. This is inconsistent because I know that Kww does understand the guidelines. Despite your assertion, my change did not break over 200 redirects. The only change made with that edit that would affect redirects was the change to the season 10 link and heading to make it consistent with all of the other section links and headings in the article. The addition of a hyphen (actually "-13") to that heading had only been made 3 days before my edit by another editor,[11] and 200 redirects were not created in that time. In fact it appears none were created, as there are no redirects to List of NCIS episodes#Season 10: 2012-13.[12] I disagree with your edit to One shot, one kill, as the phrase is most closely associated with the military use - just about every person who undergoes weapons training is taught that, snipers more so - but that's a discussion for another time. If it is to be redirected to an NCIS article, then your change is not the ideal way. ((Episode list)) provides for anchoring to specific episode entries, based on the contents of |EpisodeNumber=. This makes the format of section headings completely irrelevant and avoids the need for readers to search further for the entry they're after. In the case of One shot, one kill the link is NCIS (season 1)#ep13. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw you fixed a couple. These were also broken as a result of your edit:

• Under Covers
• Hung Out To Dry (NCIS)
• Escaped (NCIS)
• Faking It (NCIS)
• Dead and Unburied (NCIS)
• Witch Hunt (NCIS)
• Once a Hero (NCIS)
• Twisted Sister (NCIS)
• Smoked (NCIS)
• Suspicion (NCIS)
• Sharif Returns (NCIS)
• Blowback (NCIS)
• Hung Out to Dry (NCIS)
• The Good Wives Club (NCIS)
• Hiatus (NCIS)
• Friends and Lovers (NCIS)
• The Immortals (NCIS)
• Kill Ari (NCIS)
• Skeletons (NCIS)
• Seadog (NCIS)
• The Curse (NCIS)
• Bloodbath (NCIS)
• The Truth is Out There (NCIS)
• UnSEALed (NCIS)
• Dead Man Talking (NCIS)
• Split Decision (NCIS)
• Iceman (NCIS)
• Iceman(NCIS)
• Reveille (NCIS)
• Kill Ari Part 1
• Kill Ari Part 2
• Sandblast (NCIS)
• SWAK (NCIS)
• Bête Noire (NCIS)
• Bikini Wax (NCIS)
• Cover Story (NCIS)
• Jeopardy (NCIS)
• High Seas (NCIS)
• Sub Rosa (NCIS)
• Marine Down (NCIS)
• The Good Samaritan (NCIS)
• Enigma (NCIS)
• Shalom (NCIS)
• Chained (NCIS)
• Silver War (NCIS)
• Trojan Horse (NCIS)
• Angel of Death (NCIS)
• Vanished (NCIS)
• Lt. Jane Doe (NCIS)
• The Bone Yard (NCIS)
• Mind Games (NCIS)
• Doppelgänger (NCIS)
• The Meat Puzzle (NCIS)
• Heart Break (NCIS)
• Call of Silence (NCIS)
• Switch (NCIS)
• Witness (NCIS)
• Red Cell (NCIS)
• Honor Code (NCIS)
• Frame-Up (NCIS)
• Bury Your Dead (NCIS)
• Doppelganger (NCIS)
• Under Covers (NCIS)
• Family (NCIS)
• Ex-File (NCIS)
• Identity Crisis (NCIS)
• Chimera (NCIS)
• Designated Target (NCIS)
• Corporal Punishment (NCIS)
• Tribes (NCIS)
• Doppelgaenger (NCIS)
• Bete Noire (NCIS)
• Terminal Leave (NCIS)
• Judgement Day (NCIS)
• Stakeout (NCIS)
• Agent Afloat (NCIS)
• Agent Afloat
• In the Zone (NCIS)
• Hung Out to Dry (NCIS episode)
• The Immortals (NCIS episode)
• In The Dark (NCIS)

—Kww(talk) 00:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

None of the 81 (a far cry from 200) redirects that you've listed were broken by the edit that you linked to. Most of these redirects have been broken for several years. Bête Noire (NCIS) and Bete Noire (NCIS) link directly to List of NCIS episodes, not to a section or episode. Corporal Punishment (NCIS) links to a valid section. The Immortals (NCIS), Agent Afloat (NCIS), Agent Afloat, Hung Out to Dry (NCIS episode), and The Immortals (NCIS episode) correctly link to individual episode entries in List of NCIS episodes, which is acceptable though not ideal, while The Good Samaritan (NCIS) and Enigma (NCIS) correctly link episode entries in season articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that many of the links had been broken by your earlier edit. When Under Covers (for example) was redirected, it redirected to List of NCIS episodes#Season 3: 2005-2006. In the 2009 edit, you broke the link by changing the date format in section titles without adjusting incoming links, which your later edit compounded by changing the hyphen to a dash. If you change section titles for MOS compliance, you need to sweep the incoming links to match them to your change. It breaks things if you edit section titles without taking care of the incoming links.—Kww(talk) 02:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The effect of the 2009 edit was insignificant. It doesn't matter whether the redirect hits a section or the top of the article, the reader still has to go looking for what they really want to find, and that shouldn't be the case. Any links added after creation of ((Episode list)) in 2006 should have used the correct format ([[List of NCIS episodes#ep<x>]]), links created before that are like other broken redirects, they'll be fixed eventually. If you want to harass someone about this, look at the people that created the unhelpful links, instead of linking correctly. Don't pick on somebody who was doing the right thing and had less than 15,000 edits and far less understanding when the changes were made. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not harassment. Subsection links are an important component of a redirect, much more important than how many pixels wide a horizontal line is or whether the century is repeated in a date. Were the subsections critical? Of course not. But they were more important than your changes, worked before your change, and the fact that two months ago you changed subsection titles without looking through the links shows that it's not just the old AussieLegend that did it: the current one does it too. If you modify subsection titles with an edit, you need to look though the "What Links Here" link and fix the redirects that your edit broke.—Kww(talk) 13:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

More important is getting readers to what they are looking for, without too much trouble. As I said, it doesn't matter whether the redirect hits a section or the top of the article, the reader still has to go looking for what they really want to find, and that shouldn't be the case. That's why ((episode list)) provides for episode anchoring.

"two months ago you changed subsection titles without looking through the links" All I did two months ago was change a single hyphen that had been added three days previously to an en dash to make the headings consistent. It was an incredibly minor change and there was no need to check links. Since there are no links to that section anyway, there was nothing to find. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

[[Category:Seriously? Why undo my revision of the Last Man Standing page? Did I improve the writing too much? Add too much of an encyclopedic tone? Provide too much useful information about the canon of the show to readers of wikipedia? I'd really like to know what kind of logical rationale you could even use to try to justify your actions.]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PowerSurge1000 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC+11)

Oops, sorry about that. I reverted all of your changes instead of just the changes you made to the lead. As I indicated in my edit summary, the changes there breach WP:DATED. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I apologize for my snippy response. With some of the media attention lately on wikipedia "editor bullies," and a few I've run into myself over the years, I became frustrated. Thanks. PowerSurge1000 (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Meaning that I thought I wasn't allowed to edit because someone simply like it that way it was. PowerSurge1000 (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes to the Broadmeadow Loco Depot page.Shed Rat (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks for your efforts on the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for setting up my archiving thing. I really appreciate this a whole lot. AdamDeanHall (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I read your summary so thought I would just mention that I had changed other obvious episodes to state as such, in this as well as in other articles, but was not sure on that one. Unfortunately I had limited time (damned RL getting in the way of important stuff again) and couldn't go and search, thanks for fixing it :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I could be asking the wrong person this. But as you were the last person to edit the template, I figured you'd have some knowledge of my problem. Recently I've been upgrading the userboxes of several highway articles such as; Brooker Highway, Midland Highway, Bass Highway, Tasman Highway and several others. However I can't seem to get the state parameter working. I view Wikipedia via Internet explorer - could that be the problem? Or have I simply not completed the parameter properly? Wiki ian 18:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The state parameter field should not include quotation marks. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You recently undid an edit from the Winx Club Episodes article claiming Nick & More is not reliable, I just wanted to clarify that's not the only source that has that information about future episodes, we have used different sites as sources but one user has been deleting everything saying someting like "not airing not posting". Anyway, thanks for clarifying that's not a relaiale source. Javier12345 (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think some of the editors CAN read and understand English and the hidden notes. Last guy was from Italy. I think most of the additions are mechanical changes and additions. I've tried editing other wikis when I don't understand the language, interesting challenge to do it correctly. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Aussie Legend, I will be celebrating my birthday on 19 March. So, I would like to give you a treat. If you decide to "eat" the cookie, please reply by placing ((subst:munch)) on my talk page. I hope this cookie has made your day better. Cheers! Arctic Kangaroo 15:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I changed the WM-Au member to a single template that can be categorised in the future. Feel free to undo the change. Bidgee (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for doing it. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

For spotting the error - I was trying to ascertain the intent of the tagging with Use British english as being a way of either excluding or 'closing down' Use Australylian - I hadnt realised that the tagging is/was a parellel tagging basically with the intent of intrinsically preventing American usage on such items (never very clear, but I think the the basic intent) - and in the heat of the moment I was suggesting that by using British it was excluding Australian... It now seems that the parellel universes are the end result - a bit incongruous, and somewhat confusing to the average punter - but nevertheless a 'hidden'ccategory to boot sats 07:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The split lovers have been at Person of Interest again, this time doing a half baked job of splitting off season 1. The guy clearly didn't know what he's doing and left a mess behind (this on top of a character article lifted from the wikia wiki almost in toto.) I've reverted the whole thing, but we know the split lovers will be at it again soon enough, particularly now the show has been renewed for its third season. --Drmargi (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been battling one of these too. This is typical. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I'm familiar with your little friend. Those two editors, yours and mine, are two peas in a pod. Mine discovered the Wikia on POI, and has been lifting content from there, despite warnings about plagiarism. I doubt either of them is more than 15 or 16, and therein lies the problem. --Drmargi (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Ashleyhudgens is definitely not a sockpuppet of Geelove13. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by ep. details on List of Pac-Man episodes .user HH (contact | edits) 21:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As should be obvious from the name, List of Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures episodes is a "list of episodes". The first source you added, titled "Pac-Man Cartoon Coming In 2012" doesn't contain any actual episode information, only a statement that "Namco Bandai's Japanese website, a 26 episode 3D Pac-Man television series will be debuting in 2012". This is partially contradicted by the second source, which says the series will debut in September 2013. Again, it doesn't have any actual episode information. Lack of actual episode information means that creation of a "list of episodes" isn't warranted. The two factoids (26 episodes and September 2013 release) should be in the main article anyway, so a list of episodes with no episode content is redundant. In any case, it's more and more common not to create a separate article until a series is confirmed for a second season, or there is sufficient content to justify splitting. See, for example, 1600 Penn, Alcatraz (TV series), Last Resort (U.S. TV series), Outsourced (TV series), The Playboy Club, Zero Hour (2013 TV series), Ancient Aliens, Betty White's Off Their Rockers, Gene Simmons Family Jewels, Kitchen Nightmares, The Universe (TV series) and Through the Wormhole for just a few examples. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Archive 11 contains almost 150 KB, while most others contain about 100 KB. Archive 14 contains 100,040. I think you should create an archive 15. user HH (contact | edits) 22:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Archive 11 only has 105kB. MiszaBot will create Archive 15 when it's ready. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it was archive 12, not 11 user HH (contact | edits) 16:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

He is short and ugly. Just look at him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.171.79 (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not your call. Everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable and faking content at the bigbangwikia.com just so you can use it to support your claims is inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Aussie projects
Thank you for quality articles on your well organised projects, such as the lists of rivers of New South Wales, for vivid images, for fighting vandalism, and for clarifying "An infobox is not trivia, it's a summary of pertinent points about the subject." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks very much. To clarify a bit further, the discussion at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach was one I stumbled across while looking for something entirely unrelated, but I felt I had to comment as I can't see why some people are so opposed to making things easier for our readers. Cheers. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I try to understand, asked a few questions, will share answers if they come. It's my first time in WP:Great Dismal Swamp ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It was closed. The effort to serve our readers will go on ;) - A suggestion made yesterday was to place infoboxes on the talk page of an article, in cases where there are strong objections to an infobox in the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I came across your edits, and looking over everything I think you'd make a great administrator. I'm not sure if you've given thought to running for admin at WP:RFA, but I think you'd do well there, and I'd be fine nominating you. Wizardman 16:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I also think you'd make a fine admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree and would gladly write the nomination. --Drmargi (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm flattered by the suggestion, and the support. Although I'm tempted, please let me think about it for a day or two. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've thought about it, and am interested. The only thing stopping me at this time are two lots of bulk CfDs and a dispute about ((cite episode)) that I'd like to get out of the way. I'm also having problems in the real world with my three looney sisters and a sick mother (made more sick by the aforementioned looney sisters). Hopefully the sisters issue will be resolved in the next couple of days. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I sympathise, while all family problems are different, there's usually a recurring theme. I hope it works out for you. There's no time limit, and I'm 100% positive the guys who have spoken above are more than happy for you to get sorted in real life before you do the RFA-thing. Let us all know when you ready, (or at least those of us you want to help with the nom etc) and we'll all be there. Take your time, and all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm ready when you are. In your own time... --Drmargi (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that some copyvio has been removed from this article but I think the descriptions are also copied. You might want to put it on your watchlist. Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at his talk page, loads of warnings, and I just removed [13] as copyvio from [14]. I'm inclined to block him - what do you think? He's been editing for over 4 years, never responded on his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The editor has received many warnings about file problems, but I only see one warning about copying and pasting content. It may well be that he doesn't understand, although after four years you'd think he'd have gotten the message by now. I've left what I hope is a more clear warning on his talk page, with an invitation to respond and/or ask questions. I had hoped to find proof that he could talk, but his edit history shows that he has only ever made one talk page contribution, and unfortunately that was an inappropriate removal of talk page content.[15] Nevertheless, since nobody has really explained the seriousness of copyright problems to him, I'd give him a chance to redeem himself, especially as he seems to be trying to contribute, even if he makes a fewseveral mistakes. If he adds another copyvio, a short block might be warranted. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes sense. Now I have to go through his contributions if I have time after deleting the mess made by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Bedson. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, he responded - in a sense - he deleted all the warnings including our recent ones. Dougweller (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

for the afd bundling.. sats 14:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Heya, I saw this recent edit of yours at The Fairly OddParents (season 9). I noticed you'd used the ((Start date)) tag (or is it template?) and I was hoping to get further clarification on its use since I'm still learning. I was under the impression that the ((Start date))/((End date))/((Birth date)) templates were solely for infoboxes. I know they're definitely not for prose (right?) Is there a good rule of thumb I could follow? Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

((Start date)) is actually specified for use by ((Episode list)) (both of these are templates)) If you click on either one of these you'll see the instructions for using them. ((Start date)) has a companion, ((End date)). In a series overview table, ((Start date)) is used for the first air date in a season, while ((End date)) is used for the last. When there is only one date, such as the air date for an episode, only ((Start date)) is used. An important rule is only to use one of each per table row, using either twice can cause errors. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do not threaten a lock out from editing, due to Dragonord, putting defamatory information on to the site. I am the IT Manager from Newcastle Grammar School, and will continue to removed infomration which is defamatory from my IP address. The school will if necessary take all actions as required to stop defamatory information from being posted on the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.7.216 (talk • contribs)

As you can see, others have restored the cited content despite removal, which is not defamatory, and if you persist in edit-warring over this, you will likely find yourself blocked. As it happens, a discussion regarding the non-neutral tone of the article has been started (see the section below) and the account that you created has been blocked under our username policy. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, AussieLegend. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts regarding this. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. When I said that it is okay to "edit" a quote, I meant that it is all right to omit parts that are not relevant to the subject, so long as it is not taken out of context. I thought I had used the ellipses correctly, but it seems I didn't, so thanks for fixing that. --1ST7 (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the little flood in my watch list. Your edit summary indicates a fundamental misunderstanding. They are not continuity issues. They are noting recurring themes with the characters. Since we both know what a massive issue it would be for me to go and revert each one of those edits on the basis of your reason for doing it being flawed i instead thought to tell you. TGIFinAU delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 04:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

With only a few exceptions, the content was in a section titled "continuity" - That makes them continuity issues. "Issues" can both indicate problems and a lack thereof; either way, they're non-notable and not encyclopaedic content. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually reverted because as a new comer to the show How I Met Your Mother I found the continuity sections rather interesting. Then all of a sudden they were deleted and I wanted to finish reading them. I then came to find out that the "administrators" of this website take it way to seriously. I hope "policing" Wikipedia is a great lifestyle choice for yall. Have your episode pages however you want them. I'm done with this website; I enjoy spending my time with real life human beings. Later! EliRykellm (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You were asked to stop reverting and explain yourself, twice, while you were reverting. You didn't and that's why you ere blocked. That something might be "interesting" is not, on its own, criteria for inclusion. All content must be verifiable and supported by reliable, secondary sources. Continuity is something that affects every TV program and generally, it's not notable enough to warrant inclusion. A lot of what was removed was unnecessary minutiae, and some consisted or original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fan-site, and the content was more suitable for a fan-site than an encyclopaedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aussie Legend Thanks for your message and support. It's true I did make an honest mistake, getting mixed up between a users talk page and user page. It was totally unintentional, but qwerty's attitude pretty much spoiled my day as I felt he was unduly harsh on a fairly recent newcomer who still has loads to learn. I looked at his own talk page and saw that I wasn't exactly the first person who'd been on the sharp end of his lash. I just want everyone to get along. So thanks again for your message, it does go a long way towards making a newcomer feel he is not a total wally.

Picknick99 (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

According to that then shouldn't you remove that on the list of episodes for Game of Thrones, The Big Bang Theory, Glee, and more - the list goes on? How come it is appropriate on pretty much any other page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teambrabos (talk • contribs) 06:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It probably should be removed from those pages. I have a look at them later, although I usually concentrate on pages that areon my watchlist. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

... answered on my talk page. Michael! (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

... thank you for your posts! I've been experimenting a little and posted more information on my talk page. Michael! (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi AussieLegend Thanks you for your clear-headed support. It does seem a shame that one can't make a comment about someone's attitude without them extrapolating a personal insult from it. One might as well say that someone suggesting an edit or asking you to make a correction is teh same as then calling you stupid/incompetent.... I would certainly lend my support the other users who encourage you to go for Admin as you obviously have a sensible attitude to things. Picknick99 (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and we all need to get along. If we don't we can't improve the encyclopaedia. That doesn't mean that we don't have disagreements and even the odd argument. While you have obviously been upset by the responses that you've received, please don't let it affect your efforts to contribute productively. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you help me with this? Thank you in advance! Michael! (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please assist with preventing roll backs for the Alan Cinis bio page? Feel free to contact me or place advice on my user page Hmsea (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to ((infobox road)). Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS

Nbound (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. :) There's a question for you at Commons:User talk:AussieLegend regarding File:Brass Razoo.jpg. We've received an official complaint from the person who says he designed that coin. Can you please respond there so we can expedite handling that issue? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, I only removed it as it was mainly there as a self made list for me to work through. Will not do the same in future. :) - Nbound (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that was what happened. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This is about the notice on the Good Cop, Bad Cop (NCIS) article. I think the 200 to 500 word length may be a recommendation, not necessarily a rule. Some of the featured episode pages, such as Through the Looking Glass (Lost), have even longer plot summaries, and I don't know that any more can be removed from Good Cop, Bad Cop without confusing readers. --1ST7 (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a proviso that more complicated plots may take up more than 500 words, but the plot of Good Cop, Bad Cop isn't complicated. You said in your edit summary, when you removed the plot tag, that it couldn't be pruned any more, but I was able to immediately shave 28 words from just the first 3 paragraphs, and that was almost without looking.[16] --AussieLegend (✉) 02:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions on what else should be trimmed? And what parts can be omitted without causing confusion? --1ST7 (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Aussie, I did my first AfD (PROD) nomination today, for Amy's Baking Company. Would you mind taking a peek at it, to be sure I did it correctly? Grazie! --Drmargi (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I had already checked it, and it was fine. (Don't you hate stalkers?) Just try to keep PROD and AfD separate. While they amount t te same thing, they re different processes. I see that Tokyogirl79 has now sent it to AfD, so I'll have a look in there. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Nah, you're never a stalker. And you can see -- I can't even keep the damned vocabulary straight where it comes to article deletion. I need a stalker. Thanks! (I see the "we must split Castle, it has five seasons, never mind we have no content" automatons are at it again. Ugh.) --Drmargi (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

more to do, see Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags. 198.102.153.1 (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm on to it. So many articles with weird coordinates, weird formatting and so on. sigh. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A,B and some C done - 352 done, 1,336 to go. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Just letting you know Ive replied to your claims -- Nbound (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In your diff you reference a lack of a FUR for that article-- I believe there is one, but perhaps it was created slightly after you viewed the page?

Do you believe it would be appropriate to restore the image? --09:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of the image in that article is purely decorative and violates criteria 8 of our non-free content policy. Any non-free image used in the infobox must be directly relevant to the episode itself, not the series in general. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This sort of this is what makes wikipedia very frustrating for those of us who don't understand all the rules.

Let me share my problem and motivation and with you and let you help us both figure out a good way to solve this.

There are currently two articles Amy's Baking Company and Amy's Baking Company (TV episode). One is about a business, one is about a TV episode set in the business.

The first article, dedicated to the business and its owners. That article has major blp implications, is nominated for deletion, and I support its deletion because it would inevitably lead to BLP problems to have an article about a 5-person restaurant and its owners.

The article on the TV episode, however, does exist, and we need to make sure it stays firmly focused JUST on the tv show episode, not getting into the past historys or ongoings futures of the people depicted.

So, my thinking was that the perfect image instantly send that signal would the iconic title card, but I'm hearing that's unavailable for reasons I don't understand.

Do you know how to make a screenshot-- the episode in question is on youtube if you'd like to find something better.

Or perhaps a generic "TV" image if that's the best we can do?

What do you think? Creativity encouraged ! :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

From experience I think that it was a mistake to create the article in the first place. Whatever we do, it's bound to become a substitute for the company article. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Boy do I agree with that; and the second article was created by an admin with an ordinarily stellar reputation. Now it's a collection of quotes and salacious events. At least the AfD is overwhelmingly in favor of a delete. --Drmargi (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that you reverted one of the image changes I made on the Ziva David page, and I understand your point about the food picture. I'm trying to get something a bit different, as I think two pictures of the actress is enough, but am having trouble finding a photo that would work. None of the ones in the Category:NCIS (TV series) on Wikimedia Commons are really related to this particular character. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks. --1ST7 (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

In my edits of List of The Big Bang Theory characters, I accidentally removed the second paragraph that you have since restored. That was not intentional. As for the the tags, they can be removed once an issue is resolved. While someone could argue that the article has too much intricate detail, the tags for additional citations being needed or original research being included are no longer valid. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Its actually ~93% (460/498=0.923). Feel free to remove this once read, I didnt feel the need to post this minor fix to some very late night calculations in the thread :) -- Nbound (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

head not roadable at the moment... later... real life issues are amuk - cheers sats 15:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No problems. I can relate. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, AussieLegend. You have new messages at MisterShiney's talk page.
Message added 17:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

MisterShiney ✉ 17:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I had left a pre-comment on your case detailing a compromise possibility on the DRN before realising it was filed by you. Due to any possible COI from our road editing, I wont be participating further [and have removed the comment lest it swing the argument unfairly one way or the other]. (This is just a heads up in case you are wondering why Ive been editing your DRN case) -- Nbound (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. In response to your comments though, I did say that I didn't have a problem with episodes being list as 13, but MOS:TV says articles have to reflect the entire history of the article, which means we also have to let readers know how they aired, and that was as 11 episodes, with the premiere and finale airing as 2-hour episodes.[17][18] Regarding "Another, and probably easier possibility of sorting out if they were separate episodes would be if there was a credits roll and/or intro between them" - no, there were no credits between "episodes". The first episode, "Genesis" is so seemless between the parts that it's impossible to tell where one part finished and the other started. Note the wording in the first press release that I linked to, "The "Genesis" two-hour series premiere episode of TERRA NOVA", and the second, "the all-new "Occupation/Resistance" episode of TERRA NOVA". It's clear that Fox treated these as single episodes, yet Nightshift36 denies this is verifiable. Seems verifiable to me. ah, such is life. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

From what your telling me here, I would personally think you are in the right. - Nbound (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hence my frustration. Here's a question for you, seeing that you're apparently a DRN volunteerand should therefore be qualified to answer, one editor says he can't make opening comments until the case has been accepted, which I've never heard of before and have never seen happen in the DRN cases in which I've been involved. Is he right? --AussieLegend (✉) 12:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, he cant add anything to the discussion section until a volunteer has taken the case. Generally volunteers actually wait for every side to make opening comments before they take a case (or give reasonable time for them to do so - sometimes other editors may not join in for hours or days), unless the case is very obviously a quick fix, or very obviously not appropriate for DRN, or they feel for another reason an early comment may help (occasionally some people involved dont comment until a DRN volunteer takes a case for whatever reason). But he most definately can, and indeed should make an opening comment. - Nbound (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

See here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Volunteering#Managing_a_typical_case for the generic progress of opening a case. The user can be pointed to point number 4 if he sis still unsure. - Nbound (talk)

Pointing him to the right spot really wouldn't help. I said that part of the process was to "Check opening comments of each participant" but he disputed that was correct.[19] He did the same when I said that MOS:TV applied, even after I'd posted the response that I received at MOS:TV. I really believe that he and the others are being obstinate because they know that their position won't stand in a forum where editors will actually refer to the MOS and not discount known reliable sources as being questionable. The discussion at Terra Nova has been one of the silliest that I've ever been involved in at Wikipedia, given that all of the editors have a substantial number of edits under their belt. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi do you notice that you reverted dog with a blog premiere for Belgium and what happened was I couldn't get Disney Channel Netherlands & Flanders right and the letters were always red I tried over and over again and I put the true premiere date for Belgium Goodluckcharlieuk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodluckcharlieuk (talk • contribs) 13:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I did notice that I reverted it. I did so because it was unsourced. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I was the user who you reverted an edit regarding the shift of production from New Zealand to Australia upon closure of the plant in Auckland, pointing out that the final decision was to import from Australia rather than China due to food safety concerns.

This was local knowledge at the time and it's apparent that due to the timeframe involved (mid 2000's), there are presently no live online citations currently available - the nearest I have found indicating Kraft's line of thinking at the time is found in the following commentary which supports the Chinese production intentions, but other than in comment does not reflect the public backlash that resulted in the final decision to import from Australia regarding the closure of the New Zealand operations. Just FYI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.162.99 (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You may want that SPI case re-opened, he has admitted it. This is enough for a block in and of itself AFAIK. -- Nbound (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cutajarc&diff=556967309&oldid=556963910

Thanks, I was actually in the middle of drafting an ANI report. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

ANi Notice

Please see [[20]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I reopened the SPI case but while doing so he was renamed and blocked for 3 days. Let's hope he stays away from here but if history is any indicator, he will be back. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

A three day block for at least two offenses that generally result in an indef? What are they thinking? No wonder this place is turning into a snake pit. He'll be back, and will hassle someone else for some slight real or imaginary. Look at the new user name. It really tells the tale about his mindset: "poor pitiful me."--Drmargi (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, given his history and his previous indef block for merely threatening to edit as an IP while blocked...... --AussieLegend (✉) 18:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the page you linked, the parameter for summary says "100-200" for the word count, not "100-300". Did you link t to the right page that says "100-300"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see where it had been changed, so I thought it had always said that. Thanks for changing it. I have no doubt there are many pages that do their own thing and don't follow the MOS.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, am I missing something with Template:Castle? It doesn't seem to meet T3. It's not being used anywhere, but the real template doesn't even have all of the characters listed, just Castle and Beckett. Seems like it could be useful to merge those lines over to the main template. That's why I declined it. Just wanted to let ya know. Regards, JamieS93 23:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes aren't supposed to contain multiple links to the same article. The season article links all redirect to List of Castle episodes, so they're pointless as they're effectively a link to that article. Five of the character links redirect to List of Castle characters, one links to a disambiguation page and another to an unrelated article. The only unique links are already contained in ((CastleTV)), so ((Castle)) does duplicate that template. ((Castle)) was created by a brand new editor whose only edits have been to create the template, replaced one use of ((subst:CastleTV)) with it, and make a half-hearted attempt to re-create a single season article, which was subsequently redirected. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. I indeed noticed that the season links were all to a single article, but going to specific sections still seemed useful to me. Obviously I'm not with the times regarding navboxes. I'll go ahead and delete it now, thanks. JamieS93 02:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sunshine Motorway may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_Roads#WP:AURD_infobox_mini-MOS -- Nbound (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to convert Glenloch! :'( :D - Nbound (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, I'm wondering if I could both you to have a look at a message on my talk page that I received from a bot. It's about an image I am using (my guitar) and that I have also loaded via wikicommons. I'm not sure if I need to do anything and you seem to know your way around images. Cheers Flat Out let's discuss it 10:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't see the message on your talk page, but the image is the same as uploaded to commons. If it's on commons, it doesn't need to be here as well and can be deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I deleted the message accidentally when cleaning up my talk page. Thanks, I'll delete it. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi I also need help I just put the air date for teen beach movie for Germany and I copied what all the others said and something strange happened when I finished editing if you look it looks different I don't know what I did wrong please help goodluckcharlieuk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodluckcharlieuk (talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The content that you added was added outside the table, but it is unsourced. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this, would ((Flatlist)) be better suited? –Fredddie™ 01:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Flatlist works, but introduces an empty line after the text like plainlist did (im assuming that was the error AL was refering to). Little point changing to flatlist though, as it otherwise renders the same as now but with dots instead of slashes. -- Nbound (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The Parkway page essentially just explains localised usage of the term, and actually links back to controlled-access highway in the lead, I figured it was better just to skip the step. Happy to go on your judgement though, if you think Parkway is the more appropriate article. -- Nbound (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but it was the fact that Parkway explains localised usage that I think makes it a better link. Controlled-access highway is lacking that. We need to localise ((Infobox Australian road)) as much as possible, for the benefit of readers, especially ay Americans who seem to have trouble with Australian terminology. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries :) -- Nbound (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

On 7 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Booti Booti National Park, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that two of the three hill complexes of Booti Booti National Park (pictured) were islands during the Pleistocene? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Booti Booti National Park. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox looks a little weird... shouldnt there be a "major junctions" section header either just before the "ring road around" bit, or just before the junction listing. -- Nbound (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You still need a reference point, so end_a and end_b still need to be specified, even though they're normally the same point.

Please stop canvassing; that is against policy, and surely you must know of that by now. --Rschen7754 11:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been canvassing. I've simply notified members of WP:AURD that are directly related to the project. That's more than appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That's called votestacking. And then why can't I notify every USRD editor who has made a KML to the discussion? --Rschen7754 11:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

What a load of bullshit. Conducting a discussion that directly affects Infobox Australian road at an unrelated template's talk page is vote-stacking. --AussieLegend (✉)

Hi Thanks for looking at at. I'm still getting this at Burswood, Western Australia (for example) "Formatting error: invalid input when rounding/km2 (Formatting error: invalid input when rounding/sq mi)"--Melburnian (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed now, thanks.--Melburnian (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Jimp got to it just before I did. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey mate, possibly something stupid I've done but the "route" section of the code is not showing on Waterfall Way -- Nbound (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It was caused by the presence of a second |route=. Because the second one had no data, it overrode the first. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, I did check for that, but I must have missed it! Always helps to have a second set of eyes... Thanks :) -- Nbound (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, Stefan2's assessment of the image is correct. As an unpublished image it's not PD in the US, the only ways to prevent is being deleted are a) add a fair use rationale (but meeting NFCC8 needs to be addressed in the article), b) see if the photo does have a known author and find out when they died or c) check if it has ever been published and if so when. NtheP (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Who said it's unpublished and how is that determined? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well there is no evidence presented that it has ever been published and under US copyright law date of publication is the big decider. If the uploader could say where they got the photo from it would be a start but my worry is that the answer is that it's from the organisation's archives and has sat there un-viewed and unused for 95 years. The answer I'd love to hear is that it featured in a pamphlet or magazine or something along those lines, preferably prior to 1923 but anything up to 1977 would be ok. NtheP (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm. On the one hand, what a masterful side step! But from a different angle, "What a pussy! Why didn't you hang out for 'gaol'?" - Short answer: Because "prison" is a masterful sidestep, and gaol is an endless ongoing unresolvable conflict.
What a masterful side step! Well done!! Pdfpdf (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Not so much a sidestep, I'm just sick of Wikipedians reinventing history. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. How sad. I know EXACTLY what you mean. I sympathise / empathise. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey AussieLegend

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)