User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Dance moms timeline

You added the note "Do not include a "timeline of moms" or other type of cast table here. Use of such tables has been specifically discussed at WT:TV and rejected in favour of WP:TVCAST which specifies that cast should be listed using prose" but I don't see any evidence that discussion took place, its not in any of the archives. The closest I can find is a discussion in 2012 in the talk page but no one came to an agreeable conclusion. I feel like the cast section on the page right now is weak and confusing and a timeline table would be a perfect way to chronicle the show's cast history over the years.

Is there any reason to omit the entire former cast member section is in any case? I'm just curious why you've made these decisions. Thanks. Pinchofhope (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, found the discussion. I didn't realise it was generally instead of specifically for Dance Moms. But again why omit the former cast members in the cast section? Pinchofhope (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by why omit the former cast members in the cast section - Per WP:TVCAST starring cast should be included even if they have left the program. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Hi,

You have recently modified a stat that should have been left as is on this page. Please be aware that the official reference (which is taken from the official national organisation for population count of this country) states that the regions that some wikipedian moderators wish to exclude from this count have to be included as national territory. Any comparison with other countries is futile as the political and geographical systems are different. What counts is that nation's official stats according to the territories it includes in its constitution as being part of the same nation, those regions are also recognised by the European Union (and united nations) as being an integral part of this particular nation.

Thank you for not blocking this due correction.

Best wishes,

User:Wisi eu —Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you are saying. I didn't modify anything. I did remove content that should never have been added to the article. Perhaps if you actually looked at the article's edit history you might have seen this. So far your only involvement with the article has been to inappropriately berate me, here and on the article's talk page. Not a very good first impression. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Further views

Hi, Aussie. Did you have any further views on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#"Infobox television season" for parted seasons? If so, I'd be more than interested in continuing the discussion. Thanks. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Aussie: Thanks for the feedback to my comments on the MOS:TV talk page. I'm posting this to your talk page because I'm not sure how much interest it would have to others. I think you and I agree for the most part. I agree that the standard I discussed works well most of the time; my only concern was with exceptions to the rule. I have done very little editing on Wikipedia, but I have followed several intense arguments about the proper content of various articles. One thing that has struck me about those controversies is that often perfectly reasonable points made by Editor A never get answered by Editors B, C, and D; instead, they simply declare that A's proposal violates a standard--usually without any explanation. (Believe me, that's not directed at you; you have no involvement in the discussions to which I refer.) Often I've seen standards misquoted or misused. That's why I think it might be a good idea, when reviewing and revising standards, to put just a little more flexibility in them. You actually seem to agree with me on the practical level, since you wrote in your post, regarding certain cast members, "They can always be bumped up if the situation warrants it..." Yes, of course! That's what I meant by "editors' prudent judgment." I didn't mean that editors should be adding original research, or putting their personal opinions into articles. I just meant that in organizing an article, and in determining what to include and what to leave out, they should decide based on, as you put it, what "the situation warrants" (while, of course, following the standards as closely as possible). I also agree with you completely about handling cast lists for cartoons. As I tried to say in my post, I think the editors of the main "Simpsons" article actually did quite a good job making sense of a very complex fictional universe. In doing so, as I pointed out, they deviated just slightly from the standard; I think those minor deviations were fully warranted. Thanks for the information about how the dog character was handled in the "Dukes of Hazzard" article. It may make sense to handle "Bear" the same way.

Do Australians really say "G'day," or is that just a movie thing?

Best,

AdamApruzan (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Bury the hatchet?

Hi, AussieLegend. Thanks for thanking me on this. I think it's time that we bury the hatchet. We've certainly had tempestuous interactions, but I've always appreciated the good work you do here and I'd rather us not be at each other's throats. If we feel that we are ever getting to that point with each other again, I think we should nip it in the bud immediately. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

List of Rugrats episodes

Hi, AussieLegend, I letting you know the information posted is real and I got from another website so don't take it of — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoreyP (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

What you added was unsourced. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Where else can I get the information from — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoreyP (talk • contribs) 14:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

NCIS New Orleans episode descriptions

Why are you calling the episode descriptions I added copyright violations? They come from The Futon Critic, which is listed as a reference for those 2 episodes already. These 2-line summaries are ultimately coming out of CBS press releases. Not to mention older episodes also have descriptions, without a reference! Somehow those are OK? Your argument make no sense - there is no copyright on a press release. But since one existing reference isn't enough for you, I'll re-add them with a second reference (futon critic) and a third one (CBS Press - location-restricted website)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.104.10 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Did you copy them from another site to Wikipedia? Yes? Then that is against Wikipedia's copyright policies, regardless of the copyrights policies of other websites. The older episode summaries have been added by other editors, who have watched the episodes themselves, and added summaries in their own words. The references for the episodes are for the details of the episode (title, credits, airdate, etc.), not for the summaries themselves. I have reverted your recent edits. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

(ec) The episode summaries are copied verbatim from The Futon Critic website, which owns the copyright for those summaries. Since you do not have express permission from the copyright owner to use the summaries, use constitutes a copyright violation, as was explained on your talk page in, now, 2 posts by different editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, The Futon Critic does not own that copyright, since they quote an entire CBS press release containing that summary. Speaking of which... it's a press release - the point is to see its contents. But have fun moderating for nonsensical reasons. I have better things to do than argue with you both. I'll be waiting for those summaries in "your own words"! PS: episode 6 did air in Canada - it was only canceled in the US because of the baseball world series. Maybe you can write up that summary now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.104.10 (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did mean CBS, not TFC. However, this is irrelevant. The point is that YOU don't own the copyright, and you can't just use someone elses work. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force Ensign

Hi there, cheers for reverting the edit I made on the Flag of Australia page. Had no idea it was not to be used. However I can't see anything anywhere to say it should be. Is there any way of letting people know. Otherwise I imagine you'll spend a lot of time reverting it back? Cls14 (talk) 08:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Sydney infobox collage

While I appreciate the efforts of everyone in designing and choosing an appropriate Sydney montage for the infobox, I do believe that the current one is not representative of the city's most iconic and appreciated architecture/landmarks, or at least not the best visual representation of them. A cluster of unremarkable office towers in Darling Harbour could literally be Anywhere, it doesn't instantly conjure up "Sydney" and should not be used as a selling point of the city. Yes, this is an encyclopaedia, and the intended mechanism is not to promote a city, but as much as you want to avoid that, a group of randomly selected images combined to illustrate a city by default is going to have the same result as a travel brochure highlighting the city's must-see attractions. So, I believe a collage must promote the city in its aesthetic splendour, and Sydney has plenty of that. Neo-gothic cathedrals like St Andrew's, the tree-lined pathway to the Uni of Syd's Main Quadrangle...these override any modernist 80s developments like DH that are already being redeveloped and are very likely to change. The neo-gothic splendour of the two most iconic buildings will remain. This is why I have chosen them over Darling Harbour/Bondi in my infobox. I considered using Bondi, but the most pleasing and natural geographic images (i.e. those undisturbed by people/buildings) were very nondescript. I propose we use this one, because it's not an agglomeration of images but rather a select few of the most representative of Sydney. What do you think? Ashton 29 (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

My proposal...

Infoboxes are supposed to contain information that is "significant" to the subject, just like the lead, so any images should be significant. Articles are also not supposed to be image farms; we're not supposed to include images "just 'cause". An image should be very relevant to the subject, infobox images especially. Since we're writing for all readers, the images should really be easily recognisable to someone not familiar with the subject. For Sydney that means the Opera House, Sydney Harbour Bridge, maybe Centrepoint. (These are the 3 most identifiable structures coming in from the north) Most readers would have no idea what St Andrews is. There are hundreds of churches around the world that could be confused with it, and I really don't understand the infatuation with the University of Sydney (it's something that seems to get regularly changed by editors). It's not a defining image of Sydney. Fort Denison is far more recognisable, but even that doesn't come close to the Opera House or SHB. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, well unless your contribution is in the form of adding your own infobox montage, then why revert someone else's worthy attempt? Particularly when we both share the same objective: conveying the city's most important landmarks, both historically and culturally. The "most people won't recognise St Andrew's Cathedral because..." isn't really a valid argument in my view, the church is still hugely significant to the city and one of the most valuable Neo-Gothic churches in Australia. Perhaps the most pertinent and valid point for its inclusion is the fact that is Australia's oldest cathedral. Because some uncultured eye cannot recognise it is of no concern to me. That's where the caption, with a link to the images' subject is going to be a helpful tool for those who are unaware of what is being depicted. I'm sure the landscape of Fort Denison isn't automatically synonymous with someone's view of Sydney either, but I can appreciate the significance of it in terms of the city's history. Would you be opposed to me using my montage, but adding perhaps Fort Denison and either the Sydney Tower or a more recognisable image of Darling Harbour (better than that cluster of low-rises that is currently used)? Ashton 29 (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I reverted because, as I said, the buildings were not representative of the city as a whole, and generally unrecognisable outside of the city. That St. Andrews might be Australia's oldest cathedral, or a fine example of neo-Gothic architecture really means little when looking at the city as a whole. The Tank Stream has significance right back to 1788, and even before that if we take into account Aboriginal use of the area prior to the First Fleet. Why not show a photo of that? It, like St. Andrews and Sydney Uni, really don't mean much at all to readers. The article is an overview of the city and the infobox should reflect that.

Because some uncultured eye - It has nothing to do with culture, or narrow-minded elitist views. While you might consider the church significant, and it may be in your world, the vast majority of people would give it little thought. The infobox, which is really only supposed to contain one or two images (that's how it was built), should contain images of city icons, not of things that only a tiny number of readers will be able to recognise

I'm sure the landscape of Fort Denison isn't automatically synonymous with someone's view of Sydney either - I agree, but it is shown a lot more than St. Andrews, primarily because of its location in Sydney Harbour. Personally, I don't see a need to show anything more than the city skyline, the bridge and the Opera House. These are the things that most people recognise, and inclusion of anything else would be an arbitrary decision based on one editor's opinion. Sometimes, less is more. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

2

I factored in Fort Denison, because I do agree, it's historically significant and probably more unique and important to the Sydney's representation than the University of Sydney building, which is already depicted in the Education section. The cathedral, however, is currently unrepresented in the article body and significant for the reasons I previously mentioned. It's a first for Australia, not just Sydney, which warrants its place. I like this, because it's not cluttered like the current one, and it indicates the subjects in a distinctive, succinct view unlike the current montage (that picture of Darling Harbour could not only be any city, but it could be from any year, from 1998 to 2009) and the Bondi picture, in its current size, does not clearly illustrate the beach. I do agree montages probably are overkill, but they are a mainstay on Wikipedia now, and most city articles have them. Even the Featured pages, see for example, Washington, D.C. and Manchester. Ashton 29 (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

If the cathedral is unrepresented in the article, then it's clearly not as significant as you think. If it's not in the article body, it shouldn't be in the infobox, or the lead. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It's mentioned twice in article body, once in Architecture, and again in Religion. Ashton 29 (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

So what do you think? Worthy? There's a building historically significant for its symbolism of the Colonial desire to bring England to Australia, it's also representative of religion in the city, the prominent architectural heritage, there's the Opera House/Harbour Bridge, two of the most familiar icons of the city, and a natural landmark, Sydney Harbour, with an important penal relic, Fort Denison. I mean, my main goal here is to avoid edit warring, and I considered taking it up with you, because you seem to be the most active on that page. I do think it conveys the city's image a lot better than the current and it's less cluttered/repetitious. Ashton 29 (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that it's a building that is significant enough to the reader, it's really just another church, but it's really not worth spending any more time on. Go ahead and use No. 2. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AussieLegend. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AussieLegend. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Sorry AussieLegend but the matter has been sorted many hrs ago and I don't understand what your comments is about, PLEASE explain and what you want or need from me? The part you deleted about crime on the Gold Coast is very important historically both nationally and Internationally as it leads to the VLAD laws (Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013) which took on outlaw bikie gangs and stopped them. This part was not in disrepute with any other person.

Standto (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ping

I got a ping that you sent an e-mail, but it didn't arrive. Not sure what's up, but I've sent you one you can reply to if you'd care to. --Drmargi (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

One Tree Hill character table.

Hey there, I was wondering if you could take a look at the One Tree Hill character table for me and let me know if it's current state is acceptable and follows wiki rules? I'm rather new on the rules yet I comply by them, therefore I think this table is out of date and crosses some lines regarding the rules, ie. episode counts are displayed. I changed the table to a template version, seeing as that seems to be the version current tables are switching to, but this editor who I have had trouble with before with the OTH table, keeps reverting back to his version seeing as he originally created it and seems to be an avid fan of the show. So I was just wondering if you could give me some insight whether to bother with updating the table or leaving it as it is. Or even giving me some wiki rules links so I can provide them to the user and let them know they aren't following wiki rules. Thank you! :) MSMRHurricane (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: Dog with a Blog - Clarity

In regard to the position, I think Nyuszika7H is still working on that because I know he mentioned the visual editor messing that up even though it's supposed to put things in proper order based on the template. On the distributor, just to clarify, it wasn't removed because the series has ended, it was removed because it isn't correct and because it's an area of vandalism for accounts or IPs that we've been dealing with when they suddenly decide to go on a spree of adding it to various articles. Geraldo Perez may be able to provide for information on this as he was the first one to deal with this, and I just followed his lead. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Return of Isla?

Didn't know if you've seen on any article you watch, but it appears Isla Riordan may be back. See here as an example. I haven't added any IPs yet to the SPI, as the user is probably jumping. Just wanted you to know if you didn't? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen it yet, but I do appreciate the heads up. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. Just found this edit. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

And [1][2][3]. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again... I'll add them all to the SPI. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The SPI has already been closed but I've just found [4][5][6]. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That's okay. You can just keep adding them. I've already added another too. I'll put these in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Help with DriveTribe

If you wouldn't mind I'm having some trouble with a user who is using the DriveTribe article to promote his own DriveTribe page. I have now removed his self-promotion twice and I can see this becoming an edit war soon. Dyolf87 (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, AussieLegend! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2017!

Hello AussieLegend, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017. Happy editing, Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

OMG

What is with this Evans' phobia??? --Drmargi (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

List of countries and dependencies by population

I tried to help but everyone do what he wants on the site.... There are many wrong sources, too many countries with "UN", countries with exaggerated population (populist purposes - Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Tanzania etc), official sources are ignored in favor of UN... There are many examples: Ethiopia are competent official site, but prefer UN, Tanzania has official site, but UN again, Kazakhstan....same story with UN, Thailand...same story with UN, etc etc. UN is useful for African countries, but Indonezia, Thailand, Kazakhstan is exaggerated with UN. In some countries the data (wiki) not correspond to the data on the official sites. Manage well article...not populist and erroneous data. Anyway, don't argue with anyone and don't involved in this article. There are other articles in wiki. There is no need to reply to the message. Thank you. -- MIRAIL.MIHAI (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

ISO 8601 Comment was reverted

I recently placed a comment under your opinion item . It was promptly reverted by User:AlexTheWhovian as being in the wrong place with no olive branch to indicate where might be better. On the assumption this accomplished lad from Adelaide knows your mind very well and you would have done the same yourself I will not attempt to find the proper place for my comment. Rather would you please give my thoughts a look and maybe soften your opinion. Gavan Schneider (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The correct place for a discussion on a topic is on a discussion page. Much like this very topic that you've just started. User pages are not for discussions, and is a place for Aussie to store and display his content as he wishes. Did you expect Aussie to start a discussion with you on his user page rather than his talk page? Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Brooklyn Nine Nine Paranoia Episode

Hey AussieLegend, thanks for checking on the edit. I wasn't sure how to add a source in the tables, those are hard for me to edit still. Here's the source for "Appearing as a picture double briefly for Jason Mantzoukas is Brian Harrington." Source: https://pro-labs.imdb.com/title/tt4371342/?ref_=nm_filmo_pasttv_2_1

Can you show me how to add it or readd it?

Capolitico (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Archive

Hi AussieLegend, I'm confused with your revert here - The discussions were up to December and those that had replies went no further so I thought it was best to simply archive everything, Seems kinda pointless to have discussions up to December when they haven't continued...., Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 12:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Allowing the bot to do the archiving highlights discussions that aren't signed properly, so those can be fixed and then the bot will archive them properly. I think there is one conversation already that needs to be fixed, but I haven't had time to follow up. The discussion titled "Interactive maps in Episodes section", which you archived, is an ongoing issue so shouldn't be archived yet. You set the archiver to 90 days, but then archived all but the most recent discussion, when only 3 or 4 of the discussions were older than 90 days. Even though there were no further replies on several, if you've set archiving for 90 days then only conversations older than 90 days need archiving. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah I assumed everything would be archived regardless of timestamp ?, Ah sorry I wasn't aware a discussion was ongoing otherwise I would've left them, Ah well thanks for explaining, Happy editing :) –Davey2010^Talk 14:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you help with an AWB run?

Hi AussieLegend. I recently made a change to {{Infobox Australian road}} [7] so that all bulleted lists are shown as plainlist, without having to use the {{Plainlist}} template around each individual list. This makes the code used on articles cleaner and easier to type, with less chance of making mistakes (e.g. by forgetting the closing }}). I know you've done AWB runs in the past after template updates, so I was wondering if you might be able to automate (or semi-automate) edits to remove the now superfluous {{Plainlist}} templates from within {{Infobox Australian road}} – such as I did manually with this edit [8]. The search hastemplate:"Infobox Australian road" insource:/[Pp]lainlist/ finds 413 articles with both Infobox Australian road and Plainlist. Thanks, - Evad37 [talk] 08:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. It may take a while as I have other things going on. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

TVPLOT discussion

Hey Aussie. Just wanted to inform you, in case you were not aware, about the TV MOS discussion happening for TVPLOT. As you are one of the more prominent TV Project members, I just wanted to make sure you had a chance to see the changes being proposed and comment if you desired. Discussion can be found here. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sydney

I disagree, but certainly not something I care about enough to pursue. That said, I'm curious about what the end of your edit summary would have been? "The more detailed information from the source lists Welsh and Scottish ancestries separately so equating 'United Kingdom' to 'English' is at be..." Thanks, Brycehughes (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It was to supposed to be "misleading at best". It all comes down to the fact that we have to report what reliable sources say. We can't reinterpret sources and write what we think the sources should have said. If a source says "English", that's what we have to write. Anything reinterpretation is OR. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I certainly disagree with that. For example, if a reliable source said that a small zoo had a total of two giraffes and two elephants, then of course we could say in the citing article that the zoo had four animals. This is summarization, not reinterpretation. Same goes for UK/England in the Sydney list: if England has the greatest foreign representation in Sydney, then it is necessarily the case that the UK also has the greatest foreign representation in Sydney. That said, given that both answers are correct, I'm not trying to start a lamo debate about the use of UK vs. England in a out-of-the-way prose-list! Thanks for answering my question above and have a great rest of the day. Brycehughes (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Dr Jimmy Palmer

Hi there. Thanks for the heads-up regarding the breakage of incoming links on Jimmy Palmer. I wasn't aware there were links coming into the tag and I'll have a look at editing the non-linked "Jimmy Palmer" later on in the article. If you know how to edit the first one (where the issue was), I would be grateful if you could show me how. If, no worries, I'll change the other edits anyway at some point. Once again thanks for your help :) GiggsIsLegend (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

CSS styling in templates.

Hello, Just heads up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document here to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

CSS styling in templates

Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Australian wine climate edits

Why did you dishonour mine? Heff01 (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

As explained in the edit summary, your edit was not in accordance with Infobox instructions. The instructions for |climate region= say the field should be "I-V, according to this popular system". That means the only acceptable values are Ia, Ib, II, III, IV, and V. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) How do you make wine? You can't keep it in the bottle when you're upside down. --Drmargi (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Upside down? What are you talking about? You're the one who is upside down. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Chicago Franchise

Hi AussieLegend,

You have noticed me lately on the Chicago pages. So let me tell you who I am and what drives me.

My real name is Walter Mulder, I am a Canadian. ;)

I am a fan of the Chicago Franchise, and have contributed greatly to this Wiki: http://chicago-franchise.wikia.com/wiki/Chicago_Franchise

I like things orderly, so yesterday I put all four series in the same format. All had some changes, but if someone does not know they would not notice I think. The format of all four is now like this: 1 Plot 2 Cast 2.1 Main cast 2.2 Recurring cast 2.3 Crossover characters 2.4 Special guest stars 3 Episodes 3.1 Crossovers 3.2 Spin-offs 4 Production 4.1 Development 4.2 Filming 4.3 Casting 5 Reception 5.1 Ratings 5.2 Reviews 6 Broadcast and streaming 7 Awards and nominations 8 References 9 External links (numbering might differ if a heading has not yet been introduce on a page, I reached this order by studying the old formats and basically looking what was used the most and what made the most sense.)

I would like to work with other people, and will defer to expert advice. I have not contributed a great deal to Wikipedia, but am willing to learn. I believe you might be one of those experts.

Let me know what you think, Am I on the right track or should I leave it well enough alone?

I noticed I gave you some work with the info boxes, guess I won't touch them anymore as they should be up to date and standard now, sorry.

Walter Wmulder (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I just removed a little of this. While it's admirable to want the four articles in more or less the same format, we can get carried away and cross into the realm of fancruft. The lists of cross-over characters are completely unnecessary in the main article, per WP:UNDUE. They might be appropriate seasonal articles when they are written, but take up far too much space in the main articles, for far too little information. Editors who want to know who they are can easily refer back to their own show's article and cast articles. --Drmargi (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. Also removed references to spin-offs, didn't you? You did forget one so I took care of that one. Now they are just instalment of the Chicago Franchise, which is fine with me. As for Crossover characters, that list would be as long as the casts of the other 3 shows combined, so I do see where you are coming from and can indeed support this action. Now for Special guest stars, I thought it was an improvement on Guests, which I replaced with Special guest stars. Neither is really needed, Special guest stars can be mentioned on an episode basis, and guest stars are just too numerous to have on the front page of a show.

Wmulder (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Billy the Exterminator

There was the show Billy the Exterminator that aired on A&E from 2009-2012. Now there is another season of Billy the Exterminator set to air on A&E on April 5, 2017. It already aired on CMT Canada in 2016 and was filmed in Canada. So do we create a new article or do we add on to the existing Billy the Exterminator page? I have redirected Billy Goes North to the Billy the Exterminator page currently. Do we use the air dates of the Canadian broadcasts or do we use the ones of the upcoming American airing on A&E? They are billing the American version of the show as Billy the Exterminator.--SportsMaster (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

If it's a new season of the same show, then we normally use the existing pages. If it was filmed in Canada and aired in Canada we'd normally use the Canadian air dates. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

2nd opinion

Hey. Just wanted ask what your opinion is regarding this.

Thanks.

LoMStalk 21:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

X Factor

Thanks for catching that. I applied autoconfirmed-users semi to the redirect for now, so hopefully that should keep a lid on it — and of course we can bump that up if it doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Scorpion (And general apologies)

Hi! I'm so sorry. I'm not really well-versed in Wikipedia goings-on and, whenever I was alerted to a "new message," I didn't realize I needed to scroll down to view the change. If so, I probably would have done this after your first note. I didn't intend to get all vindictive on you in the edit war. I just thought I'd come here with some thoughts.

First, as to the aquifer piping, I always thought it made more sense to link to the true word, regardless of what word you're using. (Does that sentence even make sense? >.<) However, it looks rather as though Wiki is smart enough to do that on its own, so that one is my bad.

Second, could we perhaps discuss EQ? For example, if I added an identifier explaining that it stands for emotional quotient, could we do away with the quotation marks? I kept taking your addition of the quotation marks to denote that it was unfounded or soft in some way but, to my knowledge, it appears to have some very solid science behind it.

Thank you for your help with this. I really am sorry to have been a pain in the behind.73.233.125.130 (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The case of "log into"

Hi.

You might want to see this: User talk:Wavelength/Archive 5 § Forms "log in to" and "log into"

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, I'm not convinced Wavelength is correct. I've been using "login to" since I started logging in in the early 1980s because that's how it was written in the manuals. Wiktionary says "log in" is correct so "log in to" is correct as was stated by others at that discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not convinced either. For now, can we agree that the verb is "log in" ("logging in", "logged in") and the noun is "login"?

In addition, we can go further and revert his edit on the grounds of having a 2-to-1 consensus, if you (unlike me) do not feel it is conspiratorial and feel it is actual an improvement.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with either "login to" or "log in to", not "log into" but for the sake of consensus I'll go with "log in". --AussieLegend (✉) 11:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for pings

Sorry in advance if you get extra pings from me today. I'm rolling back a lot of crap edits from a South African IP vandal who has been adding bollox content attributing "Darien Amos" and Tenn-Speed productions/Tenn-Speed TV India as a creator/producer of dozens of Indian and African TV series. Example here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Woh Aik Pal

Woh Aik Pal is a Pakistani Drama. So what if there are no sources, you simply need to put a template which says there needs to be more sources. There are many other articles that haven't got sources but they are still an article but they've just got a template saying there needs to be more sources. Plum3600 (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

All articles require sources. Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. If sources cannot be provided the article may be deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Yes I am aware of that, but you also have to try and save Wikipedia articles and not just delete them. Plum3600 (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no requirement to save articles. We delete articles all the time. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: You delete articles that aren't very notable or is make jokely. This article is notable but needs sources. Before you put the deletion template on the article I suggest you ask an experienced Wikipedian. If I may ask, exactly how many articles have you put up for deletion, and if so have they ever been deleted? Plum3600 (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability determines whether a subject should have an article on Wikipedia. If notability cannot be established an article should not be created. We don't as a rule create articles and then try to establish notability. If a subject is notable it should be easy to include sources when the article is created. If sources can't be provided then the subject can't be notable. I am an experienced Wikipedian. I have made over 143,000 edits (179,000 if you include both accounts) to the encyclopaedia over more than 11 years. Of the 151 AfDs in which I've participated, 75.5% have ended with a result that matched my vote and 9.3% ended with no consensus. Of the 99 articles that I've nominated for deletion, 66 have been deleted or redirected (effectively deleted). Another 7 have been merged to another article (also effectively deleted), so that's a 73.7% "success" rate for those. I hope that answers your questions. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Very well. You know though, sometimes even experienced Wikipedians get things wrong some times. But hey, if you say that your experienced then who am I to judge. Just to say, the years really don't mean anything. Some may say that they're very experienced and most people will believe them because they've been on Wikipedia for years. *whispers* people rely on numbers more. Even I do, but I now know that numbers don't always tell the truth....except calculators. Plum3600 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Upgrade from Windows XP

I saw how you reverted my spelling error fix I submitted to Wizards of Waverly Place... lol I had a feeling I'm not right. thx anyways. And by the way, if you're still using Windows XP...... Dude, you should upgrade to Linux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.32.8 (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Its 7.5

https://www.bustle.com/p/whos-returning-for-dance-moms-season-7b-the-future-of-the-show-is-uncertain-39004 TvFanticForLife213355 (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Mary Cooper

Sooo...I get notified for linking to a disambiguation page, and when I correct it to be more specific, it gets reverted. Hmmmm.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbl1975 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, please add comments to the bottom of talk pages, not the top. Secondly, please sign your posts. As for your correction, you didn't correct anything. You simply changed the displayed text to "cohabitation". The link to living in sin was unchanged. Instead of "[[living in sin|cohabitation]]", what you should have typed was "[[cohabitation|living in sin]]". --AussieLegend (✉) 15:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I did it the wrong way, and sorry I posted this the wrong way as I often don't respond to these because of the complexity of doing so. That could've easily been corrected by you or just informed me of that in the first place. - comment added by Jbl1975

Since you didn't leave an edit summary explaining your change,[9] there was no way to know what you were trying to do. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:GNG

I'm pretty sure you know this, given your tenure on Wikipedia, but WP:GNG applies to articles, not redirects. If the redirects of mine you have been edit warring with me were subject to WP:GNG, you would completely be in the right. However, notability is not the purpose of redirects. I ask that you allow my reversions to stand since they are helpful for those trying to locate more information about the linked subjects, and please refrain from continuously restoring links to List of additional MythBusters cast members, and feel free to nominate any redirects that I have created which you have issues with at WP:RFD. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• And at this point, I'm not going to revert any more since I have zero desire to breach WP:3RR. Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Steel1943: I have no idea why you are raising WP:GNG since there has been no mention of it. As for edit-warring, that would be you. You made an edit to an article, it was reverted so you shouldn't have immediately restored the edit. Instead you should have started discussion, per WP:BRD. It's up to you to gain consensus for your changes. Given your tenure, you should be aware of WP:STATUSQUO, which says "if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor." --AussieLegend (✉) 19:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, your reintroducing links to a deleted page, as well as attempting to restore section redirects to those respective pages (which is quite problematic when it comes to establishing page views) is quite problematic. I'd say my compromise for the time being (since I'm honestly getting a bit exhausted with this) would be to completely remove the links. Are you okay with that? Steel1943 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

And also, WP:GNG didn't have to be "mentioned" for me to have a reason to bring it up. You are claiming that the redirects are inappropriate since the subjects of the redirects are not notable ... which directly involves the guideline at WP:GNG. That, and I don't think the individuals are notable either, so when I created the redirects, I didn't tag them with {{R with possibilities}}. Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The now deleted redirect was a valid redirect to List of MythBusters cast members until you nominated it for deletion. List of additional MythBusters cast members was created in 2006 and existed for 8 years until the page was moved in 2014. It then served as a useful redirect until it was deleted on 14 April 2017. I was not aware that it had been deleted, and had no reason to believe that it would be. It appears that you changed links in February knowing full well what the redirect was, before pleading ignorance in your nomination 2 months later. All that was necessary to correct the links was to remove "additional " from the links, which I have now done. There is no need to remove any links and really, had you just left everything alone, there would have been no issues at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

NCIS: New Orleans

Hi, I'm Henry. I am curious about two things about how you run the NCIS pages.

Firstly, how do you organize the cast lists? I can't think of anyway Hamilton would not be at the top of the list and the manual didn't help. Hamilton started in S1E1, he has been in the most episodes, and he has been the most pivotal recurring character so far. . I disagree but I will let your call stand and I'm confused.

I'm more curious about my second question, why won't you update the NCIS franchise page with new seasons until they air? I have it on the authority of a NCIS: New Orleans Executive Producer that CBS can not cancel any show over the summer. Since CBS renewed all three this week, I think the franchise page should reflect that. Do you have a legitimate reason for not doing so?

Thanks for putting up with me,

Henry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berymtambta (talk • contribs) 14:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You may be right. If Hamilton has been there since the first episode, and he was the first recurring character added, he may need to be added to the top. I haven't checked back through the episodes myself, so I can't confirm at this point. As for your second question, it's a general rule (see WP:TVUPCOMING) that we don't add upcoming seasons until a sourced episode table can be created for that season. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, Here's the imdb page for S1E1, Hamilton's there

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3980176/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_11 He was implicated in a drug murder conspiracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berymtambta (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Drake and Josh episodes

Hello. I was wondering if you could help out with getting sources for the episode. I am trying to create articles for Drake and Josh episodes to include guest star appearances and other info for people to look up. Thanks! Jay (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Question?

Hello, you undid my edits on the batman 60s series because I made them with a sockpuppet account. but my main account got in band because I did not know the rules. would it be ok if I bring my edits back? This would help the page because it has format issues. -ANDREWs13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANDREWs13 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Is it ok to copy and paste from another Wikipedia article that you wrote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANDREWs13 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but you still need to provide attribution. This is all explained at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

2 Broke Girls

Was there a reason for this revert? -- Alex^TW 12:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea how that happened. I don't even remember looking at that article. I've reverted myself. Sorry about that. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

public domain

You undid mt edit on Last Man Standing, under the Premise Heading for copyright. That one there was and still is too short. The Premise that I Replaced that one with was from a public domain website. user:ANDREWs13

I found the same text on several websites that were not public domain. That one website has released the content under a free license doesn't mean the content is actually free, and if it's non-free on one website, we have to assume that it is actually non-free. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I did not think of that. user:ANDREWs13

Update: The Premise was made by ABC Publicity, can it be used? User:ANDREWs13 —Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It may only be used if ABC Publicity explicitly releases it under a free license, which is unlikely. It's always best to use your own words. Then there is no issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Category:Public Establishment of Television

Hi AussieLegend, I do not think there is a mistake in the category, Public Establishment of Television is an Algerian company products 1 network (Télévision Algérienne) and 4 channels. The category displays the list of networks and channels owned by this company. What is the reason for the deletion?--Boumediene15 (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Boumediene15 The reason is explained at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page, as explained on your talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "South Park (season 21)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 11 June 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

greetings from the west

At this stage I am in process of writing a report about discussions in Australia about https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017 the cycle 2 of the broader wikimedia strategy -

You may well have responded elsewhere - but if you at all interested - not the slightest bother if you are not - please feel free to contact on or off wiki - thanks JarrahTree 05:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning South Park (season 21), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Picture formats

I disagree, opening discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_television#Aspect_ratio.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No problems, I'll take my technical qualifications there. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Better Call Saul

Do you want to work your magic on List of Better Call Saul episodes season 3? Ozflashman (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Sublists

I tried to get enough content to justify episode sublists for certain TV shows, but it apparently isn't good enough for you or User:AlexTheWhovian. Just tell me what you want and let me be. --TVBuff90 (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I replied to the identical post on my own talk page. -- Alex^TW 01:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Good, we don't need this discussion in multiple places. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Nizam Razak's navbox

About you reverted here, I want to confirm from you, could I put all the casts and crews into a new nav box that related to Animonsta Studios even thought there will be so many red links? Or just a put few that already in the Wikipedia, just constantly add them into the new navbox if the article up? SNN95 (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@SNN95: Per WP:PERFNAV, cast or crew should not be included in navboxes at all. Per WP:REDNOT, redlinks to actor names should be avoided completely. Navboxes provide navigation between related articles, so generally should not contain redlinks. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright then. Thanks to clarify it. SNN95 (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

afd

the nomination cant be completed by an ip. stop removing the tag as an attempt at 3rr bait68.151.25.115 (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a hint for you: Stop adding the AfD template. It serves absolutely no purpose if the nomination page does not exist. I've explained this on your talk page and on the article's talk page. An AfD nomination MUST have a nomination page. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

if you insist on removing the tag, why dont you complete the nomination. as i mentioned, the nomination cant be completed by ips.68.151.25.115 (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You have made a number of silly nominations over the past few days. I have no intention to contribute to that. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

stop hounding me68.151.25.115 (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You're the one harassing me on my talk page. Please be very careful about making accusations and please go away. --23:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes

Thanks on your revert here (also the same at the LoE for The Suite Life on Deck). Disneylandlover2006 has become pretty disruptive and adding back absence tallies where they have been removed per WP:TVCAST (among other disruptive edits, which also includes WP:OVERLINKING of cast members in the episode lists). There is currently an ANI report up for the user; not sure how much you wish to add to the discussion there, but just thought I'd let you know. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll have a look. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Asked assistant

Hi AussieLegend, Firsly I want to archive my talk page, can you help me? Secondly, I want to protect these two pages: EPTV (TV network) and Télévision Algérienne because they are exposed to vandalize for many times. The official name of the network is Télévision Algérienne and EPTV is just the name of the owner (Établissement public de télévision), you can see that the official name is Télévision Algérienne through the top image on the website of the company. --Boumediene15 (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I've setup archiving for you.[10] It is currently set to run every 30 days, but that can be tweaked if necessary later on. There has been no vandalism at either EPTV (TV network) or Télévision Algérienne, but there is an obvious dispute between you and カビル. Both of you have violated the three-revert rule on those pages, although at least カビル's reverts have been to undo your inappropriate copy and paste moves. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Australia Population Clock

Hi Aussie, please cite your sources for the population clock in template:data australia. You just undid an edit I made in accordance with the official Australia population page. currently that pages says it is based on the population on Dec 31 at a certain rate and that's what i entered for the Wikipedia page. If you have some other official source for the population, please quote it, or use the numbers the official page provides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric car (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The source used is the official population clock, not just the text that you rely on but the actual, displayed population figure. As I explained in my edit summary, and as I have explained before,[11] using the data from December results in errors creeping in over time because of the precision we are forced to use. Your edit resulted in the displayed population being some 66,000 persons different from that actually displayed by the population clock. It is periodically necessary to update the data in the template to that most recently displayed by the population clock to minimise the displayed error. At 00:00GMT yesterday the population clock displayed 24,573,880, so that was the figure used in the template. As a result, the value displayed in articles right now is 24,574,900, while the figure displayed by the population clock is 24,575,837, which is an error of only 937 people. (This will reduce at 00:00GMT when the template updates and should never be more than 1,040) Your edit actually compounded the error because it used a daily change of 1053.659 (a change of 1 person every 82 seconds), while the actual change of 1 person every 83 seconds is actually 1040.963855 persons per day. When the template is updated all values need to be changed, not just the most obvious. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll just add that right now the population clock says there are 24,576,164. The current state of the template shows 24,576,000, a difference of only 164, which is far preferable to 66,000. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Primeval characters

Seeing as you are literally the only interested party, may as well discuss this here. This list in its current state is objectively bad. Without a dedicated editor, there is no way to fix that. The current state of the article will only make people edit it to produce the same type of content. The discussion to be had is not what should be removed, but what should be added back. Per the ten or so featured character lists, the absolute core characters usually have one to four paragraphs, secondary characters have one or two, and minor characters have one or are just excluded if they have no real importance. If you or someone else wants to work on it, then it's fine to leave it. In that case, it doesn't matter if it takes a month or two years. If it is going to be left to stagnate as it has, then it needs to be cut down to entice proper editing. The removal of the alphabetical listing, a proper hierarchy of character importance, and the addition of conception and reception section would help with that. If you would like to set up a RfC, that would be fine, but otherwise literally nobody else will care going by the nonexistent traffic of the article. TTN (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Other people have entered the current discussion on the article's talk page. It is best to keep the discussion there. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

In case I wasn't being clear, this is not in relation to the merge proposal, but rather the culling of the character list. Those are two separate discussions. We can open another section on the talk page if you want, but I don't know if any of them care. TTN (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This affects the amount of readable prose in the article, which is directly relevant to the merge proposal. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

yeah

you make good points, and well stated.

where it makes it very difficult for parts of the oz project in areas where there are subjects and topics that cannot really work on th eone size fits all rules - there are some potential issues that I think might be worth dealing in the indigenous project regarding some style guidelines and notability of historical characters and events in the indigenous sphere - whether it gets traction of course is another matter.

thanks for your comments - always good to be checked! JarrahTree 13:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Shire of Broome page edits?

Hello AussieLegend. You reversed an edit I made to the Shire of Broome page updating the name of the Shire President. Was this because of the attempt to change the title from 'Mayor' to 'Shire President'? As it is a Shire and not a Town, the Broome Shire Council has a 'Shire President' rather than a 'Mayor'. How do I go about correcting this? Thanks. Shire of Broome (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Shire of Broome Western Australia
Shire president	Graeme Campbell

As stated in my edit summary, "president" is not a valid field in the infobox. Valid fields may be seen in the infobox documentation. |mayor= is the correct field to use. In order to change the label to "Shire president", you would need to include |mayortitle=Shire president. Please note you also need to include an inline citation so that the change can be verified. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Request to delete a page

Hi AussieLegend, please can you delete this page? because there are two pages for this singer (Fella El Djazairia and Fulla (singer)). Thanks in advance.--Boumediene15 (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm unable to delete pages and there is a merge porposal at Talk:Fella El Djazairia#Fusion. The solution would seem to be to merge the content into one article and then redirect the other article to that one. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverting reverting

Sorry AussieLegend; not used to dealing with other editors (and so don't know how best to do this), normally do rewrites of dormant pages. My comments should have come through in the history of "List of NCIS characters", but don't seem to have. Basically I wanted to say that I have not removed any actual content - the removal of 5000 characters was literally all me removing duplication in individual sections, whittling down overly wordy sentences, and alphabetising the minor characters. The alphabetising in particular was very tedious to do; I think it would be better to fix the remaining problems in this article (like the extra links I added, fair enough) with my edit extant. IF the alphabetising is a problem (I don't normally edit this kind of article, so went on what I thought was sensible rather than any style guide), then feel free to revert back again and I will put in each character's abridged version individually.

Hope that makes sense, Curtainrail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtainrail (talk • contribs) 22:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

One of the big problems with your edit was the linking. You've added several trivial or otherwise unnecessary links, extended links to the same article, some circular redirects and repeated links. It's a lot of work for another editor to fix this up and it's really your responsibility to fix the problems, not to expect someone else to do it for you. The article now appears to have more problems than it did before your edit, which is why it was reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Windows XP and Microsoft Office 2010

I noticed that you were engaged in a dispute at the above articles. Please try discussing the issue on the relevant talk pages, Talk:Windows XP and Talk:Microsoft Office 2010. Thank you. Samsara 01:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That's what I said to the IP after his disruptive revert, which included a personal attack on another editor.[12] --AussieLegend (✉) 11:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Request an opinion

Hi AussieLegend, for some time now, I have been working on the Algeria portal in the French wikipedia (Portail d'Algérie) to become featured portal, note that the portal contains 4 featured articles and 9 good articles. But before I nominate the portal I consulted some of the administrators in the encyclopedia, who told me that the portal can not be featured, because it contains a few good and featured articles, and because the main subjects (Algeria, History of Algeria, Economics of Algeria, Technology of Algeria ...) are not good or featured articles. Is it the same for English Wikipedia?

if I improve and add articles in the portal (in the English Wikipedia), it can not be featured, because it does not contain any good or featured articles?--Boumediene15 (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Friendly note

Just a friendly note that that user is now unblocked and has responded at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Can TV listings be used as sources for premiere dates?. Cheers! Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw his latest response but I don't really understand it. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Blanking and deleting other editors comments! Not on!

A warning that whiting out others comments is frowned upon. You asked for feedback and and when you didn't like the feedback you wiped it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive&diff=prev&oldid=793537696 Please behave better. Just in case, here is copy of the comment again :"AussieLegend, your frustration is understandable, but you didn't actually try to discuss the content with the IP editor on the article's talk page, you just threw a shitload of policies at them in a warning on their talk page. Understandable, but obviously not the course of action which would best achieve a positive result (unless that 'positive result' is to chase them off) and not the course of action Oshwah was suggesting"1.129.97.144 (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you bothered reading the instructions at the top of the rolling archive, which quite clearly say, "don't edit this page unless you are manually unarchiving a thread to continue a discussion". Cjhard should never have commented on that page and removal of the edit is more than appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Bảo Ngậu

I've recently had productive edits reverted by User talk:Bảo Ngậu on page Bảo Long. I dropped a note on his talk page, and saw your entry mentioning Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attack for fixing article. Should I add to that entry, or start a different one? (After all, he hasn't personally attacked me - yet.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to add to the thread that I started. Although he hasn't attacked you (yet) this demonstrates a consistent approach to editing. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, he's been blocked - it would seem this is due to his attacks on you. I don't see much point in me saying anything further just at the moment. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I suppose we'll just have to see what happens in a week. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

ROTFL!!! Oh Dear Me! (I thought it was only me who was that cynical ... ) But in response to your comment: Yes, I suppose we will. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has taught me to be cynical. Unfortunately, it's becoming an all too often situation these days. Out of one pan, into another fire. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You're lucky. I was very cynical before I came to wp; My 10 years on wp has just confirmed my prejudices. ("Enough moaning and wailing!" he cried.) Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Episode table error

Hi User:AussieLegend, do you know what's causing the error on List of Benidorm episodes, that's effecting series 4, 5 and 6 please?--Theo Mandela (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Theo Mandela: Not 100% certain this is the sole reason, but having a quick look, it looks like season five is causing all of the issues. There is no section for season five, and the season five table is missing the headers and is not being closed properly. It's using |} instead of }}. Hope that helps get you started on troubleshooting this. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Episode table error

Hi User:AussieLegend, do you know what's causing the error on List of Benidorm episodes, that's effecting series 4, 5 and 6 please?--Theo Mandela (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Theo Mandela: Not 100% certain this is the sole reason, but having a quick look, it looks like season five is causing all of the issues. There is no section for season five, and the season five table is missing the headers and is not being closed properly. It's using |} instead of }}. Hope that helps get you started on troubleshooting this. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

"Your reason was that it reads like porn - that's your personal issue"

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

Given that I've written GAs and FAs about pornographic material, "Your reason was that it reads like porn - that's your personal issue" is a surprising comment to make on my stated rationale. Have you ever read WP:EGG? That would've saved you some embarassment. Please refrain from the armchair psychology in the future—I was there only to fix some shitty writing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Why was what I wrote surprising? You very clearly wrote in your edit summary that "adult" "makes it sound like it's porn".[13] I didn't make that up. That was all you. It's not normal to equate "adult" with "porn", especially when "adult" is clearly linked to adult animation so if there is anyone embarrassed here, it's not me. Please make further comment at Talk:Family Guy#Changes to the lead. We don't need three separate discussions on one topic. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Discussion: Mention of episode run time in "List of episodes" page

Hello, Aussie. Hope you're doing well. The "thank you" was for the entirety of your edits, not just one.

Would you be willing to do an RfC about changing MOS:TV to include editing instructions regarding the addition of episode run time in "List of episode" articles? Pyxis Solitary talk 04:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

City of Adelaide

You're reverted some of Zbunyip's edits. Is there any particular reason why you didn't revert all of them? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The edit I reverted had added the article to Category:Pages using infobox Australian place with unknown parameters. I wasn't sure of the validity of the other edits but the infobox one was definitely incorrect. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. This guy has gotten right up my nose - I'm really ... annoyed. But this ain't your problem. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Just remember, I'm always available to help deal with problematic editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Nicknames, Use of

I see you have reverted my elimination of the unneeded "Tim" between "Timothy" and "McGee" on the NCIS List of Characters page; Do you really think that it's useful to point out that a man named "Timothy" has the "nickname" "Tim" (it's actually not a nickname, but a short form of the name itself)? Blind attention should not be paid to the statement of obvious details. Perhaps it's too much to ask, but staying constructive instead of giving in to laughable pedanticism in editing is always a must. The semblance of not writing things that make people unintentionally laugh is usually a good thing to which to aspire. Rtelkin (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

In TV articles we generally use the common name of the character, i.e. the name that they are referred to as throughout the series. Where we have a situation like this, where the character is not generally referred to by his first or last name but by something different, whether it's a nickname or a contraction of his first name, we generally include that as well to avoid confusing readers when they watch the series. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

No one who watches any episode from NCIS could possibly be unaware of this: especially since McGee is referred to by the monicker "Tim" (as well as "Timothy")in every single episode. In fact, it's a safe bet that no one named "Timothy" has ever, in the history of England, the US, Australia, Canada, or any other English-speaking land expected to go thru life without folks calling him "Tim" on a regular basis. Including the short form of the first name directly after the first name would look silly to anyone reading the entry. Rtelkin (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

We don't write only for fans of a particular series, we write for all readers so we must cater to people who have never watched a single episode. Our approach is consistent, the same rules are applied to all characters, we don't chop and change. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The Middle

I know that the changes I made are not true (yet hopefully). I just did them so I could snap a couple pictures with my phone and then my intention was to revert them right away. You guys work fast. Also, Lexie's mother's name was revealed to be Tammy Brooks, so it's likely going to be her last name too.--Futuremoviewriter (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Futuremoviewriter: Wikipedia is not working to a deadline so there is no need to hurry changes into articles. Changes are made when they can be sourced to reliable sources and not before. Lexie's mother's name may not be the same as hers. While it is likely, we need sources that explicitly support claims. That means a source that specifically says that Lexie's last name is Brooks. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

If the show openly states it, is that more than enough? Like, if her father Bennett's last name is also Brooks for example?--Futuremoviewriter (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It specifically has to say her name. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)