User talk:Kevinbrogers/Archive 12
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Alec2011 in topic iCarly
 | 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
iCarly (2)
Hi, iCarly "iGot Jungle Worms" episode has been proven in many ways. Please don't edit. (Wnnse (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC))
- Thank you for using my talk page. Unfortunately, the source provided is a fan site, which doesn't meet the guidelines at WP:RELIABLE. I have therefore removed it from the article. Show a reliable source proving "iGot Jungle Worms" and I'd be happy to add it back. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
RFC
Could you comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Reformating_Emmy_Awards_episodic_Directing_and_Writing_templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
iCarly
I see there's 5 people who support a merge and 2 people who support keeping the seasons split. There hasn't been any recent discussions so i believe that since there's more merges, then it's okay to merge everything. - Alec2011 (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree as well, but policy (WP:Vote) says a decision should be based on discussion, which appears to have opened again. I guess we'll have to wait a little longer. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, unfortunately the discussion is still going. Hopefully an agreement can be reached sometime soon, this is getting ridiculous. - Alec2011 (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm, talk seems to have halted on the talk page. How long do we have to wait until it's okay to go ahead? - Alec2011 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just now noticed that the request has been removed by a bot from the main list. I'm not sure if that's done after a certain amount of time or if it's done after discussion has stopped. I personally think it's time to end it (as I have since pretty much the beginning). It seems like Jabrona is really the only person who cares to try to stop the merge. I'm ready to end it and merge the seasons, but I think a motion should be placed on the talk page suggesting this before we go forward. Kevinbrogers (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is at the bottom. I've counted it's 5 merges and 1 split (2 if you count Jabrona). I think that pretty much sums it up. Obviously, Jabrona will probably revert everything back ,but if she does, she'll be warned and then probably banned if it continues. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think I communicated that last message very clearly. I meant to say that someone should add a sentence or two at the bottom of the RfC requesting that it be closed as a "merge". I'd wait a few days for people to agree, and then close it if there are no objections. It doesn't look like anyone else will be commenting on it anytime soon. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I read it wrong, haha. I agree, go ahead with it. I feel if anyone is going to be "against" it we both know who that is. - Alec2011 (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Um, there isn't going to be any reverting anytime soon. Yeah, I was warned about this little chat between you guys by a friend of mine. And for your information, there was THREE people who wanted the list to remain split including me not two, but now there's FOUR. A user by the name of EpicErik just commented there a day ago and is coming back soon to add in something else. So it looks like the discussion continues, though to me it wasn't officially over in the first place but I can understand why the RFC thing was removed because there hasn't been much commenting there lately. But you guys can surely hold your horses because this isn't over yet. - Jabrona - 01:49, 24 February 2012
- I'm going to be blunt with my reply, since sugarcoating doesn't seem to work. I don't think anyone is going to take EpicFork seriously. The edit to the iCarly talk page is EpicFork's only edit ever to Wikipedia, so I doubt it's going to have much weight in the discussion (he looks a lot like a meatpuppet to me). No one has provided any legitimate argument against a merge (I'm probably biased here, but it seems like a lot of reputable editors agree with me on this). Besides, Wikipedia isn't based on a ballot system. We base decisions on discussion, not the number of votes something has. How much longer must you drag this out? It was over a very, very long time ago. What will happen if we decide to merge? Will you continue to harass people like this? Kevinbrogers (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- To add to what I said, User:Pscf3 and 98.116.76.122 (two others that support a split) look a lot like meatpuppets as well. I hate to make these accusations, but all of this looks highly suspicious to me. Kevinbrogers (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not harassing anyone. I'm trying to support the fact that this show's Season 2 production episodes were split into two airing seasons. I'm trying to avoid a merge from taking place because I have provided enough evidence to support my defense. All you've been doing is throwing it aside as much as you can because you want to be in denial about it. As for EpicFork, you'll just have to wait and see when he comes back. I know user User:Pscf3 from the iCarly forum over at TV.com when the user Ruffmann was talking about the discussion here on the Talk Page and Pscf3 wanted to say something about it. I have no clue who 98.116.76.122 is.
- Um, there isn't going to be any reverting anytime soon. Yeah, I was warned about this little chat between you guys by a friend of mine. And for your information, there was THREE people who wanted the list to remain split including me not two, but now there's FOUR. A user by the name of EpicErik just commented there a day ago and is coming back soon to add in something else. So it looks like the discussion continues, though to me it wasn't officially over in the first place but I can understand why the RFC thing was removed because there hasn't been much commenting there lately. But you guys can surely hold your horses because this isn't over yet. - Jabrona - 01:49, 24 February 2012
- I guess I read it wrong, haha. I agree, go ahead with it. I feel if anyone is going to be "against" it we both know who that is. - Alec2011 (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think I communicated that last message very clearly. I meant to say that someone should add a sentence or two at the bottom of the RfC requesting that it be closed as a "merge". I'd wait a few days for people to agree, and then close it if there are no objections. It doesn't look like anyone else will be commenting on it anytime soon. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is at the bottom. I've counted it's 5 merges and 1 split (2 if you count Jabrona). I think that pretty much sums it up. Obviously, Jabrona will probably revert everything back ,but if she does, she'll be warned and then probably banned if it continues. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just now noticed that the request has been removed by a bot from the main list. I'm not sure if that's done after a certain amount of time or if it's done after discussion has stopped. I personally think it's time to end it (as I have since pretty much the beginning). It seems like Jabrona is really the only person who cares to try to stop the merge. I'm ready to end it and merge the seasons, but I think a motion should be placed on the talk page suggesting this before we go forward. Kevinbrogers (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm, talk seems to have halted on the talk page. How long do we have to wait until it's okay to go ahead? - Alec2011 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, unfortunately the discussion is still going. Hopefully an agreement can be reached sometime soon, this is getting ridiculous. - Alec2011 (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- But in my opinion to a couple of those on your side, I think Fumitol and Jonadin93 gave a pretty weak defense regarding the production codes needing to be changed for the 223, 227-245 episodes of Season 3 I had to inform them both on. Since those episodes were part of the Season 2 filming cycle then their codes couldn't be changed for the sake of them airing as the show's third season. We had a new opening to indicate that, and a code number for a season of episodes (1xx, 2xx, 3xx, etc.) presents the show's filming cycle number. Fumitol seemed to understand that but I haven't gotten a reply back from Jonadin93, even after he replied to other people who talked to him days after I replied to him and even told him about it on his talk place. - Jabrona - 02:35, 24 February 2012
Even if their comments were thrown out, that still leaves three people voting for merge. If EpicFork wants to return, great. However, we aren't going to wait forever just because he/she claims to have something else to add. Please don't comment here any further unless you have something new to add. Honestly, you haven't added anything new to this in over a month. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Over a month? I lastly added something new on behalf of my defense back on February 12 but you never did reply on behalf of it and neither did Aussie or Alec2011. - Jabrona - 03:08, 24 February 2012
- There was no reason to reply because it's obvious to us that you can't see this situation objectively, and no amount of discussion will change that. You've exhibited classic "my way or the highway" behavior, and haven't even once considered that there may be a possibility that you are wrong. To reply to your post at the discussion page, the interview was from 2009. There are tons of more recent sources. These sources don't require WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The fact that you had to say "I'm willing to believe" should have been an indicator of original research. Kevinbrogers (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- What I got out of that statement is the fact that the evidence supporting my defense I provided was enough for me not to question it. And you still want to roll around this whole recent source thing? We had a constant use of one season cycle label after another due to the conflicting situation after all this time and even recently had a cast member refer to this upcoming season as Season 6 if it was going to be so in airing terms as a result of the Season 2 situation. The fact that this upcoming season was labeled "Season 5" is understandable considering it's the fifth season cycle Nick renewed to be produced and to start airing this year. You're not understanding that and have been trying to get around all the evidence indicating a difference in a broadcast airing cycle with the silly excuses to discard it because a production label was used instead? I'm sorry but nothing has been changed or discarded here and never will be. We had and still have two different season cycles going on here and will be the case even after the show ends. - Jabrona - 06:53, 24 February 2012
- You basically just admitted that you haven't ever considered the possibility that you might be wrong. Your response only proves to me that I was correct in ignoring your last post at the talk page. Kevinbrogers (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not wrong here. You want to continue being in denial about the whole situation because you don't want it to be the case so be it. I'm starting to get tired trying to get you to understand this. No matter how much defense I have to throw at you, you'll always have some trick to get around it. - Jabrona - 14:12, 24 February 2012
- Saying "I'm not wrong here" only further proves my point; you can't even see anyone else's view here. I don't need "tricks" to get around stuff, I've provided Wikipedia policy or better sources for every single thing you've thrown at me. We should base a decision on the most recent sources available from the highest authority. In this case, that's the "Complete Third Season" DVD and Nickelodeon's renewal for a fifth season (with the prod. codes 5xx). This whole discussion should have been over the moment those were mentioned. Kevinbrogers (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see your view, but your counter arguments on some things have been weak such as what you just said now. May I remind you how Season 3 was released on DVD back in April 2011 that was talked about in February 2011? It was labeled Season 2: Volume 3 before a May 2011 press release would reference the broadcast cycle. Why would it do that? And seeing how Season 3 was released on DVD, it should be clear how the airing fourth season was going to be released on DVD. Again, this is why your little "recent source" thing fails. You seem to think because one label is used after another it's suppose to mean something. It doesn't discard anything for the last time. A split was made in terms of the airing labels and that's how it will affect the show throughout it's run. We have two cycles going on here and either one is likely to be referenced because that's how conflicting this whole thing is. Sure Nick renewed a fifth season and of course that's what it is in terms of how it's produced, but it wasn't going to air that way because of what was done with the Season 2 cycle episodes. - Jabrona - 15:28, 24 February 2012
- So basically, we shouldn't use the most recent sources? You really need to read WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:RELIABLE. It's obvious to me and everyone else that either you haven't read them, or you've just decided that they don't apply to you. Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, you really need to understand what's going on here. You're trying to retcon this whole thing like it never happened or think it can be. It can't. A decision was made to split a filming season cycle of episodes (and I provided tons of evidence to support that) and that will affect the show throughout it's run. So either a filming or airing season label can be used one after the other which is why one source that reference a production label doesn't matter if a source that reference the broadcast label is used afterwards. We had a Nick press article do so after talking about "Season 2: Volume 3" and the renewal of "Season 5", and recently Miranda herself just a month ago on two occasions regarding this upcoming season being Season 6 (in terms of airing): [1][2]. Nick renewed a fifth season to be produced (which would have the 5xx coding), but would air as the sixth season in terms of the airing cycle. - Jabrona - 15:41, 24 February 2012
- So basically, we shouldn't use the most recent sources? You really need to read WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:RELIABLE. It's obvious to me and everyone else that either you haven't read them, or you've just decided that they don't apply to you. Kevinbrogers (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see your view, but your counter arguments on some things have been weak such as what you just said now. May I remind you how Season 3 was released on DVD back in April 2011 that was talked about in February 2011? It was labeled Season 2: Volume 3 before a May 2011 press release would reference the broadcast cycle. Why would it do that? And seeing how Season 3 was released on DVD, it should be clear how the airing fourth season was going to be released on DVD. Again, this is why your little "recent source" thing fails. You seem to think because one label is used after another it's suppose to mean something. It doesn't discard anything for the last time. A split was made in terms of the airing labels and that's how it will affect the show throughout it's run. We have two cycles going on here and either one is likely to be referenced because that's how conflicting this whole thing is. Sure Nick renewed a fifth season and of course that's what it is in terms of how it's produced, but it wasn't going to air that way because of what was done with the Season 2 cycle episodes. - Jabrona - 15:28, 24 February 2012
- Saying "I'm not wrong here" only further proves my point; you can't even see anyone else's view here. I don't need "tricks" to get around stuff, I've provided Wikipedia policy or better sources for every single thing you've thrown at me. We should base a decision on the most recent sources available from the highest authority. In this case, that's the "Complete Third Season" DVD and Nickelodeon's renewal for a fifth season (with the prod. codes 5xx). This whole discussion should have been over the moment those were mentioned. Kevinbrogers (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not wrong here. You want to continue being in denial about the whole situation because you don't want it to be the case so be it. I'm starting to get tired trying to get you to understand this. No matter how much defense I have to throw at you, you'll always have some trick to get around it. - Jabrona - 14:12, 24 February 2012
- You basically just admitted that you haven't ever considered the possibility that you might be wrong. Your response only proves to me that I was correct in ignoring your last post at the talk page. Kevinbrogers (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- What I got out of that statement is the fact that the evidence supporting my defense I provided was enough for me not to question it. And you still want to roll around this whole recent source thing? We had a constant use of one season cycle label after another due to the conflicting situation after all this time and even recently had a cast member refer to this upcoming season as Season 6 if it was going to be so in airing terms as a result of the Season 2 situation. The fact that this upcoming season was labeled "Season 5" is understandable considering it's the fifth season cycle Nick renewed to be produced and to start airing this year. You're not understanding that and have been trying to get around all the evidence indicating a difference in a broadcast airing cycle with the silly excuses to discard it because a production label was used instead? I'm sorry but nothing has been changed or discarded here and never will be. We had and still have two different season cycles going on here and will be the case even after the show ends. - Jabrona - 06:53, 24 February 2012
- There was no reason to reply because it's obvious to us that you can't see this situation objectively, and no amount of discussion will change that. You've exhibited classic "my way or the highway" behavior, and haven't even once considered that there may be a possibility that you are wrong. To reply to your post at the discussion page, the interview was from 2009. There are tons of more recent sources. These sources don't require WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The fact that you had to say "I'm willing to believe" should have been an indicator of original research. Kevinbrogers (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
So, basically, we should just throw policy out the window? Have you even read the policy I cited? Or do you just think that the rules don't apply to you? Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh I've read them, and I don't think they backhand my evidence as you make it out to be. The sources I provided are very much reliable considering they involve the people who work on the show, even having a Nick press release reference it. It's a conflicting situation yes, but we must make exceptions here on behalf of the airing cycle and the evidence supporting it. The fact this show has a different airing cycle doesn't bother me and I strongly believe it should be accounted for in regards to how it will always share a difference in relationship of the production filming cycle no matter which label gets used because either will always come up at some point. I blame myself for this whole thing. I brought it to your attention. - Jabrona - 21:00, 24 February 2012
- The "Season 2: Volume 3" is the final set of the 45 episodes in Season 2. notice how Season 1 had :2 volumes" Nick release Season 2 in 3 volumes to hold all 45 episodes because you cannot fit 45 episodes on 2 volume DVD's. You keep referring to "Season 2: Volume 3" as "airing season 3" but it's really the final episodes of the 45 episode Season 2 that Nick released. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well all the episodes on the "Season 2: Volume 3" set are from the airing third season. I'm aware a few of the "Season 3" episodes are on the Volume 2 set. - Jabrona - 23:02, 24 February 2012
- The "Season 2: Volume 3" is the final set of the 45 episodes in Season 2. notice how Season 1 had :2 volumes" Nick release Season 2 in 3 volumes to hold all 45 episodes because you cannot fit 45 episodes on 2 volume DVD's. You keep referring to "Season 2: Volume 3" as "airing season 3" but it's really the final episodes of the 45 episode Season 2 that Nick released. - Alec2011 (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)