Talk:NCIS season 8

Episode 177
Aussie and i are going back and forth on his talk page on the appropriateness of using the reference for episode 175. It says that Dennis Smith, a guy who has been a camera man, cinematographer, and now a director, is the writer of the episode. Dennis Smith has already directed two other episodes in season 8 and 41 others for the entire show (about 37% of them). Dennis Smith has never once been credited as a writer of any movie or tv show. It concurrently says that George Schenck & Frank Carde, two guys who have been writing on the show as a team since the show began and who have an even longer history of being tv writers, are jointly directing the episode. Neither George nor Frank has ever been credited as a director of a tv show in their careers. To me this is a clear and very obvious typo in the press release. Aussie says that the info comes from a reliable source and therefore it stays. I say it is so wrong that there is no way he can honestly claim to believe in its accuracy since he is not a probie when it comes to NCIS. I claim it is knowingly including false information from a reliable source that obviously made a typographical error. Aussie calls it original research to assess the information as such. That the editorial discretion actually calls for just what i did is countered by the no original research which says that publishing of information can constitute original research but withholding disputed information is thus not publishing and can not be subject to the rule about not publishing original research. Letting this go for two weeks while the dispute goes on until the episode is broadcast is not acceptable to myself and i would prefer it be blanked until the episode is broadcast or other parties chime in. Leaving the spots in the episode list blank is not acceptable to Aussie. Leaving the info as per the press release is not acceptable to myself. Having the info as per the men's well established careers is unacceptable to Aussie. In each option we fundamentally disagree. The only commonality we have is our desire to not have this list wrong. Being as it is just the two of us there is no resolution to come from his talk page discussion, which admittedly i started on a similar matter of cbspressexpress.com being unacceptable to him because he can't access it but that is a slightly different matter that could wait. On this matter, Help. Since there is apparently issue with accessing cbspressexpress.com outside of Canada and the US i put a .pdf of the .doc version of the press release on megaupload.com. If you can access cbspressexpress.com then the .doc can be had here or the html found here. As an alternative the republication on thefutoncritic.com can be found here. For some ease of reference here are imdb: If any of them had a background in the matters the press release says they are then i would say it is really odd to have all of them suddenly and concurrently change roles in the show to take that of the other but not implausible. This is more improbable than plausible. It is not a popular stance to take but reliable sources can be wrong. Aussie has been invited to comment too but i am not sure if this is a time of day when he would normally be found here so his comments might be some time delayed. Or not. delirious &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 18:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Show credits clearly listing Mr Smith as the most common director and Messers Schenck and Carde as the most frequent writers
 * Dennis Smith's entry showing his other work
 * George Schenck's entry showing his other work - he did write and direct a Swedish horror sci-fi film 39 years ago.
 * Frank Cardea's entry showing his other writing and producing work


 * It is all a bit tricky, but I noticed that TV Guide has Dennis Smith as director. As TV Guide is a reliable source, yet Futon Critic is also a reliable source, and it has Dennis Smith as the writer, one of those two reliable sources must be wrong. Generally I think the reasoning above makes sense, but given that it is only four days until we can confirm one way or the other, we might as well try leaving the fields blank until then. If they stay that way.
 * In a case like this, where we have two conflicting reliable sources, it seems to me to be better to say nothing than to say the wrong thing. - Bilby (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is all a bit tricky and yes, WP is the only place that has Dennis Smith as the writer. Or DID (i'm just being too lazy to see who did what when). This was originally began when the episode was more than 2 weeks from broadcast and not perpetuating an error seemed a worthwhile cause. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 22:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC) And i just realised i had a typo in the section heading regarding the episode number. Fixed it.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 22:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Both TV Guide and Futon Critic, and probably most other sources, use the CBS press releases to generate listings. The difference is that Futon Critic reproduces the press releases so we can see the original sources, and since Futon Critic says exactly what CBS says, it has to have more weight than TVGuide. Whether or not you believe CBS is wrong, WP:V is clear, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Deciding that TV Guide is correct and Futon Critic, and consequently CBS, is wrong, is original research, even if it ends up being true. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." You still really don't get it that the threshold is not truth but verifiability - verifiability is let's say one step up from truth. That means i can say NCIS was renewed for a 9th season but without a reference it is merely unverifiable truth and fails the threshold for inclusion. If CBS made a typo and said NCIS was renewed for a 10th season in 2011-12 that would be verifiable but it would not be true unless you want to argue that CBS has the authority to remove the number 9 from accepted use and skip from 8 to 10. You need both qualities, not just one of verifiability or truth. To extend your arguement of saying TV Guide is correct and thus saying TFC & CBS press release is wrong constitutes original research means that we can not accept the episode itself and the self-contained credits therein found because that would constitute original research to value the episode above that of the press release. Stupid huh! It further goes to your arguement in the below section on Jimmy Palmer that there you are likewise arguing to value the press releases above all else even though the press releases come from the broadcaster and are a secondary source whilst the episodes themselves come from the producers and are the primary source, which with CBS has many random and also some recurring conflict. You quoted something in the below segment that says to value the producers' info above that of other sources. That would mean don't rely on the broadcasters' press releases for matters such as this. Finally Aussie, since you can't read the original press release yourself you are relying on other people to tell you that The Futon Critic isn't where the transposition error happened. You, by your own admission, can't view the document that you are here claiming to be the more appropriate source. In other words, you yourself can't verify the accuracy of the press release that you are insisting upon using as a source. Even if the original press release really and truly says that Dennis Smith wrote the episode you can't verify it. Thankfully the threshold for inclusion is not verifiability by AussieLegend, not truth.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 06:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Palmer
Is he supporting actor or main actor? In Season 8 was performed in each episode as a "recurring character". Actually, as in Season 6 and 7. In Season 8 was "recurring character: Brian Diez as Jimmy Palmer" deleted because the pretext that he is a main character. In Season 6 and 7, I've now deleted and it was reversed because he's supporting actor. He is since Season 6 listed as "Also Starring". -- 91.64.230.57 (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * CBS lists Dietzen as "recurring cast", not as a "series regular". "Also starring" just elevates him above the normal recurring characters. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we really take CBS website as ground? The episode is usually correct. On the show he's listed as "Also Starring," which just means they haven't included him in the opening credits. Also starring is still "starring." I apologize for my rash edit, I didn't see this discussion. Jayy008 (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * CBS lists many cast on many shows as "recurring cast" even if they have been in everything including the two versions of the unaired pilots and are in the opening credits as staring cast members of every episode for all three seasons, as is the case with Michael Cram & Sergio Di Zio of Flashpoint. http://www.thefutoncritic.com/listings/20100826cbs06/ This is yet another one of those things where the CBS press releases are not worth the bytes they consume. CBSPressExpress can be wrong. Also, "recurring cast" is not the same or close to "also starring"; they are almost as far apart as "guest starring" is from "main character". Tattiawna Jones portraying Winnie on Flashpoint i do believe is a "recurring cast" member. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 23:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The difference between main, recurring and "also starring" cast has been discussed at length and the consensus was that also starring cast are recurring cast, as I've said. Main cast are credited as starring, without the "also". Can we believe CBS websites about CBS shows? The answer to that should be yes but websites often contain errors. However, we're not talking about websites here, we're talking about multiple press releases that consistently list Dietzen as "recurring cast", not as a "series regular", so we can trust those.MOS:TV says "keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time". If the producers say he's not main cast and nly credit him as "also starring" then that's how we have to list him. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "The difference between main, recurring and "also starring" cast has been discussed at length and the consensus was that also starring cast are recurring cast, as I've said." consensus can be wrong and so nice for you to have said - i didn't get the memo that says you are the final say in all matters. Also, this is one thing where consensus is determining real world according to you. That is not appropriate. To read that you say websites contain errors all the while we have a huge fight because you insist that a reliable source is reliable and 100% accurate even if there is an obvious typo is a complete joke and costs you all credibility. You really are flip-flopping whenever something is not how you want it. CBS has no classification as "also starring" in their press releases. If you need to stand by the press release then there is one episode, a primary source, which says that the secondary source is incorrect. You just argued above to list him as "recurring cast" and then said "the producers say he's not main cast and nly credit him as "also starring" then that's how we have to list him." So Aussie, which is it? Do we follow the episodes themselves or the press releases about the episodes? You can't have both and they are conflicting. They are not two ways of saying the same thing even if a handful of ignorant people on WP think they are - as you seem to say, ask the producers if there is a difference between the two classifications (hint: that they both exist indicates there are differences). delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 05:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your repeated use of consensus can be wrong might have some credibility if it actually existed. I didn't say that I am final say in all matters. I wasn't even involved in the discussion, I'm just reporting what the community says, although I understand that you don't give the community much credibility. CBS consistently lists Dietzen as "recurring cast" in its press releases and consistently credits him as "also starring". This supports community consensus that they are one and the same thing. If you have a problem with this, then you need to attempt to change consensus. I hope I've addressed the main points of your post. I don't bother reading your posts completely any more as, WP:TLDR always applies so I might have missed something. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is an issue. They are three different things, so why can't be say "starring" "Also Starring" and "Recurring"? They're all different, so we should list them as what they are. Since Also Starring is different than Recurring, we should say what it is. The CW website is always wrong and since CBS owns The CW, we could obviously draw conclusions about their websites. Why can't we say "Also Starring"? Jayy008 (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's unnecessary pigeon-holing and there aren't just three different things. There are a lot more - starring, also starring, guest stars, special guest stars and so on,. As for "The CW website is always wrong and since CBS owns The CW, we could obviously draw conclusions about their websites", that's WP:OR. Besides, websites aren't the issue. The press releases, which state that he's recurring, are completely separate to the websites. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Aussie, you can skip it all you want. It just means when you respond irrelevantly i write more to try to get you to not misunderstand what i am saying. And then it repeats. And repeats. That is the fundamental flaw in being so damn lazy to respond to something you haven't read. Since when have you known me to link to policy? I don't. It is in-your-face-bitch to link to as much policy as you can in a single paragraph. I link to a couple of pages that don't exists. One that reliable sources can make mistakes which is to point out that simply regurgitating things is actually bad editing. Imagine if somehow thanks to bad spell-check TNYT ran an article that Hitler was the new Pope. Your taking things without even thinking about them would have you do some very odd editing and you would be able to back it up with a reliable source. The other one about consensus can be wrong is rather obvious. If you have 5 people who think it good to rob a bank that is a consensus among that community to do something but it doesn't mean those 5 people are correct, just that among themselves there is no disagreement. If you get a lot of people agreeing on something it doesn't mean it is correct, just the popular opinion. Consensus can be wrong anywhere and everywhere. Sometimes people get it right and sometimes you have people voting at random. I don't get into the Military History project because i would be one of the ignorant in that field. IF ALSO STARRING is synonymous with RECURRING CAST on NCIS then why is it not so on Flashpoint? CBS broadcasts and co-produces both shows so surely they have some say. Your point fails once the bigger picture is acknowledged. "The press releases, which state that he's recurring, are completely separate to the websites." You just keep telling yourself that while those of us in other parts of the world actually read the press releases on their websites. Further, press releases are contradictory to "MOS:TV says "keep in mind that "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time". If the producers say he's not main cast and nly credit him as "also starring" then that's how we have to list him." You solution is to call the two the same thing rather than acknowledge that they are different. That my dear would be original research, even if it is supported by a consensus (which if so then the consensus would be wrong). I do believe episode itself trumps perpetuated misrepresentation in secondary source even if it is a press release. Also starring Brian Dietzen as Jimmy Palmer. Let me just ask: Since the article says he is credited as Also Starring whom am i actually disagreeing with here?  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ♥ hugs  ♥ 07:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with you writing more and more is that your point gets lost in the waffle, and people are turned off responding to lengthy diatribes. My limited response has nothing to do with being lazy, it's all to do with you writing so much more than you need to that it becomes virtually impossible to understand what you're trying to say, and using redlinks that don't mean anything and randomly coloured text doesn't make it any easier. You may as well be writing in Romulan. As far as I can make out, the only really relevant point in the above deals with sources. Press releases are primary sources, not secondary sources, so what you have are two primary sources that you seem to think contradict each other but which actually don't. The press releases identify the series regulars. Coincidentally, these are the same people who are always listed in the opening credits and they're the same people who appear on the CBS website under "Cast". It identifies Dietzen as recurring cast while he's credited as "also starring". This isn't contradictory, it just indicates he's more than just a recurring character but not quite one of the stars. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is true that your response is very long and its not good to look at. I wonder that this could be avoided by simply removing the table and using text. Similar to the NCIS (TV series) page (though why the whole name section is bold is beyond me) or perhaps follow a similar path to that of a featured list, for example: The Office (U.S. season 4).    The Windler      talk   10:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An IP changed NCIS (TV series) today and went nuts with the bolding. It's fixed now. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know that highlighting the key point in coloured text is completely unhelpful to you. I shall continue to do so because it is helpful to me. So you call a press release a primary source. Great. So we have two primary sources which you think don't conflict and yet most blatantly do. Recurring Cast is not Also Starring. That my dear Aussie is two conflicting sources. Recurring Cast is just that. Also Starring is nothing but what it says. Read more into that and you get a consensus to use original research. It would also imply every recurring cast member is listed as "also starring" in the credits. The two are most certainly not interchangeable though they are similar. The absence of proof that Jimmy Palmer is a main character (he isn't even mentioned in the CBS link you provided) is not proof that he isn't portrayed by an "Also starring" cast member. That arguement you make is i believe what the folk around WP call the evil synthesis of information. CBS press releases do not acknowledge the existence of "Also starring" in shows, be they NCIS or anything else. Given that they thus conflict with the primary source (i still disagree with you that a press release about an episode is equal to the episode itself because then the argument could be made that the episode exists to substantiate the press release instead of the press release existing to promote the episode) there are some things that you just have to realise are not accurate no matter how reliable you or i consider the source to be - they habitually get it wrong with indifference to accuracy in this matter. Since Windler is here and this is now about multiple articles: Windler, would you mind sorting out the references for the early season 8 Australia viewer data; there is one week that is sourced to a reference published before the episode was broadcast. I tried to sort it out but got lost (there are so many sources to Australian ratings).  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ♥ hugs  ♥ 12:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "highlighting the key point in coloured text" - Is that what that was? If that was the key point then yes, it is unhelpful. I really don't see why you need colour at all.
 * "Recurring Cast is not Also Starring" - Well, that's your opinion.
 * "It would also imply every recurring cast member is listed as "also starring" in the credits" - Ummm, no, it doesn't imply that at all. All humans are mammals but not all mammals are human. All "special guest stars" are "guest stars" but not all guest stars are special guest stars. In the same way, "Also starring" is recurring but recurring isn't also starring.
 * "The absence of proof that Jimmy Palmer is a main character (he isn't even mentioned in the CBS link you provided)" - Duh! He isn't mentioned because he's not a main character. That was part of the point.
 * As for your edit summary, "press release is not a primary source if the episode is considered primary", I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:PRIMARY. A primary source is one that is close to the topic. There's no limit on the number of primary sources that there can be. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a wacky, crazy idea? Could we be arguing FOR the same thing? My point is that as the episodes themselves classify him as ALSO STARRING that the articles do so too & screw the press releases due to their compressing information into a template that is not flexible and does not by design include the required exact parameter. Not all mammals are humans and not all birds are mammals but they typically all have two legs. You are saying that a bird (also starring) is a human (recurring cast) because it has two legs (is not a one-off guest starring role). Look at the bigger picture, look at how the template of the press release is used on other shows. It is not telling you anything other than it is inflexible and they don't quite really care so long as the names all appear there somewhere. If Mark Harmon were to be listed as a recurring cast in the next press release issued would you not think it to be another typo from the fine folks at CBS? They have erroneously done that on other shows with other main characters and they don't bother to issue a correction. Per your point starring is also recurring just as also starring is recurring. There is a reason that he is listed as also starring and dismissing the difference here hardly makes appropriate use of the source in its context. If you are going to quote me try getting the entire sentence. "The absence of proof that Jimmy Palmer is a main character (he isn't even mentioned in the CBS link you provided) is not proof that he isn't portrayed by an "Also starring" cast member." Why colour? Well for one thing, why does everything on WP have to be a shade of grey? You think colour is distracting and i find #e4e4e4 and #f2f2f2 and #d3d3d3 and #000000 to be just retro/depressing.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ♥ hugs  ♥ 14:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What template are you talking about and why would it be relevant anyway?
 * "You are saying that a bird (also starring) is a human (recurring cast) because it has two legs" - No I'm not, not at all. Humans have two legs, birds have two logs so birds are humans is classic WP:SYNTH. I'm not sure where that came from or how you got there. All Humans have two legs but not all two legged creatures are human is closer but not directly on point. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The template i write of is the one used in the CBS press releases. It is relevant because it doesn't allow for anything other than starring, recurring, and guest. There is no special guest star and no also starring. Those two classifications get randomly dumped into the press release template however whomever is writing feels to place them. As to the human, bird, two legs you sort of hit my point that calling also starring recurring cast just because he is not listed with the main cast is classic synthesis, just you don't seem to see that i am pointing out a flaw in the consensus you said exists. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 23:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a source confirming that there really is a template and that this isn't just OR but, assuming this is the case, this just supports what I've been saying. Clearly CBS see no need to pigeon-hole to the nth degree and since Dietzen is consistently placed into the recurring section, while being credited as "also starring", CBS obviously see "also starring" only as recurring. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I realise now that since you can't see the actual press releases it is really going to be hard for you to see how it is a template. The html and the .doc are formatted the same, with the .html lacking images if there are any in the .doc; the .doc also contains the CBS logo which is omitted from the .html because the logo is already found elsewhere in the code. thefutoncritic.com reformats it for their own site, likely via a bit of editing and their own CSS. The problem with that assumption of yours that to CBS they are equal is that you apply it to all when the trend is only applicable to NCIS. If you look at other shows CBS regularly takes starring cast and puts them in as recurring. Look at a cover art for Flashpoint, you pick the dvd release. You will see 4 people. Those are the 4 CBS lists as starring in the show in most of the press releases. The problem is that the show itself lists a couple of additional people as stars of the show and in the press releases most of the time those additional people are relegated to recurring cast even though they are not so. If you look only at the NCIS press releases then you can see a pattern and it holds; if you look at some other shows the pattern is destroyed and you find the reliability of the CBS press releases in this matter to be questionable to simply inaccurate. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 11:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "The problem with that assumption of yours that to CBS they are equal is that you apply it to all when the trend is only applicable to NCIS." - The problem really is that you can't compare what is done at other programs because that's classic WP:SYNTH. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comparing the actions of a broadcast to the actions of said broadcaster is hardly synthesis. It is entirely the credibility and accuracy of the broadcaster. Synthesis would require something like comparing it to a press release for a show with an "also starring" cast member from something like abcmedianet.com. The CBS press releases are inconsistent and often inaccurate, conflicting with the episodes they are issuing press releases about. Again, that policy also goes to the use of the sources in writing an article, not to checking the accuracy of the sources. They, the press releases and the episodes themselves, conflict, both within a show and when compared to other shows and their press releases from the broadcaster. To be really simple, the CBS press releases in the matter of cast are so often inaccurate that i contest they are not really a reliable source for casting of episodes. If you really don't think it important to check the accuracy of a source before using it then you might as well use anything as a reference to anything at random. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 22:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you're not big on policy but I suggest you actually read WP:SYNTH. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you are big on linking to policies but i suggest you read the pages you link to. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 03:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion is really going nowhere. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Aussie, i would ask you to not edit your comments here to remove things. I read page histories via popups from my watchlist. But i respond based on what i see via preview, hence the delay in this as i got caught up in responding to what was readily visible to me while editing. The etiquette complaint your filed on me for not striking through changes to comments is thus continued due to your edits here today. delirious &amp;  lost  ☯ ♥ hugs  ♥ 14:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I really have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Nowhere have I edited my comments after somebody has replied to them. If, as I think you may mean, this followed by this is perfectly acceptable. You're not obligated to make the first draft a final copy. You can make as many edits as you want in sequence. What you don't do is edit or delete your comments after they've been responded to. I thought you would have understood this after Top Gear. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I kinda was referring to "The problem with you writing more and more is that your point gets lost in the waffle, and peop[le are turned off responding such lengthy diatribes. It has nothing to do with being lazy, it's all to do with writing so much more than you need to, like the time you wrote nearly 8,000 wpords on why you couldn't and wouldn't strike out three posts that you'd retracted. The only really relevant point in the above deals with sources. Press releases are primary sources, not secondary sources, so what you have are two primary sources that you seem to think contradict each other but which actually don't. The press releases identify the series regulars. Coincidentally, these are the same people who are always listed in the opening credits and they're the same people who appear on the CBS website under "Cast". It identifies Dietzen as recurring cast while he's credited as "also starring". This isn't contradictory, it just indicates he's more than just a recurring character but not quite one of the stars. --AussieLegend talk) 1:36, Today (UTC−7)"


 * You can't cite a diff within a quote so . Sneaking a comment like that into a page history is hardly being civil. IF you had been willing to communicate in more than an edit summary why something was not good enough for you when it was for the other more involved party, then there would never have been the 20000 word defense to your malicious complaint that would not have been filed in the first place. You dismissed my attempts to communicate with you rather than explain your position so that it could be understood. Bringing up here my large use of words is hardly a civil thing to do. If you had not been so reserved with your word count you might have been able to explain yourself so as to be understood. If your edit summary had been along the lines of "it really wasn't appropriate to say that so cleaning up my edit" i would have accepted that but your edit summary was merely "+" which hardly conveys any regret at what you initially wrote. Also you seem to say here that you still want me to strike my comments on Top Gear even though it is against my wish to do so. That is bringing up a much belated objection to a matter on an unrelated talk page. Not really a 'high ground' move to make. Consider this a response to your initial comment. It was what i was writing in response to until i got distracted and ended up responding to your revised comment. Technically you are within the letter of the rule but not at all within the spirit of the rule. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ♥ hugs  ♥ 23:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't immediately assume bad faith. I didn't sneak anything into the edit history. I revised what I had said after deciding that the point was better made with different wording. If you hadn't brought it up here and as an irrelevant point at WP:WQA, nobody would have even realised that you had been reported there. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming bad faith, like refusing to discuss something with me before you file a complaint on me? That is not an assumption. You did it. You assumed you couldn't explain yourself to me so you filed a complaint on me. That is bad faith and a lack of confidence in yourself. If you had made such a comment in your edit summary that you were revising to a less defamatory comment then this sub-discussion would not be but you instead simply used a + as your edit summary. That does not convey a decision to use different wording. It is a clever way to hide a comment in the history. I don't care that people see my 20000 word response there and since drmargi has promised to edit war it being archived many, many, many, many people will see it and maybe 2 people will read it. Those 2 people will notice that my defense of the complaint against me names you and drmargi as creating a situation where nothing would be satisfied and where you refused to communicate before filing the complaint and drmargi got called out on randomly changing demand/satisfied status of the matter for always adding on more once what was asked for was done (note them as removed → restore them → strike them [to which i said no]). You brought it up here and buried it. I was offended by what you wrote and quoted it in full for context to my response to it. It was added to the complaint as evidence of not being able to let it go because you will ensure it follows me because we have such an overlapping interest and frequently disagree. Again, your single character edit summary conveyed the context and if you say that isn't what you meant then perhaps this is a time to realise that a single character edit summary is not always appropriate and that writing a bit more is not always a bad thing as it can better convey a message than a "+" does.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 11:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Assuming bad faith, like refusing to discuss something with me before you file a complaint on me?" - To be quite blunt, that's crap and you know it. I tried discussing it with you. I even pointed you to WP:REDACT, but you dismissed my comments and continued to remove your comments, which is all explained at WQA. This discussion about the WQA report is completely irrelevant to this discussion and I think we should terminate it. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was following drmargi's example which drmargi retroactively says is not an example. You refused all communication outside of edit summary. Direct my attention to a policy that says it is ok to note comments removed and drmargi didn't object to that. What am i to think? You needed to explain yourself in more that a link to a policy and you refused to do so even when i asked you. You brought it up here and then took it out without any sort of appropriate edit summary. It goes to our ongoing issues which also exist here. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 22:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've already demonstrated, I was the one who initiated the communication, which you dismissed. When I said, "I think we should terminate" I was being diplomatic. What I actually meant was "We need to terminate this off-topic discussion". I'm terminating my involvement now. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When i thought you wouldn't bring it up elsewhere i thought you wouldn't... but you did. You can convince yourself all you want that some brief edit summary is a discussion but that doesn't make it so. Denying that i wrote to you querying the matter is a most brilliant way to blame me and the only justification for the complaint you filed on me. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 03:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Still don't understand the issue. Recurring cast are listed as "guest stars," they just appear in more episode over time. Press releases aren't primary sources, the episodes are. Starring, also starring, recurring, guest stars, special guest stars, co-starring. If "Also-Starring" wasn't different, the producers wouldn't waste time adding a whole new section to every episode, no? Since the episode says "Also Starring" then we should put that. If the episode says "guest stars" we put guest star, unless he falls under the terms of what a recurring character is. Jayy008 (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A look through WP:RSN archives confirms it, press releases are primary sources. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So, what the episode says doesn't matter? Also, why are recurring characters listed in the episode summary anyway? Jayy008 (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It confirms that in the opinion of others press releases are primary sources, but that is merely the opinion of a few people. If the episode itself can be discounted for the sake of the press release then whomever agreed on that consensus might want to review their position. Also, i don't mind it myself but i do know that some people remove listings of guest cast that are not part of the plot summary itself so i guess you can count me as someone else who is wondering why you put that in. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ♥ hugs  ♥ 23:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * When did I suggest that what the episode says doesn't matter? It does matter, just as the press release matters. The point is that we can't give greater weight to either since they are both from the same source. Clearly, CBS treats "also starring" characters as recurring. I don't see what the big issue is. As for why recurring characters are listed in the episode summary, I can't answer that. I don't see any need. The primary purpose of "ShortSummary" is for a short plot summary. The occasional important note should be allowed but I don't see any need to include recurring characters, or the first and final appearances of characters like Alejandro Rivera and Paloma Reynosa. These were added by an IP and despite multiple removals they keep appearing. "Flashback characters" are also unnecessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Clearly, CBS treats "also starring" characters as recurring." I can also say: Clearly, CBS treats "starring" cast as "recurring" if i direct your attention to many CBS press releases about Flashpoint. That is the point i am trying to show you. The structure of the press releases is fixed, they just shove the names into it and if one of them is placed under the wrong heading or doesn't fit any of the headings of their press release template then they just 'who cares' it. Not many shows on CBS have an "also starring" cast member so there is no reason for CBS to really care about changing the structure of their press releases. As to the characters listed in the summaries, ok so you don't put them in but you pretty much run the show here and you are so insistent on things like keeping an obvious typo because a ref has it that way rather than leaving it blank while concurrently allowing the listing of characters comings and goings in the episode summaries. Why is your vigilance randomly targetted? You never give up when you disagree with something i say or do so why the passive support of the IP contributors adding in the characters if you also disagree with it? delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 11:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, comparing what happens at other programs is WP:SYNTH and you assumption about what those writing the press releases do or do not do is WP:OR. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The synthesis and original research policies require actual content in articles. This is a matter of checking the accuracy of the source before using it, a matter you seem to object to doing based purely on the name of the source. Comparing what a broadcaster does with their press releases of one show with those of another of their shows is a pattern of behaviour on the part of the broadcaster. If there wasn't such inconsistency then there would be no issue. If you are into music then perhaps you saw the claims from a fairly reputable (or formerly reputable) news organisation in South Africa report that Bono was endorsing genocide last week. The story was picked up by BBC and then spread all over the world. Within a day another reporter from a different news outlet had a different story published which basically said every thing was at best grossly out of context and at worst complete lies and named the other people present at the 'interview'. The point of this is that sources can be wrong. Often it is accidental mistakes but apparently once in a while it is more than a typographical or formatting error and that one really ought to look into it more instead of simply regurgitating what is found from one source. The press releases are one source and the episodes another source. Every time Jimmy is in an episode the episode will conflict with its corresponding press release. As we are to take the info from the producers before others that would mean valuing the episode itself as more accurate than its corresponding press release. The alternative is to say that the producers are getting it wrong every time because they don't know what they are doing with the show they make but the broadcaster does. And that just is silly. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 22:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're determining what will or will not go in an article then WP:SYNTH applies to the comparison. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then by that logic the article on Bono should say that he supports genocide in South Africa but that such support is possibly not true. You really ought to read these policies some time. You tell people to read them all the time and rarely do you do so accurately. Just because i don't obsessively link the policies doesn't mean i haven't and don't read them. I have followed development of these policies and guidelines since before most of them even existed. I am not as ignorant as you imply i am. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 03:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Still confused, is it the press release we have to follow then? Jayy008 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We can only report what reliable sources say. We can't discount a reliable source unless we have a better source that discounts it because to do so is engaging in original research. At the time the press release was issued, we were forced to either report exactly what it said or nothing at all. Now that the episode has aired, there is a better source to discount the press release so the names can be changed. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Aussie, what you are advocating for is the listing of Jimmy to be misleading for every appearance up to the time the episode is shown and then to change it to match the previous episodes. To do so for every appearance of the character is just damn stupid. This is a case where just straight up with regard to CBS and their press releases and this character it is a blatantly obvious, clear as rain on a sunny day fact that the press releases are habitually incorrect and not reliable. You yourself just described how you approach their known unreliability - denial until you are proven right and then you admit they are wrong like you actually knew all along. That is vandalism. You insist upon having knowingly incorrect information in articles just because you refuse to realise that Wikipedia is more than just a regurgitation of press releases. You label everything else original research or synthesis and dismiss anything from anyone which attempts to correct your misguided approach to Wikipedia. The editorial discretion guideline exists exactly for this kind of crap. And you call editorial discretion original research! First of all, original research in its true meaning is every damn thing that ever gets researched. It is all original to the one doing the research. The policy has a misleading name. Second to this, the policy is about publishing your own shit on Wikipedia - the book report, the genome project, the whatever you did. The position of Jimmy being portrayed by an "also starring" cast member is a position put forward by how many primary sources? Yet each press release contradicts that. The press release in each case is unreliable. Because it was unreliable last week doesn't mean it is probably reliable this week until proven to be unreliable. This is where the editorial discretion applies. If you really believe this is wrong then stand up to it big time, edit the Bono article to add in the claims he supports genocide in South Africa because the talk page and google are full of sources which say he does. I dare you to do so to prove you really believe all that you are saying here and everywhere else. See how swiftly you get corrected. Also, the episodes already exist by the time the press release about their broadcast is releases. The episodes just are not widely available to the public at that time. That satisfies the example of ""Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist." Except that you habitually challenge everything even when you don't believe in the challenge you are making just to challenge things. That is disruptive editing. On the matter of the episode summaries not being for a listing of comings and goings and reappearances of characters, you agree with the information being inappropriately placed there yet you a few hours ago went through and changed the formatting of it. That would be you saying one thing on a talk page and then editing an article in a contradictory manner. How about all of those things which say it is a character's final appearance? Are they really, really dead characters? Maybe it was part of a cover up to fake the deaths of the characters and they will return with a revelation of some new sub-plot twist. I think all of those claims would need references. Or how about just removing all of it for being inappropriate like you agree it is. It would solve the matter of having someone who is in the cast list also reported as recurring later in the article. How simple this is to resolve. If you don't come here and object to it in a few hours i think i will just remove such from every season's article. If you then put it back in i will tag it all with citation needed. Good luck proving a character really did make their final appearance because as the ep from last week shows, flashbacks are also appearances of the characters. If you get into "flashback appearance doesn't count because it is not set within the 'present' of the show" then you have just moved in to original research. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 12:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating anything of the sort. I'm saying that we can't replace what is in a reliable source with our own opinion. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet over at a new user's talk page you openly admit that in your opinion cbspressexpress.com fails verifiability (which i entirely disagree with but working from your opinion). IF the primary publisher of the press release fails verifiability then all reprints of the press release inherently are not verifiable. You would have to take my word (or someone else in Canada or the US or any of the other countries it is available in via a googlecache) for the accuracy of thefutoncritic.com source. The press releases on thefutoncritic.com are accepted as reference for NBC shows because the NBC press site uses flash and can not easily be referenced. Other than that it is my understanding that it is to be used as a reference-of-last-resort because it had a reputation among some on WP for being inaccurate. It is your opinion that cbspressexpress.com is not a reliable source for concerns of verifiability by Australians. I asked someone in Manchester and that person got a 403 error; they were however able to access it via a google cache. It is rather like unto a "subscription required" reference that can be verified by some and others just have to trust those who subscribe or make themselves have access (by subscribing, or in this case moving to North America if not using google's cache). It is my opinion that cbspressexpress.com does not accurately list casting on many of their shows. So,  why is your opinion acceptable but mine is unacceptable when it comes to assessing cbspressexpress.com when they are both opinions?  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 22:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "And yet over at a new user's talk page" - Are you wikihounding? Your understanding of my opposition to the use of cbspressexpress.com is completely and utterly incorrect. It has nothing to do with content, it's the ability of people who live outside the US, and apparently Canada, to view the site which makes it impossible for most of the world to verify content supported by cbspressexpress.com. On the other hand, futoncritic.com, which reprints CBS press releases is available to anyone to view without having to resort to google's cache, making it a much better source to use. Strangely, you seemed to understand this when you posted to my talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How about, i found it when i went to leave a note for what turned out to be a newer user about an article that we have both been editing and there was a test edit on their talk page. I checked the page history to see if i should leave a welcome message or if the user had received and removed such a message already. I found your edit as the 2nd most recent in the page history. If that is hounding then i guess so since your edit there was about the acceptability of cbs press releases. Did i go looking for it? No. Did i read it when i saw it? Yes. Did i notice that you have been giving your opinion on CBSpressexpress.com elsewhere? Yes. And you are upset at me for mentioning that i had found it. This is two rather interwoven issues here, the presentation of the character of Jimmy Palmer in the press releases and the episode credits, and your claim to be unable to view the original press release while insisting that we abide by its reprint even though you consider the original to be unverifiable. If you can't verify the original then how to you know the reprint really is a reprint and not at least partially altered? If it is not verifiable then does that not make it an unreliable source? Not that i agree with your position but from my understanding of what you are saying i find it is conflicting with itself and thus it is really hard to figure out how to respond to. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 09:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Leave me out of it
Whatever issues you have regarding editing done on this page, it has nothing to do with me. I am requesting that Deliriousandlost leaves me out of this discussion and refrain from using me as an example to defend her own behavior. I have also left a notice to that effect on her talk page. I am requesting the text relating to me be removed using the proper procedure at WP:REDACT, and will file a notice at WP:ANI if I come up in this or any other discussion in which I do not participate -- and this request should not be construed as participation, thus the subheading. Discuss the issue, not the editor, particularly when the editor is not part of the discussion. I would be most appreciative if other editors involved would respond to her posts accordingly. Drmargi (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

End of Season 8
Someone's posted spoilers (which seem consistent with fan speculation), but hasn't cited a source. Can these either be sourced, or deleted? 131.111.243.142 (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Color
What about the color? The DVD color! -- 91.64.18.147 (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking about that. The spot i had sampled on the cover art for season 1-7 is somewhat problematic for season 8 as it almost blends in to the background of the here pages on Wikipedia. It would be a very light grey. Why? Because some seasons the background is white so i sampled from a spot on the N in the title because it was (previously) neither white nor the same from year to year. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 01:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The cover art for NCIS Season DVD 8 is green, if you look at my post on Talk:List of NCIS episodes you will see I came up with an idea. I myself don't like the N idea, but that's just me. 71.172.209.110 (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Last Appearance of Davenport?
Yes, SecNav Davenport resigned, but it may not be his last appearance on the show as the character. He may end up back in some form or another, either as needing Gibbs' help. Considering Davenport was also a Marine, if he needs Gibbs' help, Gibbs will provide it (and vice versa). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.202.248.52 (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Last Appearance of Mike Franks
What about Franks. He's dead. It's his final appearance for sure. This show has never brought back the dead, or made centric episodes about them, after they're dead. So it's safe to assume he will not be returning. akujy (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources have reported that Mike Franks will appear in the 200th episode in early 2012, and possibly other episodes. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Episode 164 - "Worst Nightmare" - Backdoor Pilot?
Having just seen this Episode again leads me to ponder whether this was a still-born attempt at a backdoor pilot for something like "NCIS: Interns", as the 3 intern characters are all shown as adding value to the team, and the last frame is Gibbs offering one of them a pen to sign on for full internship.

Obviously that is only speculation, unless there is any other information of a desire to produce a 2nd spin-off after "NCIS: Legend" / "NCIS: OSP" / "NCIS: Undercover" (Season 6) but before "NCIS: New Orleans" (Season 11)? Somersetlevels (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Tiya Sircar
Tiya Sircar is also in this episode? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.44.164.7 (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)