User talk:Acpurdy

For the "Real Housewives of New York City" page, Dorinda Medley's role in season 7 is unknown as well as Kelly Bensimon's role. We don't know if Dorinda is a friend or main. So for now we would like to keep their roles for season 7 "TBD" (Powerpokmon (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC))

For the "Real Housewives of Miami" page, the housewives should always be separated into current and former like the other "Real Housewives" pages. Please do not change this. (Powerpokmon (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC))

Welcome ! 

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm Crtew, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page, and someone will try to help. Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes   at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your, a link to this talk) page, and a timestamp. The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun! To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. ou can  for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you  put  on.

 Sincerely, Crtew (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crtew&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

I'm just letting you know that I will no longer be changing the tables on they"Real Housewives" pages. I have asked WikiRedactor to do the same. I think the method that you do is much better anyway rather than cool coded. -Mgaisser123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgaisser123 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

First steps
Acpurdy, Nice user page with some good links to your interests. I'm seeing everything but your enrollment on our course page. I put some extra instructions online just for this because so many people are stumbling over this part. It's actually pretty easy. Use one of the three descriptions available on our site. My video, the printed instructions or my special note. Crtew (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

American Idol
Please note that many people have tried to add their own tabled to American Idol, they are generally ugly and unwelcomed. We have now a reasonably good one, and if you wish to do something different, please take it to discussion, we don't need more reverts on a table that in truth unnecessary. Hzh (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The Real Housewives of Orange County
Could you please explain why you made this edit? Earlier, I made a number of corrections to the "Timeline of housewives" table in order to make the table comply with our policies and guidelines. As briefly explained in my edit summaries,[] the edits were made to make the table comply with: While fixing the table I noticed a number of formatting errors related to column widths. In short, the numbers didn't add up, so I fixed this issue in this edit, as well as fixing a MOS:CAPS that I had missed earlier. As part of the edits that I made, I converted the table to use cMain and cRecurring, which are templates created specifically for such tables. While there is no mandated requirement to use these, it does not make sense not to use them. Your edit seems to be a blanket reversion of the table to what appears to be your preferred format, and was made without any explanation. A review of the edit history of this article indicates that you seem to be in an edit war with other editors, as you have made a number of similar reversions, all without explanation, which is unnaceptable. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * MOS:ACCESS/MOS:DTT - Wikipedia articles are required to be accessible to all readers, including those with vision problems. Addition of "plainrowheaders" and column and row scopes makes tables readable by screen readers used by people with vision issues, including the blind. As part of the edit to provide this compliance, table formats were cleaned up.
 * MOS:BOLD, MOS:CAPS - Content is bolded only under certain circumstances and headings use sentence case, not title case. The bolding and upper case used in the table did not comply with MOS:BOLD or MOS:CAPS, which is why it was removed.

October 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Real Housewives of Orange County. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Since you have chosen not to respond to my request, but have simply reverted to the non-compliant table, again without explanation, this warning seems warranted. I have explained the need for compliance above, and on the article's talk page, as well as in a note above the table. There's not really much more I can do at this point. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason I have not responded to you is because I have not had time. But now that I do, let me respond. The reason I keep reverting back to the old table is because it is the one that has been there the longest, for years. It is also easier to understand and to read. You seem to be the only one complaining about it, which is strange. I noticed that you seem to get into it with many users over edits. So, that is why I keep reverting back to the old table. It is easier to understand, easier to read, catches the eye better, and has been there longer. However, as a truce, I have removed the bold letters from the table. Acpurdy (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Between when I left the request and when you replied here you've had time to make 6 edits to 3 articles, including 3 edits to The Real Housewives of Orange County. It does not matter that the table "has been there the longest". If it doesn't comply with our policies and guidelines it needs to be fixed, not left in a non-compliant format. I am clearly not the only one complaining about the table. Numerous editors have attempted to change this and similar tables at various articles and you've reverted them without explanation. That's edit-warring, which can result in you being blocked from editing. There's even a Request for Comment open at WT:TV. However, even if I was the only one complaining, that's irrelevant. It just happens that I noticed the lack of compliance. Removing bolding from the table is simply not enough; the table needs to fully comply, which means incorporating row and column scopes, plainrowheaders, and fixing capitalisation problems as a minimum. There are numerous errors in the table that should also be fixed. You're obviously aware of the existence of errors as you have fixed some yourself. As for being "easier to understand, easier to read, catches the eye better", the two tables are almost visually identical, so those are not valid reasons. The only visual differences are the capitalisation and column width fixes and better compliance with MOS:COLOR. From an editorial standpoint, the compliant table is much easier to read and update. That's why a similarly formatted table was removed from American Idol and a note left on your page by another editor. Above all of this, when an editor makes edits to make a table comply with multiple policies and guidelines, and fixes obvious errors, you don't revert the changes without a really good reason, and you haven't presented any. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You can't justify reversion of the table because it "has been there the longest" if you are going to ompletely change it. You either use the MOS compliant version or stick with the old version, but only if you can justify ignoring the Manual of Style. Your changes to other articles have made the tables even less MOS compliant than they already were, which is most inappropriate. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. I tried reverting back to the table that you and WikiRedactor preferred, that was being discussed in the "Discussion" post you tagged me in. But obviously you don't like that. You also don't seem to like the other table either. I am trying to be compliant here, to an extant, but I am losing my patience. Acpurdy (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no table that WikiRedactor and I preferred. I fixed the table in The Real Housewives of Orange County to demonstrate what he needed to do to make his table compliant with the MOS. As I clearly indicated in the discussion, a combination of both tables, along with MOS compliance is what is needed. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:COLOR, colour alone should not be the only method used to convey information. I will restore the compliant table. Work with that. It has all that is needed to proceed. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. That is fine. The only question I have is, is there a way to make the green color of the cell a darker shade of green??? Acpurdy (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't been able to restore the compliant table as the version that you've added is considerably different and I am not sure now what is correct. You'll have to use the compliant table as a template. The shading of the cells needs to comply with WP:COLOR. cMain has been designed to do that, so editors don't have to. As a general rule of thumb, muted colours are generally the best. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * When totalled, table column widths have to match the width specified in the first row of the table code. For example in this revision of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills the table width is specified as 43%:
 * {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" width=" 43% "

When added together the  parameter of the following header rows must equal 43%:
 * ! scope="col" rowspan="2" width=" 13% " | Housewives
 * ! scope="col" colspan="5" | Seasons
 * ! scope="col" style="width: 6% ;" | 1
 * ! scope="col" style="width: 6% ;" | 2
 * ! scope="col" style="width: 6% ;" | 3
 * ! scope="col" style="width: 6% ;" | 4
 * ! scope="col" style="width: 6% ;" | 5
 * ! scope="col" style="width: 6% ;" | 5

As you can see, 13 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6 = 43. However, the figures in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Real_Housewives_of_Beverly_Hills&diff=630745816&oldid=630745410 this revision are incorrect:
 * {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" width=" 50% "
 * ! scope="col" rowspan="2" width=" 13% " | Housewives
 * ! scope="col" colspan="5" | Seasons
 * ! scope="col" style="width: 10% ;" | 1
 * ! scope="col" style="width: 10% ;" | 2
 * ! scope="col" style="width: 10% ;" | 3
 * ! scope="col" style="width: 10% ;" | 4
 * ! scope="col" style="width: 10% ;" | 5
 * ! scope="col" style="width: 10% ;" | 5

Adding these together we get 13 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 = 63, not 50. You have to include the width of the "Housewives column. Note that setting the values low, rather than high, eliminates whitespace and alows for easy future expansion. Please also note, as I pointed out in several edit summaries,  is the default, so it doesn't need to be included. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've now been through all of the US articles, tweaking each article so they're as consistent with each other and the MOS as possible. you can see the tables all on one page here. All of the tables, with the exception of Orange County, use the same column widths. Orange County had to be slightly narrower because of the number of seasons. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war
Hello. I see that you keep ignoring my edits on The Real Housewives of Orange County page. The tenth season of the show has not been announced yet and I don't think that Wikipedia is a place to post news based on gossip sites. Mymis (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Tagline lists
Hello. I see that you decided to put these long lists of the housewives' taglines of each season in The Real Housewives articles. Why do you think these lists are important enough to be on Wikipedia? Because I think such information is less than essential and is unnecessary collection of information, which is not suitable for Wikipedia. See these policies pages: WP:IINFO and WP:NOR. Mymis (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Please STOP adding taglines to The Real Housewives articles. As said above by User:Mymis, WP:IINFO and WP:NOR apply to this and the addition of the taglines is absolutely unnecessary to begin with. IPadPerson (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at The Real Housewives of Miami, you may be blocked from editing. IPadPerson (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content, as you did at The Real Housewives of Atlanta. IPadPerson (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ron h jones (Talk) 21:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 Month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ron h jones (Talk) 22:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added another month to your block for using a sock account during your block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)