User talk:Alec2011

Archives
User talk:Alec2011/2008-2009

Aaron Stone
Hi Alec--I see you are (unfortunately) involved in a war with Coral Bay regarding the dates of return atList of Aaron Stone episodes. You say you have a source, but it is not listed, even though you said it was referenced. Can you put in the source? I don't want you to get trapped in a WP:3RR, which you are close to doing. If you don't know how to add the ref, I can do it for you. Just trying to help, Coral Bay can be a stubborn editor. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your edit comments/source. Just trying to help.  Coral Bay believes in the "my way or the highway" version of Wikipedia.  I wouldn't make anymore edits--someone may report you for WP:3RR, which you have technically violated. (Don't worry, I'd never report it!)  I tried to find an online source myself to help, but was unsuccessful.  --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Coral Bay does not discuss, a problem which bothers many of us. Although it has not been proven, there are a number of editors who believe Coral Bay is the former 1989 Rosie, who has been banned a number of times for warring.  You might recognize that name, she regularly patrolled (and warred) mostly on various TV show list pages. I just tried to intervene because I didn't want you pulled in to her messes.  ;)  Have a good weekend.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, she broke the rules. It happens a lot.  We've tried discussions to no avail. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm not sure about your argument that you used the edit tab instead of the undo button. Is that really valid? I'm not so sure. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But the thing is you don't have a reference that you can add to the page, right?. I'd not touch it for 24hours, butmopen a discussion if you want.  She likely wont join in.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But that's her whole argument, it isn't listed at that reference. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * wait wait wait!
 * you are right, it is there. She doesn't seem to realize that.  I'd leave a message on her talk page, tell her to read the ref.  SHe's not reading, just assuming....


 * I got it!! ->delete the second reference and duplicate the first for both places, that's her problem I think. They are different, but don't look it at first glance.  Then leave her a message to read the reference.  Also put that message in your edit summary (politely)--just make sure you delete the right one.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well done, she can't complain now, IMO. And she did get caught in the 3RR by not reading both references.  I'm glad we finally got it sorted out.  It's so hard to do on talk pages! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (Sorry, IMO=in my opinion.) I really don’t think her issue was the “Season 2” issue, as much as the fact that she looked at the wrong reference and didn’t see what you saw.  (They really looked like the same reference twice but weren’t.)  The Feb 2010 is a fine compromise since “premiere” isn’t technically used, but I actually think you could have gotten by with Feb 24.  Good job.  No-I wasn’t a part of it at all, I just brought myself into it.  I honestly didn’t want you to get banned, and Rosie picks fights with everyone.  I feel good that you finally proved her wrong.  Cruel, I know, but the same “my way or highway” really bothers me.  She thinks she owns the pages.  I'm out.  Have a good weekend.  --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Coral Bay
Me, I'd just stay out of it for now. But I know how frustrating she can be. Regarding her being banned (either again or for good), let me just say "someone is working on in"! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: HM Forever
No, I'd say the usage of the "Hannah Montana Forever" branding on that page is vague. Does "Forever" refer to season 4, or does it refer to old episodes? —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Production codes
You know better than this. I reverted the previous addition of these because they were uncited. You need to provide a source or remove them. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And again. Marking this edit as minor was inappropriate as it was clearly not a minor edit. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Suite Life on Deck season 2 end/season 3 commencement date
home.disney.go.com/tv is not an appropriate reference. While some video may appear at some time for some people, it's unverifiable for the 6 billion people who don't live in the United States because Disney redirects the url to the Disney site for individual countries. For example, Australians get to see home.disney.com.au. There's simply no way for people outside the US to verify the claim. We can edit war over this for the next few days if you want to be blocked, but the best option at this time is to leave the article as it was until such time as the epsiode has aired so we can all verify it. The article doesn't need to be fixed today! --AussieLegend (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Production codes
Please stop adding uncited production codes to Hannah Montana (season 4). If they aren't cited, they don't get added. As I indicated on my talk page, Showfax is not a reliable source. It uses casting information that is subject to change. This has been discussed at WP:RSN. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hannah Montana "num_episodes"
This edit summary is confusing. The section that you referred to in the summary, refers to Hannah Montana (season 4) not displaying correctly in List of Hannah Montana episodes and has nothing to do with the main article. This aside, Infobox television says that "num_episodes" is for the "the number of episodes produced" and "a reliable source is required if greater than the number aired". So far, only 85 episodes have aired so a citation from a reliable source is required for a figure greater than that. The citation at List of Hannah Montana episodes says that season four will consist of 12 episodes, making the total 97, not 101, the figure that you added. Please do not change the contents of "num_episodes" without providing a citation. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply
. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 17:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Hannah Montana. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please see the discussion at Talk:Hannah Montana for relevant information. AussieLegend (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Production codes (again)
Where are you getting the production codes you've added to Hannah Montana (season 4)? If they can't be verified, they will be removed. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm getting them from Showfax (before the pages got deleted) and from the Physical Copy of the Disney Channel schedule. Besides the fact that the prod. codes posted over at The Suite Life on Deck, Wizards of Waverly Place are not be referenced and yet they don't get reverted. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, "other stuff exists on other pages" is never a good argument. If you find uncited production codes on other pages, delete them by all means, but they can't be used to justify the existence of uncited production codes on other pages. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am new here but I doing get things do need references. It seems though it is hard to get the sources back if it is from show fax. I do some what think it is a tusted site but not that realiable. As far as the wizards and suite life episodes, they were able to be reached at itunes at one time. You would be able to right click on the episode and it would take you too the production code. So I don't know whats going on but the funcion does not work anymore. I have noticed on the iCarly episodes season 4 production season 3, once the titles have been confirmed by show fax they are put up using that as the reference but for that sake Dan is taking pics which is matching up to the episode. you could always try to do something like that but it is to late now for Hannah and there is no vomantition with the producer on the titles. Saylaveer (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance templates
If you see a maintenance template like citation needed on a page, don't remove it unless you replace it with a citation. Removing the template with a comment and adding an excuse in the edit summary, as you did here and here is in appropriate. There are a series of warning templates specifically for use on the talk pages of people who do things like that, Uw-tdel1, Uw-tdel2, Uw-tdel3 and Uw-tdel4. Your excuses for removing citation needed from Hannah Montana (season 4) does not support the challenged claim. "Season has aired in HD Widescreen format" and "HD Citation taked away as on iTunes it says Hannah Montana Season 4 with HD next to it" only supports the unchallenged claim that Season 4 was filmed in HD. It does not support a claim that it is the only season filmed in HD. You need to provide a citation that does. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look on iTunes, it is the only season on iTunes to feature the HD logo. Season 3 was not filmed in HD as it isn't aired in Widescreen on Disney Channel HD and the ew DC logo at the end of the show as it does appear in the Season 4 episodes. This has happened to WOWP and TSLOD as when DC transitions their shows the HD feature is that they are filmed in Widescreen HD, as before they were filmed in Fullscreen Standard format.

Also, why is it that Season 1-Season 3 on iTunes doesn't have HD episodes however Season 4 is the only season that has HD episodes on iTunes? It's the only season that was filmed in HD. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (I've moved your response back here so that the conversation remains all in one place, rather than fragmenting it.)
 * That S4 is the only season to feature the HD logo is irrelevant. All that means is that iTunes is only offering S4 in HD. It doesn't mean that the other seasons weren't filmed in HD. Assuming that it does is WP:SYNTH, which we've discussed on numerous occasions. You need a citation that directly supports the claim that S4 is the only season filmed in HD; i.e. it needs to say somewhere in the source that S4 is the only season filmed in HD or that the other seasons weren't filmed in HD. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Except that the other seasons weren't filmed in HD. Season 4 is the only season that was filmed in HD, you can tell by the quality of the episodes and that they are widescreen for season 4 only. - Alec2011 (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Personal observations like that constitute original research. You still need a source for the claim. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So does that give me the right to take all the "and became the last Disney Channel sitcom to transition from standard definition to high definition in the process." & "Filmized appearance Season 4-present" off of the Hannah Montana page then, as well as the other Wizards of Waverly Place and The Suite Lfie on Deck since Season 1 and Season 2 of Wizards and Season 1 of The Suite Life on Deck could've been filmed in HD as well? - Alec2011 (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wizards episodes
Besides that press release so me an adequete source that actually says that there will be 35 episodes for season 3. Beacause the only episodes I heard about coming up are from season 4 NOT season 3.  Quasy Boy  21:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * About the Showfax source so far it has been reliable in terms of episodes titles and production codes, mostly for the latter. And of the production codes that were found on Showfax, the codes begin with the number 4, not 3, indicating that the episodes of Wizards that are coming up are season 4 episodes, NOT season 3 episodes. As for that press release that was released nearly a year ago, how do you know that it is still valid? For all we know the producers decided to go into season 4 story lines instead of making additional episodes for season 3. Lastly, If there are really 5 episodes left in season 3 as you claim (not including the 3 episodes that will air in October), the episodes titles would have leaked by now.  Quasy Boy  21:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm done debating, I will leave your edit as is. I guess we will just wait and see if those 5 extra season 3 episodes are still valid.  Quasy Boy  22:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wizards episode production codes

 * You are only one that seem to stuck on thinking that those aren't the correct production codes. Yes, I viewed them on Showfax first, But Showfax is reliable in terms of production code info especially if it matched with an episode title. Since you only seem to be looming over episode info for Disney Channel shows, Showfax being used as a reference is a non-no. Also, AussieLegend clearly didn't have a problem with the edit that I made considering that the season begins in a week. Also, those production codes are on TV.com now, and not "anyone can edit" TV.com, the site has reliable administrators that edit such info, (ie. writers, directors and production codes). But I am done arguing with you, I will the page as you want it.  Quasy Boy  20:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:20100830082533!Hannah Montana Logo.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:20100830082533!Hannah Montana Logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:20100830082533!Hannah Montana Logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:20100830082533!Hannah Montana Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  06:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hannah Montana Forever Logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Hannah Montana Forever Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Comment
OK, what was the need of of you regurgitating by edit summary, It was just my opinion. Also if info was wrong, It wouldn't bother putting it there in the first place. Adding references with production codes are not a common practice on Wikipedia, either they are added or they are not. Production codes for Disney Channel shows are obtained either in the pre-production process (Showfax.com, which you deemed is unreliable), TV.com (which can only be trusted after the episode airs, at least) or buying the episodes from iTunes, which I don't bother doing. But like I said since you have problem with this, I am no longer going to back and forth with you anymore.  Quasy Boy  18:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Jessie
I already removed that show is premiering in the fall in the show's page. Also the show is not in the same in category as Austin and Ally in this edit that you made. The show is in pre-production for series unlike Austin and Ally which I believe wasn't picked up.  Quasy Boy  23:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK  Quasy Boy  01:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(/2008-2009)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of (/2008-2009), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.automatedtrader.net/glossary/User_talk:Ypetrachenko.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"Tricks"
No one is trying to trick anybody. Everyone agrees that "So Random!" was going to be the third season of "Sonny with a Chance". The article even says that. When they began filming, they were filming thinking they were going to call it the third season of "Sonny with a Chance", so they started the production code at 301. There were months with no official statement about the name of the show, and no official statement about the status. After Lovato said that she would not return, they started to market it as a new show, saying that "So Random!" was "introduced" in "Sonny with a Chance".

That means that any name we put the article at, someone can argue that it's the wrong name. There just isn't a 100% right answer.

Splitting the articles up seems the cleanest answer, though. Episodes that were called "Sonny with a Chance" go in a "Sonny with a Chance" article. Episodes that were called "So Random!" go in a "So Random!" article. The format descriptions go in an article about the show with that format. The only real problem is the 3xx production code on season 1 episodes, and that can be explained in the article pretty easily.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

So Random!
Just a friendly warning that you should be careful with your edits at So Random! You don't want to breach 3RR. I've reported Dcupdates11 at WP:ANI and WP:AN3 so hopefully he'll be sorted out soon and then we can fix up the messes at So Random! and its episode list. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

PrankStars
I would like to discuss PrankStars with you. Just because it is from ZOO Productions, that does not mean it is not a Disney Channel Original Series. It is listed as a series on the Disney Channel Medianet site. Also, we cannot speculate that it is not one. If Disney Channel announced it, it would be best to keep it as an original series. Other shows are made by other production companies as well, such as So Random!, Fish Hooks, Shake It Up, A.N.T. Farm, and more. --DisneyFriends (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Jesse TV Series Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Jesse TV Series Logo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Jessie episodes
The issue of how multiple writers are listed is a style issue but the correct way is shown in the articles that have reached featured status: wp:Featured lists. Featured articles are exemplars of the best of wiki and the goal of any article is to reach featured status. Every featured episode list I saw listed multiple writers with &s and not breaks. You gave contrary examples from lists that are not at the level of featured list of episodes. They are just examples of doing it wrong and shouldn't be used as guides. Look at the featured lists and try to emulate how they do it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Does making the assumption that just because there's breaks between writers makes an episode page bad or doing it wrong? Or just using &'s makes a page better than one that doesn't? Sure a lot of pages are using that, but what if there are 3 or 4 writers, that'll be a pretty big column. - Alec2011 (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is purely a consistency issue and in my opinion pretty minor. I don't particularly care one way or the other and I think this is a pretty minor style issue but when I see every featured list do it consistently one way that is a pretty strong indication that is the preferred style. It is not "wrong" to put the writers on separate lines, it just doesn't conform to recommended style. I expect that if this article were to go for featured list status we would be told to conform. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So I could just go to all the other pages with breaks and remove them and edit them to look like everyone else's? To be honest, I don't think any Disney series will make it to being on the featured list as it doesn't reach the ratings of any of the shows listed on that page. I honestly don't care either way as well, I prefer the breaks method as it keeps the column small and when the instance of (Teleplay by) or (Story by) so everything is the same, not one episode row is bigger than another, etc. - Alec2011 (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer the breaks as well - it looks better to me too. I wouldn't go changing existing lists either, it really is a very minor issue and if nobody is making an issue of it, leave it be. The only reason this is an issue in this article is because two editors are changing the list and it is starting to look a bit like an edit war. I just brought up the features lists to try to give a different perspective to show that one way IS preferred. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Understandable, however the person who keeps editing back did the same thing I'm doing on The Suite Life on Deck, but now won't let me do the same thing. I'm glad someone understands what I'm doing and that you shed a light on the featured lists as well. Gives a great perspective. I personally think it should stay the way it is and open a discussion on the Talk page until something is worked out. his reverts are pretty pointless as well. - Alec2011 (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * is involved in a lot of TV shows and episode lists (much more than Disney stuff), is pretty familiar with how things are normally done and been around for a pretty long time on the project. He has reverted some of my edits and is sometimes abrupt. Generally he is right, though. I suggest just dropping it and letting him have his way, and his way is sort of "correct". This issue is too minor to get concerned about. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

To answer Alec2011, who left a message in my talk page, The reason why I didn't bother using ampersands in the On Deck episode list is because I am not a fan of that series, I only made a few edits here and there. Converting the Jessie episode list to a featured article is not my mission at all, I just see that ampersands is widely used in episode list articles and to be honest they decrease the article size, which is why they are used. But whatever, I'm tired of arguing about this petty issue. This is the third time I'm arguing with Alec2011, about such petty things, who only comes on Wikipedia to edit Disney Channel articles create fanfiction which is against the rules per WP:SOAP.  Quasy Boy  02:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Those pages that you created in your userspace may be just for you, but they are still blatant fan fiction per WP:SOAP. I already told about this (User talk:DragonflySixtyseven) and he deleted one of your pages if look in your main user page.  Quasy  Boy  16:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that.  Quasy Boy  17:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I used a line break there because the first name was on up and last was down and not aligned, that's all.  Quasy Boy  15:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess the internet browser that I have shows it differently.  Quasy Boy  18:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 15.4 inches.  Quasy Boy  18:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I see it now. Its 1280x800.  Quasy Boy  18:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah it did. :)  Quasy Boy  19:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Here you go:  Quasy  Boy  19:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. :)  Quasy Boy  02:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Austin & ally tv series logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Austin & ally tv series logo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

iCarly S. 5 "&" vs. "And"
Hello, Alec2011. I would like to bring up some information I found about how the Writers' Guild of America sees "&" and "and" as different. "The ampersand is used by the Writers Guild of America to denote when two writers collaborated on a specific script, rather than having rewritten another writer's work. In screenplays, two authors joined with & collaborated on the script, while two authors joined with and worked on the script at different times and may not have consulted each other at all. In the latter case, they both contributed enough significant material to the screenplay to receive credit but did not work together (more than likely one was hired to rewrite the previous writer's script).". This can be linked to the WGA's FAQ page. For now, I will change back the "&'s" to "and's". --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be right, however we have to follow Wikipedia standards. These standards use "&" ampersands to refer that 2 writers wrote the episode weather they wrote the episode together or not. However it's presented in the show or credits matter's to the WGA because they have to but in Wikipedia's terms, it just notes that 2 writers worked on the episode. On Wikipedia, we use "&" for 2 writers and "and" for 3 or more writers separated by comma's. - Alec2011 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Stick with wiki standards. (see ) We generally don't care how a set of writers collaborated. My personal preference would be to follow exactly how the credits appear in the episode. That will likely match WGA standards and could be backed up by just stating that is how the credits were displayed when used. In practice I'll just follow the standards. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree, Wikipedia does not care how 2 writers collaborated on the script, they just want to know 2 writers wrote the episode. It makes sense to use "and" because the WGA standards use it on TV but on Wiki the standard is to use "&" for 2 writers and "and" for 3 or more. - Alec2011 (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agree with GeraldoPerez. I would want it to match WGA standards. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree too, but as I told you before, we have to use Wikipedia standards that why I kept changing it. - Alec2011 (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: iCarly S. 5 "&" vs. "And
Interesting info. Can you show me the source where they tell us to do that? --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding references to an article
If you going to added references to an article, could please use from now on, Thanks.  Quasy Boy  21:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

iCarly Season 5 - Production Codes
I don't know about you, but I believe the production codes I had listed are correct. I gave you straight evidence to back up my edit. As I put in my edit summary, Here's a YouTube video Dan posted on Jun. 23 when he was filming iStill Psycho: /watch?v=B4jTlPtjfCU&list=UUYMs9CKScLfQnS. Here's an article with Michelle going to set on Jun. 13: http://www.hollybaby.com/2011/06/16/michelle-obama-icarly-episode-video/. If you pin-point from the week of May 2, 2011 you can figure out the production codes of these episodes since you know when they were shot. Week 7 was the week of June 13-17 where the Obama episode was shot in. So that makes it's production code 407. The "iStill Psycho" episode was shot that following week (Week 8) and seeing how it's made up of two production episodes share the codes for 408-409. The blooper episode is obviously the last one made which makes it 413. That should be as much evidence as there is - Jabrona - 07:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm quite certain there wasn't a week they took off from filming. Dan had 13 production episodes to film for the season (that was the second half of Season 4) and May 2, 2011 to July 22, 2011 is 12 weeks right there. These episodes happen to be done weekly. Miranda left for her tour by the end of the 11th week so the episode shot the following week may not include her, and the other one is obviously the blooper episode that was the last to be made. As for the video evidence of when "iStill Psycho" was made, I'm sure it was made during that week. Dan is known for uploading things that happen on that very day. There's not a doubt in my mind that episode wasn't shot during that week let alone that very day. If you keep up with the videos Dan uploads on his account you would be convinced of this as I am. - Jabrona - 23:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, I was wondering what site was the source for production coding. I had no clue so I just stuck with the evidence of other things that were to some use, and what I had said here above was the best research I could gather up. I wouldn't be surprised if I was right though, but I won't make any changes regarding the codes. - Jabrona - 00:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:All the way album cover.png
 Thanks for uploading File:All the way album cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

DCOM template
Are you referring to this format:, You made a typo on my talk page. Anyway I am not fan of the new format, either. It was much better when the films were all arranged in one order, not four different ones.  Quasy Boy  06:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly  Quasy Boy  17:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to revert it back to the way it was, feel free.  Quasy Boy  18:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just revert to the link I put up and save it. Unless you want me to do it.  Quasy Boy  23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll do it then.  Quasy Boy  23:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

iCarly - "iBalls"
My mistake. I couldn't find a promo linked online to use as a reference and figured I could get away without one seeing that the episode is airing next week anyway. There was likely to be more promos to air by then for people to see. Nice to hear from you again. - Jabrona - 00:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing "and" to "&"
I hate to start discussion about this but why are you doing this. Could you point me to the rules that states that ampersands should only be used in episode lists. The word "and" is sometimes used for particular reference, when two television writers generally do not work together. There are some television series that do use the word "and" and not "&". Ampersands are generally used for writing teams. I'm bringing this up because, this edits that you made here and here caught my attention.  Quasy Boy  01:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am already aware of the discussion you with AussieLegend and with the discussion you had with Sunshineisles2, you say that there are Wikipedia guidelines about only using ampersands in episode lists, but where where these so-called guidelines? And referring back to your discussion AussieLegend, even he says that the word "and" can be used in some cases.  Quasy Boy  01:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are clearly confused by what AussieLegend said. He says nothing that a comma and the word "and" cannot being used in one instance, you contradicting what he is saying, by some of the edits that you have already made, changing "and" to an ampersand. AussieLegend himself cannot even specifically point out that "&" vs. "," is bad English, per a Wikipedia guideline. Also, what AussieLegend thinks is not "be all, end all", he is an editor like you and I, and sometimes edits be his own preference.  Quasy Boy  19:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That could work to. My point is, the writers should be credited as they were in the episode, a comma, "and" or "&". If there is a specific Wikipedia guideline that says otherwise (using proper English), then we should follow that.  Quasy Boy  18:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, in that shopping example that you used a comma is necessary. When it comes down to it is based on preference. Some of the edits that you have made, have been undone and disagreed with. Perhaps, the next time your edits are undone, it would be best to bring it up in Template talk:Episode list.  Quasy Boy  21:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem.  Quasy Boy  21:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback at User talk:Kevinbrogers
I've replied to two of your messages at my talk page, in case you were interested. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Victorious
http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/victorious/episodes-season-3/303439 It is the truth list. I mean A Christmas Tori and Blooptorious episodes of season 3 not season 2. (Wnnse (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC))

iCarly
Hi, Dan Schneider's Twitter adress is totally reliable. (Wnnse (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC))

iCarly
http://www.nickutopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/IGot-Jungle-Worms-Shooting-Schedule.jpg That's picture? (Wnnse (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC))

SVU season 13
Where in this reference does it mention that Law & Order: SVU will air 23 episodes this season? The only mention I see of the show is that "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” returns with original episodes on Wednesday, April 11 (10-11 p.m. ET) leading to its season finale on May 23rd." but it does not specify exactly how many episodes will air. Davejohnsan (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * According to their official Facebook "Too much evidence can get confusing. Let us break it down so you can clear your schedule! We've got a NEW episode tonight and next Wednesday - then seven new episodes begin again April 11 @ 10PM!" - Alec2011 (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That would have been nice to know sooner. Thank you for pointing me to it. Davejohnsan (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I probably should've told you, but there really isn't too much room in the "Edit Summary" to include it. Although tehe reference does state "new episodes return April 11th leading to the season finale on May 23rd" meaning new episodes all those weeks. - Alec2011 (talk)

iCarly
I questioned whether to delete my comment I made to you because I already commented on Kevin's page and you were urging him to make the edits. So I didn't think I had to say anything to you. But seeing that you know about it anyway I guess I was better off leaving it there.

Now on behalf of me dragging in people from other websites, I didn't force them to come here and agree with me. The issue here was presented to those other sites by a user named Checker Fred on the iCarly Wiki whose also a user on TV.com named Ruffmann where he was also presented this Wikipedia discussion at. I presented all my evidence there and we discussed about how to organize the list there on those sites. People knew about the situation on Wikipedia and came in to give their two cents. As for my comment to Wnnse, I figured you would have seen it considering you talked to him regarding the Victorious episode list. Sorry if it seemed like was getting ahead of myself, but I did not present any of my evidence to him so you were wrong on that. I just told him to go to the page and read all of what was discussed and had the feeling he would agree with me due to the edits he was making.

As for my newest comment, considering a single season cycle of episodes did split into two airing seasons (which I strongly believe to be the case no doubt about it), then we have to acknowledge it and list the seasons the way it was intended airing-wise on TV. The production labels and DVD releases are one thing, but an airing cycle is another. I mean, we're not going to list the "Meet the Browns" TV show seasons by 20 episodes each because the DVD releases has them that way. It's going to stay the way it is on account for what the airing cycle was. - Jabrona - 05:56, 24 February 2012
 * No, that's your say. We mine as well lists episodes by their production order then since their airing cycle doesn't seem to matter. Hannah Montana never had to face a split season so I don't see what example you're trying to pull with that one. It's airing seasons ran coherently with it's production cycle so the DVD labels were going to fit fine there. In a situation like iCarly, it's not going to work out so well. You can't just ignore that because of how something is with another show. And for your information, each of the "Meet the Browns" DVDs say SEASON not volumes. Check this out: - Jabrona - 06:19, 24 February 2012
 * I didn't say anything about "list episode pages by the airing order on DVD". I said something along the sort of listing the seasons the way it was intended airing-wise on TV. If a season split did happen with a show (as I know it did with iCarly) then it's airing cycle should be acknowledged. What was the point in the network making that decision if we're not going to list things that way? Again your Hannah Montana reference means nothing because it never had a split season where a single filming cycle of episodes were split off to air as two separate seasons where all the episodes have the same coding. So yeah, it's DVD releases are going to follow the labeling of the airing cycle. I'm talking seasons here, not episodes. And about "Meet the Browns" why would eight episodes be a problem to put out on DVD? Seasons 1 and 5 could have been a complete set while the others had volume sets. But why make a season DVD release out of 20 episodes each? The DVD releases indicate seven seasons when the show only had five airing ones? I don't know why that is, but does that mean that how we must list the episodes list now? I don't think so. - Jabrona - 06:36, 24 February 2012
 * I take it the production cycle is still accounted for. They could have released them on DVD the way it was on TV but they didn't and we all know all those 2xx coded episodes were from the same season cycle. It's like they could have promoted "iLost My Mind" as the new season premiere but they didn't and promoted "iDate Sam & Freddie" as the premiere. Well that episode just happened to have been the first one of the season produced. Hint. Hint. Who said the DVDs had to follow how the show is on TV, otherwise the "Meet the Browns" DVD releases would not be the way they are. It makes more sense in iCarly's case. Besides, we had a Nick press article reference it by listing all the 2xx coded episodes coming from Seasons 2 and 3. We wouldn't have had Dan or Nathan say anything in defense of it if it wasn't the case anyway. - Jabrona - 07:05, 24 February 2012
 * Okay, I brought "Meet the Browns" into this because you think an episode list should go by how a DVD season release is. Well that show had a five airing season cycle run with a different number of episodes whereas the DVD releases label seven season with 20 episodes in each set. I was pointing out how we're not going to revert the list and change it on behalf of the DVD (because you claim they have a final say) because that's not how the airing cycle went. You brought in Hannah Montana to support the fact that it's DVD releases went with it's airing cycle but it never faced a split season so of course things worked out well with that show regarding it's airing cycle number being the same as it's production cycle and so forth the DVD labels. Now as for this premiere promotion thing, iDate Sam & Freddie was remarkably the first produced episode of the season, yet the first in terms of story to come after iLost My Mind which was the second produced episode. Nick oddly labeled iDSAF (premiering in September followed by a weekly airing of three other episodes) as the season premiere even after it apparently started iLMM nearly a month back in August. It makes sense that Nick promoted it as the premiere because it was the first produced episode and just the second of the season to air a month after the first episode aired. This is a different from Hannah Montana because it's first two produced Season 4 episodes aired a week apart. I don't think it would have made sense for Disney to label the 401 episode as the premiere just a week after it apparently started months after Season 3 ended. Now as for iCarly's "iSam Him First" episode, it had three episodes that aired after it before Nick decided to air "iGo to Japan" which was the first to be produced of the second season filming cycle. It would have been a little late to promote that as the premiere don't you think when four episodes of the season already aired? The thing with "iDate Sam & Freddie" was odd, but understandable at some sorts since it was not only the first produced of the season, but only the second in terms of airing for the season and did so air a month after iLost My Mind aired and started a weekly run of episodes throughout the month of September. I don't know why you're bringing up "iGot a Hot Room" since we really don't need to talk about that. Of course it wasn't labeled as the premiere but it was since it was part of the next season filming cycle. Not every season of a show is going to be promoted as such. It seems Nick does this when they feel like it on rare occasions, like when Disney does it since they don't promote new seasons all that often either. - Jabrona - 22:05, 24 February 2012
 * Okay Big Time Rush was promoted it's premiere. Okay? I'm going with my gut and saying that Nick promoted iDSAF as the season premiere because it was coded 401. That's the only logical reason otherwise they should have promoted iLost My Mind as the premiere. Perhaps if iLost My Mind was made first (I still don't know why Dan filmed these episodes out of order) then it may have been labeled as the premiere. Seeing how every article is not laid out on behalf of the DVD releases I don't think they should be accounted for if the airing cycle is different. I don't think you want that to be the case. You're asking which episodes were split, well the ones that are listed as "Season 3" episodes of course - the one that have the "Season 3" intro. The intro does help in this which is why it was created in the first place unless those episodes weren't meant to be a new airing season. I don't see why Dan would go through with a mislead and he even stated here that he makes a new opening whenever there's a new season. He and Nathan confirmed this was the case and here's a video interview where Nathan talks about it at the 2:00 minute mark: Miranda and Jennette were both right in terms of the season's filming and airing cycle. The fact we have Miranda referencing the airing cycle at this point in time is something meaning nothing has been discarded and never will because it can't as Kevin wants to believe. She did so on two occasions on twitter and a Formsprings social networking website: . As for the discussion, I've been started to grow tired of doing all of this debating. But I'm willing to still put up a fight so other people who come across it can understand my defense on the matter. - Jabrona - 22:59, 24 February 2012
 * Considering the story of "iDate Sam & Freddie" takes place directly after "iLost My Mind" there's no denying it was going to air second. I don't know why you would be so upset with me saying how I'm right as many times as you, Aussie, and Kevin are trying to prove me wrong here. You guys are trying to say that the split never happened, I'm just proving that it did. But seeing how that can't be denied you guys wants to retcon it, again trying to pull this recent source thing on the whole thing because a production cycle label was used. I don't know why you guys feel something like this can be reversed all of a sudden or denied. Dan's blog is reliable as it gets because he would know pretty much everything about the show since he's the creator. You can't just dismiss simply because it's a blog. It's a very useful blog a that. The information on it just doesn't matter? A race moment sure does come to mind when I see you say something like that. It's things that like that that should definitely have exceptions here. Luckily we have more than just the blog telling us about the situation, but luckily it supports what Nathan says on the Star Scoop interview and the video one I linked. Also you like to mention how websites such as iTunes a lot when to comes to how an episode list is set up or how an episode is titled. Well, they have the seasons listed by it's apparent airing cycle, always had and always will be because they know it's the case and will be throughout the show's run - the site that gets promoted by Nick often when an episode of one of their shows gets added there for the download. Yeah, the same goes for how Amazon has it listed. - Jabrona - 04:15, 25 February 2012
 * I think it should still be taken into consideration because it's very reliable. It shouldn't be dismissed just because it's a blog. I just think you want to do so because you just don't want to take in the information on it because it indicates something you don't want to be the case. But we have a lot of other things at my defense. As for the "race moment" thing, I'm not calling you a racist of course, but the way you're dismissing something just because it happens to be that something you don't like despite it's reliable information I was just pointing out how it was in the same vein. I'm sorry if you misunderstood that and took that offensive. It was certainly not my intent to insult you. I'm not trying to cause trouble here so don't make it seem like it because I'm trying to hold up a strong defense towards something I know is the case and is true. You still didn't response on behalf of my iTunes comment you like to use a lot when it comes to how an episode list is listed and if an episode is counted as one or two episodes if it's an hour-long special. - Jabrona - 05:55, 25 February 2012
 * Perhaps I should use better words, or better yet if I do say something like that then I must be more descriptive. I just came about and said it without backing it up until after you had your say about it. I just looked at some interviews from the cast while searching for more evidence and they often described these one-hour episodes as a two-parter. It's quite unique really because around the 30 minute mark of each one airs it's like the start of a new episode though we don't see the credits so we can basically tell it's a two-part episode but merged as an hour-long special. The cast and crew call them two-parted episodes because that's how it's produced - especially if there's a specific order amount for them in a season and there just so happens to be a couple of those episodes, we have to tally up the overall season number of episodes with that number. So since "Season 4", for example, was meant to be a 13 episode season when it was decide to split the intended 26-episode production, we have to count that many in the season so it's one-hour and 90-minute special have to count as two and three episodes overall to get a 13 count from the season.


 * But in regards to the whole iTunes thing, I was hoping for a response regarding the season listings from those sites including CastTV. I don't know if you saw this, but I posted on the Talk Page why these big cooperation sites have the listings on behalf of the airing cycle if they weren't the case. I provided links there, and I'll also show you here: Amazon, iTunes: , CastTV: , and LocateTV: . If a split did not happen, then we wouldn't have had Dan or Nathan say anything about it or a Nick press article or Miranda referencing it, and these big cooperation sites surely would not be having the show's season listed like this. Soon after, I added this on the talk page regarded an episode promotion of "iThink They Kissed" from the official iCarly Facebook page that was written back on September 12, 2009 before it aired, indicating it was the season premiere . So on behalf of everything else I presented, I'm sure this takes the cake in regards of the season split. - Jabrona - 01:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When it comes to a hour-long episode though it's produced as two episodes, it can be labeled that way on some episode lists of other websites while others just list them as one episode. Lots of shows here that have hour-long episodes are listed as two while others (like the Disney shows) have some that are listed as one. It's in similar vein to this whole iCarly season labeling thing where some web sources list the seasons by the broadcast airing cycle and others (like TV-Guide) by it's production cycle. There's a reason why an hour long episode can be counted as one episode, but there's also a reason why it can be counted as two. Nick and Disney does work different, so whereas a Nick show counts their one-hour episodes as two, a Disney show count it as one.


 * As for the True Jackson split, I was quite surprised to see this considering the only thing indicating it was how iTunes had it listed including Amazon. But I guess they're reliable enough sources if they were used to result in a change. Not sure where you see a second reference at indicating your "Notice how it says Season 2 & Season 3 (as season 3 as 2xx production codes)" statement that you made. In this case, iCarly not only does iTunes, Amazon, and CastTV has the show's seasons listed the way it's known for airing-wise but it has a lot more evidence indicating a split than True Jackson does that includes statements on the subject by the show's creator and a cast member, and a very recently discovered Facebook promotion on "iThink They Kissed" being the airing Season 3 premiere episode from the show's official page. The DVDs may say one thing (like the show's production line) and it's understandable why that is (the "Meet the Browns" DVD releases I have absolutely no clue why that is), but the airings are meant to say another. We just can't really ignore that. If I must say, it makes me pleased we're getting along again :D. - Jabrona - 02:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so you were sick? I was wondering where you were. What were you sick from? I hope you're feeling alright now.


 * Nick and Disney, two networks who are similar in ways but also have their differences. Half of me thinks a hour-long episode should be labeled as one episode, but at the same time I don't think so due to the overall episode count order of the season. I don't know which side I want to be on, and don't really want to worry about it too much.


 * As for True Jackson, yes those two DVD sets do say Seasons 2 and 3, but they're not actual Nickelodeon releases though. It states that Amazon.com's CreateSpace manufacture on demand (MOD) program was selling those so they labeled them according to it's apparent airing cycle, like how the iCarly seasons are listed on Amazon and iTunes for it's well-known airing cycle. So they're definitely manufactured DVDs which were given the rights to be made. You can learn about Manufactured on Demand DVD Releases here: . iCarly's DVD season releases have all been officially released by Nick with the exception of it's latest season that has aired, the releases that you see listed on that link you showed me. When it comes time for Nickelodeon to release those two "True Jackson" seasons, I'm pretty sure all 34 episodes will be labeled as Season 2 because of it's production line. Plus, the airing Season 2 by itself wouldn't have been released all together in one set by Nick like it was by MOD because of it's high number of episodes anyway. Nick would have split it in two volumes like how we had the 20-episode first season of "Victorious". - Jabrona - 05:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I was going to tell you on behalf of getting plenty of sleep, to eat some nice hot soup if you had anyway and relax. But if you're starting to feel better then you don't need to that.


 * If we had to label the one-hour episodes as one, then only they should be labeled as such. The 90-minute specials should be labeled as movies. But again, I'm 50/50 on that whole situation so I can't really elaborate more on that. And you're welcome for the information on the DVDs. I did a little researching on those Manufactured on Demand things. Again, they were given permission to be made so while they're legal, they're not something released by the show's network itself but released on behalf of the network's permission. - Jabrona - 04:49, March 2 2012 (UTC)

Attaching the same reference to every production code
Is that really necessary? With the way things look with the Jessie and Austin & Ally episode lists, might as well remove the production code columns altogether. You are using The Futon Critic for this information, while a reliable source, they can be terribly outdated sometimes when it comes to such information. Your work on the Victorious episode list is a GREAT example of you overusing the same reference for each episode production code, when attaching said reference to table header serves the same purpose (an edit which undid twice in the Jessie and How to Rock episode lists). Whatever other codes that are not listed in The Futon Critic, will be removed. The abc reference attachments have already stretched to double letters with aa, bb, cc and so on. It wasn't even necessary to do that for the first two seasons of Victorious. See: You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Just putting in my two cents, But I doubt will waver on this issue.  Quasy Boy  19:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, That makes more sense at least.  Quasy Boy  20:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'm glad you understand my point. :)  Quasy Boy  20:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

iCarly Season 5 - Production Codes 2
Would you consider these to be reliable sources for the production codes of "iStill Psycho" and "iBloop 2"? iStill Psycho: and iBloop 2:. I wanted to clear this up with you before I had put those in case they weren't. - Jabrona - 21:24, 13 March 2012
 * To answer Alec's question, Yes. I used that site to find production code information for the first season of Victorious.  Quasy Boy  21:46, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. :)  Quasy Boy  21:50, 2012 (UTC)

Victorious series overview.
But ı think articles barely fits into series overview that way, better to a little wider.

List of The Legend of Korra episodes cleanup
Awesome job with List of The Legend of Korra episodes. Brightgalrs ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )[1] 03:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

iCarly
Okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bow-bb (talk • contribs) 10:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

iCarly Season 6.
Why iCarly season 6 is don't looking green-white? like other seasons. (Bow-bb (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC))

I mean, other seasons like that: http://s10.postimage.org/4bhsxzh7b/cats_crop.jpg But season 6 just white: http://s13.postimage.org/xplfu08vp/nhju_k.jpg Bow-bb (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Tv-lins.eu is a reliable source?Bow-bb (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to iCarly (Season 6), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Victorious Season 3
I liked that color too, but Bow-bb kept reverting it. Best to bring it up on the talk page. – Confession0791 talk 12:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: How to Rock reference removed
I moved the Eric Dean Seaton reference down to the last episode listed, there it will still used as the main reference for future episodes and production codes. That was all I did. Anyway, I wanted to talk to you about having a consensus to have the production codes columns completely removed from the the Austin & Ally and Jessie episode lists. Nearly all of the production code spaces are blank anyway, unless they are referenced from The Futon Critic or Eric Dean Seaton's website. The Futon Critic is terribly slow with this information and Eric Dean Seaton isn't going to direct every episode for both shows. Nick and More is out of the question, since its a blog, unfortunately and the only other way to know what the production codes are is from the iTunes Store, where you actually have to purchase the episode. Unfortunately, Disney Channel shows, aren't like Warner Bros. and 20th Century shows, where they actually show the production codes in the end credits. Think about my suggestion and get back to me.  Quasy Boy  17:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Add A.N.T. Farm, too.  Quasy Boy  19:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, that would be best.  Quasy Boy  21:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool, I really didn't want it to come this, but why have a bunch blank spaces for the production codes, if we can hardly source them.  Quasy Boy  21:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, most of the production code info that I have gotten is from Nick and More, They have been reliable to me on many occasions. But AussieLegend decided that since it is a blog, it can't used on Wikipedia. So figured, oh well, can't use them, The Futon Critic is too slow, on iTunes you actually have to buy the episodes to find out what the productions codes are, so just remove the columns altogether then.  Quasy Boy  21:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Totally.  Quasy Boy  22:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Pilots for consideration?
If want to get rid of it, feel free. :)  Quasy Boy  21:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. Only should be posted if the project is picked to series.  Quasy Boy  14:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Use of "ShortSummary" field
We previously discussed use of the  field on my talk page, specifically your preference for hiding it when the field hasn't been filled out. You'll be happy to know that, as the result of some recent changes we've make to Episode list, it's no longer necessary to hide the field, as it has been modified to automatically hide if the field is empty. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

List of How to Rock episodes
Why did you remove those two episodes from the List of How to Rock episodes? 24.193.54.118 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think it's unlikely they would change the title? And I've seen other pages use it, for example List of Bob's Burgers episodes. 24.193.54.118 (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I've seen it there for quite sometime so I don't think they'll be removing it anytime soon. I've never seen anyone have a problem with this, but you. They've already filmed the episode so why would they change the title? 24.193.54.118 (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Korra Test
A tag has been placed on Korra Test, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Request
I am in a bit of a dispute about the number of episodes that have aired in the cancelled show Victorious. I don't know whether or not you are watching that article and its related ones but I got tagged per the 3rr for my attempts to get the article List of Victorious episodes to match the references against a non-communitive editor who was simply reverting all my changes without comment. An admin protected the article and told us to work it out on the talk page. Obviously ignoring the fact that I'd been trying to do that all along. We discussed this issue before and I think your inputs on this issue on the talk page Talk:List of Victorious episodes would be helpful. Also similar issue at List of How to Rock episodes where I have also tried to get a discussion going. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Please invited other users as well. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Episode_list#Episodes_Numbers — Preceding unsigned comment added by WP Editor 2012 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Vict ep.
http://twitter.com/DanWarp/status/243398674128986112 Here's a source for Victorious episode called "Opposite Date" can you add it to episode list page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.61.178 (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of Dog with a Blog Episodes. 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, 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. Mdann52 (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Re: ICarly (season 7)
The first episode aired today so likely credits were added using the episode itself as the implied reference by someone who viewed the credits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't see the episode, had work all night, haha. As implied in the note, it was a one-hour episode, with only one set of credits, it should only be listed with one number. Will add the writers/director back in. - Alec (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

List of How to Rock episodes
I got tagged with WP:3RR violation for my last edit so had to revert myself for that reason. I was reverting an IP who was adding unreferenced future ep info – my self-revert put it back. I won't be able to edit this article for a while because of this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. I reverted it and added a description. If added again, I will revert and put a note on their page. If it happens a 3rd time I won't revert but mearly add to the 3 revert rule list and hope they get banned from editing the article for some time. Sorry you had to deal with those types of people. - Alec (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

iCarly season 7
The production code for iShock America from the Futon proving to be unrealistic at this time. There is no production code like that for this show. The production code is 510-511. I do have a few references maybe that we can use but I don't really know if that will help. First one is http://www.nick.com/videos/clip/icarly-510-ishock-america-invitation-clip.htmm in the Url you can see that it is 510. the scence is from the first part of the show. I don't have a link for the second.

The second reference is https://twitter.com/#!/YaBoyBooGie/status/197771059519430656, which is the actor who plays T-Bo. the only problem is that the twitter is unconfirmed.Also some of the cast members do follow him and and he follows him. Maybe we can work around the rules since the episode has aired and now know its not fake.

So untill then I took out the production code until a better on can be provided. I have a source but it sometimes take 4 months to update.

Second, I guess production code gets solved the episode numbers will be fixed. Since there are 109 episodes iShock America is a 2 part episode. So it is counted as two episodes not one. it should be labled 1-2, until then I won't do anything about that.WP Editor 2012 (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagreed with removing info from a reliable source. I have commented on this issue at Talk:ICarly (season 7). --Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Haha, I just commented on it as well. Agree with you. Let's keep this in the Talk Page and not on each editors talk pages. - Alec (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Input would be great. Don't keep reverting until a conclusion is reached. if you do it will be reverted. It seems that your the only one who disagrees on this. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff Kennywood fan (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Wander Over Yonder
These episodes aren't being aired together that's why they have to be listed separate we usually do this at most episode pages. Koala15 (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well for example pages like List of Regular Show episodes, List of Adventure Time Episodes and List of Rabbids Invasion episodes. I think the Phineas & Ferb episode page should be changed too, when you use a or b it wouldn't make any sense cause the episodes air separate. Koala15 (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 10 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On the List of Suits episodes page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=616443083 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F616443083%7CList of Suits episodes%5D%5D Ask for help])

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Alec2011/(Both Worlds)
User:Alec2011/(Both Worlds), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alec2011/(Both Worlds) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Alec2011/(Both Worlds) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Alec2011/(HM Episodes)
User:Alec2011/(HM Episodes), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alec2011/(HM Episodes) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Alec2011/(HM Episodes) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Old user drafts
Hi, I was checking links to a category that was renamed, and noticed that you have several user drafts (see Special:Prefixindex/User:Alec2011/). If you have finished with any of them, please tag them for deletion with db-user. Thanks! – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)