User talk:Alec2011/2008-2009

Both Worlds Episodes (Mini Series)
A tag has been placed on Both Worlds Episodes (Mini Series) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Kinu t /c  02:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Miley Vs. Hannah Episodes (Mini Series)
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. -- Kinu t /c  02:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, how you doin?? I've seen two of your episodes and so far its great! --Gary0203 (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, I changed my username to DCFan101, I used to be Gary0203.



Gary has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, and remember: "All men are created equal, but ambition, or lack of it, soon separates them."Cheers, and Happy editing! DCFan101 (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The old TLC logo
I didn't mean the 1992-2006 one, I meant the one they used before 1992 (though you probably couldn't find it). WizardDuck (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hannah Montana episodes
Hey Alec, don't change the episodes for hannah montana there really is a new episode on August 31 called Test of My Love and check http://actinginfo.blogspot.com before deleting the fourth episode for season 3. --DCFan101 (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah but do you watch Disney Channel? The commercial for it has aired for like more than 5 times already. --DCFan101 (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is one: http://tv.msn.com/tv/series-episodes/hannah-montana/
 * Another one: http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tvlistings/ZCSC.do;jsessionid=DAE78383B59985F8CC0C88DBAA4CC004?t=Hannah+Montana&sId=EP00798440&method=getEpisodesForShow
 * Another one: http://www.tv.com/hannah-montana/show/48004/episode_listings.html?season=2&tag=nav_bar;2


 * Disney did confirm it. I may not have proof but they did air it on TV last night.


 * I only saw half the commercial. It something like this Like when miley said it's like we wear the only one in the beach and lilly said that's happen with true love.


 * Nope, remember when they aired a promo for new episode of the suite life with chris brown?


 * I'll check when they air it again. --DCFan101 (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome! Finally. --DCFan101 (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant change the article "List of Hannah Montana episodes" to "Hannah Montana (episodes)" or "Hannah Montana (list of episodes)". No normal encyclopedia looks like this. OneWeirdDude (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

First warning
Stop reverting my edits on Hannah Montana (season 3). Otherwise, you'll get banned for WP:3RR A (Reply! ,Contribs! ) 13:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I apologize for my over-edits. A (Reply! ,Contribs! ) 21:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant over-writing your edits; I always try to find reliable sources, but regardless, most IP users still vandalize it. At least now we know we're on the same page ;) A (Reply! ,Contribs! ) 21:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Cars Toons
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cars Toons, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://forum.bcdb.com/forum/Disney-Pixars_Cars_Toons_begin_Monday_P93023. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:330wy79.png
Hi Alec2011!

We thank you for uploading Image:330wy79.png, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation. This message is from a robot.

--John Bot III (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

-- sorry but i dont know if it is season3 or 2 because if you check here [] on November 8, at 8:30 on disney you will see that the episode No sugar sugars premiores and like season 3 already begins why would they still put a season 2 episode  user talk:Mileycyrus16  —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC).

well okay who knows! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mileycyrus16 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright infringement
Hi. Your subpage, User:Alec2011/(HM S1), contains text extensively duplicated at this site as well as others. Wikipedia cannot utilize text from other sources unless it is public domain or released under a license compatible with ours...that is in article space or any page. You must otherwise write episode summaries in completely original language. I have blanked this subpage rather than labeling it with the copyright violation template or deleting it for copyright concerns. Please do not restore the previous contents unless you are able to demonstrate that those episode summaries are public domain. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, copyright infringement needs to be removed from any space on Wikipedia. If you are the original publisher, we'll need to verify that. As I indicated, those episode summaries are published at multiple sites, which may make it difficult to establish that you are the original author. Perhaps the internet archives can help establish this. When did you first publish them? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On further investigation, I believe I understand what you're saying. You're not the original publisher. This material was previously published on Wikipedia. That external site, which is yours, is actually infringing on the copyright of our contributors here?


 * Wikipedia's contributors license their material under GFDL, but they do not release it into public domain. That means that you have the right to use it at your external website, but only if you give Wikipedia's contributors credit by providing a direct link to the article which you are copying and by also releasing the material at your site under GFDL.


 * Also, when you copy material from one space on Wikipedia to another, as you did, you need to make note of that in the edit summary in order to satisfy the copyright of those contributors. I'll restore your subpage with a note indicating its source, but, if that external site is yours, as you assert, please comply with the terms of GFDL by providing credit to Wikipedia's contributors with a link. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete it; as I said above, I blanked it. And invited you to demonstrate that the material was usable. Deletion is an entirely different matter, which involves the use of admin tools. But if you're saying that you didn't copy the episode summaries from Wikipedia, but from Disney Channel, then they are a copyright violation, if not placed by you, and they'll still have to be removed from List of Hannah Montana episodes (Season 2) (I presume that's what you meant; they don't seem to have come from Season 1.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's against the law to copy material directly from Disney. Or AP. It's also against Wikipedia's policies (see WP:C). Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, though. Did you not indicate that this site belongs to you? And that you copied the information from an official Disney source? If you did, and we have exactly the same information here, then that means that somebody copied the information here from an official Disney source, too. Which is against policy. Episode summaries have to be written from scratch; they can't be copied from official sources without express permission. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It might help. Can you tell me when you created that site? Or give me the URL of the Disney source? I can't find it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll take a look and see what I can figure out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's fine. If you look at the edit summary where I restored it, here, you'll see that I noted where it came from, so there's no issues with duplicating it from one page to another. If I find a Disney source and it turns out we have to revise the edit summaries, we'll attend to that then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If they need to be revised, it'll be noted at the article so that regular contributors (including, obviously, you :)) can do it. As far as protection, I can't protect all of them. If there are some that have particularly a lot of vandalism, it might be a good idea to semi-protect them so that only registered users can edit them for a while, to help cool it down. I see Hannah Montana is protected. Are there any others that are a special problem? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have semi-protected 2 & 3 for two weeks. If problem persists after that, please let me know. It looks like episode 1 might have some vandalism in it right now, so I didn't semi-protect it, yet, although it looks like it might need to be semi-protected. Even though semi-protected article can be edited by registered users, so vandalism can be cleaned, I'd really prefer not to semi-protect it in a vandalized state. Let me know if/when it's clean. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply
I think it is more professional this way, and it's more stable. I'm working on season two - what do you think? A <sub style="color:cornflowerblue;">talk  21:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! A  <sub style="color:cornflowerblue;">talk  23:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've just finished doing season two. By the way, "No Sugar, Sugar", is no longer airing! A  <sub style="color:cornflowerblue;">talk  00:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Please do not delete legitimate talk page comments, here and here. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Disney Channel schedule
There's no need for you to delete the page. It will be deleted as part of the normal administrative process that follows the addition of the prod template. Of course, addition of the template doesn't automatically mean that the page will be deleted, although in this case it's very likely. This is another reason for not deleting the page contents. In the event that the page is deleted, where does that information go? Quite simply, nowhere. As stated at "What Wikipedia is not", Wikipedia articles are not electronic program guides and an article on a network or station should not include upcoming promotions, schedules et cetera. If the information was in the article previously it shouldn't have been. Somebody should have deleted it. People sometimes forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not just another website. Obviously that's happened here. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As I've already indicated, "What Wikipedia is not" makes it quite clear that Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, which is what you're suggesting it should be. Whether or not the information was there some time ago is irrelevant. WP:NOTDIR says it shouldn't be. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with upload of Image:Both_Worlds_Logo.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Both_Worlds_Logo.PNG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Disney Channel November 2008 Listings.pdf
Thanks for uploading File:Disney Channel November 2008 Listings.pdf. 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) 20:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a PD author license for now assuming that is OK. If not the file will need to be deleted but should be OK for up to a week for discussion at WP:RSN. You might still get more bot messages. --NrDg 20:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, does that mean you will keep it protected? - Alec2011 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It will probably be flagged by a bot or someone as needing proof of permission from the owner of the file to stay on Wiki. I am not protecting it - we still have to follow the rules. It will stay long enough for discussion at WP:RSN. --NrDg 22:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:Disney Channel November 2008 Listings.pdf
A tag has been placed on File:Disney Channel November 2008 Listings.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip [i.e. a Word document or PDF file] that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;"><font color="#630">RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 16:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have deleted this file as we no longer need it and the WP:RSN has concluded. Thanks for uploading it as it contributed greatly to my understanding of the issues and to the discussion. --NrDg 16:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hannah Montana episode pages
I liked the 2-toned table, but I couldn't use it on the design I used. I could do it with the auto update but it would have made the table too difficult for an average user. if you can update it and it still be simple, go ahead. -- Jay M. Baxter-Payne <font face="Bookman Old Style" color="red" size="2"> (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be nice, but it was so complicated, i almost coudn't understand how to edit it myself.-- Jay M. Baxter-Payne <font face="Bookman Old Style" color="red" size="2"> (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Hannah Montana Logo 2.PNG)
Thanks for uploading File:Hannah Montana Logo 2.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations and referencing
Regarding this edit, I just thought I'd clear up the issue of copyright violations with you, since the edit summary indicates that you may not completely understand what a copyright violation is. In a nutshell, copyright violation occurs when you copy something directly from another source, or when the text in the article is substantially a direct copy of the source. For example, Since the addition that you made was not substantially a direct copy it is perfectly OK and that's the sort of thing you should be aiming for in the future.
 * 1) The source says, "When Cynthia (C. Charles) gets homesick, Bradley (J. Smith) tries to help her, by recreating the Potsburg Popcorn popping contest". If you add that to the article, unchanged, it is a copyright violation of the source.
 * 2) You add "Cynthia gets homesick and Bradley tries to help her by recreating the Potsburg Popcorn Popping Contest". Since this is substantially a copy of what was in the source, it is also a copyright violation.
 * 3) You add "Bradley tries to help Cynthia when she gets homesick by recreating her home town's popcorn popping contest". This conveys the same message as the source but is substantially different to the source and so is not a copyright violation.

As for referencing, when you wish to reuse a reference, you don't need to copy the entire reference as you did in the edit. You just need to copy the reference name, adding a "/" after the name. For example, the reference that you copied was " " To reuse this reference just copy the " <ref name=Disney115721_0647> " and add "/" to turn it into " ". The reference can be uses as many times as you need. If the reference isn't named, that is it just starts with " ", you'll need to name it. For more information on this see Citing sources. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OH I get what your saying. I understand what the copyright violations are. See when i FIRST posed the summary, I summered it up (see: 17:18, 19 April 2009 Alec2011 (talk | contribs) - on the History). Then later today, someone had changed my summary to what the TV Guide website says (which is a violation). I tried to find out what I had typed before someone changed it, but I don't know how to do that. So I tried to say what I had said before, but i guess I didn't do a very good job. Do you see what I'm saying? I tried to FIX the violation, but I couldn't think of what I summed it up before. (please reply). - Alec2011 (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the edit history. After you edited the article, I cleaned it up and fixed the reference, as well as doing some other cleanups. The episode summary was later changed here. Between then and when you edited it today, no changes were made to the actual summary. What was there today wasn't a copyvio of the TV Guide summary before you edited it.
 * To find out what you typed, click on the "History" tab. Then, click the right hand radio button (the little circle) next to your edit and the left had radio button next to the edit prior to yours. As an example of what that should look like, if you click on the history tab look at the radio buttons next to the two most recent edits. Not all of the radio buttons are shown so when you try to select them you may have to reverse the order I've indicated to get other radio buttons to show. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Referencing continued
I'd just like to remind you of the ability and preference to avoid unnecessary duplication of references, as I posted here on 22 April. This example is preferred to repeating the same reference. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(The following has been moved here from my talk page to keep the discussion together. Please reply here as I have this page on my watchlist)
 * Was it that I used the saem reference more than once? I tought you had to use the same source if the description (which I edited :D) and the release date were the same that's why I put them both down for the same, am I not allowed to do that? - Alec2011 (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The same reference can be used more than once. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just that duplicating the entire reference each time you refer to it has a number of disadvantages including, but not limited to, looking messy and being awkward to edit. For example, If the url for a reference changes, as they occasionally do, you need to change the url in each occurrence of the reference. Even if it doesn't change, you end up with a reference list that's longer than it needs to be, filled with duplicate references. It's preferable to include the entire reference, just once, giving it a name. Then, when you need to use that reference again, you just cite the reference name. That way there's only one entry for each different reference. You can see the difference in these two examples.


 * 1) Using individual references - Individual references have been used, resulting in a reference list with 24 references, 19 of which are duplicates.
 * 2) Using named references and citing just the name on the second and subsequent uses - Complete, named references have been included only on the first use. In the second and subsequent uses, only the reference name has been cited, resulting a reference list with only 5 references shown.
 * In the first example, if the url for reference 2, which is the same as references 3,4,6-17 & 20, changed, 16 changes would need to be made. In the second example, only one change would need to be made. You can find more on this at Citing sources and the articles linked from it. What I posted on your talk page on 22 April is a much simplified version of how to re-use references. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hannah Montana production codes
Regarding these edits, Disney treats this as a single epside so having two production codes for a single episode seems a bit strange. I was wondering where you got the information. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * When the episode was being announced, it said a hone-hour special (meaning a 2 part episode). However, when it ired, it was a 50 min. episode than the 23 mins. it usually is. However, there are a total of 30 episodes in season 3 and this hour speical would take up two episode spots (however it's only one episode). They produced the episodes together (in one day) so it's two episodes. - Alec2011 (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved your reply back here to keep this all in the one place.
 * Firstly, a one-hour special doesn't mean a 2-part episode. It means it's a special production outside the normal parameters, which accounts for the reason that it was 50 minutes rather than 46, as you'd expect a 2 part episode to be. All this aside, it doesn't explain where the extra production code came from. The fact that the episode was produced in one day indicates a single production code is more likely. Do you have a source that says otherwise? --AussieLegend (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a source that says it's prod. code 331. And I KNOW that a one-hour special DOESN'T mean it's a 2-part episode, but that's how everyone's taken it. I remember yesterday viewing an episode list page where a 30-min show had prod. codes like this 327-328 for one episode (saying it was a hour special). There really is no source for the prod. code anyway as far as I know from a source that says it's 331. So I'l take off the prod. code since I was the first one to add ANY. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Suite life on deck production code
your edt for the the episode Ala-ka-scram for suite life on deck is incorrect. 216 was filmed about 5 to 6 weeks ago. so it caint' be 216. also the source does not even give the production code. also they would not even air episode like 205 than jump to 216. also around that time is when season 2 was extended. your edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Suite_Life_on_Deck_episodes&diff=303960521&oldid=303956620 has beem reverted. please put a sourse for the production code if you it is really 216. thanks Extremeguy (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Disney can edit a episode and air the episode a week after it's been made. Also why did Disney for Sonny with a Chance air 104 then jump to 112. Disney always airs their episodes out of order just like in season 1 from 101 to 107. I have a source, but no ones thinks it's reliable, but it's the official schedule from Disney. Don't say it's incorrect, and I don't see a source for the first on anyway. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sonny with a Chance is currect but that episode was filmed way before the air date. Extremeguy (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, then when was the Suite Life on Deck episode filmed? You should know since you think you're right? - Alec2011 (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. AussieLegend (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Uptight (Oliver's Alright)
This is not the episode that was filmed for season 2, which is well cited as having been called "No Sugar, Sugar". As indicated in the tommy2net reference, it is a re-shoot of that episode meant for airing in season 3. As for the production code, there's no citation for that, or for the plot summary that you added. The information has been correctly added to the season 3 article. Do not add it to season 2 again. To do so is vandalism."No Sugar, Sugar" has been discussed at length in the past so we are convinced of the facts surrounding that episode. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have NO idea what you are talking about, ONE I didn't change the summary from what was there before, 2 there hasn't been a discussion about the new one being filmed or the old one airing only back in November of 2008 nothing has been said, now there's another conflict in Aug of 2009, discussion should be brought back up again. DO NO blame me for something I CLEARLY didn't do, I DID NOT change the summary in Season 2. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The old episode has been discussed, as the result of confusion over the episode number, but the discussion took place in edit summaries and at user talk pages. I apologise about the edit summary, that was my mistake. Regardless, the other information is incorrect. This is clearly a new season 3 episode, based on the old season 2 episode. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What other information is Incorrect? I onlyt added the new name and Airdate, I changed nothing else. How is it CLEARLY and Season 3 episode? Haven't you ever heard of Episodes getting a name change? Yes Mitchel did say they re-shot the episode. Nathen Kress did say iCarly was done with after Season 2 (he lied trying to be serious). I'm not trying to start a fight. From the info we have it COULD be either or, nobody knows for sure until Disney sendsout more info about it. - Alec2011 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The name and airdate are both wrong. The season 2 episode is called "No Sugar, Sugar" and never aired. "Uptight (Oliver's Alright)" is clearly a season 3 episode because season 2 has ended and the episode is being shown in season 3. Duh! "No Sugar, Sugar" was going to be the last episode of season 2 which means there were no more episodes so this couldn't be a season 2 episode. It's really not rocket science. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

One The name could've changed (a lot of Hm episodes got changed) two it's not hard to switch the theme songs putting Season 3's theme song, DUH! Two I know it was the last episode it is clearly written there. I don't like your attitude towards people making you seem like you know everything, little miss show-it-off. Disney can air any episode they want even if it's a Season 2 and it's Season 3, THAT'S ROCKET SCIENCE. - Alec2011 (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "The name could've changed" - The point that you seem to be missing is that the name wasn't changed for season 2. "Uptight (Oliver's Alright)" is the name of a new episode that has been re-shot for season 3.
 * "it's not hard to switch the theme songs" - No it isn't, but that's irrelevant. This isn't a case of simply airing the episode filmed for season 2 in season 3 with a new theme. Going by what Musso says in the tommy2net interview, prts of the episode (how big those parts are we don't know) have been re-shot to get around the problems that originally prevented the episode from being aired. It may have the same production code because parts of the original episode have been re-used but it is being shown during season 3 which makes it a season 3 episode.
 * "little miss show-it-off" - For a start, I'm a mister, as has been pointed out previously. Please, be civil in your tone. I suggest you read Civility.
 * "Disney can air any episode they want even if it's a Season 2 and it's Season 3" - That's true but if it is being aired during season 3 then it's a season 3 episode, unless there is a clear indication that it is a special, which there hasn't been. Think about it, how many programs in their initial run air season 1, season 2, season 3, then a single episode that they forgot to air from season 2 then go on to season 4? It makes no sense. Assuming that it's a season 2 episode based on what you have provided, including what appears to be original research is original research itself.
 * "THAT'S ROCKET SCIENCE" - Actually, not it's not. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. Sorry for calling you a miss (that was my mistake). I'll be more civil next time. I'll get more facts before posting anything else. I'm really sorry. Next time I'll open a discussion about it. You're right, thanks for the help, I'm sorry. - Alec2011 (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to hijack this conversation but I'm curious. When it comes to something as minute as a production number, I don't believe there's a SINGLE online source left that meets Wiki's "reliable source" criteria. Every listings site (TVGuide, Zap, Titan, etc.) has removed production numbers from its information. They don't include them on Disney Channel MediaNet's publicly accessible pages. So where DO you go to verify that info? Seems to me that every last remaining RS for that info has evaporated. So, do you take them out now? I see you don't have one for "He Could Be The One," either. (It's 331, by the way)

I've been in pro journalism longer than Miley Cyrus has been alive. My info is not obtained or distributed willy-nilly. I've been told before "We're not saying your info isn't right, it's just not reliable." That statement alone negates a great deal of the credibility of the entire Wikipedia project -- coming right out and saying "you can probably find the correct info elsewhere."Burg44 (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No original research
The edits that you made here and here are unacceptable as they constitute original research. You need a citation from a reliable source that specifically states that "Uptight (Oliver's Alright)" is the re-shot version of "No Sugar, Sugar". The file that you uploaded only mentions season 2. It does not even mention season 3, let alone "Uptight (Oliver's Alright)". --AussieLegend (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How is this original research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DC-premieres-09-09.pdf it CLEARLY shows that: under the Hannah Montana section: Hannah Montana // 2-23 // Uptight (Oliver's Alright) // P // 09/20/2009 // 07:30 PM. I'm also going with what YOU SAID about it being the RE-Shot episode for SEASON 3 as you CLEARLY said. If it doesn't say that in the reference, take it out like you usually do. All we know it's the same prod. code as it's "Uptight (Oliver's Alright)" the clearly re-shot version of the episode. - Alec2011 (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you actually bothered to follow the numerous links I've provided to No original research?Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
 * Note especially the second paragraph. The schedules you've presented are not publicly available and you've presented no citation that directly supports the claims that you've made. Your assumption that "Uptight (Oliver's Alright)" is the re-shot version of "No Sugar, Sugar" based on the fact that they have the same code (2-23) is a specific type of original research called "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". Please follow the wikilink for further explanation. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's not my assumption that "Uptight (Oliver's Alright)" is the re-shot version of "No Sugar, Sugar" that's YOUR assumption. I quote: "The name and airdate are both wrong. The season 2 episode is called "No Sugar, Sugar" and never aired. "Uptight (Oliver's Alright)" is clearly a season 3 episode because season 2 has ended and the episode is being shown in season 3. Duh! "No Sugar, Sugar" was going to be the last episode of season 2 which means there were no more episodes so this couldn't be a season 2 episode. It's really not rocket science." - Alec2011 (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Where, exactly, in that quote (which you've taken out of context) do I say anything about it being a re-shot version of the episode? Remember, this was a discussion precipitated by your edits that assumed that "Uptight (Oliver's Alright)" is the re-shot version of "No Sugar, Sugar". If you're going to resort to such puerile attempts to avoid acknowledging your error, I don't intend continuing discussion of this. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I put the wrong quote I apologize for that, you said it here: "The name could've changed" - The point that you seem to be missing is that the name wasn't changed for season 2. "Uptight (Oliver's Alright)" is the name of a new episode that has been re-shot for season 3. Remember when I chged the Season 2 episode because the source says Uptight (Oliver's Alright) #223 and you reverted it saying it's the Season 3 version? I'm sorry I put the wrong quote. Please, I'm just trying to get this figured out, right now it's only us two doing this discussion, I would like to work this out. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What I said there was based on an assumption of good faith that you actually had information in your possession that the episode was a re-shot episode. Apparently all you had was a production code. Of course, none of this negates the fact that your edits preceded the discussion in which that statement was made. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry for what I said. For all we know, this is a Hannah Montana episode S2 or S3 we do not know. Here's all the info we have. According to the source it's the S2 episode renamed, however according to Mitchel, the episode was re-shot. It could be the name for the Season 3 episode just an unknown prod. code. So from what I see this episode could be both ways, because of the interview with Mitchel changes the story. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as Wikipedia is concerned, all we have are two unrelated episodes. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean No Sugar, Sugar is unreleated to Uptight (Oliver's Alright) and vise versa? What can we do about this? - Alec2011 (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's exactly what I mean. What can "we" do about it? Please see the second sentence of this subsection. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * so, just leave the Hannah Montana page the way it is? Should the season 3 episode be taken out? - Alec2011 (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I at least add the Prod. Code for Uptight (Oliver's Alright)? - Alec2011 (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you should leave the page as it is unless you have cited information to add. The season 3 episode is cited so there's no reason to remove at. As for the production code, you can add it if you have (how many times do I have to say this?) a citation from a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I cited Disney and the reliable source is the schedule sent out by Disney. - Alec2011 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alec, the schedule alone doesn't meet Wiki's RS criteria. It doesn't matter that it comes straight from Disney's cable listings manager (you and I both know it's the real deal), it matters where it can be publically found and how it gets there. My posting it on my site, or on Toon Zone doesn't qualify. My work is infallible but it's not subject to any sort of editing or fact-checking process. In fact, as I stated above I don't think there's ANY RS for Disney production numbers any more. The sites that ARE reliable (to Wiki's criteria) no longer care to get that detailed in the information they post.


 * I think the best that that can be attained is listing Uptight as a Season 3 episode with its 223 production number and somehow cross-reference No Sugar and Uptight to show the process of how one became the other.Burg44 (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:DC Logos?
There's no automatic entitlement to use historical logos- the fact they exist doesn't mean that they should be used in the article. Unless the logos themselves are of particular significance, they should not be used. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that other crap exists, but myself and others are doing our best to resolve the issue. Can you point to any other television stations that use logos in a similar way? J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You said "Most of the TV Networks on Wikipedia have they're past logo's as well, what's the difference there?". If there's no difference, could you show me them? J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the ABC page, only past logos under a free license/in the public domain are used- they are therefore not governed by our non-free content criteria. The TLC page used a single historical logo inline, and is a much better developed article, so is hardly an fair comparison, but its use does seem to be improper, and so I have removed it. Any more? J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You think this looks nothing like this? I am removing the images because they do not comply with our non-free content criteria. The fact the logos exist does not mean they have some kind of automatic right to be used. Instead, the use of each historical logo has to be justified- the logo itself must be of significance. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been discussion after discussion after discussion about appropriate use of non-free content. Your arguments would apply to any historical logo and, as I have said, there is by no means any sort of "automatic entitlement" to use historic logos. Please take a read of our non-free content guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Disney XD Original Movies
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Disney XD Original Movies. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Disney XD Original Movies. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Disney XD original films
Hey Alec. You asked at the Disney XD Original Movies talk page if that info should be merged with List of Disney XD original series. I just learned there's a page called List of programs broadcast by Disney XD, which already has everything from List of Disney XD original series listed there. I would suggest we change List of Disney XD original series to a redirect page that leads back to List of programs broadcast by Disney XD. Then I'd suggest we put the Disney XD Original Movies stuff on List of Disney XD original series as well. This would make one strong list out of three weaker ones. What do you think? — <font color="#C0C0C0">Hunter <font color="#595454">Kahn  ( c )  20:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bulleted list item