User talk:Alex 21/Archive 1

Reference Errors on 29 September
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) 00:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Once Upon a Time (season 4) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=627549696 your edit] caused a cite error (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%2F627549696%7COnce Upon a Time (season 4)%5D%5D Ask for help])

List of Doctor Who serials
Do not enter into an edit war. I do not need to cite 'problems'; they are a fact. Take it to the article's talk page if you have issues with my reverts. 09:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's already a section there about it. I notice that you haven't checked the talk page yourself, then. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Haven
How isn't IMDB a reliable source? JMichael22 (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a moment and read this. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Scorpion (TV series) reversion
Reversions are supposed to be for absolute vandalism. The general style guidelines don't have a section for synopsis so I'd guess plot is most accurate but there is no need to copy the introduction word for word. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply because it does not have a section for synopsis, that does not mean that you can apply your own rules to it, when an equally acceptable plot has been given. No proof of a copyright infringement was given either for a quote of the introduction that has been given in every episodes so far. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Gotham (Tv series) Ratings
Hello, I understand your edit. I don't understand why the ratings were changed back to the old way. It makes the page look too big. Once there is a second season, all of that data will move to a new page. A small list of overall season ratings will be put there and a link to the new page. Sleepy Hollow has the same set up I had put in place. It linked to each episode to the top. Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

TV Taste...
Hi Alex!

Just thought I'd pop by and say how good your TV taste is. Love the fact that you're a fan of Agents of SHIELD, also Agent Carter... as well as Doctor Who! Have you ever watched: 24 (TV series), Chuck (TV series), or even The Tomorrow People (U.S. TV series)? Some of my fave shows that link into the same genre of SHIELD/DW etc.

I've also starting watching Babylon (TV series)... my favourite tv show at the moment... as well as Agents oS though ;) It's a police focused comedy-drama, also focusing in on the politics. Such a good show.

And I'm guessing you've watched Marvel films? Which is your favourite? Have to say mine is on par with Captain America 2 & Avengers. Literally can't wait for Avengers 2.

Limbsaw ~talk~  23:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, Limbsaw! Thanks for that, and as do you, after having a look at your TV series list! I've definitely watched The Tomorrow People, 'twas a shame that they cancelled that early.


 * And aye, I've watched all of the Marvel movies, and now do so as soon as they come into the cinemas. I think that Guardians of the Galaxy is my current favourite, though that's bound to change, but I'm also highly partial to The Avengers. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials (wrp103)
I see you reverted my edits where I added the season/series numbers to the doctor section. Your reason was that the information was already there. This is true, but by adding the section numbers, the information became available at the TOC level. This made it much easier to find an episode by season/series-episode number. There is no easy index to take the reaser to a season. Please go to the version before your revert and look at the TOC to see what I mean.

I hope you will reconsider your reverts wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 04:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I saw your reason, and I stick by mine. Adding the season/series numbers is simply duplicate information - if they want this information, it's already in the Series Overview table. If they want to see what Doctor was in Season 23, it's there. If they want to know what episode #205 is, it's already there (though, I don't see how your edits help this). For example, one of the headers was "Tenth Doctor (Series 2-4)". What new information does this provide that does not already exist?


 * For further reference, please consider making a new section on my talk page when posting, instead of using an existing one, and if it's an issue about an article, please use the article's talk page, where I responded to you there. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:2015 television seasons
Category:2015 television seasons was recently discussed at WT:TV where it was agreed that seasons should not be added to the category until episodes had aired (not past tense) in 2015. Accordingly, the category should remain empty until 2015. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, why does the category exist (at least not until 2015)? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That was what was questioned. The category should not have been created so early. This is consistent with recent changes to MOS:TV, such as WP:TVUPCOMING. To summarise, we don't add years until episodes have aired in that year. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for the notification! AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Once Upon A Time Season 4
You are the one who should stop editing page with false information. As you can see from ABC site http://abc.go.com/shows/once-upon-a-time/episode-guide/ & from the picture of the script for episode 9 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bzr2kG8IEAEJA7a.jpg tweeted by the series writer and producer Adam Horowitz the name is "Fall" and the episode number is 9. Episode 8 was just longer than usual, not two episodes! That was bonus time from ABC. After tittle for 04x09 Adam Horowitz tweeted pictures for other episodes scripts: 04x10 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0fQroXCEAAiDcH.jpg:large 04x11 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1Y18i3CQAAtQsT.jpg:large 04x12 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2QrG0NIQAAcGHz.jpg:large 04x13 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3ZHruJIIAAnAVT.jpg:large The last tweet is from 26 november, so obviously there is no change to the numbers. Or you know better than Horowitz? I don't know why you are being so stubborn, but you should face the facts. When someone's wrong, he admit it & apologize, it's not that hard. Report me if you want, but i'm pretty sure i'm right about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nori4ka (talk • contribs) 06:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We have evidence from Secondary sources. Also the writers may not know completely. Adam said that Smash the Mirror would air at 7/6c but it didn't. It aired at its normal time of 8/7c. The sources we have provided are better and are more likely to be correct. Smash the Mirror is two episodes, its just when filming, they treated it like one episode because everything carries over. That is likely why they are labelled differently to the sources that we have provided.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 07:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Gotham (TV series) Edits
I do agree with the edits you did, however, the user at talk is not happy with all the edits. I did create a talk page for the shared IP address. Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Kiraroshi1976: Why don't you discuss the issue on Talk:Gotham (TV series) if you think I was incorrect.
 * AlexTheWhovian: I assumed you had read my notes and agreed with my edits. (Which is just a simple spelling issue, after all.) The only thing I am "unhappy" with is Kiraroshi1976 nagging me and now trying to get you to join in. 202.81.249.118 (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: reverts
Please see WP:PROD: "If anybody objects to the deletion ... the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." Before making bulk nominations like that, please check to see if sources exist. I know Wikipedia has an endless amount of episode articles with little evidence of notability, but it never hurts to check. These types of articles are better off being merged anyway—see WP:PM for that. 23W 00:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , also take note of what it says on the deletion notice: "Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page". Giving a one line sentence that goes against the legislation provided isn't really an explanation. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * @: ... but I did give an explanation: I explained that I added critical reviews in order to make it more than just plot. Even if I didn't, it's not required of me (as your quote has it), so your point is still moot, I'm afraid. 23W 00:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Laura Spender (actor)
I think each of the episodes' names should be in here filmograghy. Also TV.com and TV Guide lists episode names along with (IE: "What Goes Up Must Come Down" (S 2: Ep 19)). Do you think that it should be that way also? Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Arrow
Hello, you recently edited List of Arrow episodes, and augmented information, along with a reference, that is deemed unacceptable by Wikipedia. SpoilerTV is among the websites marked unverifiable. It may be prudent to take time and read the guide lines to proper sourcing. Thanks for being interested in making Wikipedia a place of knowledge! Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Check the history. I didn't add it, that was another user/IP user. I was simply correcting the format of the reference. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I realize that, and I didn't mean to condemn you. I was simply conveying that you were, for lack of a better term, guilty by association. It really is a mute point to correct an erroneous edit, but I applaud your effort. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

International broadcast
I actually addressed this in September when we were discussing series overview tables. The full discussion is archived here. There doesn't seem to be any opposition to using "International broadcast" as the section title when it only addresses international broadcasts. The MOS isn't a hard and fast rule, as was discussed here only six weeks ago. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, much thanks for that. I prefer to refer to the MOS unless there's an agreed discussion on it. I'll change it back. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Average UK Viewers - Atlantis
Hello, multiple times now you have reverted my edits to the "List of Atlantis episodes" page. You claim that we need a reliable source to show the averages when the individual episode ratings are listed merely a few scrolls below this table. You are the only person that I have come across who demands this, even the OFFICIAL WP:TVOVERVIEW doesn't specify a source is needed for the averages because some people (believe it or not) are capable of calculating a mean using their brains.

On a side note, if you are so irate about this Atlantis page not having a UK averages column, then why don't you have a problem with many other British TV shows which have the same table but nobody making a fuss about it, for example:
 * "List of Sherlock episodes"
 * "List of Miranda episodes"
 * "List of Call the Midwife episodes"
 * "List of Downton Abbey episodes"
 * "List of Doctor Who serials"
 * Many, many more ...

86.134.245.74 (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Many, many more" doesn't really contribute anything. You linked five articles, that's not a lot. And I don't bother with over half of those because I don't watch nor follow over half of those. "Calculating a mean using their brains" is original research - read up on your WP guidelines! And WP:TVOVERVIEW doesn't specify a source is needed? You need to read again! Here's an excerpt from WP:TVOVERVIEW:


 * "''If a television program has enough reliable sources to support viewership data, the overview should resemble the following:


 * {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" style="text-align:center"

! scope="col" colspan="2" rowspan="2" |Season ! scope="col" rowspan="2" |Episodes ! scope="col" colspan="2" |Originally aired ! scope="col" rowspan="2" colspan="2" |Average viewership (in millions) ! scope="col" | First aired ! scope="col" | Last aired | scope="row" bgcolor="#74E387"| | 1 | 26 | September 8, 2012 | June 15, 2013 | 3.2[1] | scope="row" bgcolor="#019386"| | 2 | 26 | September 13, 2013 | June 21, 2014 | 2.2[2]
 * }''


 * Table above - source provided. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "If a television program has enough reliable sources to support viewership data, the overview should resemble the following"


 * The above refers to ratings in general (which are all correctly sourced from BARB). Nowhere is it stated that you need a source to provide an average of the ratings that have already been sourced. Just so you know, I don't watch or follow the majority of those articles either!


 * 86.134.245.74 (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Notice how the [1] and [2] in the table represent cited references. And that line of text is for the overview table - meaning it's obviously for the averages in the series overview table. Not for the episode table. Else it'd be WP:TVEPISODES. Not WP:TVOVERVIEW. AlexTheWhovian (talk)


 * "If a television program has enough reliable sources to support viewership data"
 * Please read this again. The page(s) HAVE got enough reliable sources to support the viewership data. The individual episode ratings are listed below in the list of episodes. ALL of them are reliably sourced from BARB. I doubt ANY website/news site would publish an article stating the average ratings for Series 1 of Atlantis or Series 1 of The Musketeers. We'd be waiting for ages. In fact, unless it is an extremely popular TV show with a mass following, a don't think ANY website would promote this. We have the individual ratings. We have decent brains (I hope). Therefore we can calculate an average (using a CALCULATOR to ensure there is no mistakes). I really cannot believe that I am having an argument over an extra column in a table. Part of me thinks that you don't believe my calculations. Have you ever tried calculating a mean? (I hope you know how to) If so, make the calculation yourself. Even if I did find a source, it would probably be someone like me who has made their own calculation and written it on some document. If I were to make a website from scratch and write the series averages there, would that prove a reliable source?
 * P.S This is a genuine question and not rhetorical. Thanks!
 * 86.134.245.74 (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's amazing how often I have to repeat myself to you. The reliable source is not for single episodes! It's for average viewership! Hence, why it's in WP:TVOVERVIEW. "I doubt". "I don't think". A lot of speculation there. Oh, look, again I'll repeat myself: Calculations by yourself are NOT reliably sourced information! It is original research! Shall I send you a tape that has me repeating myself over and over again for you? You can't seem to grasp the simple. And your question: No. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Just in case
Hello ATW. Thanks for your post here It looks like it either got cut off mid-sentence or that you forgot to sign it. It isn't a big deal either way but I did want to let you know about it. Cheers and only a few more days to this years Christmas episode!! I think Nick Frost was born to play Santa :-) Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


 Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for your understanding
Hi A. I just wanted to say thanks. I know that some of this "when did they become the lead" stuff can be frustrating. In fact this is one of those debates where, if we were in a chat room, we might go back and forth over this and never get a definitive answer. For the most part the BBC pages about the Dr are used as a WP:RS but they can make mistakes as well. The new series makes things easier as each actor becomes the lead when his (or hers someday-heehee) name shows up in the opening credits. I hope that my edit summaries did not cause offense and I apologise if they did as that was not my intention. Happy 2 days into you New Year. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC).

Scorpion
Hey Alex, sorry that I told you I hated you. Could you please stop editing Scorpion's episode 16 summary? Thanks! ;-)


 * No, I cannot. That section is not to tell users what the upcoming episode is about. It's to tell users about what happened in the episodes after it aired. How can you summarize something that hasn't aired yet without copying it from another site? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm very sorry Alex. I barely saw your message. I removed my summary. Sorry. :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlpsparkleswift (talk • contribs) 11:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

Category:2015 American television series debuts
I take it then, that no objection will be made if this category be hidden for all the shows listed there, similar to Agent Carter then? Because I'd be willing to do this if you won't. Richiekim (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No objection at all. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. Only 2 shows have premiered so far in 2015. Richiekim (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've easily broken 3RR, with two reverts of the category and three reverts of the color scheme in 24 hours. There may still be time for you to respond to the above report and promise to wait for consensus in the future before reverting anyone else's change. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you'd notice, I ceased the edit warring, and took both discussions elsewhere - the first to my own talk page, and the second to the article's talk page. Both discussions have been settled. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You should have stopped the edit-warring after the second revert. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your experience with Wikipedia so far
Hello AlexTheWhovian,

I am conducting research about newcomers to Wikipedia and I was hoping to ask you some questions. I’ve noticed you’ve had some good activity recently. Is there any chance you have time in the next month to speak with me? If you are interested or have any questions, please email me at gmugar [at] syr.edu or leave a message on my talk page.

I hope to be in touch soon,

Gabrielm199 (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverts on Galavant
Hi again, I've reverted what you did because I have reason to believe that ratings do not have to be final ratings to be inserted into an article. Never have I seen before that someone removes fully sourced information regarding a TV rating; regarding both UK & US TV articles. What I was trying to explain in the edit summary was that: (million)" & "UK viewers (millions) Sourced directly from BARB". Thus meaning that any fully sourced ratings can be inserted, both overnight and final.
 * 1) All the episode lists I've seen across Wikipedia do not state "Final UK/US ratings", they only state things such as "US Viewers (millions)", "UK viewers
 * 1) On MOS:TV they do not state anywhere that ratings have to be final. They only state sourced ratings.

My point is that an overnight figure is better than nothing. Check the reference yourself, its properly edited, fully cited, linked properly, and I've even said in the edit history that once there is a final figure, please feel free to edit.

I wouldn't have such a problem with this if you actually gave me a WP MOS protocol that stated that the column was for final ratings only. If you can find that, feel free to comment back and I'll go back on my word.

And I don't want to come across like I'm attacking you, but I have a gut feeling that you reverted it because I commented about the whole Agent Carter colour scheme thing. If you did or didn't, I would never expect anyone to remove sourced information just because my comment was against your actions. I was only stating the MOS Wikipedia protocols... and it happened to be that your edit was against the rules... not my fault.

Thanks Limbsaw ~talk~  01:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - It is standard practice to use final ratings. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your faith in me that I'm immature enough to revert you simply because we had a disagreement elsewhere. I followed standard practice here, as you've now been given by a total of four editors. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI
Hi again A. I just saw that you used User:Ucucha/duplinks. Looks like a useful tool. I wanted to let you know that I too remove WP:OVERLINKs when I see them. However, I do give some leeway depending on the size of the article. If the article is a long one and an item is linked in the lede or the first section but then it isn't mentioned again until - oh lets say the ninth or tenth section - it can be okay to have the item linked again. That saves the reader from having to scroll and scroll and scroll to get back to the spot where the name is linked. This is not a hard and fast rule and is up to each editors discretion. In fact you don't have to follow it at all. I just thought I would post this as food for thought. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ascension edit war
The summary does not need redundant information that is already listed in the sidebar to be repeated again. What happened to "Assume good faith"? Reading over down this page, it would you seem get into many other edit wars rather than giving people the benefit of the doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.101.100 (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You say to not undo edits that do not appear to be vandalism, but they appear to be so to me. You are removing important information from the lead. You cannot use the excuse of it being repeat in the infobox, given that much more from the infobox is repeated in the main article, though in this case, it's from the lead. The infobox lists the important details, the article then expands upon these details. If you wish to remove something, discuss it with other editors first with a better reason. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Glee (season 6)
Hello, there is a current ongoing discussion revolving around the style of crediting writers for the TV series Glee, over on the | talk page. I thought you may be interested in voicing your opinion. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Though I don't watch the show, I will take a read over it and give my neutral opinion. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory (season 8)
Stop reverting my edits on The Big Bang Theory and replacing it with non-updated info and sources. Jatremitiedi (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You have been reverted by multiple users. Your edits contain sources that are poor and dubious. We stick to strong and reliable sources. Convert to revert from the status quo, and you may be up for edit warring. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials
You reverted my edits because I didn't "discuss it" first. Yet I did leave a message on the talk page, but you failed to reply. Nothing was ever "agreed", either. To my recollection it was your idea and yours only. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 15:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I said to leave a message on the talk page for everyone, for other contributing editors to reply to and discuss. It was my idea, agreed, but it was also agreed upon by other editors. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Constantine (TV series)
SORRY, I was just happy and the happynes got over me. I apologize, it wont happen againThe Ouroboros, the Undying, the Immortal (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)