User talk:Alex 21/Archive 18

Season's Greetings!
Alex Eng ( TALK ) 05:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, 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:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 08:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

American Gods - tv
I think that it's important that the article on the tv series makes it clear that Vulcan is both a new character and one created by the author of the book. Just being in the cast list doesn't convey that. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy holidays!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello AlexTheWhovian: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Doug Weller  talk 12:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Doctor Who
Give me a chance to actually put a citation in will you? Because it was The Times and printed (not online) I needed to source the ISSN. I've seen rounds leave rifles slower than that. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that you could have waited to add the content until you had a source to back it up. There is no rush. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"Timezones"
4:45 plus five hours (GMT to ET) is 9:45 ... It started on BBC One three-quarters of an hour after the special began airing on BBC America. Please show your work if you're going to correct me. I'll wait. 216.15.70.128 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Firstly, the special premiered in the UK at 5.45pm, which would have been the equivalent of 12.45pm ET. How was it 12.45pm? You just added five hours going from GMT to ET, except that you're meant to be subtracting it - GMT is GMT+0, ET is GMT-5. Please show your work if you're going to correct me. I'll wait. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 04:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No need. Except to say, the real reason I'm here. After drawing out your attitude in full. Thanks for repeating my words at the end there.
 * My original edit that you quickly removed was not intended to point out the hour, merely the day, as that was the extent of specificity of the pre-existing (and current) wording of the sentence being discussed. I was just pointing out that BBC America was also premiering it on the exact same day. You quickly took issue with respect to the hour of broadcast. OK, so I left it. No need to over turn any apple carts. Your name lends to your level of commitment here. So I figured that I needed to respect that. Territory and what-not, you understand.
 * And then ... I read your comment to User:The_joy_of_all_things above. Another quick correction about undue haste. When you yourself were too hasty. Do you see the irony? While you can presume that you may be correct, and the other may be wrong ... But what if ... what if ... Please, take your own advice and assume good faith; afterall, there is no deadline. Your sense of time is off, and I mean that in the wibbliest-wobbliest way possible. 216.15.70.128 (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You were incorrect, and now you are merely commenting on editors, not content. Your job on my talk page is done. Thank you, continue on. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 05:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just felt the urge to say this fun little tidbit: 9:45 is correct if you add AM to it and are talking about Pacific time. ;) Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 05:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So it would be! Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 05:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: 100 Things to Do Before High School
Keep an eye on that for a bit if you wouldn't mind. The IP from above is now stalking me there. The onus is on them to discuss, not me, but I find the whole thing bogus. They just want to cause more trouble. Thanks. :) Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 05:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Added it to my watchlist! How annoying this editor is. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 07:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I reported them to WP:AIAV, but an administrator refused to take action and to comment on it any further, so I raised a report over at WP:ANI if you want to add anything. It's under Trolling by 216.15.70.128. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 08:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I just look at his user talk page currently, not the others.
I think he's Game of Thrones fan because he easily accuse every user as "vandal". When he remove my message on his talk page, he accuse me as a "vandal" too.

IreneTandry (talk) 08:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * He accuses every editor that he disagrees with as a "vandal", regardless of the discussion that I had with him on that very topic, and he has a very WP:OWN-complex when it comes to articles that he is a major contributor to. Unfortunately, many of us have had to learn to just brush it off. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 08:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I see him accused Taloson as vandal when Taloson give the true information. I see Taloson is good contributor. IreneTandry (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Class (2016) Regular Cast Revision
Apologies for the edit revision. While Jordan Renzo (Matteusz) is not listed in the opening credits as are the others he has been treated as main cast by the BBC in a number of publicity mediums and in features of the show. Firstly he is listed as regular cast on the BBC website, Secondly he is featured as one of the shows main cast on its own portal , Thirdly he is credited in all eight episodes as are the other main cast , Lastly in publicity tours of the show he is featured as one of the main cast. If you feel I have made a mistake in my research I am happy to discuss the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.170.33 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Per the documentation at Template:Infobox television, the "starring" parameter is "Organized by broadcast credit order, with new main cast added to the end of the list", and "Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show". That is, while other sources may list him as such, he was never credited in the main cast in the episode, and that is what counts. However, a note could be added to Renzo's cast entry in article using efn, noting that he was advertised as a series regular despite never being credited as such. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I will had the note as suggested. I apologise for any confusion on my part due to the multiple inconsistencies in BBC sources regarding his role/ Thank you for your help.
 * I've now implemented this with three of the sources you provided (IMDb is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia per WP:CITINGIMDB) - if you feel any edits to this are necessary, please do contribute. Thank you. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this, I believe this is now correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.170.33 (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

DSC cast formatting
What do you mean here by the "correct format"? In my previous edit, I explained how formatting it all on one line was per the guidance at WP:BULLETS and WP:TVCAST. —  fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  05:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the description for a cast member or character wraps around onto a new line, then it is placed into its own paragraph. This method has been used on multiple and many television articles; if you disagree, you should take it to the article's talk page. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 05:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't say anything there at the time since I both started the most-recent discussion on that talk page, and thought you might've been referring to something when you said "correct format". No worries  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  18:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Plot script
Hey Alex. I think you're plot script could use some tweaking. I ran it on The Abominable Bride and it tagged it as too long for WP:FILMPLOT but then said it was fine per WP:TVPLOT. So something seems to be off there. Additionally, I didn't know if it would be possible for it to look at what infobox is used on the article to see what range is used, like as if/else statements. So: If the film infobox is used, then it is FILMPLOT range. If television episode is used, then it should be the range that ultimately is decided from the MOS discussion. And then if neither of those are used, it would be the range for use in the episode table (or conversely, this last one could look for the use of episode table templates). Just a couple of notes to consider, as I'm sure you were going to update anyways after the MOS discussion concludes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * At the moment, the script reads the prose summary and automatically assumes that it's a film plot, hence it's acceptability per WP:FILMPLOT, where WP:TVPLOT is used for the episode summaries. I can easily determine what sort of infobox is used (episodes have a background colour in the header row, whereas film infoboxes do not), so I'll definitely use that to tweak it. I'll tweak it today with the current limit, see how it works, and then update the limits again once the plot discussion has concluded. Thanks for the tips! Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 01:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Great that should hopefully help. Because I notice too when I ran it as I stated, I got an external window for the FILMPLOT check and then one for the TVPLOT check. So it might be less intrusive if you make it to run only once, given the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All done and tested. Determines the type of article the script is being run on via the type of infobox being used, then 1) allows a limit of 500 for episodes and 700 for films, 2) no longer runs a test for episode tables per WP:TVPLOT if they don't exist on the table, and 3) now provides just one external alert, summarizing the whole check. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 01:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks for the work as always Alex! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!


Happy New Year! AlexTheWhovian, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 08:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks without header}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, AlexTheWhovian!


Happy New Year! AlexTheWhovian, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

– Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 12:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hey AtW
Happy New Year to you! I just saw that Sherlock's "The Six Thatchers" (which I enjoyed immensely) was seen by 8.1 million and that is just the UK viewing figures. As the 11th Dr would say - YOWZA!! :-) So even if the post you responded to here Talk:Sherlock (TV series) had been correct you can bet that ways would be found to adapt everyone's schedule to film another story or three. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And to you, Marnette! Sherlock was an amazing way to ring in the new year - that many viewers is insane, but I guess that's what happens when you don't air a complete season for three years. Moffat, Cumberbatch and Freeman have all said they'd love to keep it going for as long as they can, so it might just keep going, even if seasons are now three years apart. Guess we'll find out by 2020! Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 01:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yet another revert
I would be grateful if you would point me to where in WP:MOSTV it says that the cast list section of a television article is strictly restricted to characters defined as 'main', and also from where the 'main cast' of Vikings (tv) is being sourced since the information appears to be unverifiable, please? Thanks in anticipation IanB2 (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have replied to the duplicate discussion you created at Talk:List of Vikings characters. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 00:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Problems with another user
I'm having an issue with one of the users on Reign (season 4). I removed the episodes table because the only source was IMDb which is not reliable. B.Davis2003 keeps on re-adding the episodes table saying that the sources are reliable. Would you be willing to help resolve the issue? 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No problems. I've reverted the editor, and posted both an automatic and specific message on their talk page. If they continue to revert regardless of this, and not open a discussion, then a report may be in order. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 08:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There were other RELIABLE sources on that table besides IMDB. B.Davis2003 (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the post on your talk page. The only source that wasn't IMDb was The Futon Critic, which listed only the dates (specifically, dates for TBA episodes, not dates for specific episodes) - this is not enough information to create an episode table upon. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 08:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

script-formatdates issue
Hi,

I just fixed an episode header that was modified by the script-formatdates. I think it wrapped too many things:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Very_Peculiar_Practice&type=revision&diff=758579955&oldid=756165380 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggaughan (talk • contribs) 09:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Apologies about that. I've fixed things slightly further, per this edit, given that  shouldn't exist in Episode table (as OriginalAirDate in that template is only for the width of the column), and OriginalAirDate in Episode list should use Start date (as that parameter is for the episode air dates).  Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 09:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Teen Wolf - Last Two Episodes Edit
Those are the oficial names of the episodes but I don't know how to add the source, please do it for me. Here it is: http://www.teenwolf.com.br/2017/01/05/divulgados-titulos-dos-tres-ultimos-episodios-da-6a-temporada-parte-a/

Yes, it's brazilian but it is the main Teen Wolf website of Brazil.

Here is the translation of the plots:

6x07: Scott and Liam make an attempt to capture a Ghost Rider; Malia and Peter try to find a way into the Wild Hunt. 6X08: Scott, Lydia and Malia decide to attack the crevasse and rescue Stiles; Liam, Hayden and Mason make a pact with Theo to discover Douglas's plan.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.161.144.78 (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but that is a fan site, and hence is unreliable and cannot be used here on Wikipedia. Also, we do not copy-and-paste summaries, as that is a violation of the copyright policies of Wikipedia; we wait until the episode has aired and then summarize the events of the episodes in our own words. Thank you. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ?

One Tree Hill characters
If you went back over the history of the discussions, it was agreed upon that character notes would be used below the table in stead of an episode count. As for recurring characters, many other TV show articles have a table for their recurring characters, I updated the table to what you all wanted so why isn't One Tree Hill eligible for one? B.Davis2003 (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Character notes should not be used, nor episode counts, as it is, as I stated, a violation of WP:TVCAST: "The cast listing should not contain an episode count, e.g. (# episodes), to indicate the number of episodes in which the actor/character appeared. If an actor misses an episode due to a real world occurrence, such as an injury that prevents them from appearing, this info can be noted in the character's description or "Production" section with a reliable source." Stating which episodes an actor and their character do not appear in has no encyclopedic content. You also do not have consensus to add a recurring table, as you have been reverted multiple times and a discussion was also created on the topic, stating how and why it was not necessary. Do not base your articles on how other articles do it. If you continue to reinstate it, you will be reported for edit-warring. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was fine for the last 5 years, why it's an issue now is beyond me when thousands of articles on here use the same method! I will be making one change to the table you reverted as it should be listed in order of when the character first received star billing. B.Davis2003 (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Again: If you think that the table should exist in the face of reverting editors, begin a discussion on the article's talk pages with your reasons as to how the table would contribute and be beneficial to the article, and not simply "because others do it". On that latter sentence, you are correct. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Joker (character) nominated for deletion
You are invited to take part at the deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Joker (character).  Dark Knight  2149  23:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Prison Break (season 5)
You had no right to revert and leave that message given the reference was updated with a URL inline with WP:PAYWALL, if you can't use it, that's your problem, it's the TV business expect WP:PAYWALL refs. You are just a controlling editor that likes to put their two cents into everything or anything that they come across. Also the white text on dark colored ep headings don't print well and should be banned as this wiki should be printable. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You had no right to edit-war over this content after being reverted by multiple different editors. A discussion was held, and determined that WP:PAYWALL did not apply to this situation. And if the colour complies with WP:COLOR as being AAA Compliant (which it did, then there is no need to change it, printing issues regardless. ALso, any editor is allowed to add their view to the content of an article, it doesn't matter where or how often. If you continue to edit-war without discussion, then I will personally file a report against you for edit-warring, and depending upon the result, you may be blocked from editing, no matter your "intentions". Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What discussion??? There is none on Prison Break (season 5). How the hell can you selectively ignore WP:PAYWALL for TV articles????? And printing is important and was never considered when WP:COLOR was written making it's points mute. This site has a Printable version option which is currently useless due to the white on dark header issue. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * At the WikiProject for Television, with experienced editors of the project. If you wish to start a discussion at the talk page of WP:COLOR concerning printing, then be my guest. Until then, you have no guideline to base your changes upon, and WP:COLOR remains as the guideline to base background colours upon. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 00:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All you need to do is print it out to see the header issue. WP:COLOR only was written for online devices.  The only mention of print is in terms of blind devices which don't use color. WP:COLOR doesn't cover color/bw printing. Also where's the Prison Break (season 5) discussion you speak of and your reasons for ignoring WP:PAYWALL???!!!????119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion link. IP, PAYWALL does not apply in this instance because a general reader does not have the simple ability to gain access to the source you are providing, as it needs log in credentials, not a subscription. The purpose of PAYWALL is to allow sources such as an online article from the archives of The New York Times that can only be accessed through a subscription to their newspaper. A reader has the ability to gain access to this info if they choose. With the source you are attempting to add, that is not the case. Hence it should be added. And WP:NORUSH. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Call the Midwife
THANK YOU for removing the hideous table from Call the Midwife! I loathe those tables; are we on a campaign to get rid of them? --Drmargi (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about other editors, but I know I am. I'm fine with them on "List of Characters" articles (within reason, obviously), but I attempt to remove them on main article whenever possible. Especially ridiculous ones like this. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 15:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Cast section is next, where we can discuss this, among other things that have been questions on the TV project talk recently. Just trying to finish up a few snags in proposed wording for the updates to TVPLOT. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Neelam Kinarey
Hello AlexTheWhovian. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Neelam Kinarey, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. - GB fan 18:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All we need to create an article now is an infobox and an eight-word lead. Nice. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to be snarky; was politely notifying you. The article had information and references (not good references, though). I took a bit of time to do WP:BEFORE just now. As a result, I have removed all of the existing references, which either pointed to generic pages or referred to a different TV series. I have added one ref that links to information about the subject of the article. There is reason to believe that the article's subject is notable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "The article had information and references" - no it doesn't. There is no article. There's an infobox. That is by no means at all an article. It completely fails the general notability guide. So, now the article has one reference. Nevertheless, I note the declination of the speedy deletion, and have nominated it at AfD instead. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 03:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually am info box all by itself is enough to survive speedy deletion. You tagged the article with A1. That is one of the easiest criterion to work with. If you can read what the page had on it and understand what it is talking about, it does not apply. I looked at what wss on the page and determined it was about a fairly new Urdu language, Pakistani romantic family drama tv show. On top of that the article also told me who stars in the show. Who directs it. Who the editors and cinematographers are. Even though it was mainly just an info box I knew a lot about it. I don't think it will survive AfD but it survived speedy deletion. - GB fan 12:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

On referencing episode summaries...
You are right that normally you can use the primary source as the reference for a plot summary, but this is because it is usually hard to find other sources for recaps. WP:WAF (per MOS:PLOT) suggests that if that sourcing does exist, it should be added to avoid relying on any interpretation of the primary source from a editor. --M ASEM (t) 01:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Over two years as an editor on Wikipedia, and I've never seem episode summaries referenced/sourced. We should avoid relying on personal interpretation, yes (much like how the first episode's summaries initially stated that the parents were the Baudelaire parents) as that would constitute original research, but directly listing the events of the summary without interpretation should be acceptable. This might be a good thing to quickly raise at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Plot section, before it closes. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sherlock viewing figures
The BBC said themselves the finale figures were 9.5. The total is not based on overnight viewings, while we still have to wait for Barb figures it's still more accurate Kuriboh500 (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Per the source: "Around 5.9m tuned in to watch Benedict Cumberbatch in The Final Problem, down from the 8.1m who watched the first episode on New Year's Day." We use overnight figures for the first week, and then final figures once they are available. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 09:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Extremis
What is the URL of the actual source that explicity states the name 'Extremis' on it, because wouldn't that be better to put down as the source confirming the title on the article than the Cultbox source, which does not mention Extremis? TedEdwards (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to guess you didn't read my of edit summary that stated: "The source provided spans multiple pages. Please advance to the page that describes this particular episode, and you will find the title."? Because if you had, you would find that the Cultbox source does indeed mention "Extremis", on the fourth page. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 00:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I didn't notice there was more than one page on the source, but I can assure you that I did read your edit summary. TedEdwards (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Taboo (2017 TV series)
You are wrong with the US airdate and rating removal. The production company is based in both the US and the UK, so both airing details should be shown. Please revert. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources, if you please. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Scott Free Productions clearly states they are based in both the UK and the US. Also the distributor Sonar Entertainment is only a US company. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Scott Free Productions is a British film and television production company, straight from the article, and Sonar is the distributor, not the production company. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 03:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Read further Scott Free Productions has offices in London and Los Angeles. 101.98.165.25 (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"Scott Free London was set up by award-winning film-maker Ridley Scott in early 2010 to develop and produce UK-originated theatrical features and high-end television drama. 2017 will see the launch of TABOO, an 8×1-hour period drama written by Steve Knight and co-produced by and starring Tom Hardy for BBC One in the UK and FX in the US, with Sonar Entertainment handling international distribution." Do you not think the copy should be modified to Scott Free London? I am copying this thread to the article Talk page. — Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh &#124; Buzzard &#124; 10:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with and would add that the London website reads,

Ugh
Hi AtW. You may have seen that this nonsense has come from someone who is IP hopping. I've been RBIing - without the "block" since I'm not an admin :-) - and I think you have been doing the same. If it gets too frustrating we can always go to RFPP even though they are hitting several different articles. My DVDs of Sherlock, Class and Endeavour are in the mail. I haven't seen the last two and am looking forward to seeing them. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, Marnette. I noticed the IP. If they continue to be disruptive, then I may file a report against them at WP:AN3 or a similar administrative forum. RFPP would be helpful if they were sticking to only one article. I would never have known about the editor if they hadn't reverted my clean up of the redlinks throughout the classics episodes articles. Enjoy your DVDs - Class was astounding! Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)