User talk:Alex 21/Archive 6

Colours
Wow, I didn't even realise that was a thing. I just picked it based on the colour from list of colours that looked closest to the colour of Randy the purple puppet. I couldn't really find which was supposed to be the definitive tool for picking colours based on the pages you referenced in the edit, although the thread was quite long and I only scanned it. The whole idea seems to be quite a curious area for debate outside basic legibility, hopefully not one I need to bother with too much, and I don't see the sense in being precious about it here, so I think I'll let your changes stand, although if there's an approved colour that's more purple than pink I'd prefer that.Gudzwabofer (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome to change it by playing around with colours on the Snook website - as long as the background and foreground colours are WCAG 2 AAA Compliant (i.e. they have a contrast ratio greater than 7). Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  02:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for that link, I'll be sure to check it out sometime, but for today I think I'm done wiking.Gudzwabofer (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No problems! Unfortunately, not all of the colours on the List of colours page are compliant with WP:COLOR. There's an existing list of 14 colours here that are already contrasting enough, if any of the purples are a better fit for the article in question. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  03:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Mannix -- list of episodes
Please do not remove the production numbers from the list of episodes on the Mannix page. They are valuable information that people sometimes access and there is no reason to remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jompaul17 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then put the production numbers in the season tables in the season articles, don't completely revert everything done concerning the transclusions from the individual season pages - there's no need to have two different listings of the episodes. Though if they're not in the season articles, it makes you wonder if they actually are the production codes? Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  02:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not have all day to put information back onto a page when someone goes in there and removes it. Who are you to remove this information unless you verify that it was incorrect (good luck with that, because it was correct). If you need to sit around all day and re-format Wikipedia pages, then you should make sure you do not remove information. The production numbers have been there for years -- literally. They were, and are useful information to fans of this series who consult this page when viewing episodes.

Also -- I see you are a 20 year old "Computer Science Student" who has taken it upon himself to format the television pages of Wikipedia in his "spare time" with thousands of edits in just over a year. That says it all -- not a fan of the series for which you removed information, just on some sort of "trip" to feel important -- a classic example of someone with too much time on their hands who is interested in form over function. Who cares about content so long as the colors and formatting are right?

Do not remove useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jompaul17 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, learn how to sign and indent your responses, and place your responses under the correct heading, else your edits on this talk page may/will be reverted. It's not up to me to add the correct information either - what I'm doing is implementing the correct formats for television series, as per dictated int e very guidelines behind Wikipedia. I need not be a fan of the series at all to be able to edit the page - where you got that idea from, I have no idea. If the information was both correct and so important, then why is it not listed in the tables for the respective season pages? You've now been reverted by another editor - obviously, this isn't me just going around and doing what I want, 'ey? I'm also not sure how my age and what I do is important here. The fact that I've accumulated so many edits in the span of a year shows the obvious level of how important they've been. Continue to revert, and you may be warned and/or blocked for violating WP:3RR.  Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  02:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, I didn't indent properly -- that goes to the level of importance at which you place your time and effort, fairly perfectly.

So, html mark-up language comes up when I put these responses in, and I really don't have the time to debug this right now, nor go back to editing the mark-up language. I really do have better things to do.

Your being 20 years old and putting so much time and effort into formatting Wikipedia pages was a hopeful attempt to put some perspective into the discussion. I am a fan of a 40+ year old series for which the order of production of episodes matters to the fans. How would you like it if someone went in and edited your, what is it, "Dr. Who" page for form over function -- just destroying edits that were there for years and which fans accessed -- for the sake of formatting?

I see you got a similarly-minded buddy to revert the page back, followed by a threat to me. Alliance with a buddy, followed by a threat, was pretty much what I expected. It fits your profile. Actually, I guess there were multiple threats, since I received the "proper formatting on a talk page" threat. Two threats in one day!

As for the number of edits, quantity does not ensure quality. The opposite is often true, especially in places like Wikipedia. That's sort of the same thing as saying that "I wrote hundreds of line of code a day?" So what? Does it work or did you make things worse?

Anyone 20 years old, and a self-professed student, spending so much time doing formatting on Wikipedia seems to be on a mission to feel important for relatively small matters of consequence -- that is why I tried to introduce that perspective into the discussion.

I'm sure that kind of person exists on Wikipedia -- probably even as a little club.

But, I thought the original purpose of Wikipedia was to provide correct and useful information to the public. If that is the case, then there should be some deference given to experts on specific subject matter -- those who do not have the time, nor inclination, to produce zillions of formatting edits in a year's time, but who deeply care about the content of specific pages. I would hope Wikipedia would want -- and defend -- those people.

All you had to do was keep the column with the production numbers. It was there -- for years. It was useful. And it fit the series, which was filmed out of the sequence in which it aired.

But, when someone is counting edits like skins, they clearly don't care about the content, nor, apparently, the people who care about the subject matter. They don't care about getting it right. It's all about them. And that is beyond sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jompaul17 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * WOW. You just go on and on, don't you? I don't care if you're 40+. I wouldn't care if you were 10 or 70. These edits are to comply with the guidelines of episode tables for television shows that EVERY OTHER PAGE has to comply with! But you can't seem to get that in your thick head. ANd for your information, if you take a look at the, you'll find that this exact same type of edit occurred earlier this year! Yes, the whole editing form-over-function that had been in place for years. So get your head out of your rear and stop thinking we're just attacking the Mannix page.
 * And by the way, I didn't make an alliance with ANYONE. They did their actions on their own accord! Check my recent contributions, and see if I posted ANYWHERE to get his help. What's that? I didn't? OH, bother for you! If you cared about the page, you'd care about it getting the proper formatting, colour tracking, and how shit the page looked before. You've given no source that these production codes are correct. If you want them so bad, add them in yourself. Else, I don't care. You can't just "keep" them, because they BELONG TO TWO DIFFERENT TABLES. Are you really so thick that you can't understand that? YOU try keeping that one column, AND fitting the transclusions in. What? You can't? OH, bother.
 * Your level of "argument" for this page is what's beyond sad here. This discussion is being archived, I can't deal with stuck-ups like you. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  01:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Killjoys and Dark Matter
Lets talk this out. I think you and I are getting carried away. Do you have IRC? If not, is there some chatroom we can both go to? Mylifeishard (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No. We can talk here. For one article, Wikipedia does not support the addition of fansites and unofficial websites. For the other, there's no need to add another source that states exactly the same as the first one, no matter where it's from. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  06:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok thats fine no need for the fansite. I would disagree on the second point, since the added source just provides more information. If you check the syfy source, there is more information on it. Also, it helps to have multiple sources. Also note I did add the information such as title and date into the reference tag like you had it Mylifeishard (talk) 06:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If it provided more information, then said information would be being added to the article, but all that you're adding is the reference. Hence, no further information is being provided. I've checked the references - there's nothing new between the two. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  06:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The killjoys reference for syfy definitely has more than the deadline reference. Again, I'm not saying get rid of the deadline reference, I'm just saying keep both sources. It is true though the Dark Matter syfy reference doesn't have anything more than the deadline reference. I still don't see what the problem is with having more than one reference. Is there a wikipedia policy saying not to have too many sources? I could see having 5 or 6 sources as too many, but two sources is very common on wikipedia.Mylifeishard (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources are fine, when the extra information is actually being added to the article - this is not the case here. Obviously, this extra information you're mentioning isn't important enough to add to the article? All that's being added is the source, which is not unique to any information in the article in question. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  07:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, the dark matter second reference can go since it doesnt add any extra information (even though its a more reliable source about the subject matter). For killjoys, that does have more information and I will add it to the article. Mylifeishard (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Mylifeishard (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright its all done. I removed the second refernce from dark matter and moved the killjoys reference to the reception section and added the extra information it has to the article Mylifeishard (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

List of American Dragon Jake Long episodes
I have an IP removing the series overview table at List of American Dragon: Jake Long episodes with no explanation. If you'd like to look, feel free to jump in, because I'm at my revert limit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Typical IP user who believes that they're correct without any need of explanation. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  17:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I reported them at ANV already. But yeah, just watch yourself too with your revert limit and such. And about the Mannix episode person above, if they keep going at it WP:DENY, and if you feel they are giving you personal attacks, report them. (WP:NPA) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Already WP:DENYed them - I have you to thank for that, since I saw that's how you dealt with them. And I'm about to retire for the night, so I shouldn't exceed my revert limit - hopefully by the time I wake up, they'll be dealt with. It may even be a case of needing to leave it so neither of us exceed our limits, then when the editor is blocked, revert back to the correct version. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  17:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Supplemental
You really could have done that yourself instead of tagging... 16:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably, but I didn't know what you wanted to add there. (Granted, just adding "supplemental" by itself didn't really occur to me, as I'm one for information). Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  16:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to extremely apologize to you about my reckless editing.
Dear AlexTheWhovian,

Hi, it's Jp113040. Listen, I'm just sending you this message to extremely apologize about my disruptive editing, and also about Wikipedia rules about colors, it doesn't matter if it match any sort of DVD cover artwork, so anyway I now realized about following your instructions by choosing any kind of color that fits the description. So, I feel really terribly sorry about everything I said to you that night I sent you that risky message about mentioning you any nonsense of changing colors on multiple articles on Wikipedia, especially with the TV shows seasons. Well, anyway I'm really sorry about the risky things I said to you last week, and I hope you'll forgive me, and this will never ever happen again, and I give you my word, thanks!

Jp113040 12:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Robot
That analysis of Mr. Robot wasn't worth saving despite your efforts to tune it up a bit. It was a few sources laced together with a lot of opinion. I'm glad you don't mind my giving it the heave-ho. --Drmargi (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, that's why I initially removed it in the first place before being reverted by the original editor. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  12:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please join the discussion on the Talk page before making another wholesale delete of important material that addresses the derivative nature of the artwork. The creator himself has explicitly said his work is derivative. Articles about derivative artwork frequently address this topic. So, it belongs in the article, and it should not be crudely removed without discussion and consensus first.
 * All of the objections raised so far to my edits have been fully addressed and put down. Barring new ones, there is no reason to delete this new section.Trumpetrep (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Moonshiners (TV series) season colours
Hi AlexTheWhovian, can you monitor and if necessary change the colours on the Moonshiners TV series article? Thanks. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  09:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Message not received.
Dear AlexTheWhovian,

Hi, it's me, Jp113040. Listen, um. Why you didn't get my message that I sent to you a couple days ago?

Jp113040 21:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp113040 (talk • contribs)
 * Got it. Apology accepted. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  09:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello again AlexTheWhovian, thank you for changing season colours for Moonshiners. Although a lot of TV series/seasons articles could do with colour changes, here are some I noticed recently: List of Benidorm episodes, People Just Do Nothing, All at Sea (TV series), Marooned with Ed Stafford and Monsters and Mysteries in America : thanks again. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No problems. I'll get around to them soon enough - there's also an entire list at Category:Episode lists with invalid line colors. Or, if you wish to do them yourself, take a look at my User Page, and you'll see instructions under "Current Project". Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  05:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't known what the colour rules were until now, just noticed they were being changed and that you knew how to do it. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made&#32;to Once Upon a Time (TV series): you may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Hermionedidallthework (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Service award templates
Service award templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Revert
As a whovian too, can I ask why did u revert my changing in the Mr. Robot page. I don't do changes in enwiki, mostly in trwiki. You can check my userpage in trwiki. Have a nice day. Lmattdavidsmithl (talk) Lmattdavidsmithl (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The information is already in the episode table. It's not required for the lead with a new source. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  14:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Episode table references
Just wondering, is it possible to make the ref link actually white? That may look better, and I don't think it would be too confusing for readers if it was. Just curious. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the very first thing I thought of, but unfortunately, it's not possible. Here is the post of me asking the very same question. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  06:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And there we are. It does look better though, now that you reformatted the square to be less "below" the ref. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

color removal of lines on Inside West Coast Customs
why are you removing this? I am following the original editor's scheme. Furthermore, it makes tables easier to read. please contribute, not take away.
 * The article was being tagged under Category:Episode lists with invalid top colors due to colour contrast issues. Please familiarize yourself with WP:COLOR and Template talk:Infobox television season, and if you need distinguishing colours, use Episode table to colour the header row, instead of the table rows. Also, you need to sign your posts with ~ . Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  12:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Episode table parts for List of Benidorm episodes
Hi AlexTheWhovian, I changed the colours on the List of Benidorm episodes article but I'm not sure whether the 2009 special, 2010 Christmas special and 2012 Sport Relief sketch would be better off as those Episode table/parts you made the season specials on the Moonshiners article. But if I do this should the colour of the 2009 special be changed to series 2 colours? If you agree I'll make the changes, just tell me what needs doing, cheers. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
May I point out that you haven't exactly done anything to help, either. You are the one who started this edit war. I altered the title, and then you kept changing it back, without going to the talk page. If you have anything further to say about my edits, then I suggest you take the matter to the talk page. See you there. --Bold Clone (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't see anything to support your claim that the episode title is "placeholder". How can an official title released with the episode's official premiere be considered "placeholder"? It's one thing to claim two different but valid sources are being used, but you're not even doing that. Also, to throw things up even more, I've found this, where the episode is referred to as "Series 9 Prologue". --Bold Clone (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here also uses "Season 9 Prologue" and "New Series Prologue." --Bold Clone (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, so since I apparently "started" it, which I far from did, that gives you permission to as well. Grow up kid LOL. Oh, and top job on hitting five reverts. Insta-block if this was at ANI. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  02:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If I may point out, you are the one who disagreed with my initial edit, and you are the one who chose to continually revert my change instead of moving to the talk page, as you should have done per policy, which you seemed to value so highly in other circumstances. Contrary to your claim of being "far from" starting an edit war, I believe you were the instigator, since you apparently had to have the last word. Honestly, editors like you are the primary reason I avoid working here, since you frequently seem to care only for your own opinion. You cite all sorts of rules and policies as if they automatically validate whatever stance you're trying to press and thus allow you to skip past the whole "talk things out on the talk page" deal, since you apparently know better than the opposition. As for me, I was standing my ground against a stubborn editor who seemed to follow the rules when it suited him, and waited for him to see the error of his ways. If he had a problem with me edits, he could stop what he was doing and move to the talk page. However, he seemed to know better than me and tried to force to the talk page, even intimidating me with "edit warring" notices. Really, it's enough to drive one mad. Now if you are done acting childishly with your personal attacks and lack of respect for other editors, maybe we could settle this like grown men on the talk page? After you...--Bold Clone (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Enough. If I see one more revert from both of you, I will block you both. Now talk it out on the talk page. If you want my opinion, "New Series Prologue" is not a title as per WP:TITLE, it has no title and it is just a moniker to refer to it; therefor no quotes. It is also not a prologue to the episode, but the entire series. Now go work it out. 07:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Jenna Coleman
Hi. May I ask why are you reverting my edits on the Jenna Coleman page? It's been announced that she's leaving in Series 9, as the source I provided says, and Series 9 airs in 2015. So what is the problem with providing a reliable source which backs up what is said in the article about her leaving Doctor Who in 2015? 101090ABC (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Made it rather clear in my edit summary: her ending year doesn't get added until she actually leaves. The table should represent what is happening, not what will be happening, hence it stays as "2012–" until she actually leaves the show. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  16:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Davros?
Hi yes, i agree we need a better source - all will be revealed after today anyway. Found it interesting how they accidental sent it out - should we still have the video for the promotion section of The Witch's Familiar page as it does act as a mini promo/trailer? Badgerdog2 (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that the official promo will be released in only six hours, I don't really think it's required that we add the leak, as it will be replaced as soon the official version is released. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  13:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, great. Badgerdog2 (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Robot (TV series)
I have no idea what you mean by they are not necessary. Concept and development of a series would be an important part of a television series, the first season is over, it is hardly the start now. Hzh (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Start of the article, not start of the show. And you duplicated the information about Fight Club. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  16:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm in the middle of doing the edits, and I'm now merging the content with the production section. Most of the content I added are new, so why are you deleting everything? Hzh (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Jonny872
Do you want to report him to ANI? I can't at this point in time because I am on my phone and so can't provide differences. But he is definitely edit warring with everyone at this point.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 09:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  12:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The Flash edit
Can you please explain why did you revert my Flash edit since both the Emmys and the Hugo Awards have had their results? To be clear, The Flash lost both awards so neither of them is currently pending. LunarMeric (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you update the sources to ones that explicitly state that the series lost? Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  12:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't.. Yeah that's my bad, sorry LunarMeric (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No problems. It appears I forgot to add this into the edit summary when I reverted, apologies for that. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  12:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

New Series Overview Template
Quick question, with your new series overview template (the one you just put on the How to Get Away With Murder page), how would you create a Nielsen Ratings column with the average viewers and rank (as seen on shows such as The Blacklist, and Scandal?? Thanks. Rswallis10 (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the collapsed content at Template:Series overview - specifically the fifth example. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  11:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Continuum Season 4 Edits
I apologize in advanced for troubling you and I don't want to make further edits on the article until I'm a bit more clear on this. When you mentioned that sources are 'always' required, was that just for the air date announcements or the actor announcements? If it includes the actors, I would like to point out that the previous season articles do not have sources for the actors. Is it just that we have to wait for the season to run its full course before removing them? Also, are you still opposed to me merging the small plot section with the beginning paragraph? That is also what was done with every other season article before it. I'm just a little confused by the inconsistencies here.

Hathomirr (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead with the merging of the plot, there's no issue with that at all. The references should stay as long as the article exists, and this should have been the case for the other seasons, however I wasn't around when they were airing to enforce this. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  20:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you for the clarification. Hathomirr (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Robot
Ok, so your reversion on the Mr. Robot edit said you did so because it was an "unexplained removal," so here is my explanation/question: Given USA's character bios neither list the real name of Mr. Robot nor Darlene's surname on the character pages cited as sources in the Main Cast section, wouldn't it be appropriate to remove them? (I get that spoilers are bound to exist any time you enter a separate Character Description page/area or a Plot Summary section for a show or an episode, but I was thinking the Main Cast listing should be a pretty neutral, non-spoilery place and that including MR's real name/Darlene's surname isn't necessary.) Capn birdman (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "I was thinking the Main Cast listing should be a pretty neutral, non-spoilery place and that including MR's real name/Darlene's surname isn't necessary." Please read WP:SPOILER. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  21:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, I saw the "Sections that frequently contain spoiler warnings—such as plot summaries, episode lists, character descriptions, etc.—were already clearly named to indicate that they contain plot details" part. I was thinking a Main Cast listing wasn't included in that "etc." I guess where I'm wanting clarification so I don't run into this issue in the future is: why is it ok to include their names but not say, "Ben Rappaport as Ollie Parker, Angela's ex-boyfriend"?  All the other listings only seem to describe the characters as they are when initially presented within the show, but Edward and Darlene's descriptions reflect revelations made toward the end of the season. While they have always been Edward(ish) and Darlene, Elliot's understanding of his situation doesn't occur as a plot point until after their initial presentations. Capn birdman (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Dark Matter TV Series
Sorry, I tried to move it, not remove it, and was in the process of restoring it but you beat me to the punch. I'm currently crippled by working from only my phone. Durty Willy (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Lucifer TV Series
Why did you remove my information on Lucifer TV series? I had added that the Pilot was Leaked online while the series is scheduled to go on screen during 2016.I had also added a relveant source. Akshatbahety (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not so notable. Do take a read of a similar issue, concerning Supergirl's leak, at User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 3. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  11:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Continuum episode summaries
I've been writing the summaries on Continuum (season 4); I wasn't really paying attention to how long they are, is there a recommended word count? —2macia22 (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No problems, you're doing great work! Episode policy recommends a maximum of 200 words for episode-table summaries, but if separate articles are/have been created for the episodes, knock 'em dead with detail! Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  01:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 200 words, sounds good. Thanks! —2macia22 (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check these pages 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) 00:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On the New Amsterdam (TV series) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=683636910 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter 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%2F683636910%7CNew Amsterdam (TV series)%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * On the After Lately page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=683654686 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter 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%2F683654686%7CAfter Lately%5D%5D Ask for help])

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)