User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 4

sock
I will amit that I am to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fjfhgfhdstty But I tried to floow the rules on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses_of_alternative_accounts and it said to add this User Alt Acct Master. So can you tell me how to to keep getting blocked so I can stop creating accounts. As far a JimConroy38 I am not a sock of him here’s why. I am an RTV student and I just wanted to find out if he is a real person so I put trhis on his talk page are you the real person that is does the voice of Ruff. can you please tell me if you are. please be honest. thanks Extremeguy (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC), he responded with this Yeah that's me I am the Voice of Ruff Ruffman is there anything I can help you guys with or do you have any questions you want to ask me. --JimConroy38 (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC). After aoi put User name concern on his page he comes back to me saying Hey Extremeguy they think I'm not Jim Conroy do something I tried everything.--JimConroy38 (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC) whiuch made me now belive he is not the real person. So I tried something Okay let's give this a try. Question's •	How to you produce the show fetch with ruff ruffman from start to finish? •	How do you Get a hold of Kate taylor or macy guther from the show? •	what kind of screen is used when you produce fetch? •	Do you travel with the contestants while doing the voice of Ruff or how is it done? •	How long does it take to Make one season from start to finish? please explain answers in detail Also I suggest that you make a twitter account or some other kind of account. So you you know Ruffman is already taken for a user name. Also you could update the production and Cast and crew section on the fetch page thanks please respond. also it is listed at the bottom of the page. follow this (via the directions on WP:REALNAME). Extremeguy (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2009 after I posted this he never responded. He just kept editing the fetch page. So I have nothing in to do with JimConroy38 I was just trying to find out if he was the real person. I do think now he should be blocked in till he confirms himself. I think he is just being nice because I only belived him at first. His ewdits are so far apart I kind of belived it was him. Also he released the Season 5 Grand Champion which the real person would not be allowed to do. I will be posting this information on him on the page you created about him with my other one I summitted. Thanks please respondExtremeguy (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Simulation12
(Formerly under Sockpuppet investigations/Fjfhgfhdstty) → Case is now completed after requesting CheckUser. All accounts reported have been sockblocked, which also includes a few extra ones just discovered by CU. Regards, MuZemike 21:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Gallacher
I remember that when Michael Gallacher was selected for a vacancy in the NSW Legislative Council he had defeated a former Liberal minister who had lost her seat in the Lower House at the 1995 election. I forgotten who the former Liberal Minister was, do you by any chance know?--122.106.91.236 (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm afraid I don't know offhand. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Extremeguy is back, apparently
I'm sure you've probably already noticed this, but just in case you have not, Extremeguy is evading his block again. See Special:Contributions/Fetchfan88. He's already posted on my talk page and his grammar matches Extremeguy exactly, and the majority of his edits so far deal with the Fetch articles. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit to Two and A Half Men
Your right about the title, someone changed the title on the episode list that includes all seasons and when i looked it up on google, IMBd was the first link and it sayed it was the title i changed it to. Though after seeing your edit i have checked the CBS site and your right. i have edited the episode list that includes all seasons accrodingly. Sorry for the mistake. CalumH93 (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Australian infobox
That was a meant to be a test, but since everything seemed to work perfectly I thought I'd leave it that way to generate some feedback. Isn't that a good way to see if there's consensus or not on an edit? Can you leave it as it was for a while to see if people like it or prefer it the way it was before?--93.45.59.26 (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This template was recently the subject of a TfD and the result of the TfD was "Keep", which clearly indicates that the consensus is to leave the template as is. Changing live templates is not the way to determine consensus. If you want to determine people's opinion, open a discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But I never meant to delete it! The discussion determined that the template was needed, not that it was perfect as it was… otherwise it would have been edit-protected or something like that.--93.45.59.26 (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * By changing it in the manner that you did you were doing exactly what the TfD aimed to do, against the consensus that the template should be kept. Edit-protection has nothing to do with it. If you want to implement significant changes to any page, whether it be a template or an article, opening a discussion is always the first step. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I can't agree with you. By editing the template the way I did, the previous structure (the fields, except for a few that had to be edited) remained unchanged, something that obviously couldn't have happened had the template been deleted. Where should I discuss my changes? In the talk page of the template a discussion would go unnoticed for months. But you, what do you think is wrong with my version of Template:Australian state or territory? How is it worse (or better) than the version you reverted to?--93.45.59.26 (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss this, I suggest you open a discussion at Australian Wikipedians' notice board --AussieLegend (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will. But in the end, you reverted because you found something wrong in the template, right? What was it? Btw, I didn't know there was a discussion about it just two days ago. The Australian template was just one of the many I edited in the last few days.--93.45.59.26 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And here it is. Make sure to leave a comment!--93.45.59.26 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

NCIS & House Edits
Would you suggest adding one URL per season, which links to the direct page for that specific season, instead? That would reduce clutter on the page tremendously, while leading readers to a direct source. Tubesurfer (talk)
 * In each of the NCIS articles there are already three general references to the episode lists. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replacing the dead link on DiNozzo's page Matt Zero (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Scrubs
Hey, I thought this would be the best place to put this because I just want to say it. I don't understand the latest edit for Scrubs about the end date thing. Why would the end date be the current date? That makes no sense whatsoever, so the series ended today? That's essentially what it's saying. Having it be blank or say "present" makes 100% more sense. I also checked out a bunch more current popular TV show articles, and they all pretty much have "present" as the end date. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your confusion. The template instructions aren't very well worded. I don't know why the template specifies use of Date if the series is ongoing but it does. End date requires parameters. Using it without parameters returns nothing so you may as well leave the field blank if you use End date. On the other hand, with no parameters Date returns the current date and automatically updates. Today Date will return September 26 while tomorrow it will return September 27. Based on the instruction the field should really contain a fully qualified use of Date and the date should be the first airdate of the latest episode of the first run of the series. In the case of Scrubs, that should be the date of "my Finale" but that's bound to cause confusion so I didn't do that since it's not explicitly stated in the template instructions. However, the instructions do specify "date", not "end date". --AussieLegend (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to refer you to here: Template talk:Infobox Television, which I just spotted after I left this message. They're discussing this issue. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. We all seem to be in agreement that the template instructions should change. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Knee-jerk!!!
Good call. Thanks for cleaning that up and apologies for the extra steps.Cptnono (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Maitland
Stop deleting my post on the Maitland page. You are talking about reliable sources. I am third generation Maitland and part of the club I am mentioning. A sporting club is part of the community and has every right to be on that page. If you want reliable sources I will cite articles from the Maitland Mercury. As you are not the mayor of Maitland, nor an administrator of wikki, what gives you the right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussie and Proud (talk • contribs) 16:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you do not constitute a reliable source under Wikipedia's policies and your edits violate Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. As for what gives me the right to remove the information, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Editors do not own articles. Anyone can edit any article. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I call the local paper with 19 different articles on our club a reliable source, and if anyone can edit anything on wikki I might just take an interest in all your edits and posts if you are so concerned about a local sporting club appearing on a the page of the town it belongs to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussie and Proud (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Maitland Mercury is a reliable source. Had you included citations from it in your original addition it may not have been removed, although the non-NPOV tone would have had to have been corrected. As for "taking an interest" in my edits and posts, there are rules about stalking other editors. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Stalking, there are also rules about victimising, there are countless other sections on there with out citations but you continuously singled mine out.--Aussie and Proud (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody is victimising anyone. The page is on my watchlist so I see almost immediately when somebody edits the page. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You are a serial pest, I suggest you get a life.The citations you removed were from the Mercury proving we were in the finals.How about we meet up Tenambit Oval and sort this out, oh you will be depowered with out your keyboard. --Aussie and Proud (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please be civil. As I explained on the Maitland talk page, the citations do not support the claims that you've made. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You really are a stupid person and must be very lonely and have a lot of time on your hands. The citations do support the FACTS I reported. They are articles from each year from the Maitland Mercury reporting on the FINALS and all are written about our team, how the hell do they not support those FACTS. I am also a player in the team and they mr pain in the ass are not CLAIMS.Wiki is a big place, why don't you stay away from my team and my town.--Aussie and Proud (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Debby Ryan's birth name
Hi, I've seen that you erased a part of her name. I don't mind, but I think it's Deborah Ryan Popp. I explain why in her descusion page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Debby_Ryan

I hope we can solve this. --Pedro00pedro (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out on the article's talk page, it still requires a citation from a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, then I'll not edit her name until I'm sure. BTW, I put Deborah instead Debby, becouse I thought there wasn't any dudes abour it. However if there're dedes about it, then i'll not change it. See you Pedro00pedro (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of content in Sea Sheperd Conservation Society
Hello. Thanks for your recent contributions at this article. You've recently undone several edits of mine removing the "animal fat" factoid from the article. Please before doing so again, google the terms "Earthrace" and "Animal Fat" and you will find plenty of articles identifying animal fat as the prime ingredient in the biodeisel used by Earthrace. The phrase "primarily animal fat" is used by multiple sources. It is irony that has been noted in the major news sources and should be reflected in the article. This is one of those cases of truth being more entertaining than fiction. :) --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing your edits to my talk page. :) I'm up for decent conversation any time though. Peace and happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no irony at all in biodiesel containing animal fats. Earthrace is being used in action against whale hunting. No whale products are used in biodiesel, so where is the irony? Edit summaries such as "now that's an odd twist of irony", "ref says animal fat. And that truth is just funny" and talk page headings such as "Delicious Irony" clearly indicate that you're not maintaining a neutral point of view when editing this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol.. Look bub, wiki isn't into religious thought policing. Your feelings and my feelings on topics aren't meant to be neutral. You're not a robot. I'm not going to define irony for you, nor will I explain why the particular irony is humerous because you seem to take exception to what I find to be hurmerous, nevertheless if you want to take issue with my edits, by all means, let's talk. :) If you want to take issue with what I as a person find humerous you're not going to get very far. I will definately hear you out on your opinion of my edits as they pertain to wiki policy but I enjoy the right to a humerous human voice when in talk pages. You might as well yourself, btw. Peace and happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can have your feelings but your edits here are supposed to be neutral. That includes edit summaries. I didn't ask you to define irony, I asked why use of biodiesel is ironic. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources identified the fact that Earthrace is powered in part by animal fat, not me. I have actually never examined the content of the fuel of that particular vessel so I am taking the notable major news sources at their word for that one. I'm not sure why you find thier findings to be earth shatteringly biased, nor do I agree with you that the removal of their opinion constitutes neutrality. The opposite would actually be true, if you feel you have to remove what notable expert think is important becuase you don't like the way it makes a subject appear, that would be the definition of non-neutral editing.
 * As far as you understanding the irony of why using animal fat (including fish oil) to fuel a SSCS ship, (assuming that you know what irony is and aren't just being intentionally argumentative) I encourage you to read more about SSCS, namely that the organization has been an opponent of many different types of fishing (not just whales) and whose members are forbidden to consume meat while on duty. I imagine that's why the articles in question keep bringing up the animal fat factoid. It's humerously ironic. My comment to the fact that I agree with the humerous irony really seems to bother you.. this bother of yours I cannot understand but I believe it is your issue and not mine. Just try to remember to keep your critisisms about edits and not your feelings of other people's POV. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very clearly missing the point. The actual fuel of Earthrace, which is biodiesel, is irrelevant to the article. You can't scoop up a cup of animal fat, dump it in the tanks and expect the engines to run. They require biodiesel, or conventional diesel. Boidiesel doesn't have to contain animal fat or fish oil. It can contain other natural oils such as canola or soya bean. Stating specifically that Earthrace runs on animal fats is misleading at best. That sources refer to animal fat, fish oil or whatever, is irrelevant. You don't use several words when one will do, especially when that one is more correct. As for your irony, there is none. That's all in your head. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand quite well how biodiesel works and where it comes from. Your extreme discomfort at allowing the majority part of their fuel to be noted on the SSCS article underscores why it's a relevant fact. It's a rather inconvenient irony, to the point where you have even called the basic factoid a "POV". Which POV do you think that fact plays to? For a neutral article, you mustn't remove content based on the POV you disagree with. Regardless, it's notable enough for major press, when discussings ER in the context of SSCS, therefore it's notable enough for me and wiki. I hope we can help one another present relevant facts from all the relevant POV even if it isn't our own. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hi, you're allowed to disagree with any editor you please but when accusing people things like non-neutral edits (as you did to me in the talk page of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society or of vandalism (as you did on my own talk page) you begin to cross the line. Seek consensus, try to work with people with whom you may not agree. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note: It is my policy not to delete invalid warnings such as this, but to archive the post for future reference. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it invalid? You accuse me on my talk page of vandalism because you disagree with me. What's more, you still haven't explained how including "animal fat AND vegitable oil" is misleading. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I warned you for the reasons explained on the Sea Shepherd talk page. You're simply re-adding information that somebody else has agreed shouldn't be there, without discussion. That's inappropriate. I reverted your first change because I agree that the other version is more appropriate for the page but you keep pushing the article to the way that you want it despite two other editors agreeing on the revised wording. Your new edits have been reverted so you should discuss, not commence edit-warring. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to discuss but all I get from you is that you don't like the phrase "animal fat" appearing in the article for various reasons. I've addressed your "fat contents is misleading" concerns with direct quotes from major news sources so I'm not sure how else to accomidate your Point of view on the subject. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are continually missing the point. I refer you back to the discussion on the talk page where I've now explained six times why it's misleading. None of your edits have resolved this problem. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible Sock Puppet activity
I see now that you have stopped reverting my edits at the same time as another anon user started. The following user is from the area where you would be recieving internet services through. IP Information - 120.152.96.173 Country Australia Country Code AU Region Victoria City Melbourne

Please quit reverting my edits. Discuss it in the talk page. You brought a reason for them before which was addressed. Currently I don't see why you are reverting. Thank you. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but Australia isn't as small as you think. I live over 1,000km from Melbourne. I'm most certainly not in Victoria and, as far as I am aware, Bigpond segments its network so IP addresses reflect the state where you access the net from. So, you're 0 for 2 on that. You need to look elsewhere. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just found and removed your warning from my page. Listen man, you reverted a pile of my edits WHILE I was trying to accomidate your requests. Those aren't reverts, those were me trying to work in and adding extra refs to accomidate your complaint of misleading. You reverted multiple times, then as soon as you hit the limit, you logged off and mysteriously two separate first time ip editors made the exact same removals of anything you disagreed with in the article. You may not be a sock puppet but for two first time anon editors to make the exact same reverts you were making mere minutes after you logged off was more than wierd. So I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from bringing your edit war to my talk page and simply let the compitent admin handle the 3rr complaint as he was allready doing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For reference: one two three four


 * I'm glad that we're coming to a compromise now though finally and hope that in the future we can settle things more peacefully from the start. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ziva David
Um, I just fixed something. I just fixed the typing "Special agent" in the linking part. I wasn't sure if she was officially an NCIS Special Agent or not, but when someone did that, I clicked the link, and seen that the a was small, so all I did was fix that. Abby 82 (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and nice mention to me to Soul phire's page. I can see that you guys LOVE me. Abby 82 (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mistake
I am so sorry that I used rollback on you page. It was a huge mistake. I didnt mean to, you see I thought that it was vandalsism and clicked rollback but as soon as I saw what I did, it was too late. Sorry about that it wont happen again :)-- Coldplay   Expert  00:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted but it would have been a good idea to immediately rollback your edit, rather than just leaving it. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh..never thought of that! (That might sound stupid but seriously I didnt) anyway thanks for being so cool about it and it wont happen again. bye!-- Coldplay   Expert  00:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Abby 82
You go away for the weekend and look what happens, it all kicks off without you... Cheers for applying a little more clarity to the situation in my absence. Its hard to demonstrate good faith constantly in the face of an angry mastodon. Once again, thanks Matt Zero (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
I didn't mean to. I won't do it again.

90.199.120.45 (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 90.199.120.45 (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Rugrats episodes
Thanks - I've reverted to an earlier version. Saved me the bother of going through. It was a mess. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Alltel
No. Actually the logo turned out to be from an archive on web.archive.org. You look up Alltel.com on a 2004 page and the logo is there. I did not get it from a .gov website. --Jorge Francisco Paredes 06:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24 biggest fan (talk • contribs)


 * Regardless, it's still a copyright violation. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Castle episodes page
Thank you for your recent warning to the edit warriors on the Castle episode pages. They're back at it again, and it's keeping the page from moving forward. I've been trying for days to update and reference the ratings, but there's no point until these two characters stop warring over tiny differences in the formatting of the page. Would you mind taking another look before this gets out of hand and we have another round of WP:3RR violations like we did the first time? Thanks!! Drmargi (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The page has been protected for three days. That should hopefully force them to discus the issues. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Question on edit revert
[] Has a question on why you reverted one of his edits.Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 13:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * He does? How do you know? Why did he do this and then do this? It's inconsistent. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Big Bang Theory revert?
I don't see why you removed my comment about "The Vartabedian Conundrum." She said "Goin' down swingin'," what else could it have possibly been a reference to? 76.1.48.210 (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean this edit by PrepJock101 to List of The Big Bang Theory episodes, to "go down swinging" (and its variants) is a common phrase. There's no proof that its use in The Big Bang Theory was in any way at all a reference to the song. Making an assumption that it is, as clearly indicated in the edit by "probably a reference" and the lack of a citation from a reliable source, is called original research and is unnaceptable. Incidentally, Penny doesn't say "So, you're gonna go down swingin', huh?", she says "You're going to go down swingin', huh?" although it's not certain whether or not she actually left the "g" off "swinging". --AussieLegend (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit revert re Newcastle High School & Jonathan Biggins
Hi AussieLegend

Thanks for all your good work on Wiki. But, [& there is a but] if your argument is correct then 'established in 1906' should also be edited out.

Newcastle Boys' High School's logo was the same, except it said NBHS. The motto 'Remis Velisque' was also that of NBHS.

In fact, pretty well the whole page would need re-editing if your argument they are mutually exclusive schools is correct.

Looking forward to your response

Kind Regards

Cablehorn


 * My argument IS correct. Newcastle Girls High and Newcastle Boys High were completely separate entities at different locations. Students of Newcastle Boys High can't be considered to have been students of Newcastle High because they didn't attend that school. Nor was any of the infrastructure transferred from NBHS to NGHS/NHS. I know that because I attended NBHS and left after I completed my HSC at the end of 1977, 10 or 11 months (I can't remember the date) after the first Waratah High School students entered the school. The school just changed names. Even our HSCs were labelled "Waratah High School". NHS is just the last of a family of schools that shared a sometimes common history. The common root is Hill High. NGHS split off from that in 1929 as a separate entity, although uniform colours and the motto carried on to the new school. NBHS started at Waratah in 1934 and Hill High continued on as Newcastle Junior Boys High until 1973. NBHS, using the same motto, colours and school song, survived a further 3 years until it lost its identity and became Waratah High. Meanwhile, NGHS continued on and is the only one of the three schools left to carry on with the colours and motto. You're right about the "established" date. It was actually 1929. 1906 is when Hill High was established. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Scrubs
scrubs is in gan can you help me pass.-- Pedro J. the rookie 13:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Skilene
In reference to the edit summary you recently made to a change on List of The Penguins of Madagascar episodes, “Skilene” is a shipping term used by people who lobby for Skipper and Marlene as a couple, mainly in fan fiction works. I agree with your un-doing of that edit, as the Skilene concept is not official on the show – I just wanted to let you know what the word meant. 75.58.177.249 (talk) 09:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Year?
Hey, didn't know where to put this, but can I ask, why the years on the Wikipedia pages went from for example: 2009-10 instead of 2009-2010.... Not that it bothers me just wondering why :) - Alec2011 (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a Manual of Style thing, aimed at making articles consistent across Wikipedia. Closing years are normally written as two digits, not four, unless the closing year is not in the same century. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see, thanks for the help :). - Alec2011 (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Close of Flash Forward AFD
I saw the hurried end to the AfD, and my first thought was that the editor had jumped the gun, in exactly those mental words. I went back to the discussion to make the point and found it already closed. I'm not familiar with the process, and of course didn't make the original request, but what would be the appropriate next move? It strikes me as very inappropriate that one editor, and as you say not even and admin, would pre-empt the discussion and consensus process, but I don't know what DRV is, I'm afraid. Drmargi (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As per Articles for deletion, the next step would be to discuss it with the editor who closed the discussion, pointing him to that link. DRV is Deletion review, which is the next step if the editor doesn't see the error of his ways. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. I don't have strong enough feelings, or time, to pursue it, but might drop a word in the original editor's ear.  Drmargi (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Update! Our pal Rosie1989 came in this AM and restored the separate episode list for FlashForward. I happened to see the two edits pop up on my watchlist as she made them, and quickly opened a discussion, citing and linking the original AfD in the hope of cutting off an edit war. I don't know how interested you still are, but wanted to make you aware of it so you can weigh in if you'd care to. Drmargi (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Full House episodes
When you undid my restoration of the Season 1 summaries, you mentioned "copyright violations", but didn't link to the source. I'd like to be able to check whether they were copyright violations or whether they were originally from Wikipedia, and whether any other summaries were copied – were they from an online source, and if they were, could you provide a link to them? snigbrook (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Deborah Ryan name (again)
Hey, this time it's cited. I've seen in her Oficial Twitter Accunt, in the "bio" section (top, right, just down her web page), that she says "it's Deborah; call me Debs. artist. I'm an old soul but I embrace youth. i can't go an hour without music & I stray from the mainstream. let's chat [:"

It's Deborah

Do you believe it? No? I can't explain it better.--Pedro00pedro (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen your answer before you erased it. It's a reliable source, becouse you can see that her twitter account is verified. Watch to this page for more info. http://twitter.com/help/verified. You can see that mark on the twitter account, so it's a verified source. I won, i won, i won....--Pedro00pedro (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I also thought to change the "name" section as Debby, and change only the section "birth name", but I didn't decide.--Pedro00pedro (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Suite Life of Zack & Cody
Just a reminder to be a careful when reverting with TW, you ended reverting back to a vandalized version. PaleAqua (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed I did. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Help
Hi, are you part of the project for Australia related articles? If so, could you help me build up Gender inequality in Australia. Thanks -Regancy42 (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Rosie Redux
Would you mind having a look in at the page for List of The Closer episodes? Our pal Rosie is back at it with the "her way or the highway" table formatting, and after I was just able to get her to stop and talk on the Castle page. Drat! Anyway, the problem is, she's also removing notes attached to a series of episodes that describe their condition of original broadcast. I'm sure she can't read them, so she's assuming they're typical references, but they're not. We need a moderate admin to lend a calming hand before this gets too heated, I fear. I'm out of reverts unless I go to vandalism as a justification - I've warned her removing the notes might be viewed as such, really more to try to get he to stop and talk, but so far no joy. Drmargi (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Two and a Half Men
Hi. You recently changed the title "Mm, Fish. Yum." from season 7 to "Mmm, Fish. Yum." stating a CBS press release as a source. Could you provide me with a link to this, because if you look at you will see on the CBS website it as "Mm" not "Mmm". I just wanted to check with you first before i changed it back as it has been changed then changed back many times. Thanks CalumH93 (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A copy of the press release may be seen here. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
The population clock that I used in the article Australia was the same as the Official Australian Population Clock used for Australia in the article list of countries by population. It was exactly the same. If it is used there, then why can't I use it here?

Bowei Huang (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with using the population clock figure, but your calculation doesn't match the population clock figure. At the time that your figure was 22,078,000, the official clock was just over 22,064,000, an error of 14,000. That translates to about what the official population clock will show in 11.5 days. Another issue is that the population clock figure doesn't increase at a constant rate. Earlier this year it was incrementing at about one person every 91 seconds. It's now about one person every 71 seconds. The last and most policy critical issue is that you're attributing the the figure to a source when the figure isn't supported by the source. The figure is a calculation based on a source which is original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Untitled
Dear AussieLegend

I would like to ask that in future you refrain from removing articles which you clearly have no knowledge of the content. I would also like to ask that you undo the changes you have made to my written articles which are an affront to myself and all the effort i have put into them. You actions are an authorized form of vandalism which is an abuse of your status as a wikipedia editor.

Your conscientious Wikipedia contributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slepho (talk • contribs) 06:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't removed any articles. The articles you've edited are not "your" articles. Nobody owns articles and anybody can edit them. Most of your contributions to Martins Creek, New South Wales, Monkerai, New South Wales and Vacy, New South Wales were unencyclopaedic, unsourced and bordering on vandalism, which is why they were removed. I live in the reason so trust me, I do know what I'm talking about. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well guess what champ.. i didn't contribute to the articles... I WROTE THEM. But that's fair enough. They are better than there being no articles at all on the topic. Of course there are no sources... i am the source because i live there! tried to reference a book on Martins Creek but it wouldn't let me because i couldn't get the reference tags to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slepho (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Writing articles is contributing. Verifiability, which is a core policy, requires that editors "provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." You need verifiable sources for what you add to articles. It's not optional. Wikipedia editors are not appropriate sources for information unless they comply with Reliable sources. For information on adding references to articles, please read Citing sources. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

TOC Position
Considering that the decision to move the TOC was made without any discussion on the subject, it stands to reason that it should remain in the standard wikipedia position until such a discussion is had.ThomasSixten (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The TOC was removed from the article quite some time ago, with no opposition from anyone until now. You re-added the TOC without discussion and its addition was opposed by more than one editor. As a compromise, resulting from the eventual discussion at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes, it was re-added to the document and was placed on the right. The discussion in no way resulted in consensus that it should be added to any specific position within the article so it can go anywhere in accordance with WP:TOC. Two editors agree it should be on the right so that's where it should be placed. It's up to you to convince other editors that we should come to a consensus that it should be moved to the left since there is an informal consensus that it should be on the right.


 * Continually moving it to the left without discussion is inappropriate. Wikipedia works on consensus, which requires discussion. Making a statement and then moving it is not discussion. It's edit warring and such action is just likely to get you blocked. Instead you need to follow WP:BRD. It's the only way you're going to convince anyone. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding University of Newcastle Wikipedia page
Although the university uses both the black and white background logos the general trend is to use the black logo. This is evident in a varied amount of official university documents including its website (http://newcastle.edu.au/) and various reports (http://newcastle.edu.au/Resources/University%20Profile/2009%20Corporate%20Profile.pdf) (http://newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Research/Research%20publication%202009/Research%202009.pdf) (http://newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Teaching%20and%20Learning/Teaching%20and%20Learning%20publication%202009/Teaching_and_Learning_2009.pdf) and marketing material(http://newcastle.edu.au/Resources/What%20Can%20I%20Study/Brochures/2010-UoN-undergraduate-prospectus.pdf) (http://newcastle.edu.au/Resources/What%20Can%20I%20Study/Brochures/2010-UoN-central-coast-prospectus.pdf)  (http://newcastle.edu.au/Resources/What%20Can%20I%20Study/Brochures/2010-UoN-just-the-basics-prospectus.pdf). One will note that through-out this material only a black background logo is used. The black background logo hence is a better indication and representation of the university as a whole; it is for this reason I have uploaded it and changed the logo appearing on the wiki page. The version I uploaded is of higher resolution as well. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortez2009 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

McGee's nicknames on NCIS
Hello Aussie, Trista (Triste Tierra) here. You reverted my edit removing the "Probie" nickname the other day, then I see you have had to revert where others have gone bats with adding other nicknames. I wanted to say I made my edit for just that reason - I knew others would go nuts with them if it were left. Also, I see you edit Full House. Are you going to put up the nicknames Uncle Jesse calls the girls? I'm not trying to be snotty, but trying to point out if we let some nicknames stay, then all trivial information appears to be allowed. I will not revert your edits on this - but do you see my point? Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference is that "Probie" actually is a nickname while the others aren't. McGee has been called "Probie", not only by DiNozzo but by others on occasion, since he first joined the team so it's a valid nickname. The others are names he's been called on one or two occasions, so they don't constitute nicknames. "Nickname" is a valid field in the infobox, so it's obviously not seen as trivial. As for people going nuts, welcome to my world. We've been removing additional names for a long time. It's what happens but it's no justification for removing valid information from the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Disney Channel stars
The version is rather different; it is possible that the same arguments will apply, but possible that they will not. The arguments used before were that it duplicated a category, but that was 2 years ago, and lists are more often not deleted for that reason now. Rather, it is  held about 3/4 of the time that   for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list--and that a list with material limited to that in articles on notable  Wikipedia  subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N. I said in the edit summary I would take it to AfD myself to see what the current view is, but I realized that would be confusing, because I intend to argue for keep. it should go there, for the result is uncertain, but perhaps you should send it there, as you   want  it deleted and the discussion will go clearer that way.  DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Congatulations
It is a clear sign that you are doing something right when a vandal chooses to impersonate you. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WooHoo!! --AussieLegend (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Chimney
Could you re-examine the source for File:Rossriverchimney.jpg? The deletion notice claims a copyvio back to the WP file. While I'm not convinced that the editor has permission to post the picture, we need an external URL.  Acroterion  (talk)  16:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops! Silly me. I'm not even sure how that happened but it's fixed now. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted: well spotted. I've left a long note with WorldWider12 about copying things, but am pessimistic about the results. They appear to be a little to young to be able to edit usefully.   Acroterion  (talk)  16:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, I only came upon WorldWider12's work because he/she has been active on some pages that User:BillyKeys has worked on. Both appear to be from Townsville, both have added copyvio text to articles, both have uploaded lots of filecopvios and both have released images under their license when they clearly are not the authors. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd seen BillyKeys too. They're probably friends with more enthusiasm than clue at the moment. I hate to rain on their parade, but they really can't post copyright violations and fiction.   Acroterion  (talk)  16:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Two and a Half Men (season 6)
Yes, but ALL the demos are wrong. I checked, just didn't want to edit. You can get information from www.pifeedback.com if you want to edit it. 86.168.12.237 (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Laziness is no justification for content deletion. If all of the figures were wrong you could have just commented out the table with a hidden note. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for a productive & civil discussion about Buchanan's Hotel! I'm a wiki-novice but many people who nominate things for deletion aren't nearly so nice (or in-good-faith) as you. The one question I have (as I said, I'm a novice) is how we can go about changing the name of the article to "Buchanan's Hotel" now - having poked around online, it's clear that you're right and LBJ/the State Department are wrong! (:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivisel (talk • contribs) 19:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your additions to the article. As it was, it really was non-notable but your work has solved that. Once the AfD is closed, I'll move the article to the correct page. The move could probably be done now but it's best to wait until then. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks! --Vivisel (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Suite Life on Deck article
Thanks for reverting that edit, I was just going to remove it. LOL. I KNEW THAT WAS FALSE! THAT PERSON IS DUMB! LOL. WHY WOULD THEY SAY THAT? LOL.

YouTubeaholic2009 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Years!
Happy New Years! Hope that the next decade will be better. Buggie111 (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year! I hope you have a happy, safe and successful year. Bidgee (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Happy New Year. And may you be safe from marauding kangaroos. Orderinchaos 13:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, somebody should write an article about them. ;) --AussieLegend (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Better Off Ted
What am I doing? There are citations, reliable ones, like the American Broadcasting Association. I would like these pages to stay up. Skuzbucket (talk) 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As I have indicated to you talkpage, these pages fail general notability requirements, which you've actually acknowledged by using the headers at the top of each article. The general notability guideline requires that topics have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The articles you have created do not demonstrate that any of the articles meet this requirement. What you have produced are plot only descriptions of the episode. These are addressed specifically at What Wikipedia is not (also called WP:PLOT) which states that "Wikipedia articles should not be plot-only description of fictional works". Therefore, these articles do not meet the requirements and should be deleted or redirected. Your reversion of my attempts at redirection, constitutes edit warring and could result in you being blocked. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

These are plot pages, what else is there to site besides that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skuzbucket (talk • contribs) 20:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see your talk page for various warnings about posting copyright violations. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Being the new guy that I am, I do not know how to access my own talk page. Help please. Skuzbucket (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Better off Ted
Yeah, I looked at the contributions, and it was also implied that they would probably go PROD fairly soon (which is not, of course, to say they actually will be deleted.

Perhaps I am just an old softie, but this editor does seem only to have been editing since the start of this year, and perhaps has bitten off more than he can chew for the first editing session, but as best we can, I think we should try to help the newbies. I am not suggesting in any way that those PRODs, RFDs etc are unwarranted, I just wanted to try to say "it's not personal".

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That being said, it is hard to know how to communicate with editors who cannot access their own talk pages (but can access yours?) I presume that particular problem is solved. Si Trew (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure what the whole "I can't access my talk page" thing is about. I left a message for him early on, and he was able to reply on his talk page then, so I'm not sure what is happening now. I was prepared to give him a bit of leeway because of his inexperience but every time I've given him some advice, like here, he's just ignored it and continued editing without making any attempt to follow any policy, so I've lost patience. I think some of his claims are disingenuous. Despite apparently not understanding the improvements that I made to the pilot episode's article, he's followed enough to implement some of the changes. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I had read all of that page. In one way this editor seems to be able to get quite a long way with some of the trickier Wikipedia editing aspects, and yet can't see what WP:RS etc. means. I am still AGF and that perhaps it was just too much to take on in one go as a first edit. II have been actively editing about a year and even so it sometimes it takes me a week or more just to translate a three or four A4 page article from another WP, when it has all the trimmings, because a lot of that work is just the wikifying, gnoming, linking etc which is robotic but takes a lot of time, so to plunge straight in instead of taking baby steps with minor edits and stuff is perhaps unwise. That being said, I don't see why not, really, since it's not as if it is harming anything else (WP:NOTPAPER and all that.) I would like to encourage this editor while accepting that these articles may not themselves pass muster.


 * I must admit I've only looked at a couple of the articles myself, and have no knowledge of this programme (I don't watch TV, I assume anyway it is an American programme and I don't know if we have it in the UK yet). I am going to take the episode Heroes (Better off Ted) and just sub it a bit, and then will post on its talk page saying what I've done. I imagine you have it on your watchlist so I won't explicitly bother you about it at your talk page here.


 * Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Penguins of Madagascar
Your Skipper/Marlene vandal is back - but from all the IP vandalism I'm seeing on these pages (main article and character page), maybe it would be a good idea to protect/semi-protect them for awhile. Just a thought. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've raised the matter of the vandal at WP:ANI. Once he is blocked again, we can look at the actions of the other IPs. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Date formats
Hi AussieLegend - re the changes on the Earthrace article: the very first template you cite (Cite Web) shows that the style you reverted (2010-01-07...) is one of the standard styles. So what is the problem you had? Inconsistency within the article? I changed them because it is my understanding that a 2010-01-07 style is much easier for a bot / for the preferences of a user to convert into whatever format is preferred, while keeping the underlying data in an easy, logical form. Spelled-out dates are much more easier to misspell etc... Your thoughts? Ingolfson (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That was correct back in the old days of date autoformatting when unlinked ISO dates were recommended for all three templates but it was changed when date autoformatting was dropped last year. Cite web, Cite news and Cite journal now very clearly says that both date and accessdate should now be fully formatted, as shown in the examples section of Template:Cite web and Template:Cite news. ISO dates are acceptable but they're definitely not preferred any longer and the MOS says we should use a consistent style throughout articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment was edited on AN/I
Here. Apparently he didn't like the way you put it. I already reverted and made a comment on the report. I'm not sensing "reform" here. Auntie E. (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'm not watching the page at the moment and would have missed it. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I am very sorry about editing comments. I promise I will never ever do it again.

A1DF67 (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The question that I have is, why did you do it in the first place? --AussieLegend (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Bennett
Hello. You reverted an edit I made on the article “The Penguins of Madagascar” regarding the spelling of the middle name of voice actor Jeff Glen Bennett. Since you state that it is credited as being spelled with just one “N,” I have no issue with your revert. However, I do have a question: Should the Wikipedia article for Bennett be changed to reflect this? His name is spelled with two Ns there – in fact, that’s why I had made the change in the first place. Thanks, Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to IMDB, he is credited on different programs variously as Jeff Glenn Bennet, Jeff Glen Bennet, Jeff Bennet, Jeff G. Bennett, Jeff Glenn Bennett, Jeff Glen Bennett and even Jess Bennett. The citation used in Jeff Bennett to support his birthname is rather dubious, since there's nothing in the citation to prove that it's the same Jeff Bennett. Since we don't know the actual spelling of his name, Jeff Bennett seems the safest option for now. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
You should go back to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I've left a new comment there.

A1DF67 (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It''s done. Give it up. You made your bed, now lie in it. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers
Thanks for fixing up my spelling etc on the Lambton High School page - my aim is to improve it as a resource... unfortunately my spelling is aweful - wiki needs a spell checker!! Thanks once again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Non-for-profit (talk • contribs) 08:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Mozilla Firefox includes a spell checker and an Australian spell checker can be downloaded as an add-on. If you use Internet Explorer, you can download a fairly good spell checker called ieSpell. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The University of Newcastle Crest
I don't know WHERE you are getting you information but from what I have read the new logo is a modernization of the old crest and hence a direct replacement. The University has refreshed the logo for a "bolder and more contemporary design". A simple search of the website will indicate this. Also note that the usage of the Coat of Arms is being phased out and can not be seen in any recent publications or on the university's website.[] [] []

If you have any sources of the usage of the crest then please use them. --Cortez2009 (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already replied on your talk page about this, and civility to others. As for sources, I've just consolidated several references in the university article into one that deals specifically with the Coat of Arms. There is no such thing as a "direct replacement" for a COA, other than the COA itself. The new logos are a marketing tool, not a replacement. --AussieLegend (talk)

Better off Ted
Hi Aussie, I originally linked to the first 5 episodes from the episode table. I just saw your recent edits, have the individual pages for the first 5 episodes of better off Ted been deleted? only the pilot episode still seems to have its own page. Thanks for all your help. --Theo10011 (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All of the individual episode articles, except for the pilot, went to AfD and the result was "merge and redirect". Since there was nothing to merge, (everything was already in other articles) the articles have been redirected back to the episode list. Only the pilot now remains. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the Info.--Theo10011 (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Rosie case
I commented on the Rosie sockpuppetry case. I wondered if she was using Coral Bay as a sockpuppet, but had a vague recollection that users were permitted to change ID's under some circumstances, so I was reluctant to make any accusations given Rosie had gone quiet. I didn't notice the new account was opened while Rosie was still under a block -- good catch! We've got to do something about her, given the state of her talk page as of today and the block evasion. Drmargi (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi AussieLegend. I, too, just left a comment on the Rosie sockpuppet case that you opened. I am new to the rules of sockpuppetry and unfortunately I felt my comment was more aimed at her disruptive behavior. Hope it's ok. I must agree with Drmargi, good catch about the fact that she registered for the new account while banned. I had not noticed that. Rosie is currently in another war on the Life Unexpected and List of Life Unexpected episodes. It never stops. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes
Yep, good catch. I picked up the wrong episode title when I looked at the table rather than the diff. Accordingly, I've self-reverted. —C.Fred (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Scottsdale
Thanks for that - cheers SatuSuro 15:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problems. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The good thing about the pushpin maps the mistakes are much easier to pick out compared to some of the other wierd and

wonderful things that happen on tassie stubs and others :( SatuSuro 15:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Question on Iron Blow
Hey, SatuSuro told me you may be of some assistance here. What have i done wrong on Iron Blow with the Coordinates? I typed in -42.068171,145.590756 on the article, however when you click on the link it takes you to somewhere near lake st. clair? Wiki ian 02:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I can remember the mining engineers skipping lightly to the edge as they measured the cracks (1970's technology bet they can do better now) around the hole that was developing as the princce lyell implosions brought that area into one hell of a dangerous place to venture :( SatuSuro 03:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem would appear to be the figure of 81.71 in the coordinates. The figure can't exceed 60, and it shouldn't be too precise. AussieLegend (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info - im a dunderhead with coords myself SatuSuro 03:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

NCIS
Hello Aussie - a lot of what appears to be speculation and opinion has appeared in the Premise section, and I thought you would want to look at it. There are no citations whatsoever and I am not sure about some of the references. Just FYI. Cheers, Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I had noticed some dubious claims but haven't had the chance to check them out. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Penguins of Madagascar episodes
Why did you revert Deb1701's edits? His reference seems valid: I'm looking at TVGuide.com right now. I'm going to go ahead and put the episodes back in and cite the specific page, but I figured it would be best to ask. Hit me back on my Talk page.

-Grand Commander13 (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Before I reverted I checked TVGuide and the episodes weren't listed there. They may be now, but they weren't then. Deb1701's comments at Talk:The Penguins of Madagascar are puzzling. "Every time" implies that she has tried to add the episode multiple times but, according to the edit history, she's only added the episode once. She's also listed a zap2it url as the source, yet her edit used TVGuide. It's more than likely that the problem was caused because she's seen the episodes listed at zap2it but used TVGuide, where they hadn't yet been listed, in the entry. It's very important to get citations correct. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, at any rate, the citation is good now. I was confused by both of those points as well, but there is an unregistered edit which added those episodes a few days ago and perhaps Deb just isn't good with the citations yet.  She wouldn't be the first new user to misunderstand how they work.
 * -Grand Commander13 (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated. Your recent warning regarding Neptun'es Navy was not necessary or appropriate. You misused a warning. ''One of you should have just copied and pasted the refs in. It wasn't "vandalism".'' Cptnono (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The user in question had twice previously removed Citation needed "templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to". The template that I used on his talk page Template:Uw-tdel3 specifically warned about this and was entirely appropriate given his multiple deletions of Citation needed which, combined with my previous edit summaries, made use of something higher than a level one or two template necessary. Furthermore, if it was simply a matter of copying and and pasting references I would have done so. However, the citations in the article did not support that claims that I challenged. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand it is frustrating. A rewording might be needed but overall the sources do support the statement. I can't tell if it was a silly pissing contest, laziness, not understanding the guidelines, not understanding the sources, or all of the above since adding the references from the following paragraphs from the very beggining could have fixed it. He wasn't being malicious and it wasn't vandalism. To be honest,  Don't template the regulars applies to me throwing one on your page. There is a talk page that  might find consensus so hopefully everyone can relax and figure it out.Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim that I challenged was about "several governments" and "illegal activities", as indicated in the reason attached to the tag. This isn't supported by the citations, so it wasn't a matter of copying some in. Therefore I challenged it, rather than just deleting it. Subsequent removals of Citation needed was certainly frustrating and after this happened three times,........well, an anonymous IP wouldn't have gotten away with it for so long. Somebody with a lot more experience should know better. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how it could be considered vandalism. Guess that is the problem with the templates. A simple heads up that you were considering reporting him for edit warring might have been justified instead. It takes two to tango though. I just gave my thoughts on the talk page. We should be able to find a solution that expresses the information in a way that is accurate.Cptnono (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I indicated at the article's talk page, the template doesn't state that what he did was vandalism, it says that continuing to do what he did may be considered vandalism. I had considered a more subtle note but after looking at the edit summaries I felt we were already beyond that. Verifiability is a core policy. The line I quoted is in the first paragraph. I can excuse an anonymous IP for not knowing it but somebody with nearly 30,000 edits should know better. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It obviously came across jerky even with the "may" and I disagree with your choice of template. Both of you should have figured something out without letting it esculate. It doesn't matter since it doesn't sound like you will be offering an apology or feel like one is needed. Go discuss content on the page if you are interested in it still.Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What template should I have used to warn about removing maintenance templates if not the one designed specifically for that purpose?
 * What should have happened is that a user with nearly 30,000 edits, who should know better, should have either left the page alone if he couldn't find a citation, or added a citation where required, in accordance with Wikipedia's core policies, rather than acting like a newbie. It's really that simple. I did the right thing by tagging an uncited claim that wasn't supported by existing citations. I used appropriate edit summaries on each edit and when the uncited claim continued to remain uncited, I removed it. I made the bad assumption that the 30,000 edit editor understood WP:V and naturally assumed that as an experienced editor he'd get the message with this edit summary. Yeah, maybe I should have used a different template. Welcomeg seems the appropriate one now. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Morpeth
Not that it's the end of the world or anything, but do you really think it's worth having the shot of Morpeth's main street? I deleted it because it was mostly just a shot of the surface of the road -- taken on a dull day to boot -- and wasn't really worth having.

Sardaka (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The main street is what actually should be in the infobox because it's what is most recognisable to visitors. Because it's the most recognisable feature of Morpeth, it still should remain in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Forced image sizes
Hey man, is there any chance that you could revert User:Hoising's last edits to David Beckham and UEFA Euro 2008? I think you know why. – PeeJay 10:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A note on page protection
Hi there. Just thought I'd clarify my unprotection of List of FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman episodes. The content that you removed this morning was added by an autoconfirmed user (the seeming sock) before I removed the protection. Semi-protection wouldn't have stopped that user adding that content. I have watchlisted the page, and if I see IPs readding the speculative stuff, I will protect it again. Ged UK  11:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

FETCH! Season 6
Here take a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Checker_Fred#Fetch_season_6. I asked someone if it would be fine to add season 6 and they said it would be fine. So what's the big deal. I hide all of the information, So when it comes time it can be moved up. If you think it is to early when is a good time to add it.Checker Fred (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * They didn't say it was fine. The first person said it was "probably best to wait until there is no speculation, per WP:CRYSTAL and the second agreed. It's too WP:CRYSTAL to add information 20 months prior to the season airing unless it's notable. A casting call is not notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I will re add this season later on. I will give it in till they are at least finished filming for season 6. I added it because it would have been a lot to Copy/paste season 5 and change all of the information for the new season, by blanking episode summaries, dates, contestants, and some of the other things for the new section for season 6. I will than wait till September and put it back. Also, hopefully more information will be out for season 6. Now if some of the Contestants are relieved early during the summer, Than would it be fine to put this back? Checker Fred (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter when the information is added, the effort is still the same. That said, information shouldn't be added until verifiable information is available and citations should be provided. Episode lists shouldn't be added until episodes are confirmed. Points tables and whatnot shouldn't be added until there are some points to add. We don't prepare articles well in advance as you and your previous incarnations wish to do. That means that September, which is still a year before the episodes are aired is still far too early. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Adolphe (ship) Renameing
I have no problems with this and not trying to cause issues although be aware of the current naming conventions Naming conventions (ships) where vessels are typically named with the year of their launch. As yet no other Adolphe's are up on Wikipedia although a different vessel is discussed in HMS Leda (1800) and according to  "And the barque Adolphe shipwrecked in Newcastle was actually the third family ship called Adolphe"

This year of launch was included as a preemptive disambiguation for the future

All the best and thanks for cleaning up several other pieces of information I have added

PS the category forced sorts were to display the Shipwrecks of NSW cat in geographical sense rather than alphabetic Whodidwhat (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I figured that as there was no other ship named Adolphe, Naming conventions (ships) didn't apply. The sort method was confusing, we normally sort alphabetically, which is why I changed those. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes to List of Australian cities
Actually my change to the population of Hobart to 219,287 is accurate, and also the change of the term Greater Hobart to Hobart is within constraints of terminology of Australian cities as the case with all other Australian capital cities and their sorrounding cities and municipalities that are within their Metropolitan area  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.51.227 (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Again I ask that the information altered stands is not "corrected" as the alteration is not vandalism but an update on old census data. Thanking you kindly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.51.227 (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We use a single source, the Australian Bureau of Statistics for that table. That source says that the population of Greater Hobart is 209,287, not the figure you added, which was uncited, as was the population change you made to Launceston. You deliberately ignored the hidden instruction stating "as the source specifically states "Greater Hobart", do not change this to simply "Hobart"" and changed it. I have reverted to the cited figures, again. If you disagree, discuss it on the article's talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Life After People: The Series
Our anonymous friend from 117.x.x.x is back.

Wondered when they'd show back up. I love how the IP address changes with every edit. They must be on a remnant of dialup AOL or something where the addresses were dynamic. If you traceroute them it says their in Vietnam of all places. I didn't even know they HAD internet there - we are truly a wired world. Of course, trying to talk any sense to this person is futile. You leave a message on one IP and they'll probably never see it - that is if they're even paying attention. I'm pretty sure they know what is going on, but don't care. I'd request having them blocked, try an explain to an admin what is going on, but I have no confidence in them anymore. Last few times I asked for help on anything I was either ignored or got in trouble. So I don't ask anymore. Cyberia23 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

They're back again
Letting you know "our friend" took everything they added to Life After People: The Series and pasted it word-for-word to ''Life After People - the stand alone pilot article - effectively duplicating the articles and completley disregarding what the show actually featured. He/she needs to be stopped. Did you ask for an admin to investigate since they are clearly violating editing protocols and consensus? I do believe now they are just doing it to be an ass. It should also be pointed out that their use of a dynamic IP address that might make it difficult to block so whatever computer network they are originating from needs to be completely blocked out. I don't know what their infatuation is with these LAP articles. I wonder if they've done anything with other articles. The changing IP makes it difficult to see what else they have edited. I do know a few weeks ago, they edited How the Earth Was Made and added a table of "featured countries" which I was both pointless and probably inaccurate as it was on LAP. I only know of them doing it the one time and they haven't returned. I expected yet another front I'd have to stand watch over. Cyberia23 (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What?
(Sorry, i don't speak English very good). I think you're confused. I'm not doing vandalism, i'm changing the Grey's Anatomy episodes sections because an "estylistic" thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.226.231.6 (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't. The hash symbol is short for "episode number" and is used to avoid confusion. What you're doing by simply undoing the changes of another editor, who has provided edit summaries, without providing edit summaries yourself is edit-warring. if you don't understand English then perhaps you should reconsider editing the English Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Confussion? What confussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.226.231.6 (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The confusion that happens when "episode number" or "#" is not used. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

but i don't deleted "episode number" or "#"


 * Perhaps you should check your edits again. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

ouch! it's true, i didn't know it. I'm sorry
 * What did you think you were doing? Most of the edits were deleting the hash symbols. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm sorry won't happen again. --FetchFan21 (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Coordinates
Can you please add the (clickable) coordinates for the Hotel Grand Chancellor, Hobart? Cheers Wiki ian 12:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Done! --AussieLegend (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Debby Ryan
Hia gain, I've made a change in Template:Debby Ryan. I think the change is good, but please, check it. I tell you becouse I've seen that you are the user with more edits in English Debby Ryan's article, and you are who reverts vandalism. See you.Victor.spain (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The only problem I see is with the link to The Suite Life of Zack & Cody. Debby Ryan never had anything to do with that program. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

POM: Dr. Blowhole's Revenge
Actually, it is episode 48/49. As it is a full 1/2 hour, it is 2 episodes. It will air on the 15th on NIK, it will also be included in OPERATION DVD, along with Episode 50: Truth Ache, and Episode 51: Command Crisis. Episode 52: Huffin and Puffin has no air date yet.--Ares1701 (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)--Ares1701 (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources identify it as a single episode. That it's the same length as two normal episodes does not mean that it is treated as two episodes. We need a reliable source to prove that it is. -AussieLegend (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Article on "Sheldon Cooper" with lots of weasel words and improper redaction
I want to bring to your attention that a certain user with IP 68.227.32.148 has been changing the article Sheldon Cooper to a state that includes a lot of the text from revisions around December 2009 and before.

The article at that time reads like a personal point of view, which includes weasel words, original research, indiscriminate collection of information, etc. Some of those traits survive in the present article:
 * "Sheldon has an overly extensive general knowledge, such as shown by his comments regarding the introduction of the fork into Thailand. Despite his intelligence, Sheldon is usually inept in most social interactions." Why do we need to mention the one-time description of Thailand forks? It is enough to say that he has a "generally extensive knowledge but is inept in most social interactions". There is no need to bring every specific remark he has made through the show, and he has made several!
 * "Sheldon occasionally uses slang but essentially fails, and his new catchphrase is "Bazinga!". He isn't entirely sure how to hug someone." What is the usefulness of this if we already mention that Sheldon is inept in social interactions.
 * "Sheldon also has childish qualities. For example, he must get his way, such as in naming the Caltech Physics Bowl team or choosing the way to go to San Francisco for a conference where he seeks Nobel laureate George Smoot's approval, and he needs his mother (or Penny) to care for him when he is sick, which involves singing "Soft Kitty" and rubbing Vicks on his chest." Why, again, do we need all the details?
 * "He cannot stand to be interrupted, concede when he doesn't know something, lie, or hear a person bicker or people fight, crinkling his lips with insane frustration when any of these happen.[11][12][13]" Why do we care about him "crinkling his lips"? Are we going to reference every episode he does this? I don't think so.
 * "He also used to idolize fictional prodigy Wesley Crusher from Star Trek: The Next Generation for qualities of the character he found similar to himself, but Wil Wheaton's surprise cancellation of an appearance at a Jackson, Mississippi Trek convention in 1995 caused Sheldon to swear vengeance against Wil in the form of a customizable card game tournament.[15]" Again, essentially describing the plot of only one episode.
 * "He places "strikes" on someone if that person violates his imposed conditions.[19]" Why do we care about something that happened in one episode only. In contrast, some of the traits that are described in Sheldon Cooper are prevalent throughout the show, such as the "sitting spot".
 * "Like Leonard, Sheldon keeps a whiteboard in the living room for scientific theories. It usually contains virtual particles in quantum mechanics or series of Riemann zeta functions." What?
 * "Penny once asked what is Sheldon's "deal", meaning his sexual orientation. Leonard responded that "we've been operating under the assumption that he has no deal". Howard hypothesizes that he reproduces through mitosis, while Leonard postulates he will someday emerge from a cocoon and sprout wings[16]." No need for this, as there are external citations from the creators.
 * "they became close friends, due to some time alone with each other, such as when Penny cares for Sheldon during illness[28] or when Penny takes him in as he is locked out of his apartment while his friends are in Las Vegas.[37] Sheldon returns the favor as he cares for Penny when she dislocates her shoulder. In all of these instances, the story line ends with one of them singing "Soft Kitty", a song Sheldon's mother used to sing to him, when he was sick.[28] Sheldon has shown that he has at least recognized Penny's attractiveness, stating: "No one can be that attractive and this skilled at a video game (Halo)." " Again with the specifics. You may notice that the "Soft Kitty" incident is already mentioned in this list, which means that it is mentioned twice in the article at different locations.

I was the main editor that modified and expanded the articles on the characters from The Big Bang Theory around December 2009 and January 2010, and I concede that a lot of the info I wrote was cited directly from the show. However, I'm also aware of the need for secondary sources to make good articles. Well, in the case of Sheldon Cooper, some nice editors have added plenty of these secondary sources explaining the character's behavior in the words of critics and the creators themselves. With all these external references, I think that much of the content of the article needs to be summarized or completely removed (even if I wrote it).

I hope you can take a look at the issues I'm presenting, since I have found your remarks in List of characters in The Big Bang Theory most useful, and I trust your judgement. 189.250.141.78 (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I had been watching these edits. Your comments have encouraged me to take a much closer look. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)