User talk:ChaosMaster16/Archive101

Avatar (2009 film)
I se ethere is some confusion over which release dates to include. I though you might find these guidelines interesting. WP:FilmRelease says the dates that should be included in the infobox are the first screening date (i.e. the premiere) and the release dates in any of the production countries:

''The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release dates in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. should be used for the film's initial release. If other release dates are found to be notable, it may be appropriate to include them in the main body of the article''

A production country is defined as any country where a production country is registered (Template:Infobox_Film - under Country):

Insert the home country or countries of the film's main production companies.

The lede is only required to include the year of release (see WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines):

''The lead section should introduce the film and provide a summary of the most important aspects of the film from the article body. At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the major genre(s) under which it can be classified. For presentation of foreign-language titles, see the naming conventions for foreign-language films. Ideally, the nationality of the film (based on its home studio) should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not clear, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph. The first paragraph of the lead section should also identify the director and the star or stars of the film. If any writers or producers are well-known, they can also be identified in the paragraph. If the film is based on source material, that source material and its creators should be identified. If possible, convey the general premise of the film in the paragraph and identify actors' roles in the premise.''

I hope this helps to clarify the issue over the Avatar (2009 film) release dates. Betty Logan (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Re, the named refs. This is what I presume you meant by you are working on something, and it will be removed if added. First, RT community ratings are irrelevant, as are Yahoo! Movies (which are community based). Further, its a single film, so a table is unnecessary to show just two valid numbers. Therefore the named refs are still, not needed. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope you have not been scared off from the Avatar (2009 film) article. We could still use your help, and your thoughts about matters. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember to update the Box office section as well when you update the film's box office gross in the infobox. Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yahoo! Movies aggregate
At this time, the aggregate score of Yahoo! Movies is not considered a reliable source nor appropriate for inclusion in film articles. I have started a discussion at the Film's project to see if this view has changed. Before readding these ratings to any article, please voice your views there as to why it should be included. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Maximum Ride
I've had another look over Maximum Ride and it has improved greatly - well done! Most of the major problems I mentioned in my assessment have been fixed. However, the article could still do with more references, especially to the books themselves (they are, after all, the main source on the series. There are also occasional manual of style problems, particularly with the tone of the plot section - be careful of in-universe perspective. Basically, just try to match it to the 6 B-class criteria and then request another assessment.

As for the other articles, they do seem rather short on references, but that doesn't mean they need complete re-writes - just make sure that most of what is there is referenced to somewhere, and anything that can't be referenced at all is deleted. strdst_grl  (call me Stardust) 16:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Pitfeedback
I don't think that it would still meet WP:RS. Twitter is hard enough to pass off, and only because Robert Seidman works for a reliable source would his personal twitter be usable. Breaking it down further to a personal blog on a website that already looks sketchy is stretching the reliability of the info to a point that probably would not hold up under heavy scrutiny in any type of review.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Preview button
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history.  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 02:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 15:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse infobox
As further explanation on why I reverted your changes to the infobox, I wanted to direct you to Template:Infobox film. Under the explanation for the "writer" parameter: "Some films are based on previously produced or published material, such as books, plays, articles, old screenplays etc. When this is the case, list the writer(s) of the film first (while placing Screenplay in parenthesis either next to or under the name), then list the source material writer(s) in a similar fashion." This is the format that MikeAllen was trying to use, and he is correct. Andrea ( talk ) 16:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Human Target
I would, but I barely have time to keep up with the Smallville pages. I've been working 50 and 60 hour weeks lately. If there is something specific you want me to look at, let me know and I'll try and make time to do that.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  06:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If FOX is the owner, and they produce the show then it is an American show and the airdates should be the US airdates. If any episode airs before the US airdate, then a notation should be made saying "Episode X aired two days early in Canada". We had the same issue with Smallville, if you remember. In season 7 we had an entire season that was aired early. The American airdates were still listed as the primary "original airing", but a notation was made that Canada received the episodes early.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on the articles talk page, I asked you friendly to stop editing and reverting the current issue that is in discussion as per wikipedia guidelines. I'll repeat it here for clarity, Fox does not produce the show, please engage in the the current discussion. Thanks.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 03:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)
Do not merge this article again.WP:IAR does not mean you may do whatever you wish. Consensus was wholly against your proposal; you may not cite IAR and disregard it. Continue to do so and you will be blocked. ÷seresin 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Smallville
Seen the new "Absolute Justice" preview? I thought it was pretty cool. Got me excited. I also think, after reading about the Annette O'Toole and Michael McKean appearances that we'll still get 22 episodes this season since they are saying that they don't appear till episode 21 and that's the "next to last" episode.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the twist will be. I'm wondering if it will be Martha's thoughts on Clark's new outfit. Maybe she'll be the one to convince him to throw some color in it. As for the 22 episodes, they never said originally when they announced that "Society" and "Legends" becoming one episode would result in us having 1 less episode this season. It probably means we'll have 1 extra filler episode this season.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the DVD will probably read "Episode 11: 'Absolute Justice'" and just explain that it's 2 hours. "Commencement" was 60 minutes, so it's not out of the blue for them to do an extended episode. I doubt they're going to package "AJ" as a stand alone DVD, just because it's Smallville and it get shafted on everything. They haven't done a stand alone DVD since the pilot/Metamorphosis. Plus, filming it back to back, like they probably did, they probably saved a lot of money and can afford to do another episode. Not to mention, the CW might have said "look, we paid for 22 episodes and you're going to give us 22 episodes". I was surprised the CW even allowed them to do an extended episode in the first place. It makes it look really good that when the series does finally end that maybe we'll get an extended series finale episode.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it'll be listed as one episode on the DVD set, because I don't see them breaking up a 2 hour episode into 2 separate episodes on the DVD. If they did, people would probably be annoyed given that the story is meant to be viewed straight through. I know I would have to have to skip through closing credits and opening titles more than I needed to. As for sweeps, I'm not sure. We have 11 to 12 episodes left (depending on if they short us 1 episode because of "Absolute Justice", or not), which means we could go 12 straight and go right into April 16....which is unlikely given that we always end the show in mid to late May. If they do a 4 week hiatus, then we're looking at a May 21 finale. If it's 3 weeks, then May 14. The later seasons have been ending in mid May, which would say we're only going to get a 3 week hiatus. I could see them breaking this hiatus up over time, so that they could get a couple of episode into March sweeps. I think "Warrior" might be the last episode in February, and "Persuasion" won't air till probably March 5 or 12, which would give them a 2 or 3 week break. Last year they went till March 12, from February 5. I think they'll get their March episodes in, they'll probably just break up the hiatus over two periods (right before March and right after).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Shoot, Smallville is one of The CW's top rated show, and they treat it like it's a bottom runner. If they marketed this show like it deserves, I guarantee you'd probably see 1 or 2 million more viewers on a regular basis. I'm sure if they marketed the "series" finale (whenever that would be) well, you'd probably have a lot of people return to the show just to see how it ends. But, this is the CW we're talking about here. As for ABC Family...I don't have the slightest. Have you looked at ABC MediaNet?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm game...just have to get a few hundred million dollars. :/ Yeah, I don't know how many ads I see for shows on ABC on other networks, or hell even advertising just on the CW. Why is it that I get 5 different Supernatural promos while watching Smallville, but the only time you can find anything for Smallville is if someone posts it online. It's completely one-sided, and rather ungrateful to the show given how much it is supporting the CW from basically shutting down completely.    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It was. It wasn't my most favorite, but it was up there. I loved that they finally showed John in his Martian form. That was awesome. I thought the fight between Icicle and Stargirl was a little choreographed, but the team battle at the end was awesome. I hope they tackle the Suicide Squad. I really want to see a true "team" battle. I also wish that Dr. Fate was a little taller. He was a shrimp compared to everyone else in the episode....lol.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Absolute Justice" - That's some crazy viewers. Why couldn't we see a proportional spike like that in the ratings?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, regardless only one episode aired. "Absolute Justice" may have combined two episodes into one, but it was still "one" episode in the end (One I'm hoping they put on Xbox Live here soon so that I can watch it in HD). As for the Ebay thing, we could use the info just not the source. We cannot use the source because once the item is sold the page will be deleted.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added both to my list. Right now I'm slowly working on an "Absolute Justice" page. I work all almost every day, so it'll take some time for me to get it fleshed out completely. I hope to have it done by the end of the month, which should help any lagging reviews or interviews come out.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Absolute Justice" sandbox. Right now, I'm compiling sources. I've found quite a few but I haven't actually read them to see if they have anything worth reporting. As for the "Society"/"Legends" issues, it's something that would definitely need to be address on the "AJ" page--I briefly mention it on the lead, but we need full on sources and info about it--and I guess we'll just see at the end of the season how many episodes we get and how the CW packages the episodes on the DVD. I know that on Xbox Live, it's sold as "Absolute Justice Part 1" and "Absolute Justice Part 2", but it's just separated at the middle; it's not like it has two sets of opening credits or anything.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for going through those reviews. Were they the entire review, or just exerts?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would just say, "Comic book movies", or the website's name if the author is using a nickname. This way it doesn't sound as unprofessional. I removed the bit about the season 8 finale, because it makes no sense to compare it to that figure. This is a midway episode of the next season.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume you're referring to "Persuasion"? I liked it. I think they're really starting to let the SFX on Clark's heat vision decline. It used to be so perfect in the early seasons when it was introduced, not it looks like it's just way too big for his eyes. It's annoying. I did like the final scene with him destroying the tower and Zod's hope of gaining superpowers.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have some hope for "Conspiracy", as "Disciple", "Warrior" and "Persuasion" didn't look that good to me but they turned out better than I could have predicted. As for Michael Rosenbaum, I've heard that it's a rumor that he's coming back. It was reported on some fansite that the producers were trying to get him, but nothing is official right now. When we do start getting some official info, I think what you suggest would be good. We don't even know if we're getting a 10th season yet...though, I'm sure we are.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that Supermanhomepage.com is a fansite, so we really cannot use it. So what did you think of the episode? It was a little slow paced, but I liked the plot points we got.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ComingSoon.net is not a fansite. Kryptonsite is. Most of what Kryptonsite reports is unofficial information. By unofficial, I mean they haven't released it to the public yet. Which means that people do not attach their names to the information. In other words, we get "According to our source at the CW...." - which is unverifiable. If we cannot attribute verification to a source, then we cannot use it. Kryptonsite may be accurate, but it still fails the reliability test on almost all criteria. You quoted: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." - The key part of that is "an expert whose work has been published by reliable third-party publications". Craig's never had anything, to my knowledge, published with regard to Smallville - the exception being the companion books, which are not published by a third-party source, but are commissioned by the studio itself.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure what you're asking with regard to the music section. Are you asking if the article should have anything at all, given that there is only a couple of lines? Or are you asking about the info regarding Muse? My thoughts are, unless it is really noteworthy that Muse was said to be involved but later denied it, then it probably doesn't need to be there. Because it sounds more like someone passed a rumor, and Muse confirmed that it wasn't true. Now, unless there is some in-depth interview that explains that the band and the studio just couldn't agree to terms on doing the single for the film (or something else that would be noteworthy, and explain why they are not attached to the movie anymore), then I would assume that it isn't that relevant to say that a band was said to be involved, but the band denied it. Since bands are not like actors, as bands are not "characters" in a film, it isn't the same. If Kristen Stewart all of a sudden said, "I'm not doing Twilight: Breaking Dawn," then it would be really important to explain that. She's a character in the film and replacing actors is not generally common practice with sequels - if one can help it. Bands, on the other hand, are often not contracted for sequels and come and go with the wind. So, I say, unless there is a good reason behind it then it probably doesn't need to be.


 * BTW, do you think we should put that Twitter message about the Writer's seeing "Absolute Justice" in the season 9 page for "Storylines"--as well as the "AJ" page in the development section? The CW, according to their website, is still only listing the episode as a single entity, but it would be nice to say, "Hey, the writers feel like it's still a two episode story"??    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Then it seems like we need more context for the info. I didn't get the impression that they were contracted for the film. It read to me like someone posted a rumor that they were doing the film, then the band clarified that they were not. If it's not the case, then we need more info to clarify that they were contracted, acknowledged that they were doing it, then backed out of it. It would also be good to know why they backed out of it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Already put it in the article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe we'll get a definitive answer until they release the DVD and we see how they label the episodes in the booklet.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I noted your removal of my reference to "Absolute Justice" being thus far the only exception to Smallville's one-word titles on the List of Smallville episodes page. I have thus made a reference to this fact on the Absolute Justice episode page, which I think will suffice for what I consider a minor, but not irrelevant, point. Obviously, if any future episodes have titles longer than one word, the point will not even be worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedricthecentaur (talk • contribs) 13:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Cedricthecentaur (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Life Unexpected viewer data
Hi ChaosMaster. I have what may be a really silly question. You recently changed the viewership for the premiere of Life Unexpected and List of Life Unexpected episodes from 2.74 to 2.83 million. According to the source cited, the article says 2.74. (Similarly, the press release here quotes that number.) I am so confused, because you are the third person to change it. Just an honest question here—what am I missing? Do you have another source? Clearly everyone is looking at something else! I'm lost. (I've asked others who changed it but have not gotten an answer.) Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bother you, someone has changed the reference. I feel much better now! :) --Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

ABC Family template
Recently you were putting the ABC Family template on a few new TV shows. I noticed that 3 of the 7 "currently airing" programs don't really exist yet, but are listed in that template as "Current". I don't know much about templates, but would you be able to edit the template to have a section on "upcoming programming" or something similar? The Disney shows template does this:  Just an idea. Don't know who to ask/where to go, so I figured I'd try you first. Thoughts? --02:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for doing that...and sorry I didn't sign my post correctly last time. Oops.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Fang...
19:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I would like to point out that it HAS in fact been published, because I happen to have a copy of it. You can order it on Amazon or Waterstones, believe me, the release date is NOT the 15th March. 19:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)--A Fan and Owner of the Series-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.233.57 (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HTposter.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:HTposter.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ChanceC.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:ChanceC.JPG. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:61vo5tWBGrL SS500 .jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:61vo5tWBGrL SS500 .jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.


 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.


 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Color scheme
I'd go with a yellow-orange, since that appears to be the color of the box. Maybe a Pumpkin (color) or a Amber (color). Hard to tell, as you often cannot know for sure till you put it in the episode box and test it.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Newmoonposter.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Newmoonposter.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 00:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism warning
This edit, replacing what appears to be WP:SPAM without explanation may be considered vandalism. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Second warning
You are replacing WP:SPAM with no justification. Explain the justification, or I will seek protection for the article. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Formal complaint about your spam edits
I filed a formal complaint about your editing here:. I am notifying you as a courtesty recommended there. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

UW re 3RR violation at List of Smallville episodes
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains
Recently, you have twice reverted good faith edits made to the U.S. Nielsen ratings section of this Survivor article. The edits changed were made to be as accurate as possible in regards to the number of weekly viewers in millions. As the reference, TVbytheNumbers.com, rounds the numbers to the nearest thousandth, I fail to see why you changed them to the nearest hundred viewers. There was clearly a lack of objection, indicating a consensus. —Untitledmind72 (let's talk + contribs) 14:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Smallville
The season one premiere/finale ratings I believe should be on the respective episode pages (8.4 and 3.8, respectively). As for season two, I don't have those. I believe that the finale for three is on the season page (5.92), and the season four numbers are on the season four page (6.07 and 5.47).  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I did find this, but I cannot tell if they are combing the figures for Smallville and the Gilmore Girls into one audience, or if that's the figure for one of them. I don't believe that the season two premiere was 8.7 million....as it would be better than the season one premiere. You might be able to search here for any info on the season two finale, or season three premiere.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw the table before, and it looked cool. Unfortunately, you cannot use that Kryptonsite source. Bizarroboy is not an authority of anything, and since he gives credit to another user, and neither provide a link to any Nielsen info, we cannot use it. It doesn't matter if it matches us pretty closely, it's not reliable in the least. It would be the first thing pointed out in a review.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The goal would be to eventually find them. Smallville isn't FA right now, so it's not a no-no to insert a table that is missing a couple of numbers.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, you probably don't need "TV Season" since it's indicated what season it is with the premiere dates and finale dates listed.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How hard is it to look at the dates that are right there next to the "TV season"? It's unnecessary, and implies the average reader is either too lazy to look two inches to the left, or too dumb to realize the specific date is right there. It's implied that no episode aired out of the TV season that the premiere and finale started and ended with. We cannot put things in place based on an "if this happens, then this makes it easier", because it's never happened. It probably won't ever happen either, but unless it happens there is no reason to have a column that reiterates information stated in the column immediately to the left of it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS edits
Please keep WP:MOS (capitalization) in mind while editing. There is no need for unnecessary capital letters in Wikipedia articles, like you reinstated in the article on The Last Airbender. Thanks. -- Soetermans |  drop me a line  |  what I'd do now?  09:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Capitalization


 * Thanks for taking the time to talk. I used looked at your previous edit and saw the SFX Magazine was not an article. In the headings, I capitalized Screenplay and Origional story because of this: "Use sentence-style capitalization, not title-style capitalization: Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest lower case. Thus "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations"." Those both fall under that catagory becuse you are initially saying the origional story is by so and so. If you have anymore on this, just respond. Thanks! ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16


 * I stand corrected, Chaosmaster. As usual, Wikipedia contradicts itself :) In the future, I won't be so anal on the use of capital letters. Thanks, and happy editing. -- Soetermans |  drop me a line  |  what I'd do now?  13:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:ABC Family
I am not about to revert your edits to Template:ABC Family because I see no reason to start a war. That said, the categories are "Current Original Programming" and "Former Original Programming". Current original programming is airing now (or in hiatus), former original programming is no longer airing. Yes, 10 Things I Hate About You (TV series) is canceled--but it is still airing. I don't see how you validly change that. It's premature. (With your interpretation, Greek should also be listed as "former" since it is well known that the show will end in 10 episodes. But doesn't it seem ridiculous to change it now?)  Like I said, I'm not going to war with you, but I can still disagree. Sorry, had to say my piece. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge at 10 Things
Hello again. Regarding your recent merge of 10 Things Season with List, where you stated in your edit summary that "no discussion was needed", I wish you would have checked first to see if there was any discussion in progress prior to your merge. Because there was a discussion, between me and QuasyBoy, who added the merge tag. Since you did not bother to read it, or ask either of us about it, you have now converted the references back to prior versions. He and I had discussed having the references in formats to keep on the List page, not Season page. Do you want to fix this, or shall I, since I was in on the conversation? Please let me know so the work can be preserved. Thanks. -Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch, it looks great. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Volume4.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Volume4.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

re Vampire Diaries ep list
You undid good edits because you disagree with the formatting? You also undid disambiguation fixing. If you want the Prod Code in a different column then you should move it, not remove and tell someone else to fix it to your liking. Keep in mind that the placement of the Prod Code is dependent on the Aux parameters of episode list. delirious &amp;  lost  ☯ ~нu ɢ ѕ~ 02:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Smallville-Season-9-smallville-6565079-1200-927.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Smallville-Season-9-smallville-6565079-1200-927.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows (film)
Alright calm down. No need to SHOUT about it. I only made these changes in terms of legibility and presentation, not detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.113.120 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ghost Whisperer
Listen, before this gets into a cycle, please note that we are here to provide only factual information. Speculative text - even if we have a source that verifies someone is speculating it - is not our stock-in-trade. If something comes of the time, we can report on that - but we are not in the business of reporting on possible futures. --Ckatz chat spy  23:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop - you are edit warring to add in speculative, unreferenced material. Yes, the producers "might" have time to convince a cable network - but by the same logic, they "might" have time to syndicate it, or they "might" decide to present it as a web-based series, or they "might" decide to make a direct-to-DVD movie, or any number of other possible outcomes. We are not here to guess as to what they might or might not do; you have not presented any references to support the claim that the producers are even considering such an action. --Ckatz chat spy  04:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your actions are troubling, to say the least. You are not getting the fact that you are adding speculation - the simple fact that you're saying "could" clearly demonstrates the uncertaintly involved. The reference describes speculation on the part of the author; there is nothing in the article that indicated the producers are even considering such an action. --Ckatz chat spy  01:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty Little Liars
There is no need to shout or be sarcastic about the situation, everything on this website is supposed to be professional, which you are not acting. Removing the ratings table, informing readers of a week-by-week look at the ratings and information surrounding it, can be considered vandalism. If you desperately want to remove it from the List of Pretty Little Liars page, then be fair and remove it from every single show page that has one, including Desperate Housewives, Private Pratice, Brothers & Sisters, Eastwick, etc. Until you have a legit reason to remove the ratings table, which will grow and expand in time, I will treat you as a vandalist on the page and will have to report it if this continues further. Thank you Codywarren08 (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Secret Life of the American Teenager Request
Hey. No problem. I went ahead, and did it. Happy Editing! Sami50421 (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I said not a problem. You can use the program yourself here . Just enter in the page title and it does all the work for you. It's made editing here for me so easy. Thanks. Sami50421 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Page Blanking

 * 1) (del/undel) 04:35, 15 June 2010 (diff | hist) m Ashley Juergens ‎ (←Blanked the page)
 * 2) (del/undel) 04:34, 15 June 2010 (diff | hist) George Juergens ‎ (←Blanked the page)
 * 3) (del/undel) 04:34, 15 June 2010 (diff | hist) Anne Juergens ‎ (←Blanked the page)
 * 4) (del/undel) 04:34, 15 June 2010 (diff | hist) Ben Boykewich ‎ (←Blanked the page)
 * 5) (del/undel) 04:34, 15 June 2010 (diff | hist) Amy Juergens ‎ (←Blanked the page)

Why did you do this? Spartaz Humbug! 02:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't delete anything because you are not an adminstrator. You can nominate the pages or redirect them but blanking content isn't the way to deal with this. Spartaz Humbug! 11:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh...we'll never know the truth
So, do you think we should undo the number changes since the CW released a description of the DVD set and clearly say "21 episodes"?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Al Septien is just a general producer, not an executive producer. He may consider it two "episodes", but the problem comes when they decide which episode will be the 200th. If the studio says "AJ" is just one episode, then it's going to be episode 5 of season 10. If not, then it's episode 4. I'd really hate for them to say episode 4 is the 200th episode, but when the studio counts episode 5 becomes "200" and thus isn't as monumentous as episode 4. They need to figure it out and stick with it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I did check it out. I've always been weary of the site and of the guy, mainly because we don't know enough about him. So, I elected to keep my opinion out of it, because I've kind of just trusted you on it instead of my gut feeling of it being a bit unprofessional for a reliable source.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for implementing a compromise option, I am assuming this removal of sourced info from CNN was a mistake? :P -- Cirt (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Opps... Yes, it was. Sorry about that.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
 * No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SLGraceRicky.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:SLGraceRicky.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Last Airbender
Once again I have had to remove your claim that the film "cost" $280 million. As I explain atTalk:The_Last_Airbender the marketing costs are quite separate from the production costs of the film. You have also reinserted a reference that I have specifically asked you not to put back in because it uses the LA Times article as its source, which is already included in the article. I hope you will cease with your unconstructive edits so I won't have to take it any further. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Last Airbender, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Last Airbender. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ghost Whisperer episode list
While Aussie may contest the splitting into seasons your removal of all episode summaries is more troubling as it removes content rather than disagree on it's location. Simulating the results of episode list/sublist without having supporting season articles is not better. It half negates the point of having an episode list. Also, your version very much does overlink; typically a writer or director is linked with their first appearance of each season. Furthermore the colouring is off in your version; the shades of blue and green are at minimum on the wrong seasons. My apologies for missing the references that had been removed from what I used as the source of my revision. delirious &amp;  lost  ☯ ~talk to her~ 05:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I have reverted this edit because it reinstated numerous errors and inconsistencies that I had taken great pains to correct over a five hour period. Regarding the question you asked, which you easily could have done less destructively on the article's or my talk pages than by a blanket reversion of the article, the references were removed because they were from pifeedback.com, which is a user forum and therefore not a reliable source, as confirmed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

AN3
You have been reported for persistent edit-warring here: Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Betty Logan (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In view of your self-correction I've cancelled the complaint against you. Betty Logan (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Regarding the Harry Potter poster
Hi ChaosMaster. This message is regarding of the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows poster. Please do not upload over other non-free images (in this instance a logo). When you do upload non-free images, please use the correct license and fair use rationale. Also, the image size is well over the acceptable fair use size. See WP:FUG. I have uploaded the poster in the correct size and FUR here. Just wanted to drop a friendly reminder. Thanks. :)  Mike   Allen  04:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Deathly hallowslogo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Deathly hallowslogo.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Normalized" and Metacritic
Please don't use the term "normalized" to describe Metacritic's ratings, and especially please don't link it to a statistical term such as standard score. Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (film)/Archive 6 for details. Note that I do not object to reporting Metacritic's ratings, just the use of the word "normalized." It is simply wrong. "Average" or "composite" would be acceptable terms because they do not imply statistical calculations that haven't been done. Thanks. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Twilight releases
Per WP:Filmrelease *only* the public release should must go on the infobox, also, I see no source on The Twilight Saga: New Moon. And Release does not exist, so I don't know what you mean. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 00:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:The Twilight Saga: Eclipse.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

The Vampire Diaries
Hello. Please don't go on major destructive sprees. What you do is either look for sources or add templates for other people to look for sources. Then after a certain time the information will be removed if sources can't be found. Jayy008 (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of Make It or Break It episodes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Harry the Dog WOOF  14:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
Only proper nouns the first word in a line should be capitalized in the infobox. BOVINEBOY 2008 15:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Smallville 2
See the images of the discs for Season 9? No one has commented about them only listing 21 episodes.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Right here. Also, I love the TV Guide Comic Con cover.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)