User talk:Davejohnsan/Archive 7

GOCE March drive wrapup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Translation notification: Wikimedia Blog/Drafts/Heartbleed
Hello Davejohnsan,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to Spanish on Meta. The page Wikimedia Blog/Drafts/Heartbleed is available for translation. You can translate it here:
 * translate to Spanish

This is the text of a just published blog post summarizing the actions taken to protect users of Wikimedia sites against the recently discovered "Heartbleed" security vulnerability. (The post explains that users will need to re-login the next time they use their accounts and suggests to change passwords as a standard precautionary measure, but it is currently not intended to enforce a password change for all users.) Completed translations will be added to the blog post.

Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Meta to function as a truly multilingual community.

Thank you!

Meta translation coordinators&lrm;, 19:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Two things 2-response
Some movie projects list anyone who appears in a movie as themselves as "Himself" or "Herself" or "Themselves" just like they did on some of the movie pages here. Did I leave anything out? --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's still incorrect grammar. And you did leave out the second part, which was about the bullet list for guest stars. From Infobox television episode, "[…] Separate multiple people using Plainlist, or bullets (*). If using bullets, include the character the guest actor portray in the episode after his/her name in the infobox (using a single space, "as" and another single space: " as "). Provide a link to the appropriate article if possible. Only guest actors in notable roles should be included in the list."Davejohnsan (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've only did the things without bullet lists because episodes for The Simpsons, Once Upon a Time, NCIS, and any other shows with episode pages that I left out didn't utilize them and used the specific inserts to keep them separate. Does this comment help you with this response? --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

sp episodes
That rollback was unintentional, I must have misclicked and didn't see the rollback go through. Do not that we should avoid season names and use something like Q4 instead of fall. --M ASEM (t) 18:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thank you for the response. Davejohnsan (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Translation notification: Wikimedia Highlights, March 2014
Hello Davejohnsan,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to Spanish on Meta. The page Wikimedia Highlights, March 2014 is available for translation. You can translate it here:
 * translate to Spanish

Please consider helping non-English-language Wikimedia communities to stay updated about the most important Wikimedia Foundation activities, MediaWiki development work and other international Wikimedia news from the month of March. Completed translations will be announced on Facebook, Twitter, Identi.ca and project village pumps.

Help is also still welcoming in translating the previous issue of the Wikimedia Highlights which was published last week, at.

If you have questions about the translation notifications system, you can ask them at. You can manage your subscription at.

Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Meta to function as a truly multilingual community.

Thank you!

Meta translation coordinators&lrm;, 05:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

NCIS and Ralph
I think it should be down a line. most other shows with notes on episodes have then down a line from the rest of the text to distinguish it slightly from the plot of the episode.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 14:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I happen to disagree with that particular style, but I don't have the time to energy to do much about it. If you look through the article history of the NCIS season pages, you'll notice that guest stars and recurring characters used to be listed in the plot summaries, in the same way that you want to acknowledge Ralph White's tribute, until someone finally removed them. I objected at first in silence, but later I realized it was beneficial (at least in my opinion) because listing these details on a separate line with a bold intro (as in bold formatting) is a distraction to the plot summary. Does this make sense? Davejohnsan (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

request
hello. I see that you have edited and worked hard on articles dealing with television programming. I have a question, that I hope you can help me out with. Regarding the article "List of programs previously broadcast by American Broadcasting Company". I was trying to remember the name of a program on ABC...shown in New York, some years past, every Saturday at 12 noon. It was a talk show news philosophical type program. I was wondering why that program (whatever the name was, that I can't recall right now), is not shown or mentioned anywhere in the WP article. It's one of those things that if I SAW the name somewhere, I would recall it. So I don't see it on the article. I was wondering and hoping if you might know what I'm referring to. It was on for YEARS...from what I remember, always on Saturday at 12 noon (at least shown in New York), on ABC...channel 7. I don't remember the name of the program for some reason. It was on in the 1990's, and into past 2000, I believe. And it doesn't seem to be listed anywhere in the article, as there is no "Saturday afternoon" headings anywhere, or anything that I notice for it under "news and talk show" etc. If I were to see the name of the show written somewhere, or mentioned to me, I would recall it immediately, as being the show. But I can't remember it right now off hand, and I don't see it anywhere on the WP article, for "past ABC programs". I hope you have an idea what I'm talking about, or know the program name in question. Please let me know. I would appreciate it. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the delay in response. I'm afraid I don't know which television show this is, and the information you have probably isn't enough to search for it in Wikipedia. Do you know who created the show, who starred on it, or what year it first aired, or what year it stopped airing? Wikipedia categorizes all that information, which might help narrow the search for you. In the 1990s, I was watching Saturday morning cartoons and playing with crayons, so I wouldn't know about any talk show that aired during that time. Davejohnsan (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * well it's a program that also (from what I remember, and if I'm not mistaken), went also after the year 2000, a few years in.  And as far as who starred in the program, etc, that's just it, I'm a blank as far as who was the host.  I just remember that it was an older white guy, and it was about matters and issues and philosophical topics etc.   And it was interesting.    It was always like around 12 noon, on Saturdays, on ABC.  And was yes, in the 1990s, but as I said, went beyond that past 2000 etc.    And for some reason, when I do a general google search of past ABC shows and programs, I can't find this thing, for that time slot, etc.   Do you have any ideas on how to get the name of that show?   Gabby Merger (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could try these categories:, . However, one thing to keep in mind that these lists should not be considered comprehensive--these categories are all updated manually, so the possibility that a talk show which broadcast before Wikipedia was created has not yet been added to one of the above categories does exist. I'm sorry I couldn't be of any more help, but I just don't have enough information to draw a conclusion here, especially since, as I said, I was a young child in the 1990s. Davejohnsan (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. Another editor gave me a link, and I found it!   It's called "The Open Mind"...and the problem is that it was NOT on "ABC"...but rather PBS!   That was the problem...and the confusion.   She gave me a few links, and one of the links "Category:Local talk shows in the United States" happened to have the name of the show.  And I said that if I saw the name, I would know and recognize it immediately.   And it was there.   The Open Mind.   Sorry for the trouble.  I had it mixed up.  I did think of the possibility though, that it was not on ABC maybe, but I wasn't sure where.  But I got the name finally.   Thanks for your help anyway.  Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad you found it. Davejohnsan (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. By the way, I was curious. Have you heard of the show "The Open Mind"?   Are you at all familiar with it?  It's a very good program...been on since 1957!  And still on air.   You heard of it?  Gabby Merger (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I know you've been busy the last few days.  But I was asking, just out of curiosity, did you ever hear of the show "The Open Mind"?   It's been around a while.   You knew of it?  Gabby Merger (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I have not. Davejohnsan (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Translation notification: Wikimedia Highlights, April 2014
Hello Davejohnsan,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to Spanish on Meta. The page Wikimedia Highlights, April 2014 is available for translation. You can translate it here:
 * translate to Spanish

Please consider helping non-English-language Wikimedia communities to stay updated about the most important Wikimedia Foundation activities, MediaWiki development work and other international Wikimedia news from last month. Completed translations will be announced on Facebook, Twitter, project village pumps and (for some languages) mailing lists.

If you have questions about the translation notifications system, ask them here. You can manage your subscription here.

Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Meta to function as a truly multilingual community.

Thank you!

Meta translation coordinators&lrm;, 08:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Translation notification: Fundraising/Translation/Thank you email 20140606
Hello Davejohnsan,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to Spanish on Meta. The page Fundraising/Translation/Thank you email 20140606 is available for translation. You can translate it here:
 * translate to Spanish

The priority of this page is high. The deadline for translating this page is 2014-06-20.

Please help us translate our Thank You email that is sent to our donors on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation's new executive director Lila Tretikov. We would highly appreciate your help on this in order to make sure the letter is available for our donors to read in their native language.

Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Meta to function as a truly multilingual community.

Thank you!

Meta translation coordinators&lrm;, 13:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ref Criminal Minds, Season 4, episode 14.
Hi Dave, I have been watching Criminal Minds lately and adding information to the summaries for several episodes. I thought it would be helpful for people who wanted to know what the episode was about to have a little more information than a single sentence which many of the summaries were. I found an error in one about which episode Agent Rossi comes in on. I enjoy doing this and thought I was doing it well. However, I happened to notice tonight that many of my edits have been reversed to the previous single sentence with exceedingly little information about the episode. Hmmmmm. Being new to the process, I wanted to know why my edits had been reversed so I did some research but really had difficulty finding out why they were changed. I did find this note from you about my revision for episode 14 of season 4.

"Undid revision 610873412 by SweetMagnoliaSue (talk) Write in complete sentences, please."

I'm trying to figure out exactly what sentence you thought was incomplete. Unfortunately, I can no longer find my original edit which would have been at least 3-4 sentences long and written in complete sentences so I still don't know why my additions to the summary were deleted. If you have any insight on this I would appreciate it so that I don't continue to put in the effort if it is not appropriate in some way. I love editing and I love to write but maybe this isn't the best place to do it unless I can figure out what I'm doing wrong. Thank you for your time and attention. SueSweetMagnoliaSue (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally, when a good-faith (i.e. non-vandalism) edit is reversed by a registered editor, that person should leave an explanation explaining why he/she did that, so you should be able to find some explanations in the article history. I only recalling reverting one of your edits, and the reason I did it was that you wrote a fragment sentence, which going off memory, I believe was, "J.J.'s first case since returning from Washington." Aside from being a fragment sentence, as I just covered, I also didn't see how it was relevant to the plot summary. Sorry for not being to give a more detailed explanation, but I hope this helps some. Davejohnsan (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Dave, Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the information and have reviewed additional Wikipedia guidance on editing which has been very helpful. The statement you referred to as being an incomplete sentence was this: "JJ's first case after she returns to the BAU takes them to Washington." This is a complete sentence. It might have sounded better if I said ...takes the team to Washington, instead of ...takes "them" to... but according to the rules of sentence structure, it would still be a complete sentence either way. I included the statement about JJ in the summary because it was a noticeable change in a main character's status for the show. She had been gone for several episodes and Agent Todd had taken her place so I felt it was important to note that JJ was back. One of the guidance pages for editing specifically suggested that editing could include adding information to make the 'article' more complete. Thanks for the review and the reply. SweetMagnoliaSue (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Translation notification: Wikimedia Highlights, May 2014
Hello Davejohnsan,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to Spanish on Meta. The page Wikimedia Highlights, May 2014 is available for translation. You can translate it here:
 * translate to Spanish

Please consider helping non-English-language Wikimedia communities to stay updated about the most important Wikimedia Foundation activities, MediaWiki development work and other international Wikimedia news from May. Completed translations will be announced on Facebook, Twitter, project village pumps and (for some languages) mailing lists.

If you have questions about the translation notifications system, ask them here. You can manage your subscription here.

Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Meta to function as a truly multilingual community.

Thank you!

Meta translation coordinators&lrm;, 07:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Law & Order Season 10 Guest Stars
Dave, I've been trying to add relatively famous guest stars to the Law & Order Season 10 episode list page. Seasons 1-9's pages all include mentions of relatively famous costars on a separate line, without including them only them in the plot summary. I'm not sure why you're continuing to delete my changes. As someone who is watching Law & Order from start to finish, I had particularly enjoyed the earlier season's pages that included links for the actors I thought I might recognize. I certainly think Tom Berenger, Michael Gross, and Michael McKean all merit mention. I don't care how they're included or about the style, but I think it improves the page to list famous guest stars.

Thanks, Bertbah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertbah (talk • contribs) 12:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Left a response on your talk page. Davejohnsan (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: July 2014
Hi. My name is Brendan. I'd like to address the issue that you seem to have with my editing. Forgive me if this comes across as confrontational, as that is not my intention. So excuse me, but I do not appreciate the inference that I am "disruptively editing" the Criminal Minds (season 9) article... That was quite under-handed of you to label my edits as "disruptive" before even contacting me. I have watched - and purchased on DVD - every single episode of this show, and I'm merely trying to improve the page and give these reputable actors credit where it is due. Meshach Taylor just recently died, and you deleted his credit like it was nothing... I've written almost all of the episode summaries for season 9, entirely in my own words, and I uploaded the DVD cover's image. You are the one who initiated this passive-aggressive deletion of my edits; if anyone is editing disruptively, it is you.

Pardon my tone, but I'm offended that you labeled me as disruptively editing... I am an avid and loyal fan of this show, and the way in which I credited the actors does not violate any policy and, in fact, was in complete synchronicity with the way in which it was done for every preceding season, before I even joined Wikipedia. I'm not looking for any trouble here; I don't own any of the pages nor will I ever claim to do so; I respect your right to edit just as much as I respect my own. I am a new member so I am not at all familiar with any of the protocol associated with interaction with other users, or with Wikipedia's definition of disruptive editing. You seem to be an experienced member, and I respect that. All I ask is that you respect me enough to talk to me like a human being, rather than using codes and hyperlinks, trying to pass yourself off as some kind of administrator and try to intimidate me with these threats. One of the main reasons why I joined Wikipedia was so that I could help keep fellow Criminal Minds fans properly informed and to help ensure that the articles are accurate, as I love the show and have accurate information to offer, not to step on people's toes or be disruptive. I can assure you I have much better things to do.

While there is nothing inaccurate about the way you have edited the page, none of the information I provided is false, and I do not understand why you are so fixated on changing the way the actors are credited. It was fine the way it was, no one reported being confused, and going by the post regarding Law and Order, this isn't the first time you've done this. I do not like conflict, nor do I enjoy arguing with someone I don't even know over something I feel so strongly about. Once again I'd like to apologize for my tone here as it might appear to be conforontational; I am very emotionally invested in this show as it has helped me overcome many residual negative feelings from my childhood, so I'm speaking from not only an intellectual perspective, but an emotional one as well, however that is not the point. But I would really like to know, why do you interpret my addition of completely accurate credits to the actors who've guest starred in this season, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, with the intention of merely keeping the next C.M. fan completely informed as "disruptive editing?" As I said, I am a new member and I don't want to make a bad name for myself, so I'd like to resolve this as soon as possible, using the proper dispute resolution format, and hopefully come to a peaceful compromise. I hope you understand that I'm not coming from a place of condescension or malice toward you; I just want to understand why I'm being warned for making completely accurate edits which were done in the exact same manner as were the actor credits of every other season (all of which you've deleted for some strange reason). I feel like this isn't about the format at all. I feel like you are insulting me. I've been completely honest with you, and I give you the utmost respect as you have made an extremely impressive amount of edits. My wish is to resolve this as soon as possible, using the dispute resolution format, or whichever way is best, considering the circumstances. My goal is to continue to keep fellow Criminal Minds fans informed, and to better understand how to respect Wikipedia's rules.

Also, my hope is that we can keep this between us, as I'm not even sure if the way I'm addressing this issue is proper (I only know how to edit, not interact with other members). By the way, the reason i feel it is better to list the famous guest stars on a separate line is to imply a clear, concise and structured format of the page, making it easy for other users who enjoy this show to recognize the episodes based on which actor was a guest star, and to learn who might've guest starred on their favorite episodes. I believe it presents the information in a more organized manner, also I feel it gives the actors the proper credit where it is due; I noticed this was done the exact same way before I joined, so I figured that was the best way to credit actors. I apologize for neglecting to explain my reasoning behind this, I am very new to Wikipedia, and I simply want to help present relevant information about my favorite TV show. Until now I didn't know how to explain my reasoning behind that particular style of editing. I still don't know how to go about explaining why I've made an edit, and I'd love to learn how to do that as well. Please don't report me, as I only want to resolve this disagreement, come to a peaceful compromise and remain helpful to Wikipedia as much as possible. Feel free to respond on my talk page in whatever way with which you're most comfortable. With all possible respect and sincerety, Brendan Bef3481 (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out to me. I can assure you that I am just as interested in resolving this matter as peacefully as you are, so let's talk. But before I do, I'd like to you know that the edits I made to the seasons of Criminal Minds were not in response to any edits made a specific editor. It was something I had been meaning to do for awhile, but keep neglecting due to real-world circumstances (i.e. IRL shit), but in any event that's beside the point. Still, you invested in time in contributing to these edits, so I understand your frustration.


 * The reason I labeled one of your edits (this one specifically) as "disruptive" had nothing to do with the content itself, but rather that you keep reinstating the disputed content after I removed it—three times, to be precise—without once providing an explanation in the edit summary or in a message either on that article's talk page or on mine. I hope you can see why that was particularly frustrating for me and led me to leave that heavy-handed message on your page.


 * The issue I have with the content itself is the manner in which it is presented, not with its factual accuracy. While it may not necessarily violate any specific Wikipedia policy, I do believe it goes against the idea of the "short summary." Ideally, each episode summary in a season article is only supposed to be 100 to 200 words (and if the episode has its own article, the summary can be longer), so listing all the guest stars on a separate line with bold formatting is a distraction to the plot summary. One thing I also noticed--and took issue with--on most of the Criminal Minds season articles is that the guest star lists repeated names that were already in the plot summary itself, making some of these lists redundant as well. My belief, and I'm sure there are plenty of other editors with a similar belief to this, is that the guest stars should instead be listed during the plot summary, like this: When Dr. Spencer Reid (Matthew Something)...


 * I'm sorry if I came down hard on you. I appreciate your desire to improve these articles, and I certainly have no intention of interfering with that. A lot of editors have strong passions for specific things, and unfortunately that does result in head butting sometimes. I can't speak for everyone, but with me I can at least assure you that I know when to put my guns away and talk things over. Thank you. Davejohnsan (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)



Well Dave, I'm glad you're willing to talk about this. First of all I'd like to state that had I known how to provide an explanation as to why I made the edits in question, I certainly would've ...I just realized that it can be done right after the edit is made; I just always skipped that option, not even reading what it said. That is laziness on my part, and I admit that. Also, I made the assumption that you were initiating some kind of edit war, as the page remained the same for quite some time, and then you deleted a good portion of my work and after I put it back up, I felt it was personal. I'm glad to know that isn't the case.

I've been doing some research, such as looking at the formats of other shows on Wikipedia and how their respective guest stars are credited, and I agree - to some extent - with your stance on this issue. As I stated, my reasoning was that I believed my method presented the page in a more clear, concise manner, but I read your statement about the redundancies of crediting an actor already mentioned in the article, as well as the example you gave me of the edit I made with which you had a problem, and I've realized that the format I used is in direct conflict with my goal of making the page more organized and the actors properly credited.

Redundancies and contradictions like that can indeed made readers put off or the page might appear poorly organized, as you said, "contradicting the idea of a short summary." Therefore, I'd like to propose a compromise: I credit all of the famous actors whose guest-starring in the given episode deserves mention throughout the series, who aren't mentioned in the episode description, and otherwise uncredited, especially in the later seasons where more famous faces started to make guest appearances, considering that they are credited on the individual disc cases of the season 7 and 8 DVD box sets. I will do so exactly the way you did for season 9 (e.g. Episode 5: "Route 66," in which you credited Meredith Monroe as Haley and C. Thomas Howell as the Boston Reaper). I'll use only this format, and only credit the actors whose names are more easily recognized, within reason, adhering to Wikipedia's policies of course, and I'll provide explanations when doing so. If they aren't already mentioned, I'll find a way to incorporate them into the plot summary, while keeping it short, as you did with Season 9's Route 66, and as I sort of did with Season 8, ep. 2: "The Pact."

I believe this is a reasonable compromise and I hope you can agree with me here. I believe these actors deserve credit where it is due. Feel free to tell me what you think, I'm confident that this compromise will effectively end this dispute and allow me to continue to help keep my fellow avid Criminal Minds fans informed. By the way, I do accept your apology, I am new to Wikipedia and sort of pleading the fifth on this one lol so I appreciate the apology for coming down on me. Much respect; thanks for allowing me to discuss this with you, as I'd like to keep a good reputation. Truce? Sincerely, Brendan Bef3481 (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've edited season 9 in the manner in which you described, I kinda like this format now that I think about it; hope this is what you meant. I hope this way of crediting is in synch with what you thought to be more practical, and I hope I didn't do so disruptively. I'll gladly delete it myself if necessary, but I think this is a good compromise. I hope you agree, and that we can put this to rest. Hope to hear back from you soon. :) Bef3481 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All good! Thank you. Davejohnsan (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem! Thank you for your cooperation; it is much appreciated. Cheers!

Sincerely, Brendan F. Bef3481 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. By the way, I think you deserve to know that I never thought once that any part of your message was confrontational or aggressive. It was obvious your main interest was in resolving our dispute and keeping the peace. Props to you for that. Davejohnsan (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)



Wow! Thank you so much for awarding me the barnstar! I'm so glad that we were able to resolve this disagreement so peacefully and diplomatically. That is the ideal outcome for me. Also, thank you for the appreciation of my edits and my willingness to improve these pages and keep the next fan properly informed! I must say Dave, you are a class act. Much respect, and happy translating! As someone who is also bilingual, even though I speak French, not Spanish, I know how difficult it can be, at times, to translate properly, and I was particularly impressed when I read that you're starting to be a translator for Wikipedia Commons. Keep up the good work and thank you so much for the Civility Barnstar. I wish you much joy and happiness. Sincerely, Brendan F. Bef3481 (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Who's the Boss? edit
Listen up! My edit on "Who's the boss" is accurate and true! That episode was the series Finale and I will continue to fix it and if you continue to mess it up I WILL REPORT YOU! GOT IT! My edit is accurate and true and is not a mess up. Wikipedia allows people the right to properly make edits if they see fit OK. Roverzero1983 (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing the accuracy of your edit there—yes, the final episode of the eighth and final season is the series finale, but does that really need to be noted? This is information that is easy to infer, and Wikipedia is not the place to list trivial, indiscriminate information. Davejohnsan (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Episode appearance tables on CSI
Hey, Dave! I noticed you reverted one of the newly added cast tables on a CSI season article (can't recall which) added by the IP 89.110... Are you in the same camp that I am, that these tables are excessively detailed and too large for the tiny amount of information they add? It reminds me of when IP's used to add notations in the episode summaries about which actor was "absent" (like it was school) from an episode. So what? Does this need to be documented? Likewise the column noting episodes in the older table, which is generally the whole season can go as well. We just don't need to document appearances at this level of detail unless there's a good, encyclopedic reason, and one escapes me at the moment, I have to say. --Drmargi (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do agree. Davejohnsan (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. I'm doing two things right now: swapping out the tables for cast lists, since they are more compliant with the MOS, and removing the British DVD cover pictures in favor of US DVD covers. I'm amazed no one has ever fussed about them.  I've got them done through S13 as flat images (none available for 14 yet), and cast lists fixed through S10.  I have to leave for a while, then will take care of the last five seasons.   --Drmargi (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thanks for all your work! Davejohnsan (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)