User talk:Lapadite/Archive 1

Music label
Hello, I'd lean towards that it doesn't deserve it's own article as I'd imagine it's just them releasing their own material. I haven't checked, but if there is information out there about the label, it could probably be fit into the Garbage article itself. Namely because it doesn't sound like the label would be outside the interest of anyone interested in the band, y'know? :)Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, so only if the label started signing other artists would it be noteworthy. Thanks.--Lpdte77 (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Garbage
I know I didn't contribute much to the genre discussion (think arguments that big intimidate me, specially when I don't know what can I say!), but I see you've edited some articles by the band, including the albums that I've been regularly postponing to work before the GA process. Thus I wonder if you could take a look at The World Is Not Enough (song), see what needs a prose cleanup before I try featuring it on the main page (it was released 15 years ago, the star is on the article since 2007, it could have a chance!). igordebraga ≠ 18:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , Hi, no worries. One just takes it one argument at a time I guess haha. I've copy edited and stopped at the Music Video section. Checked the sources, changed some of the syntax of the prose, and added some relevant inline tags with a reason for most of them. There are a few links that need to be updated, a few statements that need better sources, and a bit of a rewrite I believe is needed around a couple of tagged statements that are not strictly supported by its source. Get back to me after you review the edits I made. Great cleanup you did beforehand btw. --Lpdte77 (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My last edit there was on the lead. What do you think? Do you think the begging should state "co-produced and performed by alternative rock group Garbage", since it's stated in the body that they produced and mixed the non-orchestral part of the track? --Lpdte77 (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I put that in a separate sentence to not extend the opening phrase much longer. Even if it wasn't included here. igordebraga ≠ 17:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good now (in those sections). You submitted it but I'll check the post-Music Video sections later. --Lpdte77 (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , Actually, the tagged statement (not in citation given) on the copyright section needs to be corrected. I will change it to reflect what the source says.--Lpdte77 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , finished reviewing the whole article. Fixed the tagged statements. Everything looks good, deservedly awaiting main page-showcase. I think the Beautiful Garbage article should be submitted for review (for GA). Do you think it needs anything else?--Lpdte77 (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, for starters, unsourced phrases are a no-go. igordebraga ≠ 01:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Where in the article? Lpdte77 (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Every section after Track Listing! igordebraga ≠ 03:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Woah, hah, well the Album release section isn't my forte much; I'd leave that to editors like Breakinguptheguy. However, the mixer, world tour, reception, & charts sections look well-sourced to me. Can you give a specific example of what in there needs sourcing? Lpdte77 (talk)


 * Last sentence of Commercial Performance, some lines in the tour one... and of course, checking what's already used shows problems. igordebraga ≠ 10:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The dead links are fixed. The other ones highlighted are just redirects that are still working. Looks like everything but the tagged statement in Album release is fine. Lpdte77 (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have the album yet, but I hope the booklet isn't as incomplete as this! Better search a bit more... igordebraga ≠ 12:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah that can't be all, there's only 'special thanks', no mention of personnel/credits. I'd looked around a bit but didn't find anything. I'll add their respective main instruments until it can be found. Lapadite (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It could be nice to improve those articles (which made sure to provide some foundation), specially to maybe complete a full Garbage studio albums good topic this year. I just hope reviews don't take as long as my last attempt. igordebraga ≠ 19:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Breakinguptheguy has been awol. I tried contacting him in the past. The workload on the self-titled currently intimidates me, so I'll be starting on 2.0... finalizing the critical reception section. When I get around to it, rather. Pretty much every section of both articles needs improvement, along with as the references (e.g., ). Lapadite (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Apology
I want to apologise unreservedly for the unseemly tit-for-tat squabble we fell into on the Talk:Pop music page. Intelligence is such a rare commodity that those who have it should not waste it attacking each other - we both seek the same goal, after all: the improvement and refinement of this body of knowledge. I withdraw any accusations against you, whether deliberate or not, and I entirely recognise your right to disagree with my point of view and to express your opinion in any way you see fit. For my part, I take no personal offence at any comments you made about me and I hope we can continue to work together on this great project without ill feeling. Btljs (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, no worries. Things can get heated when people are strongly coming from different viewpoints, showing restraint can be difficult at times for all sides. I appreciate the apology, and I'd like to extend mine as well. :) Yes, and It's good we at least both agree the article needs improvement. I know my points are rather general not entirely helpful, but like I'd said before, I'm really not able to focus on it right now; I'll be revisiting the article/the issue at a later time, so I actually might be helpful then haha. Good luck in the meantime. Cheers. Lpdte77 (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is Taylor Swift not considered a singer-songwriter to you?
You recently made various changes to Taylor Swift's page claiming she is not a singer-songwriter, why is that? I am interested in your opinion as she does write, compose, and perform many of her songs. She is not just a pop singer. Qwertyasdwek (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, my edit summary stated per article singer-songwriter and the fact that there is no reliable music site (or music writer) source referring to/discussing her in the context of a singer-songwriter (as opposed to a singer and songwriter). The issue is with the usage of the particular term singer-songwriter, which does not traditionally refer to a pop singer that writes/co-writes their songs. There's a discussion on this on Adele's talk page; my views are stated there If you want to refer to that. There is also an older discussion on the talk page.Lpdte77 (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Taylor Swift does in fact play both acoustic guitar and piano. Many, if not most, of her songs do focus on personal messages, in her case, past relationships and loves, which she is the sole writer of. I see where you are coming from though as the term singer-songwriter used to refer to American folk music, but I believe it is time for the term to change, or it will go extinct. Qwertyasdwek (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not simply whether the singer plays an instrument or contributes to their songs, otherwise any recording artist that gets a writing credit would qualify, please read the article. It is a very particular term/category, akin to a genre, wherein artists are the singlehanded songwriters (compose and arrange the music, and lyrics) and instrumentally perform their music. It's not up to us to interpret or reinterpret the term as we wish, presuming the meaning of the term has evolved or should evolve - that is original research; it's up to the music writers, the sources used to back up encyclopedic content. It is not reliably sourced in her article that she belongs to the category of singer-songwriters; there is no music writer that appears to discuss her/her music in the context of a singer-songwriter; she is referred to as singer and songwriter or singer/songwriter, i.e. a singer who writes/co-writes (typically lyrics and perhaps some melody contribution) some of their songs.Lpdte77 (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So I'm curious, would you have considered her a singer-songwriter earlier in her career, before she was so famous when she wrote, composed, and performed her own songs about love? Qwertyasdwek (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fame has nothing to do with it, and I'm not very familiar with her career. Looking through track listings for her earlier work there are other writers credited (which is not the only criteria if you will). Nevertheless, It comes down to whether a reliable source (a music site/writer) categorizes her as a singer-songwriter. Like I said before, our personal opinions or own interpretations (.e.g, WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:TE) should not factor in encyclopedic content. If a RS denotes her or discusses her as a singer-songwriter then she can be cited as such in her article, otherwise it's unsourced, original research, and technically misleading. Lpdte77 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ready, Steady, Go! (album)
Should the High School Nation Tour be mentioned in Ready, Steady, Go! (album)?http://www.highschoolnation.org/#!events/c1zy6 -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can put it under a Tour heading, between Release and Critical reception sections. The dates he's playing or has played would be good to cite. Lapad (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Another question. Source #2 talks about how many albums were sold in the first week, 2000 copies. How do I use a ref name, due to it already being used in the body of the article?
 * This article i linked is helpful for that.
 * On the opening/first of the original citation, use < ref name=a short name for source > (without spaces), and then wherever else you want to use that source just use that ref name but with a forward slash before the last >
 * so, you would use for all other citations from that source. I'll make the edit, and you can see the ref change I made.Lapad (talk)
 * Thanks! Figured out how to do it before you responded actually! -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent Edit
Regarding a recent edit I made on The Maze Runner. A previous editor used a semi-colon incorrectly by having an independent clause coupled with a subordinate clause. A semi-colon connects two "independent" clauses. I hope that clears up the confusion. PNW Raven PNW Raven (talk)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter
Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! , and

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/75.129.101.158
He/she is still added bare URL and probably quesionable sources on any albums and songs pages. Would you teach him/her how to properly cite templates and verified sources? 221.120.123.162 (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , I see they have attempted to expand citations a couple times recently, , and they haven't edited since you left a message on their page, so wait to see how they carry on. Lapadite (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hurts Like Heaven
Hey there. As I pointed "pop" already stated from reliable sources are:


 * Pitchfork: "Coldplay‘s pure-pop ambitions"
 * Drowned in Sound: "all Eighties pop shimmer"

Do explicitly a pop song? 115.164.52.253 (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm not sure what you're asking me exactly; the Pitchfork source is good, but Drowned in Sound doesn't appear to be a reliable source... the reviewers seems to be users for one. --Lapadite (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beautiful Garbage
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Beautiful Garbage you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beautiful Garbage
The article Beautiful Garbage you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Beautiful Garbage for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

For future reference...
Article titling guidelines apply to sections as well (MOS:SECTIONS). Dan56 (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jemima Goldsmith
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jemima Goldsmith. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Citation tags and source access
The issue date and page number were provided in The Times citation at Version 2.0. If you have doubts as to the material it is being used to cite, then the burden is on you to access it yourself, but you're not to reject a print source simply because it is unavailable online and you find it difficult to access (WP:SOURCEACCESS) --> "If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)." Dan56 (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I mentioned here and here; A source you yourself did not access but used a citation found online, posting a short statement in the article based off the title, was challenged and tagged, therefore the burden is on you to provide verification of the source. And you have persistently refused to do so. Lapadite (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * According to who or what is the burden on me? Dan56 (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, there's no indication that you actually accessed the source yourself as oppose to just copying a citation found on a site and writing a sentence based on its title. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", "To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with . Material that fails verification may be tagged with  or removed.", "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself". Lapadite (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I demonstrated verifiability by including the issue date and page number in the citation, unless you believe I falsified that information and what I used it for isn't in fact verified by page 10 of The Times issue dated 1998 May 9? Dan56 (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alejandro González Iñárritu
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alejandro González Iñárritu. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI close and other matters
Hello Lapadite--I understand you are unhappy with my close of the Dan56 thread on ANI. If you are, please communicate that on-wiki, not via email; it is not a matter that requires privacy. Second, I don't understand your problem, really: "Is there a reason why you stated 'topic ban not granted' and the thread closed when no 'ruling' has been made?" Well, the ruling is that no topic ban is granted, for the very simple reason that there is no consensus to grant a topic ban. You are welcome to find another experienced editor (doesn't need to be an admin) to re-evaluate and maybe close differently ( wstaleill be pleased, no doubt, to help you find one), but I doubt that a. you're going to find another person willing to touch that with a ten-foot pole and b. you'll find someone who will decide differently, since besides you no one else wanted Dan banned. The closest was, whose proposal didn't gain much traction (and Spike, if you are watching this, proposing that within this mammoth thread meant it was likely to fail). So I think it is time to drop that stick, which you'd been swinging for almost three weeks. In other news, I saw you templated. Please don't do that: templating an experienced editor for removing unverified BLP information is really dickish, and to tell them "Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits", when they have a million edits, well. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I emailed because I figured that the ANI matter was stale and no more discussion was warranted on Wiki. Guess not. Yeah my question was why you made a ruling if there was no interest, like last the last admin who commented said. I found it odd you did so because of a general lack of interest as opposed to an uninvolved admin strictly exonerating or saying 'not granted' themselves. Only one editor stated they opposed, in actuality. My opinion here is, yours is not a wholly honest decision or representation of the thread.
 * Drmies, please look for the full picture before throwing out an accusation; you coming down on me like this, failing to assume good faith, particularly after the ANI, says a lot. Materiascientist templated me, "dickishly" as you say because I reverted their inappropriate/unexplained revert of an editors' edit on the Bdy: ; they reverted me in the same fashion. I didn't tell them to 'make use the sandbox', it's what the template adds; it states "Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia...without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted." No need to lecture me on BLPs; I've worked on them for a while now and strive to keep them well-written, well-sourced, and keep unsourced info out of them. Lapadite (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. Feel free to get another admin to look at that thread. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , I proposed an action because I've been observing the situation for a long time and editors are frustrated at the community's inability to handle troublesome situations. My section started out tidy but was turned into a mess by people nesting replies and arguments instead of creating their own sections. Common editors are out of their minds about stuff like this. They try to get help, and are sent away to other venues. At those venues, they are sent to still other venues. When they don't post diffs, they're told they didn't provide enough detail. When they post diffs, they're told they posted a "wall of diffs" and that isn't right either. After all is said and done, they get their thread closed with a one-sentence summary or some flippant comment. People get to where their editing experience is miserable and they have nowhere to go and noone to turn to. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"editors are frustrated at the community's inability to handle troublesome situations" - no kidding. But we're in the wrong for bringing up issues admins don't care, are too lazy or biased to deal with and actually do something about. Lapadite (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bill Cosby
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bill Cosby. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)
Hello, I am soliciting comments for an RfC that is currently open on the "Glengarry Glen Ross (film)" page. There is disagreement about where the film was set (New York vs. Chicago).

One of the issues is whether it is original research to cite to elements in the film itself (including props, dialogue, and a statement in the end credits that it was "filmed on location in New York City") to establish setting.

Response so far in the RfC has been mixed. Comments welcome! Xanthis (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise). Legobot (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious?
Please see WP:TAGBOMB and WP:OVERTAG. Adding a cleanup template after every sentence is not only redundant but ugly as hell. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Chrissie Hynde → The cn tags aren't in every sentence, only next to those that require it, per WP:CHALLENGE and Tagging. None of those statements are common, well-known facts. As the top article tag says, the Biographical article needs additional citations for verification, and the cn tags specify where. Any editor that sees unsourced content, particularly in a biographical article, may delete it in actuality, especially if it's been tagged and unaddressed. P.S., WP:OVERTAG concerns over-tagging a particular statement. Lapadite (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that you can be blocked for disruptive tag bombing. One tag is enough for an entire paragraph.  If you edit war over this, you will end up blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really an issue any more because I sourced almost every single statement that you tagged. In the future, bundle the tags so that you don't get a tag after every statement.  You only need one tag to handle an entire unsourced paragraph.  Putting five tags in a paragraph doesn't tell people anything helpful, and it makes the article an unreadable, bureaucratic mess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that threatening blocks and throwing out false accusations is uncivil behavior. I'm glad the tags were dealt with the proper way. There were never 5 tags in a paragraph. Tagging a paragraph may not always be a viable alternative if the paragraph already has cited statements (particularly if the last sentence is sourced), also may not always be helpful for editors that are not sure what statements ought to be sourced (not all do). Lapadite (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. I was a bit out of line.  I get a bit irritable sometimes when my attempts to clean up an article are interrupted with a revert.  I've been dealing with a lot of problematic articles lately, and sometimes innocent bystanders get the brunt of my frustration. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, no worries. Lapadite (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)