User talk:R7604

RE: Jon & Kate Plus 8
I see you've fixed it already. I just hadn't noticed it, good work!  TheAE  talk / sign  14:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * its fine to include the direct links for the season in the overview guide, as the TOC includes other things besides the seasons and its an easy way to go exactly where you want if you are browsing the guide. It makes the page look no differently and has no negative effect.  Grande13 (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * it only adds to the page, and takes nothing away from it, and its fine by wikipedias standards for there is no basis for its removal besides an act of vandalismGrande13 (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into shrinking the section with the titles. As for the links its not changing anything to the page. there is already a "1" there under the seasons guide so its just adding a link, and its not duplicating the info. The TOC covers everything on the page. It makes sense that when one is looking at the seasons guide and quickly want to navigate to the desired season they can just click on the season number to navigate there quickly without having to look elsewhere for the link. Overtime the TOC will become more detailed and dense so having a place just for season navigation will be even more useful. Grande13 (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

actually for making the titles section smaller its different for every user... The wikitable that is used expands it to the browser size, so if you make your browser window smaller the tables shrink as well to make sure everything still fits in the screen. This allows people with all various sizes of monitors to view the page without somethings being cut off. Grande13 (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

i realized you arent going to be able to get the titles section any smaller without adding more categories, most shows have director/producer categories but since this is a reality show this really doesnt apply.

regarding table size there is some amount of space, but it takes into account if you are using a mobile device or a laptop or widescreen monitor. I adjusted it to 90% to make it a tad smaller but its not much.

Since its an episode list it makes sense to have the titles in bold as they stand out and can help people navigate the titles quickly without getting it confused with the summary and other info. Besides smallvile i really havent seen non bold titles, and even the smallville pages do bold the title on their individual seasons pages. Grande13 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

the reason the smallville title secion is smaller is it has the director and producer categories which we wont be able to get for jon and kate Grande13 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If the title section were to shrink then something would have to take up the extra space, otherwise another category would have the same type of spacing problems. The bold for the episode titles is fine as it helps them stand out from the summary and date Grande13 (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

its an episode guide so the episodes on the list should be the things that standout. If it was a character guide then the main characters could be bold and so on Grande13 (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didnt mean that the episodes were special. Its just that when you are quickly glancing through the guide the titles in bold jump out at you so you can find you what you are looking for easier. Its an episode guide so the episodes are the main focus. Regardless, the bold is fine and it doesn't need to be removed. Grande13 (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Im not saying its impossible to find without the bold, the bold just helps and you tend to put things with more importance in bold as it is the first thing the eye catches so there is no reason for it to be removed, so just focus on improving the guide in other ways and look at other sections. Maybe you can make a more detailed DVD section Grande13 (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of List of Books and DVDs
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. --  Darth Mike (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

J&K+8
Can you restore the season table to the article? As discussed multiple times in the edit summaries, it was thought a good idea to comply with WP:SUMMARY - empty sections are not the preferred state, a short summary is preferred, and several editors thought that the table serves as a summary. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 06:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Murder, She Wrote
I see that you have again removed the whole episode summary (i.e. the episode #, year etc.) and not just the DVD releases which you have claimed to removed. You can check for yourself that under the title "Overview" there is no information at all.

Furthermore, I don't see a reason why the DVD release dates should not be included in the first place as other episode lists on wikipedia have them included. For example, The Simpsons has the information on its main page, its episode pages and its specified DVD page. Dell9300 (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help changing the italics on the list of guest stars article. I took a long time getting around to doing it and really did need some help. Dell9300 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. I know that italics only belong on the show titles, not episodes, not to mention that most sections were in quoes, while some were in italics, it looked kind of weird. R7604 (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I did some (started at the bottom for some reason) but did not have enough time to finish it. Thanks again. Dell9300 (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is better if the the mention of future movies is kept in the main article as it is more accessable for people and also the list of episodes article is, as may seem obvious, a list so information of this nature should not be placed here (this also applies to the image, even more so in fact). Dell9300 (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Both the TV movies and the "Magnum" crossover episode are mentioned two other places, you leaving them there would make it three times. The article about a future movie and the image, belong with the list of episodes and TV movies in the link to episodes. Information about movies and pictures of movies belong in one place, not three places. R7604 (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I explained to you why they should not be there and you are not listening. I know you are new so I let it slide for so long but now I am making you aware of the three revert rule - continuing to edit war could result in you being blocked from editing. Also, you can reply on your own talk page (just a tip). Dell9300 (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Sorbo
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Kevin Sorbo. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. TravisAF (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Jon and Kate source
Please stop removing sources. The season five description can be removed once the season is over, and each individual episodes source can be removed after it airs. So what if its on the TLC website. If you want to remove everything on this page thats on the website then there isnt even a point for this page....So keep the episode sources until AFTER that episode airs so people can verify that its a true episode and not some vandal adding fake episodes and titles and etc... Grande13 (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See Also/Kate Gosselin
Also re. J&K: Please do not delete the "See Also" section that refers to the Kate Gosselin page. It is relevant and should be included. Thanks. Cactusjump (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see the Talk:Jon & Kate Plus 8 regarding your last revert of edits at Jon and Kate Plus 8. Cactusjump (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. And, since you chose not to discuss it on Talk:Jon & Kate Plus 8, I've reported it to WP:Third opinion. Cactusjump (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit warring report is here for your perusal.
 * ...And you can find the WP:Third opinion report here. Cheers! Cactusjump (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't want to engage in an edit war. If the general consensus is that the See Also section shouldn't be there, that's fine.  It would just be appreciated if you discussed the reverts on the talk page before you take action, especially when there is a discussion for it on the talk page. Cactusjump (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Smallville date links
Per the injunction on date links, you really are not supposed to mass delink pages like that. If you are going to do that, I would request that you change the dates accordingly to the Month Day, Year format so that they are easy to read to the average viewer. Thanks.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I'd suggest reading the dictionary more. Please read WP:MOSDATES, where it states that the Arbitration Committee put an injunction (that means they halted, stopped, or put an end to) on mass delinking and mass linking of dates. In other words, removing the brackets "" and "" from around "2007-09-03". What I requested, was that if you do mass delink, you at least kindly change "2007-09-03" to "September 3, 2007" for the average reader. Is what I'm saying clearer now? I cannot paint it any simpler.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless you are not from America, you are the only person I have ever spoken to that claims to get confused by what I say. Maybe there too much Wiki lingo in there for you, I don't know. As for the dates, clearly you still do not understand. I'm referring to the dates you were delinking in the citations, not the date that appears in the lead paragraph. Go back to the page, and click "History", then look at my last edit. You'll see where I replaced the dates, and maybe then you'll understand what I'm referring to.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * When you were first learning to do accessdates there was an automatic code that converted them to "Month Day, Year" format. That code no longer exists, which is why they were left linked (because the code that autochanged linked dates still exists). Hence, why I requested that you adjust them if you delink them. Since there is an injunction on mass delinking, if you choose to just mass delink without being considerate enough to change the formatting then I'll just revert the delinking. As per the injunction, you need to get approval from the Arbitration Committee before any mass delinking.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Because they probably are assuming that it's still automatically changing the setup. I don't know what's going through people's minds. But let's pose this question, "If you were reading an article, and the prose said, 'John Doe arrived at the hospital on 2009-06-17', don't you think that would look rather odd?" As such, it looks odd when you're reviewing sources. It's call consistency, and when they changed autolink features it through everything out of whack. I'm only asking for a very simple thing, just adjust the format if you delink the dates so that they can be read normally (this would also require paying attention to the article, as articles about British subjects will appear as 17 June 2009).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Also, please do not use incorrect edit summaries in an attempt to cover up the fact you reintroduced the original research. Redfarmer (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.'  Redfarmer (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
You are being reported for vandalism for repeatedly changing Jon and Kate DVD section. You have been warned about similar actions before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.42.217 (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Smallville
Do we have reliable sources for the casting news? I've only ever read them on Kryptonsite. If we have some casting news, then we can create a section on the LOE page, but we would have prose content instead of a table. Once we have enough episode info we could then create a table. Until the various Cons that the Smallville cast and crew appear at, we won't have too much information about season 9.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  10:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed Bryan Austin Green from the "Other characters" list because 2 episodes really isn't "recurring". I moved his stuff over to the LOE page, and put in the stuff about Zod that you found from TV Guide. It's all in prose form. I also corrected the Zod info on the character list page, since TV Guide listed him as first appearing in season six, when in fact it was season 5.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  10:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't know what TV Guide is talking about. Maybe they only count season six because he didn't appear until the very end of the season five finale, and the season six premiere he was there the whole time. Technically he was first mentioned all the way back in "Solitude"...but whatever, TV Guide needs to review their own episode guide.. :D.


 * Sorry, I tend to abbreviate a lot with Wiki stuff. LOE = List of Episodes (in this case List of Smallville episodes). LOC = List of characters (even though the page is called "Characters of Smallville", it's the same basic principle).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I said I removed Brian Austin Green from Characters of Smallville, because 2 episodes really isn't classified as a "recurring guest", especially not if they are back to back episodes. Recurring guests usually have more than 3 episodes to their name, and they aren't typically bunched up one after the other. I moved Brian Austin Green to List of Smallville episodes, where I have all of the season 9 info in prose form.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just follow the link I provided in the above post. Here is a link to the actual edit, in case that's easier.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The color scheme is based on the DVD boxset colors. The season 1 box was like a rusty red color, the season 2 box was a royal blue, so forth and so on. When the season is just starting, we typically leave it in a neutral gray color (here is season 8 before they released the coverart for the DVD boxset). Once we know what the DVDs look like, then we adjust accordingly. Some of the colors either look the same, or literally are the same because the boxes were similar and some of the color codes on Wikipedia make the text almost unreadable. As such, the seasons with similar colors (season 2 and season 7 for instance are both blue - but, to point out, they are not identical as one is a darker shade...just providing an example) will get the same treatment because that shade of blue shows up the best.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We use gray because the DVD boxes are never gray or black, and so it won't be confused as the color of the season 9 DVD box (especially since we don't know what color they are going to use). It's the same way with The Simpsons (see List of The Simpsons episodes), except since everything about The Simpsons is yellow they use that as their default color. Smallville doesn't have a default color. There isn't any prominent color in the show like yellow is prominent in The Simpsons. Yeah, red is associated with Superman, but so are blue and yellow. Right now it doesn't matter anyway, because we don't even have episode titles.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The DVD box color is how many pages (from The Simpsons to South Park to Smallville and many others) have dictated the coloring of the season tables. The DVD box color is used a template to keep a color continuity between the pages and the actual products. Smallville (and a few other pages) use gray as a means to denote that the season is either a future season, a season in progress, or one that has yet to be released on DVD.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jon and Kate DVD chart
Did you ever stop to think that Amazon doesnt receive stock of every DVD, Book, CD on its original release date ? The release date is probably the day it was released on Amazon for purchase. The three dates needs to be changed.

And I would say most people are unaware that their are "DVD regions". Deleting the link is counter productive.

Once again I think online stores get their stock after it goes on sale. But even if ALL of Canada gets it 1 month later than the US, putting (canada) after 3 dates is confusing and it crowds the chart. And the "Region 1" link should be restored. --PhilthyBear (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop writing me ... i don't care. Keep your inaccurate chart if it makes you feel good. Just please stop writing me. Thank you. --PhilthyBear (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Jon and Kate's kids
Please don't remove their ages and the "Notes" in the table... the Duggar Family has a similar format, and I think it is okay to include their ages. There isn't a reason not to. ★ Dasani ★ 05:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, excuse me. Wrong user. That was the PREVIOUS poster. I didn't say "inaccurate" chart; if you're new, you've got to learn about this stuff. And also, if you refered to ages, well, they're back on the chart now, like the Duggars. ★ Dasani ★ 01:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --132 00:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus
Regarding these two edit summaries: "What Consesus are you talking about then? Last one I did was three years ago and I vowed never again. I dislike surveys. Besides why do you insist on changing it now? Answer me that." and " It would be nice for others to stop interferring after all this time. Why is it after I put the dates and table, you come along and decide to change it?"

You clearly don't understand what a consensus means. A consensus does not mean "What I say goes." in any way whatsoever and it is not something that is optional. A consensus means that multiple users who are in disagreement go to the talk page, discuss the issue, and come to a mutual decision about what to do with the thing they are in a disagreement with. They are NOT optional. If you refuse to discuss and come to a consensus based only on your view, you violate WP:OWN. It is policy to discuss and collaborate. If you don't like it, please consider joining a different Wiki or starting one of your own.

Further, Wikipedia is not static. Wikipedia is a dynamic, ever changing encyclopedia. It doesn't matter when your last little "survey" was. If opinions about something have changed, so does the consensus. You don't get to use something as support for your version that may or may not have happened three years ago (which it didn't; the show wasn't even in existence three years ago so it is patently impossible for you to have gathered a consensus about this that long ago). Again, if you don't like that things around here can change at any second and what may have been fine once, may not be fine now, I suggest you consider joining a different Wiki or starting one of your own.

In a nutshell, please follow the basic principles of Wikiquette to learn how to get along with other users and hopefully gain an understanding that this is not your personal playground. You can't make all the decisions on your own and you have to constantly be open to others' opinions and disagreements. Period. I will address the other issues in your edit summary on the J&K talk page. --132 13:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Result of discussion
R7604, there's been a discussion at Talk:Jon & Kate Plus 8. The clear consensus there is against what you propose. Please respect that. When the page is unprotected, do not again try to force the version you prefer. If you want to, think about working on something else for a while. Tom Harrison Talk 00:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been said
Please don't post any more on Thirteen squared's talk page. It looks like everything has been said at this point, and repetition probably won't help. You've made your point, he's heard you and replied, but hasn't been persuaded. That happens sometimes. Tom Harrison Talk 00:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Smallville
Listed twice? Do you mean twice on some page, or just twice in general? If it's the former then you'll have to show me, because I don't know why they would be listed twice on a page unless it was an error. If it's the later it would be because the Nielsen Ratings and the DVD releases are relevant to both the overall topic (i.e. Smallville), as well as to the episode over page (i.e. List of Smallville episodes). It is a little redundant, but if someone is only looking for the episodes, then having that info about the episodes on the LOE page would be good because they're basically hidden behind a mountain of prose that already exists on the main page.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, like I said, it's relevant to both pages. One is a summary of the entire show, one is a summary of all the seasons/episodes. The Nielsen ratings and DVD releases are relevant to both pages. It's just like how there is some information in Pilot (Smallville) that is repeated in Smallville (season 1) because it is relevant to both locations.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's mentioned at Smallville. Probably won't mention it at List of Smallville episodes or anywhere else, because it isn't the same as becoming an "Executive producer". His seems to be just a title thing, and nothing more. If you notice that Kelly Souders and Brian Peterson are always identified (even when they are together) as simple "Executive producers", but Tom is a "Co-executive". He's not the same, and probably won't really have any control over the show. Unless more details are revealed about what level of control he might have, it's not really that relevant beyond a simple mentioning on the main page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Jon & Kate Plus 8
Hey, I was wondering if you could use the edit summary and provide a brief summation when you edit. I was just looking at the article's history, and it's hard to tell what has changed. It would really help. Thanks! Cactusjump (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

For persistent edit-warring on Jon & Kate Plus 8, I have temporarily suspended your editing rights. Tom Harrison Talk 03:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey there. The references you removed are still valid, whether you consider them "old" or not.  Additionally, your edit summary asking "If they were available in Canada, how come I couldn't find them?" is not a valid reason for your edit. It would be wise to go to the talk page to ask these questions and gain a consensus before making any more changes. Thanks. Cactusjump (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

...and again, this time for longer. Please stop reverting. There's a clear consensus against what you want to do. Tom Harrison Talk 21:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. Reverting again and again is disruptive. Tom Harrison Talk 00:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're determined to persist in this, it may become necessary to indefinitely suspend your editing rights. Tom Harrison Talk 12:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For persistent and disruptive edit warring, I've suspended your editing rights for three months. Tom Harrison Talk 15:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 04:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of 7th Heaven DVDs


The article List of 7th Heaven DVDs has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This page could really be put on the main page for 7th heaven. It does not really need it's own page.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Checker Fred (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock puppet
You have been. (blocked by –MuZemike 20:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.