User talk:Rswallis10

The remaining talk page conversations can be found on this page.

List of Rectify episodes
Hi Rswallis10, sorry for the little scuffle at the Bones article. I wanted to leave a message on your talk page regarding List of Rectify episodes, so it also doesn't turn into a little edit war. You reverted the reference back to Showbuzz Daily. This is unnecessary. I originally added the ratings ref for episode 2, so there's no reason to change it to a different website, just because it's your preference. Saying, "showbuzzdaily is the standard for shows that don't make tvbtn" is not really true or is it an acceptable reason; any reliable source can be used. I switched the reference for episode 1 because the original source didn't support it (I'm assuming it was removed when the list was updated?), and using an archived version is a bit silly, when there's a perfectly acceptable alternate reference in place. Thank you and I hope you understand my reasoning. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah that actually does make sense, as your source for the first episode is much better. I'm not familiar with "Headline Planet" and how often they publish ratings articles, so I never go there. I'm in the habit of checking ShowBuzzDaily every day, and I have a good rapport with the writers (who respond to many of my ratings requests), so I use them to cite many of the daily ratings I add each day to Wikipedia. Going forward, do you want to continue using "Headline Planet" as the primary "Rectify" ratings source (for consistency), or switch over to ShowBuzzDaily for the remaining episodes? It really doesn't matter either way to me, as I'm not heavily invested in "Rectify", so you do whatever you see fit, and I won't get in the way. Thank you for coming here so cordially, I too apologize for how I handled myself yesterday. Rswallis10 (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would prefer to use Headline Planet for the ratings for Rectify (for consistency) as it's one of the shows that website specifically posts ratings. Thanks. Keep up the good work. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Jessie episodes
I completely understand where you're coming from with this edit but be aware that we've had issues with Disney episode counts in the past. Hannah Montana and The Suite Life on Deck are two examples that I remember where Disney's final count didn't match the number of episodes that we have listed or that aired. Disney announced something like 102 episodes for Hannah Montana, but we clearly only have 98 listed. Going back through the Disney press releases didn't help, that came up with a different count again. It's quite possible that when the Jessie is finished, the final season count may not match the number advertised. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of the two previous situations you brought up (Hannah & Suite). I am personally quite against people quoting WP:SYNTH when common sense dictates, but in this case you are correct. Had I been aware of the historical discrepencies, I never would have made the edit. I appreciate you coming to me and explaining yourself; i will not be a bother on that page anymore. Rswallis10 (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

possibles reason for discrepancies in count
not sure what one would call it but like the boy drumming for the partridge family became a diva so he was replaced (I didn't notice until 20 years later read article about "two Darrin's and other TV character replacements") Qazwiz (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * controversial subjects may be pulled -this happens also when a shows story line turns out to eerily come true (most reciently, last year I think a drama pulled an episode filmed months before but not yet aired when a mass murder happened almost the same way)
 * conflict in rights --- so many ppl involved a conflict can come up
 * theoretically an episode commissioned ended up scraped (don't know of any but ...)
 * more likely but again in theory, attempting to quash a "Partridge drummer"

Street dogs in Sofia
I created a similar article to Street dogs in Moscow, Street dogs in Bucharest etc., there are several such, they are the same subject, maybe you should either nominate or not nominate all these if they are the same.--Serdik (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My nomination for deletion is just a suggestion for the administrators. New pages are created literally every single minute, and I patrol these pages quickly in order to keep up with the demand. I wasn't aware of these other pages, and I probably made a mistake, it does happen. I just went to the page and removed the speedy deletion request. I also added a couple notes on the page to keep in mind when you are editing it. Thank you for coming to my page and explaining yourself. Rswallis10 (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, regards--Serdik (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Don't be discouraged with NPP, there are about a million and one things to learn there and none of it is very intuitive. Thank you for helping out their though, you may not hear it often, but NPP work is very much appreciated and necessary to keep Wikipedia working. Again, thank you.

Winner 42 Talk to me!  01:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC) 

Your recent post at Teahouse
Hi,Rswallis10. I'm. I've been a host at the Tea house since it started 3 years ago. Just to reassure you, almost no one gets anything right on Wikipedia the first time they try it. Wikipedia is anything but user friendly! Our processes are nearly all complicated. You ran into some troubles today, and you did the right thing. You asked questions! Please don't take the constructive criticism you received today as judgement. We were all new once and we all screwed up. Please do take the advice you were given to heart, as it was spot on correct. And please don't hesitate to come back to Teahouse with other questions. If you wish to do more NPP, just remember, conservative is the best approach. You're not the only editor here and others will look at new articles too. Also, you can always PROD an article if you doubt its notability. Additionally, it couldn't hurt to go see what goes on at WP:AFD. There you can read arguments for and against keeping marginal articles. It's a great way to gain an understanding of our entirely too complicated notability guidelines. I've got nearly 40,000 edits under my belt, and outside of the broad subject areas I usually work in, they still confuse me. Good luck and happy editing. If I can ever be of help, just ask. John from Idegon (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Splitting articles
When splitting articles, please note that you are required to properly attribute content that you have moved from one article to another in both articles. more information on this may be found in WP:CWW. Both Scorpion (TV series) and List of Scorpion episodes require attribution or the split will have to be reversed. Note also that when creating tables, like the one at Scorpion (TV series), accessibility issues have to be addressed. How to do this is explained at MOS:DTT. Please note that the ratings table currently also violates MOS:BOLD and MOS:HASH and this needs to be corrected. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't know exactly what you want me to do. I didn't create the ratings table, I just simply moved it temporarily until a new article is made. The same exact thing was done with Empire without any problems. I will reword the phrases that were taken off of the Scorpion page to fix the attribution problem. Rswallis10 (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The issues of attribution and what to do to carry it over are addressed at WP:PROSPLIT. You have to follow that procedure whenever you copy chunks of text from one article to another.  Even tho Wikipedia is distributed under a free use license, it does still bear a copyright (more accurately, copyleft) and the one requirement of it is attribution.  You can fix this by making a "null edit" (inserting a space somewhere is the most common way to make a null edit) and copying the diff link of the actual change and the attribution link as the edit summary for the null edit. John from Idegon (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain what the "diff link of the actual change" and the "attribution link" are please? I'm all for making the best possible edits, I'm just not sure what you mean. Thank you Rswallis10 (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are templates that you can use on the talk pages of the articles to provide attribution, split from and split to are the ones I most commonly use. For examples of use, see Talk:List of New Girl episodes, Talk:New Girl (season 4) (and related season articles). -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And the diff is the actual URL for the change in the history where you moved the content. Example:  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARswallis10&type=revision&diff=672784662&oldid=672778862 is the dif for my first edit in this thread that started "The issues of attribution..." . You find the diff by going to the history of the page. John from Idegon (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse
I read the conversation you had with some Teahouse hosts and noticed that your experience with new page patrolling was a mirror of my own experience! I thought I would help out and was royally chewed-out by a couple on condescending, experienced editors. It was very discouraging to me. I am leaving this message on your talk page to let you know that you aren't alone and that things will get better. If I remember correctly, my 'confrontation with more experienced page patrollers happened at about the same time I approached 1000 edits, too. What I did to feel better about editing was to stop patrolling for a while and engage in some activities that would encourage other editors such as leaving them barnstars and writing notes of appreciation. The positive responses I got back from doing this helped me feel less 'bitten'. It really stinks when you are trying to do something positive and then get criticized for it. You might try the project 'Welcoming committee'. It is rewarding to receive postive comments rather than negative. Leave a message on my talk page if you want to discuss this in more detail. Best Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 03:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Scorpion episodes
It's probably best to propose a split (you can add split to the main article page) and discuss this to get consensus for a split. Personally, I'd prefer to wait until a season 2 episode table can be created. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirects
Hi Rswallis10, I noticed you recently created several redirects for seasons of television shows that do not exist yet. For example, you created both Better Call Saul (season 3) and Better Call Saul (season 4) when the show hasn't been renewed beyond season 2, among several others. I suggest waiting until the series is actually renewed for such seasons before doing something like that. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't know that was the system. Should I request deletion? Rswallis10 (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Kicks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Underground (2016 TV series) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Underground (TV series). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bones (season 11), without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please link me to that discussion. Any editor who found them unreliable must've been ill-informed. If we're talking about the same discussion, then I remember that their were also editors who thought they were reliable source. You can't have everything YOUR way. Thats not how this works. Do we need to have another discussion because we were nowhere close to reaching a consensus. Rswallis10 (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a link to the discussion on the article's talk page. Your edit summary at Bones (season 11) says Unreliablility is based on the opinion of the 1 editor who put them there. Source is a known Nielsen ratings expert. That is incorrect. SMcCandlish raised questions about the sources and even darkfrog24 had some issues. You were given the option of starting an RfC, but did not. Use of maintenance templates in articles is appropriate, as was explained at Talk:List of Better Call Saul episodes by Geraldo Perez. Once a claim or source is challenged you really only have two options, provide a better source or prove that the existing source is reliable. You can't simply remove the template. This should have been clear from List of Better Call Saul episodes. The burden to prove the sources are reliable is yours, not mine, since you were the one who added them. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi
NCIS Season 15 has already started. Why is it still being redirected? 108.162.156.10 (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

MOS Frustration
You're not alone; lots of folks exist on Wikipedia who believe that their contribution is deciding how others can or cannot present information. You'll find them clustered at MOS Wikiprojects. They're really not bad people, just Procrustean and bureaucratic. Sometimes it seems like they're just out to irritate you, but that's when WP:AGF helps most. Like I said, you're not alone. You're absolutely right that MOSes and editor retention are antithetical, but the MOS-interested editors can't see it. Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the nice comment, I appreciate it. This has just happened too many times to me since I've been here that it's just frustrating. I try to add something new or change something up and it's reverted due to "precedence", so then I try to stay the course and follow the norm (doesn't get much simpler than creating an episode list article), and that's reverted because now some people want to change precedence. So I can't win. It's whatever though at this point - I'll let them figure it out and do what mainly do anyway here and fill in gaps in the Nielsen ratings. Best, Rswallis10 (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's funny because I'm actually in the middle of a discussion arguing against editors who don't want to include Nielsen ratings... --  Alex TW 04:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you fighting the good fight. If you can link me to that discussion, I'd be more than happy to contribute my thoughts. Because that's literally all that I do. Rswallis10 (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Rollback reminder
Hi Rswallis10. I wanted to remind you of rollback rights. Your contributions show that you haven't been using the user right appropriately, such as using the tool to revert in an edit war and removing a sentence from someone else's message. Rollback isn't meant to be used in any of those situations. Please read Rollback. Neither of those situations required the rollback tool. It is mostly used for vandalism, which neither edits were vandalism. Please understand this as someone may catch your misuse of the tool to edit war and disagreeing with edits and report it to administrators, which may end in a removal of the tools. Thank you. Callmemirela  &#127809; talk 19:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * cool. next time please try to be more punctual, this was days ago, I've moved on, mind your biz Rswallis10 (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ResurrectionS1DVD.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ResurrectionS1DVD.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ResurrectionS2DVD.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ResurrectionS2DVD.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Orphaned non-free image File:ResurrectionS1DVD.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ResurrectionS1DVD.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ResurrectionS2DVD.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ResurrectionS2DVD.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

References in TV articles
It's been a few days, so I want to make sure you know we're waiting for your input at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

October 2021
Your edit to List of Transparent episodes has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information.   Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 12:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BlacklistS2DVD.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BlacklistS2DVD.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)