User talk:Serienfan2010/Archive 1

Welcome!

 * }

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Nikita (TV series) has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. —  Jeff G. ツ  22:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

List of The Vampire Diaries episodes
Please stop reverting other people's edits, as you are doing in List of The Vampire Diaries episodes. You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. If you revert again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Please discuss any disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. Jayy008 (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010 (2)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of Nikita (TV series) episodes, you may be blocked from editing. Cresix (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at List of Nikita (TV series) episodes, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Cresix (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — GorillaWarfare talk 03:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Advice
When you return from your block, it may help you to consider the following. Explain what you are doing in edit summaries. If more explanation is needed than can conveniently be expressed in edit summaries, or if anyone else expresses disagreement with your editing, then explain on the article's talk page. If there is not an agreed consensus in support of your version do not continue to revert to it, but try discussing the issue. If discussion fails, you may like to consider dispute resolution. These methods of dealing with disagreement over content of articles can help resolve problems, whereas simply continually reverting to your own preferred version (known as edit warring) does not. You have already discovered that doing this can lead to a short-term block. If you were to continue in the same way after the block then you would be likely to be blocked for longer, perhaps even indefinitely, so I hope you will learn from the experience and avoid this problem. Editors who are willing to co-operate and discuss disagreements with other editors tend to have a much better time here than those who aren't. I hope this advice has been helpful to you. Please feel very welcome to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Hard Times of RJ Berger
Hello there! Just wanted to let you know that the Manual of Style (television) says that information about international broadcasters and DVD releases can be in the same "Media information" section. I see that you've split them, and I think they'd be better together as per the guideline. Cliff smith talk  17:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010 (3)
I notice that, since your block, a very large proportion of your editing has been reverting other people's work, frequently with no edit summary or a minimal edit summary (such as the single word "revert"). I also notice that in at least one case (List of Wizards of Waverly Place episodes) you have been edit warring, and there have also been other cases where you have made teh same revert more than once (as at Wizards of Waverly Place (season 1)). Remember that it was this sort of editing which led to your block. If you continue in this way there is a very good chance that you will be blocked for a longer period. I encourage you to be more thoughtful before reverting, and also to give clear edit summaries. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of Hellcats episodes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  X  eworlebi (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the only  warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit  you made to List of Hellcats episodes. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from  editing without   further notice. Diego Grez (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily for a period of 72 hours from editing for edit warring, on several articles, despite warnings, with no attempt to discuss the issues on talk pages. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Phineas and Ferb
The reason I reverted the edit you made is beacause last month, I set the page to have the summeries to be on their own season pages. It is supposed to like the Wizards of Waverly Place page, not a short article. Please see this section as why it has been reverted. Isabella and Lego Liker Whatcha doin'? 19:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Serienfan2010 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Confession0791 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 00:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

recent edit
your edit on List of iCarly episodes. If it is from DanWarp on Facebook, youtube ex is is counted as a reliable source. It can be from dan and any of the cast.Saylaveer (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a head's up
If you go to List of Wizards of Waverly Place episodes and List of Good Luck Charlie episodes, you will see that tables for next seasons have been removed. Because, User:Alec2011 believes that Showfax is not a reliable source for episodes. In the meantime let him have his way, I just had a debate with him concerning that there are actually 30 episodes produced for season 3 of Wizards but he insists that there a 35 episodes based on a Disney Channel press release that come out a nearly year ago. Just wanted to let you know about this. By the way, I really appreciate your edits, You and me pretty much think alike in terms of episode lists, LOL.  Quasy Boy  23:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Big Time Rush (season 1), you may be blocked from editing. Sven Manguard Talk  23:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of Law & Order: Los Angeles episodes. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Courcelles 23:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The Two Unregistered Users
I've noticed that there has been a huge war on Psych (season 5). Because of all the craziness there, I've recommended that the two unregistered users be blocked. One has already been blocked for a week, and the other is pending. For future reference, you can report them yourself at WP:AIV. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month (repeat issue) for edit warring, as you did at High Stakes (film) and The Walking Dead (TV series). During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ICarly (Season four). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Page protected for 24h - discuss on talk page  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of two months (another repeat offense) for edit warring at several articles, including ICarly (season four) and Zendaya Coleman. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  K rakatoa    K atie   22:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

March 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of Mr. Sunshine episodes. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Beck Falls for Tori
I don't think you quite understand the nature of the reverts. "Beck Falls for Tori" is a title from msn tv, a site that proved itself unreliable--3 times, in fact. That's why Beck Falls For Tori doesn't exist. --Edward Rankin (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kuru  (talk)  00:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed that you did this so soon after a 3RR at List of Mr. Sunshine episodes. Since this is the fifth 3RR block on this account, I've set it for 3 months.  Unsourced changes are not an exemption to 3RR.  Kuru   (talk)  00:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
How silly of me! --AussieLegend (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by HBO
Dir ist schon klar, dass ich List of HBO one-hour dramatic television series gemerged und nicht etwa selber verfasst habe?

Wir können das Material aus List of HBO one-hour dramatic television series gerne weglassen, aber warum genau willst du es nicht in die andere Liste integriert haben? --87.79.211.101 (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Redunant info
The reason I removed the sentence in this edit is because it was already included in the lede. Given how short the article is, it seemed redundant to mention this fact three times in an article of this length. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

TBA/TBD-filter
Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!) Hello, Serienfan2010, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
 * Be Bold!
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us a bit about yourself
 * Our great guide to Wikipedia

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

The TBA or TBD-filters are very important for the English Wikipedia. Empty boxes must be filled.

We're so glad you're here! -- LAW CSI (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello LAW CSI and thanks for your welcome. Is there any site that say that empty boxes must be filled or is that a unwritten rule? I ask because on this site and on many others we have empty boxes. Thanks for your answer. -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * see, among others Template: N or Template:TBD. -- LAW CSI (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on User talk:87.69.232.170, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Calabe1992 (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ringer episodes
Could you tell me why even TV.com is not a reliable source in your books? And why would someone just make up episode titles and throw them in? Oh, and by the way: why did you delete the Pilot's summary as well? --URunICon (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverting CSI: NY edits
Why did you revert my edits to CSI: NY (season 8) here and List of CSI: NY episodes here? I gave a reason for my changes, you did not. I'm changing it back. If you don't like the color, pick another one, but it needs to be light so the reference link will show. 99.24.217.173 (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't put the references in the table as you did. We reference all dates and all titles extra. -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've seen it done when there is only one recurring reference for the entire column, but I won't fight it. Were the rest of my changes alright so I can re-edit them? 99.24.217.173 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The reformatting of the source and remove the TDBs is not very helpful. So I must say no, the rest of your change was not alright. The best is you leaves it as it is at the moment. -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

RINGER
Please don't revert my edits when you see an edit summary. Please discuss with me first. Overnight numbers are now allowed because 1) they're incorrect and 2) you haven't got one number. It was a discussion before. Jayy008 (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Good Luck Charlie movie
Have you seen a reliable source that confirms the title of the movie? I've only seen fan sites reporting it as Good Luck Charlie: It's Christmas. Disney dreaming says that Disney has confirmed the name but I can't find this anywhere. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here . -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hart of Dixie
And = No page exists. Having a link there is pointless as it doesn't go anywhere. WP:Red link gives a lot of information. It has to be notable and have a likelyhood that a page will be created soon—which isn't likely, as this and that soap he did are his only known roles. Jayy008 (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't just decide which links are needed. It was deemed that links should remain in tables. Not episode tables as far as I know, but synopsis tables must remain fully sourced. I will be restoring sources to the lead and restoring you good edits afterwards. Jayy008 (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I just pressed revert as it was easier for me, but I only restored sources. The external links, changes to episode table I left alone. Also, the storyline part in the lead does need expanding but please do not remove sources for no reason. Jayy008 (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Templates
Just to let you know, that wasn't a negative/vandalism template. It was just a gesture, there was no need to delete. Jayy008 (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Jay: Please read the essay, WP:DTR. It's Serien's talk page his/her right to delete what he/she wants within the guidelines. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm well aware of that. I was simply saying I was attempting to direct anything negative towards the user. Please stay out of things. Jayy008 (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a cooperative, community effort. Nothing wrong with talk page stalking. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. And that page is kept around because it's "humerous" nothing more. "Wikipedia is a cooperative, community effort." this is nothing to do with that, it's a personal good faith message I left to Serienfan2010, which did not need butting into. Jayy008 (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jay, my comment that Wikipedia is a cooperative, community effort is in response to your demand that I "...stay out of things". As a part of the Wikikpedia community, Wikipedia editors don't have to "stay out of things".  Indeed, it is good practice to stay IN things.  A template was placed on this experienced editor's talk page needlessly and without regard to WP:DTR; you say you already know that regulars shouldn't be templated, yet you did it anyway.  My comment that you should read WP:DTR was only to remind you that the placing of the template was overkill.  It's always best to try an communicate directly and good faith, rather than place an impersonal template.  Although Serien will have to weigh in on this before we know why the template was removed, I suspect it was because he/she was put off by the template. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I never said that, I said I don't like links with sarcastic comments at the end. Links without a personal message or a horrible message left at the end, that's what is badfaith. Also, I don't care how experienced a user is, this user has never put an edit summary, that's what the template is for. I have no interest in putting a personal comment when an experienced user should be doing basic things. I also have no interest in clogging up the users talk-page with personal messages to you. I will not reply to your badfaith, sacrcasm, or remarks anymore. I will only discuss article through their article talk-page. And I know you're going to say "that's not WP:AGF, but you've done exactly the same in regards to always ignoring my comments on your user page. I am holding the right to do the same. Thanks. Jayy008 (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC) Serienfan2010, I apologize for venting on your page. It was not my intention to attack or be attacked by another user. My comment was a close-ended one that didn't even need a reply by you. I hope we can work together in the future. Jayy008 (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ratings
As an experienced editor, and considering how I've reached out to you in the past, can you explain this edit? Fast affiliate ratings are wrong, which is why they change. There's no other way I can say it. These numbers include a sports game from the Miami affiliate of The CW. Jayy008 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You know that you are the only one, that see so. On articles of a series that not aired on The CW is it a normality, that we put the overnight ratings first and when the final rating are available we change them then. Why we can not do the same on articles form The CW? -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not only me. They are wrong. Personally, I can't understand why you want to add incorrect information? The change between them holds no meaning. There should never be "a norm" for things like that. I guess those pages simply don't have people checking the project as to why there was a discussion. I can't remember an exact ammount, but almost nobody wanted to keep fast affiliate ratings as they're incorrect. The only problem back then was people saying that they weren't regularly available—now, TVbytheNumbers posts them everyday. Jayy008 (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I am coming off as aggressive—it's not my intention. I just have no idea how to explain it further. The ratings you added weren't for "Hart of Dixie" they were for "Hart of Dixie" and a sports game in Miami. Jayy008 (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the ratings today. I've been really busy and haven't had time to watch anything! Jayy008 (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Good Luck Charlie
Please stop removing, "It's A Charlie Duncan Thanksgiving" from the episode list. The episode had already aired in Canada, and has been uploaded to YouTube. If you delete something post it in the discussions. You can view a badly tapped version of the episode here (and please note the Canadian Rating symbol in the upper left hand corner) youtu.be/zfKDr7qr6iY.Jrfoldes (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Big Time Rush Episodes
Hi Serienfan2010. I don't know about you, but the continual amount of times we (well mainly you) have to undo IP address edits is exasperating. I applied about a week ago for it to be semi-protected, but they felt there hadn't been enough bad edits. Should we try again? -- Limolover  talk 05:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Limolover, I've have requested a semi-protection for the article. -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 10:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems you have the Midas touch. This should help our cleanup efforts. -- Limolover  talk 11:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at CSI: Miami. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Swarm   X 00:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

CSI
Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. --
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please take your squabble with DisneyCSIfan n to the CSI talk page. Neither of you is acting in the best interest of the article, just trying to win. Drmargi (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Colours
Don't keep reverting my work to make a point about such a trivial issue. I WILL WORK IT OUT IF YOU CAN LEAVE IT ALONE FOR TEN MINUTES. -- Barsoomian (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your reverting first. Also make it right, then I must not keep reverting. -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's all consistent now. No need to be so pushy. Raise any concerns on the Talk page. Barsoomian (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert my edits
Hello Serienfan2010! It appears that you made a revert that had correct info and put it as incorrect info. The change is here. Please understand that people who don't watch the show will think that season ended. If this happens again, you'll get a warning at first. Thanks! NCISfan2  (talk)  20:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't think so. We have a series overview, who the readers can look if the season ended or not. In addition the readers can see the table of the season and they known that the season don't ended yet. So I think my revert was justified. -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 21:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Alcatraz (TV series)
Hi Serienfan, the change is not Unexplained, if you had followe Alcatraz series you would know that episode 8 is "Clarence Montgomery" and the next one will be "Ames Bros.", check before you correct please. Thanks for your constant work anyway. http://alcatraz.wikia.com/wiki/Clarence_Montgomery_%28episode%29 -- Merovingian (on wikipedia.it) 12:29, 01 March 2012 (CET)
 * 1. Your edit was unexplained, because you don't give an edit summary for your edit. 2. Here in the WP we sort the episodes after the airdates. The episode named Clarence Montgomery was delayed, so we list the episodes named The Ames Bros. and Sonny Burnett first. And a wikia is not a reliable source. -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmmh. If it's like that ok then. I was just wondering how a not aired show can be available in streaming (infinite ways of piracy), so I tought they aired it and I posted that edit. Sorry for taking your time. -- Merovingian 12:53, 01 March 2012 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.26.111.143 (talk)

2011–12 United States network television schedule
Hello! It seems you reverted my edit for the fall premieres on the network schedule. In your edit summary, you say that's what 2012 in American television is for. That is partially false. That is only for series premieres. If you want to remove that, visit Talk:2011–12 United States network television schedule and discuss. Until then, your edit has been reverted. 68.44.179.54 (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First you must discuss befor you change the article and second a discuss with only one other user is not meaningful. So I reverted you again. -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The Firm
Hello! Just so you know, the reason I removed The Firm from the cancellations list is because it was not officially canceled. That was an unofficial cancellation. It was just moved. Unless you can find me a press release for me, The Firm is not on the list. 68.44.179.54 (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

STVPlus
Hi

Stvplus is a very reliable source. They are run by the people of SpoilerTV who get Episode Title in advance from the studios. I hope you will reconsider using them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVListings (talk • contribs) 14:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * These site is not a reliable source, as SpoilerTV too. -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain why? They get and verify their episodes titles from the networks. It's as a reliable source as any of the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVListings (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

iCarly
Please don't add to iCarly season 6 page. It's shouldn't be deleted and ıt's not vandalism I do. Bow-bb (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you believe the site shouldn't be deleted, then add arguments on the Articles for deletion page. But please let the template in the article. A admin will see the talk an decides then. -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just curious, but what issue do you have regarding the iCarly Season 6 page? I'll clear this up with you regarding the season labels if that's the issue here. - Jabrona - 17:17, - 19 March 2012
 * Jabrona, the issue is the reference, not the season issues. If they have an issue with the seasons, point them to the talk page. - Alec2011 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Television episode and season articles badly needed
Due to your userboxes, I feel I should inform you of a drive at Television_episodes to create articles for some of the most important episodes and seasons in television history. Please try to help out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

iCarly edits

 * First a Fansite, such icarly.wikia.com, are not reliable sources and second the season count for icarly was discussed a many time. The result was my version. Add on the tal page good arguments for your version an see what other users think about it. But please do'nt start a edit war. -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

New Girl episode pages
Hello! I see you have reverted my edit for the New Girl season page. The reason I made it is because there will be more than one season. I'm not mad; I'm just telling you that it's reasonable to do the pages now. 76.116.112.84 (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't revert my edits for New Girl episode pages again. I'm only doing the pages because most current Fox sitcoms that have aired over one season have episode pages, and I want New Girl having them, too.  It's also one of my favorite shows.  76.116.112.84 (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Only to creat a season page, because the series has more than one season is ridiculous. Please see also WP:SIZESPLIT for more info about the article split. And what's your favorite show or what other series has there own season pages is here unimportant. -- Serienfan2010 (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)