User talk:Xeworlebi/Archive 2

WP:OVERLINK
Ovelink in Stargate Universe episodes. What about SG-1 and Atlantis Vilnisr (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I was actually planning on cleaning up the SG-1 and Atlantis episode lists as well; reducing over-linking, removing unused parameters and converting it to the Episode list/sublist format. Just haven't got to it, might actually do it later today.  X  eworlebi (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice work :), but how did you hide summary!? Vilnisr (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. When transcluding an episode list on a page that is using the Episode list/sublist template the summaries and lines are hidden and the rows get an alternating light- dark-grey color. I would assume it was originally made so to prevent the main list from getting extremely long and having two pages with basically the same info. Take a look at the information about the Episode list template, more specifically the sublists section.
 * Previously the Episode list/Stargate template was used (originally the Episode list/Stargate SG-1 which was moved to also include Atlantis), which originally had some specific parameters, like LongSummary, which would show on the primary page and the ShortSummary would be hidden, and vice versa for the page on which it was transcluded, but these were no longer on the articles pages, and the Aux-1 parameter which was an extra column to a wikia which was removed from the template for wikia links being discouraged. So the template had nothing unique and was just a copy of Episode list without the hidden summaries on the transcluded page, which is why I converted them the the standard template.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Weeds episode list
Hello. What do you mean with "EpisodeNumber= has to be unique"? There's no way of telling what the numbers represent in the style you prefer. I'm going to change it back, as this is the customary way of listing episodes.–FunkyVoltron talk 09:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please take a look at the documentary at Episode list, the parameter EpisodeNumber has to be a unique number for the anchors to work correctly, the way you do it is not the customary way and even breaks part of the functionality of the template.  X  eworlebi (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I must admit, I don't understand what you are getting at. In what way does listing the numbers like that break the functionality? How is including "Season #" and "Series #" to explain what the numbers represent in any way not desirable?–FunkyVoltron talk 09:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And quote: "EpisodeNumber: A number representing the episode's order in the series. … When defined, this parameter also creates a link anchor, prefixed by "ep"; for example, "List of episodes"." if you have an episode 1 for every season you can't link past the first season, your way breaks this functionality.  X  eworlebi (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. But that still means you can keep "Series #" and "Season #" in the table header, albeit in reversed order, doesn't it? Mind if I re-add them to the lists?–FunkyVoltron talk 09:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I do, I find it redundant information which only unnecessarily stretches out the two columns for no reason, a lot of episode lists don't use it for this reason.  X  eworlebi (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Then something along the lines of "The first number represents the episode's number in the series as a whole while the second number represents its order in the season" should be added to the episode list.–FunkyVoltron talk 10:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit war
Sorry for the possible edit war situation. It seem to have quite a bit of trouble with this IP. I've requested edit protection for these articles. I won't be contributing the edit war until there is some sort of consensus. Thanks for your concern! Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Face-smile.svg No problem.  X  eworlebi (talk)  20:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Unclear edit
This edit of yours, replacing WP:SPAM content, was explained as "Breaks the tables." Reviewing the edit, nothing appeared broken to me. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the Nielsen ratings and Home releases tables, which got messed up by your edit.  X  eworlebi (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Episode list styling
Humour me for a minute with a longer explanation for why the garish colours were reintroduced to List of Castle episodes and The Pacific (miniseries) than "restore". I'm struggling to think how the edit summary could have been less helpful, and I should not be expected to have to chase editors up for a reasonable explanation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Coloring is used all through episode lists through wikipedia for differentiating different seasons. They are also part of making the page visually appealing one of the featured list criteria. For your other problem; I could have left no summary, which would have been less helpful.  X  eworlebi (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The seasons are already differentiated by having separate section headers. I rather think that "visually appealing" is not the effect granted to an article by having huge slabs of brown all over the tables. As for your flippant comment about the edit summary, I could well have simply reverted you instead of going to your talk page; consider whether such uncooperative actions are likely to lead to articles getting better or not. I'll think about this some more before proposing that these slabs of colour either be standardised or removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The comment was more intended as a joke, but yeah reading that again, text doesn't bring that over all to well. As for standardizing colors, these are normally the colors taken from the DVD boxes if available, or otherwise a color significant to the show, like main color on the official website or from the intertitle. Additionally the parameter LineColor was/is intended to separate the individual episodes more clearly which in my opinion the standard wikipedia-baby-blue (#ccccff) fails to optimally achieve.  X  eworlebi (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That still seems a bit arbitrary to me. But I'll take it to the template talk. Thanks for the rationale. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd really like to know how the current protection template that was removed could be considered "unneecessary styling"[sic]. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with that part of the edit then bring it up with me directly rather than unhelpfully jumping in to an unrelated discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My comment was to Xeworlebi, not you. That isn't the only part of the edit that I had trouble with, by any means. I consider the whole edit to be ridiculously non-constructive but, as Xeworlebi has fixed it and discussed it with you here, I see no need to bring it up with you separately. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought the comment was to Thumperward as well since I didn't remove it, but restored it; or called it unnecessary styling. Really confused here.  X  eworlebi (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you feel the need to make rude comments about me behind my back, then, consider simply not doing so in future at all. Anyway, we're done here; apologies to Xeworlebi for getting sidetracked. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't be so sensitive and overly dramatic. It wasn't a rude comment and, given that the question was in a conversation that you initiated and that you've obviously got this page watchlisted, it was not behind your back either. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Warehouse 13
Hi, maybe your'e right about the copyright information on warehouse 13 you removed but there is no plot information on that site, there is no information on what the show is about, it needs to have a plot summary.it has information about the different characters on the show but no real plot info. just wanted this issue to come to your attention. thank you (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC).


 * That's not an excuse, if you want a plot then you should write one yourself. Copyright violation are not allowed on wikipedia and you will get banned if you keep re-adding them.  X  eworlebi (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I still think you are wrong, a Plot Summary made by an an anonymous person does not fall under any copywright laws!!! that plot summary I wrote  was made by a  individual, not a movie studio or anything else,  you have to pick up on your research before you start accusing people of breach of copyright, the english vocabually is not illegal to use, it's called freedom of speech,  and its protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. google it (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC).
 * and further more, if you are accusing people of breach of copyright you have to state to what law you are reffering to, and why you think it's copyrighted material, you can't even prove to me it's copyrighted material, it's all in your Imagination, I hope wikipedia removes you as an admin as soon as possible  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigge365 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * When someone writes something and puts it on a website that website own the rights to that, you can read each individual websites agreement for that, you know the *I agree* part when doing anything on a website. You did not write that plot, you copy pasted it from somewhere. Here is a quick Google search showing that you merely copy pasted it. Copy-pasting is not allowed on Wikipedia, we use information in sources not the text itself. It's even under the "Save page" button on Wikipedia: "Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites – only public domain resources can be copied without permission." Besides first you agree that you violated copyrights, and now you still [?] think I'm wrong. I agree that the article should have a plot, but not a stolen one. Also I am not an admin, not sure were you're getting that from.  X  eworlebi (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

List of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air episodes
Hi Xeworlebi ! I don't know if you are interested in this, but about and his changes on the List of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air episodes article, you can see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820. Regards, --Europe22 (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Breaking Bad
Hey, what's the deal with aligning the TOC to the right? Isn't it more convenient and standard to just allow it to default? Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The TOC and the Series overview give similar information, the series overview gives more than the TOC, but people are familiar with the TOC. Putting them vertically creates a repeat when reading the page,putting them next to each other does so much less, as people tend to scan a page vertically rather than horizontally.  X  eworlebi (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Chuck plot summaries
FYI, I haven't finished looking over them yet, but it looks likely that the plot summaries on List of Chuck episodes (and now Chuck (season 1) and Chuck (season 2)) are all copyright violations and will have to be removed until they are rewritten. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Didn't looked for possible copyright violations, just cleaning up the episode list. If so, go ahead and remove them, or better, rewrite them.  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I just thought that you should know why CSBot tagged the page. I'll keep exploring possible copyright issues. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That was the lead, and, well the lead is the main story line which probably looks a lot alike as on the NBC page as it does on the article. I took it from the episode list page, and think that the message was most likely because at that time that was the only thing on the page. I'm going to transclude the episode lists, so don't bother removing copyvio's in the summaries from List of Chuck episodes, because they're going to be gone in a little while anyway, instead remove them from the individual seasonal pages. Just a head up so you don't do a bunch of work for nothing.  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I just realized that it wasn't the summaries which triggered the bot and all the copies of the summaries appear to be copied from here instead of the other way around, so in the end it doesn't look like there are any problems. Apparently it's still too early for me. Sorry to bother you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

MGM
Whoops, thanks for the catch. I need my morning coffee! :) - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 14:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Face-smile.svg No problem.  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The Cape Wiki on Wikia
I would like something explained to me. If my edit was "in good faith", why did you remove my link to "The Cape" wiki on Wikia?

I'm not going to engage in an edit war here, but I would like to know what sort of standard you are looking for before something like that might get included onto a wikipedia page and why something of that nature must necessarily be excluded. If you have some sort of beef against Wikia in general, that may be something I can appreciate. I'll be more than honest here that the wiki is still mostly a stub and just getting going. Then again, the article in question is still a stub, and was even more so when you removed the link.

I hope you won't mind if I add the link back again in a few days when there is more information on the wiki. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No personal problem with Wikia itself, but open wiki's are unreliable as anyone can edit them, even, just like here, IP users. WP:ELNO#EL12 states: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.", which this one definitely fails.  X  eworlebi (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This argument is more like the pot calling the kettle black in terms of coming from Wikipedia. We are talking Wikipedia here and this is a television show that has just come onto the radar of any sort of fan base in the first place.  Whatever a "substantial number of editors" may be is certainly a very subjective, and as I said, I admit that this wiki is brand new.  I've been able to grow wiki communities before so for me that isn't the big deal.  I just thought that something like a brand new stub of a Wikipedia article with an admitted fan base that is seeking something to look at for more in-depth information about the series wouldn't mind a link to a couple of fan sites... and that, I don't know, wiki editors might be interested in a central location for collaboration on a project of that nature.
 * I'm just asking you to not set the bar so high that it is impossible to add a link of this nature. As I said, I openly admit that this wiki is brand-new and doesn't have many contributors, but that is a chicken or egg problem too.  If I can't let people know that a project of that nature exists, then I can't get any contributors either to help with its development.  I'm also asking that you use a little bit of common sense here.  Wikilawyering isn't going to help.  --Robert Horning (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fan-sites are in general depreciated. And honestly I rather have people contribute to this wiki, then a random wikia page, but that's besides the point. Additionally, see, it's a template for wikia links and list several inclusion thresholds. Attracting contributors and readers seems what you are attempting to do, which is depreciated by WP:ELNO. External links are for sites which have some history of credibility and stability which as you admit, this being a brand new and still in full development wikia, it clearly hasn't.  X  eworlebi (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Versus the Subway and Chuck Versus the Ring Part II
The NBC description merely describes it as a two hour finale, just as Chuck Versus the Pink Slip and Chuck Versus the Three Words were described as a two hour premier. They do not identify these episodes as Parts 1 and 2. DO NOT CHANGE THE ARTICLE AGAIN without a reference that SPECIFICALLY identifies these episodes as "Part 1" and "Part 2." This is NOT a good faith edit. Your changes are not supported by any official statement by NBC. Ambaryer (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The episode itself is the reference, NBC aired this episode clearly, if you have seen it, as one big episode, just because they have different titles doesn't mean it wasn't a two parter, the episodes just rolled into each-other, the second part didn't even have the opening credits. These changes support the episode itself which is official as NBC made it.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The two-part airing was purely a BROADCASTING decision on the part of NBC, NOT a production decision of the crew. They made the same broadcasting decision, including the lack of credits between the episodes, for the season premier. They are two individual episodes, were originally written to be broadcast independently, and will be broadcast independently in subsequent airings (compare the Season 6 premier of House, which WAS written and produced as a single multi-hour episode).Ambaryer (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you seen the finale? Can you say with a straight face that the story didn't run over the two episodes? Putting the part 1/2 after the title is to show that it is a two part story, this is how it has been done for quite some time. The people who make the show clearly made a story which they spanned over two episodes, which NBC decided to air back-to-back. Two episodes one story, thus part 1 of the story and part 2.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Then me way as well call the Jill Trilogy Parts 1, 2 and 3. Or American Hero and Other Guy Parts 1 and 2. There's FAR too much of what can be considered original research and personal opinion to justify this designation within the article. Provide a referenced source from NBC or Warner Bros. (the studio) that SPECIFICALLY calls them Chuck Versus the Subway (Part 1) and Chuck Versus the Ring: Part II (Part 2) as these designations are NOT part of the titles. That's the burden of proof. Provide a SPECIFIC official source ("2-hour finale" just doesn't cut it) and it belongs. Ambaryer (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For one every episode you name has it's own description on the NBC website, the season three finale does not, the two have the exact same description 18 19, which is unlike any other episode, clearly proving it to be a single story that has been cut into two making it part 1 and 2. Even the order on NBC is wrong, showing first episode 17 then 19 and then 18 (in the list from bottom to top). They are not part of the title, that's not even in question, they are clearly outside the quotes and not bold, these are indicators for two parters, which are shown and have been shown by adding (Part 1)/(Part 2). There is a difference between a seasonal story which spans along different episodes but each episode holds on its own and has its own mission and a clear two parter which drops in the middle of the story when the episode starts, if you didn't know it were two episodes you would have never thought they were but just a longer episode unlike all the other episodes which all hold on there own.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, without a supporting external source that specifies the use of "Part 1" and "Part 2" this leans towards original research. Ambaryer (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How is that so? You have NBC saying it's a single story, and a wikipedia use of identifying those with adding (Part 1)/(Part 2)/… after the title.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.nbc.com/chuck/video/categories/season-3/1191172/ shows them as two separate episodes, corroborated here: http://www.tv.com/chuck/show/68724/episode.html?tag=prev_episode;more here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1631531/ here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1631530/ and here: http://tv.msn.com/tv/series-episodes/chuck/. Both episodes also have two separate production codes. Also, compare the listing for Broken, (House season 6 premier) in which it appears as one single episode on Fox's website. Ambaryer (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Again completely besides the point. They are two episodes, no-one is saying they aren't. It's however one story, which is displayed here on wikipedia in such manner. And your comparison with House is really bad since it's a completely different issue, namely one/two episodes vs story part 1/2 and by consensus, "Broken", is two episodes.  X  eworlebi (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The final word is that NBC THEMSELVES do NOT identify them as "Part 1" and "Part 2." Therefore identifying them as such in the articles without supporting references is opinion rather than fact, and unsupported original research. Ambaryer (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with that. This is the way that two-three-etc. part episodes are identified on wikipedia. Just like television shows are in italics, episode titles are in quotes, capitalization consistencies, even the finale of season 2 is named "Chuck Versus the Ring", although NBC officially named it "Chuck vs. the Ring" in their press release. It's the way of presenting information consistently. NBC clearly identifies it as a single story that spans over two episodes, which next to the episodes itself is plenty proof. I'm at a loss on why this way of identifying multi-part episodes is so difficult to understand, it has little to do with the episodes themselves but with formatting consistencies for easely identifying this. It's just a long time standing way of identifying it so. If single storyline spans over multiple episodes you identify them with adding (Part 1)/(Part 2)/(Part 3)/… after the title, nothing more to it.  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Ah, thank you Xeworlebi for the "link=off" advice. I will try to pass it on to others editing in the same way, too.

PS it's really hard to point the cursor at your "t" for talk page link in your sig. Please consider, next time you're there, making it just a little bigger? Tony  (talk)  11:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Face-smile.svg No problem.  X  eworlebi (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✔ Done.   X  eworlebi (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Case of templates
Please to not revert the case of templates. The lowercase is simply how Reflinks works and reverting amounts to peeing in the wind. Jack Merridew 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Template names and pages are always capitalized, this is how wikipedia works. I don't know why Reflinks does that, but unless it means that you have a capitalized link inline it's useless and just creates a slower link because the server tries to load cite web and then is directed to Cite web.  X  eworlebi (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * An initial cap in a name does not entail a redirect, so it's not a performance issue; MediaWiki is case-neutral in this regard. I expect the lowercase usage in this case is primarily about ease of reading in the editbox. You might care to ask User:Dispenser. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It actually does create a server side redirect, a non wiki redirect, you can see it when loading the page, when it's switching the address. And I've asked.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Server-side's another issue, and the load's far less there, I expect. Anyway, fussing over the case is a waste of time and resources. I believe the lowercase is better in the wikitext, anyway. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Gratuitous colours
It is policy to not use gratuitous colours. Sorry. (I got the link wrong in the edit summary) All of this meretricious junk is not about building the project. Jack Merridew 21:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style (accessibility)


 * I'll redirect you to a discussion a little higher on this page.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw that. The colours are garish and inappropriate. I've given you a link to the policy that applies here. There's a lot of other talk about colours, too, and it's going against the gaudy approach. You have also undone a lot of unrelated editing I made there, leaving me unimpressed with your intent on this project. Jack Merridew 21:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The link you give is about using wiki markup instead of HTML markup where available for bold, italics, etc. Go take a look at some of the FAL, and the FAL criteria. What other edits beside your unconstructive color removal crusade have I undone?  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The part of the MOS I'm referring to is:
 * Deviations from standard conventions are acceptable where they create a semantic distinction (for instance, the infoboxes and navigational templates relating to The Simpsons use a yellow colour-scheme instead of the customary mauve, to tie in with the dominant colour in the series) but should not be used gratuitously.
 * It does not matter what mechanism is used to apply a gratuitous colour. The other edit I did were adjustments to the formatting of the page and various tweaks to the markup (which I'm quite familiar with).
 * Look, all this colouring is not helpful to the project. It amounts to personal preference and clogging-up articles with non-content. I'm done with this for today, and would ask that you think a bit about the value of this stuff. Jack Merridew 21:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The colors used are usually the DVD box colors, unless these are not released yet. And again, colors are part of the featured article criteria, are used on nearly every episode list and have been used on nearly all multi-seasonal episode list including GAL and FAL, I've re-implemeted the ";" edits.  X  eworlebi (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Medium Season 6
The DVD colour is going to be light blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdcrackers (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I just wondered what you were doing, since it was only like four episodes, I've also update the rest to better reflect the DVDs and higher contrast.  X  eworlebi (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Need a hand with a vandal
I'm a little new to chasing down problem vandals, but in two seperate sessions, I've undone 15 acts of vandalism to King of the Hill and several episode pages by 189.128.95.69 (talk). I'm not sure where templates are that guide the wording of a warning letter, or if I'm even supposed to be doing that or turning it over to an Admin, but a process need to get started to get this guy banned (I am under the assumed impression that he's not going to stop). I've noticed some tactful form warnings from you to a few bad eggs, so, a little help? KnownAlias  contact  02:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * An overview of all the message templates is available at WP:MLT, and you can report users and IP's at WP:AIV, make sure you follow the three rules for reporting them. I use the gadget WP:TWINKLE, this semi-automates the process, it gives you a drop down menu for warning, reporting, … users from the users' page, as well as the ability to roll back a user/IP so that you don't have to undo every edit by hand if there are multiple in a row.  X  eworlebi (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm up, wheels are up, I'm on it. Thanks!  KnownAlias   contact  10:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii Five-O
The documentation for Infobox television clearly says "[The runtime] should not include commercials and should be approximated, e.g. '22-26 minutes' for most half-hour shows." See the "should be approximated" part? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly, it is always approximately, and thus redundant to state it every time.  X  eworlebi (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Merlin episodes
Sorry about the mix-up. I didn't see the header! SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Face-smile.svg No problem.  X  eworlebi (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wetcloth20, Plot vs Synopsis
You reverted him on The Book of Eli but despite my attempts to explain that "Plot" is the Film Project standard they insist on reverting. Maybe I'm not explaining it clearly, some help would be appreciated. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ✔ Done.   X  eworlebi (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have already reported myself and the other editor. We will both be blocked for something as silly as Plot vs. Synopsis. Two words that have the same meaning. Wetcloth20 (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

List of The IT Crowd episodes‎
If you disagree with changes, please discuss them on the talk page instead of just reverting. Remember, nobody owns articles and some of the changes that you've made today demonstrate that you are asserting ownership of the page. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Pifeedback
Could you give your opinion on Reliable sources/Noticeboard? ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ✔ Done.   X  eworlebi (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your contributions.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16