User talk:Xeworlebi/Archive 4

pifeedback.com
What was the main reason people said Pifeedback wasn't reliable? Jayy008 (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a forum, user submitted content.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That can be worked around, if the person who posts is reliable (which he obviously is as TVbytheNumbers posts word for word what he posts). Do you think there's enough users who think it's reliable? If there is I reckon we can swing it. Jayy008 (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You might be, or not, aware that ChaosMaster16 has now been indefinitely banned for adding pifeedback.com against consensus (and general attitude). I suggest you read up on the pifeedback.com discussions/ChaosMasters continuation of it. Talk:List of Ghost Whisperer episodes, WP:RSN, WP:ANI 1, WP:ANI 2, WP:ANI 3, WP:ANI 4. While I don't think it's wise, you could open a new discussion at WP:RSN.  X  eworlebi (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I won't be bringing it there. The fact is you said that the main reason is that it's a forum. But that's easy to get around if people support the fact that TravisYanan's posts are reliable. Would you support it's use? (to me, there's no reason not too as TvbytheNumbers uses it). On the days TVBTN doesn't post finals, we could use Pifeedback itself. Maybe everyone wasn't aware that you could get it granted. Last time, we did it, there was only about 3/4 users who supported it and now we can use it as a source. So what do you think? Jayy008 (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just drop it, ChaosMaster got banned for not accepting consensus, there is a clear consensus that it should not be used, . I supported it in that discussion because TV by the Numbers used it, but the consensus was to not use it. So we shouldn't use it. The only way to change that is to try again at WP:RSN and get it passed, which you say you won't do.  X  eworlebi (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ChaosMaster got banned for continuing to add it, I won't add it unless it's allowed. A consensus only because it's a forum. I only said I won't bring it there because I don't think that's where it was taken before. Jayy008 (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What? I gave you the link to the archived discussion, here it is again. WP:RSN is were you will have to go if you want to see it allowed, that's something you can't get around.  X  eworlebi (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm not explaining myself well. I'm not saying that's 'not' where you need to go, I'm saying I don't remember going there. We spoke to an admin and brought our case forward, then it was sorted. I've asked that admin how it was done. Basically if we (me and the other users involved) put Mariah Daily journal on the page you just said everyone would have said 'no' because it was a fan-site. Like everyone is saying no to pifeedback because it's a forum. You see the similarity? Thanks for your help, though. Jayy008 (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's the first I've heard about that. That sound like a sneaky way to do it. Because it has already gone through WP:RSN, I doubt any admin knowing that will just allow it.  X  eworlebi (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't take my word for it, I'm not sure exactly how it worked. From my memory, baring in mind we did this ages ago, the admin brought it somewhere to get it passed and they sorted it out amongst themselves the pro's and cons. By which, users like myself and one other who edit Mariah Carey pages frequently, needed the information on the fan-site. Jayy008 (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hellcats
Woops, I didn't see that. The second episode is also back, is that notable enough? Jayy008 (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It contained very little real world information, so I didn't recreate that article when ChaosMaster16 redirected them. FYI, I opened a sockpuppet investigation for ChaosMaster16/Pinknp, from you edit summary you seem to agree.  X  eworlebi (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I really do. The editing style is exactly the same. He put 2.99 back instead of 3.0 without an edit summary, hoping nobody will notice, which is exactly the same as what he does on the ChaosMaster16. I will leave this comment on the page too. Jayy008 (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. You might want to move your comment to the #Comments by other users section. And I was going to go to sleep 2 hours ago…  X  eworlebi (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is it closed? Has it been confirmed. Jayy008 (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Pinknp has been indefinitely blocked.  X  eworlebi (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's good. By the way, just out of curiosity. TvbytheNumbers always posted finals (though, not the full post), could we just link the number w/that source then people can click to pifeedback from TVbytheNumbers, then it's not us actually linking to PI. I'm not going to do it, just wandering if that's acceptable (for other situations too, not just ratings). Jayy008 (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If TV by the Numbers does not have the figure on the linked page, best not use it. It would get removed or tagged with Failed verification and later removed.  X  eworlebi (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks for the info. Jayy008 (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Naming controversy section as such
Regarding this revert, can you please quote the secton of WP:NPOV to which you are referring? Thanks. Watching this page, so you can reply here without notifying me on my talk page. Akerans (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By explicitly hiding this section header you are not adhering to a neutral point of view, undue weight goes both ways. From the 10 references in that section seven explicitly call it a controversy, one calls it a commotion and one basically calls it an outrage and borderline racism. WP:SPADE also applies here.  X  eworlebi (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The material is in the article, not hidden, and correctly described as controversial. Per structure, the segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. By adding a heading, we've created a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. There's 1 paragraphs of proponents, 1/2 a paragraph of opponents, and finally 1/2 a paragraph of proponents. The sectioning of this material has created a POV fork in favor of the proponents. Akerans (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The section header, as you want, would not be in the article. There's general info about the casting, and then there is the controversy of the casting, which describes both sides. It isn't in two section, one proponents and one opponents, each section ignoring each other, which is what the piece you quote, POV forking, is about. This section correctly describes the content in it, although it might be better the make it a subsection of the casting. The word controversy is not at all POV, it means a strong disagreement, which the section is about, it doesn't imply anything to make the section header POV. Simply by stating there is a controversy wikipedia remains to be neutral, now if the section would be named "racist casting" or be split in pro/con section you would have a point. Take for example the fairly extensive articles Creation–evolution controversy and Global warming controversy.  X  eworlebi (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Castle
Read the sentence below the section header and you'll see the article sourcing the Castle full-season order. The renewal was for 22 episodes, a full-season order, and the season runs from September 2010 to May 2011, as any American reader knows. The source is right there, in plain sight. A little more care and a little less hurry might be in order. Drmargi (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the given sentence or the given reference that says it will go to May 2011. Neither is there anything in the main article that says May 2011. This is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. A little less, revert Xeworlebi all the way, and a bit more reading of the guidelines and the given sources would be in order. This has already been reverted multiple times by AussieLegend for the same reason, without the protest from you.  X  eworlebi (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're taking this personally, as always, and being overly literal. The 22 week order is for the full September - May season.  That doesn't require an explicit statement, and the math is very simple:  there are 15 available broadcast weeks in 2010, and Castle has a 22 episode FULL SEASON order.  It has to run in to 2011 since that's what the season, and the numbers, do.  I've never seen AussieLegend revert on that basis, just when a show has a partial-season order, and an editor assumes it will go on longer than its order does.  Drmargi (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the article history and look for "WP:CRYSTAL". Besides violating WP:CRYSTAL, "doing the math" is original research.  X  eworlebi (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Rounding
Can you do me a favour and point me to the guideline about number rounding. 2.96 would be 3.00, right? I'm going by what ChaosMaster16 told me, so I don't know if I'm right. Jayy008 (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there are guidelines around this. This is basic math, while there are different types of rounding (mostly about what to do with the five for positive and negative numbers) the 5 = up is the most common, but the following applies to all. 2.96 can be rounded to 3.0, or 3, but not to 3.00. Rounding to 3.0 or 3 only makes the number less exact, changing it to 3.00 would mean that you added 0.04. You can only round numbers to the degree you remove decimals, meaning a number is that number, only if you remove a decimal you need to apply rounding, that's the purpose of rounding, if you don't remove any decimals rounding has no purpose.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Jayy008 (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

mixed quality edits, referencing, and saveOutlaw.com
Rollback is quick and can be very handy. Use of it to undo someone's legitimate edit because the subsequent one they made was not good is itself not good. You removed the writer and director from an already shown episode of Outlaw because the user who added it in also added in copyright violations of episode summaries in other edits. I have also noticed a trend wherein people add viewer numbers unreferenced and rather than add in the reference you simply remove the information. In seeing this throughout my watchlist i have yet to notice an instance where you reverted what turned out to be an incorrect bit of data. Every time someone else comes along, adds in the same data and a reference for it. That means you could have added the reference too and that all of those instances are not the most appropriate uses of rollback/undo. Anyway, here's a little ditty from me. If noöne on WP can be bothered to write episode summaries for a new tv show then that is a sign that not many people like the show. I wrote one summary so far for each new show i like. Noöne else has added any non-copyvio summaries for Outlaw. It may not influence many but for those who do read WP it will tell them people really aren't bothering too much with this show and perhaps they shouldn't either. If you really like the show then may i suggest writing a summary or two for one of the episodes lacking such info. It would be cheaper and faster than setting up http://www.saveoutlaw.com ;) delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 12:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From the last 100 edits I made, 3 reverted unsourced ratings info, they were later re-added with references, and as it turned out, none of them were correct: 1.12 → 2.16, 3.56 → 3.14, 6.10 → 6.09. It's up to the person adding the information to provide the references to back it up. I normally recheck my edits, but I have missed the directors/writers removal at Outlaw.  X  eworlebi (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Only Medium is in my watchlist and it was added on Monday. The other two i don't watch and don't have in my watchlist. None of those three are part of what i had noticed. This likely goes back a thousand edits or more. It was a longer-term trend i had noticed. My condolences on the death of Outlaw yesterday. I am a Coco fan and a Carly Pope fan; that is where my interest in the show lies. About the massive amount of edits the show will now get as people fight over end date and show status, i have have one other proposal. Main article is small; episode list will not grow beyond eight. How about i put the list of episodes in the main article? Or do you think to wait and see how the show does on Saturday. If it has a sudden positive change in ratings NBC might still say they found their new Saturday show. I actually watched NBC this past Saturday instead of downloads ;) delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 14:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I'll keep removing unsourced episode titles, ratings and other unsourced information. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." For new episodes I frequently check TheFutonCritic and MSNTV before removing new unsourced episodes, if they're not there I remove them. But I don't like ratings very much, so I won't go out of my way to find them. There are enough experienced editors who do there daily rounds adding the latest ratings with references, and updating overnights to finals.
 * Since they canceled the show and then said they will air the remaining episodes on Saturday I'll doubt they'll revive it, they normally first move a show and if it still doesn't do well they'll cancel it. So moving the episode list into the main article would be fine with me, but there's no hurry.  X  eworlebi (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Outlaw, though NBC has moved the show to Saturdays Global is still showing it on Fridays @ 10pm E/P. So far 6 episodes have shown in Canada and 5 have shown in USA; the 6th airs on NBC in about 2.5 hours. The tvrip in .avi that is out there for downloading is from Global's Vancouver station so it aired 10pm PT / 1am ET but it is there if you want to see for yourself; those who make the tvrips probably missed the ET broadcast from Toronto because it is not promoted at all here. Like on NBC there is no episode on Global on 29/30 October. The Global website only does 2 weeks schedule at any give time but tvguide.ca has Outlaw ep 7 airing 5 November @ 10 E/P. I'm going to try to fit this into the episode list. It was so much more simple when it was just the one episode that aired earlier in Canada :P delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 21:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

About the air dates for Outlaw, if you consider the broadcast in the Atlantic Time Zone, ie Halifax, then every single episode aired in Canada on Global before it was shown in USA on NBC. Someone else already tagged the article for citation needed that the episodes are being burned off on Saturdays by NBC. Removing the references to NBC airings and in truth all mention of the NBC airings is very much at odds with saying the original channel is NBC. It raises the very basic question, if NBC is the original channel then when did they broadcast the show. You edit conflicted me. I overwrote most of it, moving the references from the titles to just the dates. Also it is very much intentional to put the background to white. The tables are so very hard to read with grey headers and grey backgrounds for the other rows. delirious &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 10:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is really simple, you're just making it more complicated than it is. You can't have more than one original air date. Choose: either you choose the actual original air date or you change the header to say "U.S. air date" and use the NBC air dates. It's as simple as that, but just choose one, you're only making it more complicated for yourself. If they air on the same date but just at an earlier time you use the original channel, which is NBC in this case, it's the day that counts, that's why the time isn't included in the table but just the date.
 * This question makes no sense to me "It raises the very basic question, if NBC is the original channel then when did they broadcast the show." because they payed for the show?
 * Background color, bring that up at Template talk:Episode list so it can be fixes template wide instead of on an article-by-article basis.  X  eworlebi (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is safe to say we fundamentally disagree on all matters brought up here and this will not be resolved. FYI i also am fundamentally against the use of № # for two column multi-season lists. I had noticed you and a few others changing most shows to this. № is so antiquated in North America that many people have no idea what it means (there is no "o" in "number"), even to the point of reading the headings as "No Number". It sounds stupid but stop for a moment and think about this from a more ignorant perspective. It does make the columns thiner but № # is really ambiguous and hardly helpful to comprehension. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 11:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sigh. There is no need to start lashing out about unrelated things because of this. Just pick one because what is currently in place is impossible, you simply can't have two original. I really don't care that much if you just want the U.S. dates or the original ones, but just pick one please. If you won't I'll pick one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a place for the ignorant, there's the simple.wikipedia.org for that.  X  eworlebi (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not just Outlaw... most every show i edit you do too. Those show i wish to contribute to but i don't are to avoid further issues like this one. I pick the listing of both Canadian and American air dates when they vary for Outlaw because every single episode of the show premiered internationally (in Canada) before it's domestic debut, be it by mere hours or days. I can not think of another show which fits that description. I want domestic originality but am going with global originality because that is what you like to have; you want global originality because it is original. Yet the conflict lies in your insisting that it is an American show that originally aired on NBC. It is an American show that originally aired on Global globally and later on NBC domestically. You want global original air date concurrent with domestic original channel. I am saying NO to that. Pick a definition of original and use it throughout the whole article instead of changing it section by section to make it work for you. A few episodes being shown internationally before domestically is not too hard to work with. The series premiere and 4/7 of the other episodes airing more than a day before domestic broadcast makes it more awkward. That the other 3/7 of the episodes aired a few hours earlier internationally only compounds the issue of where to define original. This also affects the original channel and the start and end dates of the series listed in the infobox so it is not just a quick change of a line here and there in the episode list. The simplest statement is that NBC was not the original broadcaster of any episode of the series on an international level and as such can not be the original channel on an international level. Your comment about Simple English Wikipedia disgusts me. It too is an encyclopædia. It shows nothing good about yourself to insult an entire project like that. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 13:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the day that counts, so 3 of the 7 episodes aired on the same day in both U.S. and Canada, we could do the same as done on Defying Gravity and put (NBC/Global) behind it, or just put nothing behind it. But if you want want U.S. dates, then do it, but change the header to "U.S. air dates".
 * NBC and Global are essentially equals, neither owns the show, neither produces the show, Conaco and UMS, they both license the show from the production companies. And in essence if Outlaw would have been a huge success in Canada and other international markets they could keep producing the show for those markets, that just doesn't happen a lot since the U.S. is often the biggest TV market and Outlaw hasn't even been aired in international markets besides some like Canada.
 * I had no intention of insulting simple.wikipedia, you made the point that we should be making the articles extremely simple, to "think about this from a more ignorant perspective.", essentially saying that a lot of people are ignorant (in the literal form, not the insult), and we should conform to the lowest common denominator. I just pointed out that simple.wikipedia is for that.  X  eworlebi (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fringe has complex storylines...
...so the summaries are necessarily complex as well. However, having wrote these, I understand I am close to them (perhaps too close to know what to trim) and have invited copyediting in the edit summaries. Would you mind lending a hand, rather than drive-by tagging? – xeno talk 19:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The Event
I have noticed you revert my change to the image size which changed the image size from a forced size (250px) to frameless, as per WP:IMGSIZE its not a good idea to force a image size without a reason. Is there any reason why the image should be set to 250px? -- d'oh! [talk] 04:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Xeworlebi/Archive 3.  X  eworlebi (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chris "used everywhere" is not a reason to go against policy, if you can't provide a reason to go against policy I will re-add frameless as per policy. -- d'oh! [talk] 09:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IMGSIZE also says that resizing can be appropriate, which it is in this case.  X  eworlebi (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it clearly says forcing image sizes is only used with a good reason, there is no good reason in this case and "used everywhere" is not a good reason. Like I said at Template talk:Infobox television, if you want the image bigger you can set your image size preferences higher. -- d'oh! [talk] 10:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Precedent is a good reason, at least it's a better reason than a new superfluous image parameter. Please continue this at Template talk:Infobox television.  X  eworlebi (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Lauren Hodges
I noticed that you have been quite prolific in editing TV-related articles, as well as performing a sterling service monitoring vandalism. I wondered if you would consider adding the stub article Lauren Hodges (an actress on Rubicon) to your watchlist. I'm having a spot of bother handling an WP:SPA at that article and an extra pair of eyes would be greatly appreciated. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It already is, it was automatically added when I made edit, after the same user performed some  on Rubicon I took a look at his contributions.
 * I have MR90 for edit warring, I'll advise you to not revert his edits for now, to avoid an edit war block yourself. Rather discuss this in the article talk page, best not in to many places at once.
 * I have requested page protection.  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for getting back to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh. Your warning of MR90 didn't do much good. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but now I can properly report him for edit warring. Which I have done.  X  eworlebi (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * - the same individual, perhaps? Seems awfully coincidental. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

←I'm running out of patience with MR90. I've tried to address his/her concerns, but the belligerent comments and personal attacks are troubling. Anyway, I appreciate your involvement on this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You were right
This happened as you predicted. I did this. Toddst1 (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  X  eworlebi (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"pifeedback is not an acceptable source"
Why are TravisYanan's posts on pifeedback not an acceptable source for tv ratings, yet tvbythenumbers (who literally copy and pastes his posts onto their site) is? DarkProdigy (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Pifeedback has been ruled to be an unacceptable source and using it will get you banned. (See: Talk, WP:RSN, WP:ANI 1, WP:ANI 2, WP:ANI 3 and WP:ANI 4.) TV by the Numbers has not, if you think it should not be used as a source, feel free to open a new discussion thread at WP:RSN.  X  eworlebi (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

ʻIolani Palace
Evidently this has been moved yet again to contain an apostrophe? This is contrary to sources and guidelines. W Nowicki (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Has already been moved back, with some side commentary, you might want to consider requesting move protection to prevent this in the future. Also, the infobox now uses the ʻOkina, why do we care if that's not what's in the NRHP database? Seems silly to me that everyone agrees it's ʻIolani Palace but just because the NRHP database is outdated it isn't in the infobox.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for quick reply, although not convinced the comment made for the move was civil. I gave up fighting on NRHP names after being reverted too many times by the purists who insist the NRHP database must be mirrored exactly, including the vintage spellings. "Everybody" does not agree, which is why I wanted to discuss a consensus. I try to respect other opinions (especially if based on evidence!) and prefer to do work that is not reverted. W Nowicki (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, makes sense, just the rest of the article uses ʻ (which I meant with everybody, article text and title being decently stable), and the infobox didn't, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Lauren Hodges AfD
Lauren Hodges has been nominated for deletion based on an OTRS request. Seems iffy to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Italic titles for articles using Infobox journal
Please see Template talk:Infobox journal. Thanks! Mhiji (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

V article
I'm not sure I'm quite clear on your reasons for the different word use on the V series article. It links to "remake" and re-imagined is generally implied in that sense of the word. If I was anything other than a IP address would it matter? 96.50.86.207 (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter that you're a IP user, read the Reimagine or renovate section of the Remake article for the difference.  X  eworlebi (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No Ordinary Family
You learn something new everyday. I just found out you can put a category on a redirect page. Unfortunately, a preview won't let you see what categorizing does. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing what you're getting at. Adding a category to an article usually adds that category to the article…  X  eworlebi (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to add the category to No Ordinary Family, but to the page I redirected to it. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 14:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah ok.  X  eworlebi (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Seasons episode lists
I have started a discussion about Mhiji's page moves of episode lists at WT:NC-TV. As someone who has already voiced their concern over these actions, I though you should be informed. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know.  X  eworlebi (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

TV Show Logo SVG Request
Hey Xeworlebi, I've noticed you've uploaded quite a few TV show logos in SVG format, and I was wondering if you'd be able to convert this logo into SVG. Thanks a bunch if you can. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, working on it now. Shouldn't take too long.  X  eworlebi (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ✔ Done, it's located at File:Community 2009 logo.svg, and I've replaced the single transclusion of File:CommunityLogo.png with the vector version.   X  eworlebi (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)