User talk:Xeworlebi/Archive 6

Stop it
Will you please stop reverting that edit. That wiki will most likely stay that way, if people don't know that it exists. You could help you know, instead of repeatedly trolling.--SonnyBobSampson (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Band of Brothers wikia is only a month old and has only three editors, the vast majority of the edits made by "AnyGuy". It therefor does not comply with WP:ELNO, which states: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Neither of which that wikia complies with. Please stop adding it, you are clearly adding it for promotion, which is not Wikipedia's purpose. Neither am I interested in editing one of the random wikia's that people try to promote here.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine then, be a jerk about it.--SonnyBobSampson (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (To your deleted comment) I went to it, and that's how I could tell it did not comply with WP:ELNO. Mind you, I was not the one who has last removed it. I also doubt that wikia's unverified lists of trivia will dominate Wikipedia's sourced factual information. Saying "you might as well go to it, since I won't stop adding the link until you do" clearly has no promotional tone to it, at all…
 * Calling me a jerk doesn't hurt me neither does it change the guidelines on external links.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever. You hurt me though by not even trying to give information on it.--SonnyBobSampson (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean, I gave you the info on why it shouldn't be in the article. And you can say someone hurt your project because they don't help, or because they enforce the guidelines which oppose blatant advertisement and recruitment for editors.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What I mean is you didn't edit anything in my wiki. I'm not talking about the guidelines, I'm talking about why you didn't help me with that hard project I'm working on. I'm not able to give more info on it, because I had my DVD box set taken away because of severe scratches on the discs, and I forgot most of it.--SonnyBobSampson (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the guidelines, using Wikipedia as a recruitment tool is not allowed, there's enough to do on Wikipedia itself. You can't really blame random people for not working for you.  X  eworlebi (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not vandalism
Please explain why my edit on the platypus talk page was vandalism. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it is nonsense and has nothing to do with improving the article.  X  eworlebi (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, IMVHO the article is grammatically wrong atm. We need to discuss it. On the talk page. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with capitalism, if you want to have a discussion, have a normal one, where it's actually clear what you're trying to say, at least in the slightest. After pondering on your talk page comment, I believe you're talking about capitalization and that's something entirely different. Can I suggest you actually state your reasons on the talk page in favor of making little to no sense and going all-caps on everyone?  X  eworlebi (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The Hobbit film project
You seem to have decided unilateraly that my earlier edit on The Hobbit film project has no place on Wikipedia. Why is that article no place for rumours, as long as they can be substantiated by credible sources ? --83.134.116.215 (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This article has a whole section on rumours on the subject of the article.
 * And this one.
 * And here.
 * This article mentions rumours too.
 * And this page.
 * Rumours do seem to have a place on Wikipedia, don't you think ?--83.134.116.215 (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No I don't think so, that's why I removed it, rumors are hardly reliable. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  X  eworlebi (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course rumours are not reliable. It's not the rumours that must be reliable, but the source. Surely you understand that ! If a credential source states that a specific rumour exists (even says that it is likely), than that is information to which Wikipedia readers have a right.
 * If you want to give the full and objective truth about something, you should add rumours, if they exist.
 * You should of course always inform your readers that these are rumours.
 * I think you misjudged this situation. Please revert. --83.134.116.215 (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have misjudged the situation nor will I revert. Rumors are not reliable information, they are rumors, if a reliable source posts unreliable information that information does not become magically reliable. Wikipedia is not the place for rumors or gossip, it is the information that has to be reliable, which is usually established when the source of the information is reliable. But when that same source states that the info is not reliable (calling it a rumor for example) then that information is not verified by that publisher and thus not deemed reliable by proxy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news site.  X  eworlebi (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Edits on List of Two Guys and a Girl episodes
So glad you re-positioned the writers and directors for the pages. I was going to do it myself, but I took the lazy way out and moved writers to the left and the directors to the right, you of course did vice versa.  Quasy Boy  00:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no problem. I'm actually wondering how I missed that when I cleaned up and later partially split this episode list in the first place. Looking through the page history, GlassOnions123 swapped the headers but never swapped the parameters, and I somehow missed that when implementing the DirectedBy and WrittenBy from Aux1 and Aux2. Weird.  X  eworlebi (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Television programs by season
As a frequent and recent discussant at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (television), I call your attention to the creation of Category:Television programs by season and its subcats, which are being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion now at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_5.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you commented at the project talk and not the latest discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_5. I also want to call your attention to Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_6.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Number of episodes
I saw the back-and-forth on Outcasts, and I've read the template documentation, the discussions in archives twelve, eleven, seven and the original proposal. I don't like the idea that someone can check the template docs, find and format a source (e.g. ) and then be told "the documentation is wrong". Can't you just be bold and fix the documentation? - Pointillist (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * True, I have changed the documentation now. Although the documentation wasn't technically wrong, it was just incomplete and unclear, hope the current wording suffices.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. The aired/released distinction probably isn't an issue for editors who aren't television specialists. - Pointillist (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Thanks for your help with various film articles! Looks like you are on the TV side of things, but I hope you'll consider being part of WikiProject Film. We have a pretty active community. I won't template you with the boilerplate invitation, but I'll link you to it anyway if you're interested. Happy editing! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed you rejected Jack Merridew's proposed definition list. I thought it was an improvement in terms of identifying the actors and roles amidst the wall of text. What do you think was wrong with it? We have related discussion about the "Cast" section and other items here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've responded on the talkpage.  X  eworlebi (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't respond earlier, I read it and kinda forgot. I don't see much of a point in putting my username on a WikiProject list, while indeed being on the television side, I'm also not on the WikiProject Television. But I'll definitely keep editing film articles, just like with television those that I saw and liked and those that I'm looking forward to, and the occasional random article. Thanks for the friendly invitation.  X  eworlebi (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. :) Happy editing! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Smallville finale
Hey, I was just wondering why you split the finale of Smallville in two? It seems inconsistent with the "Absolute Justice" episode, which was similar in that it was a double episode with two different directors and two different production codes but is only listed as a single episode. It seems that the logical thing to do with the finale would be to follow suit, at least until more information is available (i.e. writers, episode titles). Personally, I'm not really that fussed either way. I was just wondering what your reasoning was. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it appears (now) that the finale will be two episodes, and has two episode numbers (216 & 217 or 21 & 22), unlike "Absolute Justice" which has only one (185 or 11). If it turns out to be handled like "Absolute Justice" as being a single episode then we can always merge them back together.  X  eworlebi (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

About the Flashpoint summaries
If you are looking for something to do.... The edit you reverted that was somewhat directed to me about the other episodes' summaries being copied as justification is half right. Many of the summaries are found at torrent sites and what i think are mirrors and the like but some are also found on tv.com and who knows which came first! You have been involved with the article for a lot longer than i have so maybe you want to go through them as you might know which are original to WP and which are taken from elsewhere and put into WP. The summaries for the latter half of season 3 are mine (save for "Terror"), concurrently posted to my own site about the show. Perhaps i should just write a summary for ep 44 since noöne else has put any non-copyright violating summary in :P delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 01:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I usually do a simple cross check whenever they are added. Sometimes when there is a flood addition of summaries added, especially when previously deleted as a copyright violation or very teaser looking, I might do a check on earlier summaries, and then only look for official websites. Like you said, many places copy from Wikipedia, and when some time has passed starting to look for who copied who is near impossible to figure out.  X  eworlebi (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Being Human (North American Remake) Episode Titles
Sorry about that, I thought that ref was for a different link. But the last two episode's titles have been announced here, so could you please add them and the ref? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1595680/episodes I'm still fairly new here so I'm not too good at adding refs yet so I'd really appreciate it if you could do it for me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Dbad (talk • contribs) 17:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but IMDb is not a reliable source as it is user submitted. If you need some help take a look at the the help pages, for references: Help:Footnotes.  X  eworlebi (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help pages. But how the heck is it not a reliable source? It got every single last episode title so far right, so I'm sure the last two are right as well. 1Dbad (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, it is user submitted, the origin of these titles is unknown, anyone can add them, and thus it is not a reliable source. See WP:SPS.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * While true, it could still be correct. Ah well, whatever you say. But if they turn out to be right I'm so gonna say I told you so lol. 1Dbad (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

fraggle rock
just a question: if you wish it to read as five seasons (which the writers and producers disagree with) do you think maybe you should fix the footnotes so it does not embarrass wikipedia. I pointed out on the discussion page that the initial sentence states five seasons and both footnote claim four, not good. Use the discussion page, do not just change to what you believe is right.18abruce (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

White Collar Logo
Although (1 of) the liscence says that the image in public domain, it does not mean that it is available for use, and you will be specifically be held responsible for any action because of this. "This work contains material which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use." According to their T&S you can only use stuff for non-commercial use (SEE WP:NFC) (If you wish to obtain the right to use it, contact USA Network for permission, if you already have it, contact permissions@wikipedia.org with a copy of an email from them) G.Light (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NFC is about copyrighted material. Since the logo "is simply a sequence of letters or written words" it is uncopyrightable, see Logos. It therefor falls under public domain, for which no permission is required.
 * On the trademarks side: Wikipedia is not a commercial entity, nor is the trademark used to promote, advertise or otherwise make money from the trademark. Neither is it used to refer to a different or competing product than the trademarked entity. Its use is therefor not in violation with the law, which "protects the right of non-owners to use trademarks for purposes of criticism and commentary".  X  eworlebi (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Quotes from wiki: Any content not satisfying criteria, such as "non-commercial use only" images are therefore classified as non-free. The tag is not sufficient on its own. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed non-free use rationale. Please see G.Light (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a non-free logo, it is a free logo, WP:NFC does not apply here. It has the appropriate PD-textlogo and is accompanied with the additional Trademark information. The source of the work is clearly stated on the file page.
 * Copyright and trademark are two entirely different things. There is in essence no restriction on the use of trademarks unless when used to identify something else but the original trademarked item. I've been doing this for some time now, I know how it works, but thanks for your concern anyway.  X  eworlebi (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Appropiately Tagging List of DuckTales episodes
I think: I need help appropiately tagging the article. To me, the introduction is too long, the content in the introduction needs reorganization, almost the article has material considered "original research" to me, and the article needs more verifiable sources. What do you think? --Gh87 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The page was tagged with every tag possible. It's basically tag spamming. I'm currently going trough the article cleaning it up, I might re-add some valid tags back afterwards.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tried to revise the article to cite all of the air dates and various other details about the series' broadcast history, but you keep reverting it. Why?  The article was tagged for the introduction being too long, so I shortened it significantly, placing the information about each individual season at the beginning of each respective table, but you keep reverting it.  Why?  You have removed the TV movie versions of the five-part serials from the episode list, which obliterates historical context, and will only confuse someone new to the subject.  Why?  DuckTales: The Movie was released between seasons 3 and 4 -- why move it to after season 4?  (In regards to the movie, I referred to the format of the X-Files episode list.)  Thanks.  As someone who only wants the information in this article to be as correct as possible, I'm finding this kind of hearbreaking.  RWynns (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You went from a to long introduction to a to short lead, by basically removing everything. I'm going through the article and fixing stuff right now.  X  eworlebi (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured that since it's a list, a minimal introduction would be all that's needed, as general info about the series would be appropriate for the main article. Anyway, now that I see your ultimate revision, it looks really good, and thank you for accounting for my most recent changes/citations.  RWynns (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you really don't think that the original serialized airdates should be included alongside the TV movie version airdates, I'll concede the point -- but I really think it's useful, for clarity's sake. Also, just wanted to point out -- you're attributing the 1989-90 "pairing" of DuckTales and Chip 'n' Dale Rescue Rangers to Torcivia and Barat, but this is actually not mentioned in their book.  RWynns (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, only the first and thus original airings are listed. The serialized dates are available in prose in the lead and just above the episode table.  X  eworlebi (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

IMDB as source
I don't quite agree with it not being a reliable source, and instead of creating an argument I have made a post on the discussion page (here) G.Light (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about cast section for TV series Camelot
Hi, Xiworlebe! I see we're working as a team to develop the article on Camelot (TV series), and that's great. I did have a question about your deletion of the paragraph about cast members that I had added. When I started to work on the article today, there was a banner on the discussion page that said that "Television needs character section" -- and the banner continued to note that it should "ideally" be written in a prose style, with a link the the Wikipedia television manual of style. I followed that link, and one of the sentences describing this section was "Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that really belongs in the plot summary; instead, focus on real world information on the characters and actors." I took that reference to "real world information on actors" to mean some mention of their backgrounds, which is why I added that prose section before the list section. Can you tell me if I misunderstood? I think it added something interesting to the article -- and it is information included in press releases about the show -- but I'll bow to your wisdom in terms of a final decision. On the other hand, I did want to explain my actions and ask what you thought. Thank! NearTheZoo (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Help!!!!!!!! I just saw that you have deleted other work that I put into this article, including replacing the poster with the new one issued by Starz -- which I uploaded based on approved criteria (I think). Could you educate me a little as to why you think the things you are deleting are inappropiate? (For example, some of the external links? Certainly Youtube videos are used as links in other articles....) I think the new poster is much better, but if there is a reason it was taken off, I'd like to learn more, to help me edit for the future. I certainly don't want to revert your deletions and start a war. I just want to work together to make a better article. Hope there is some room for compromise! NearTheZoo (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC) --Quick PS: If the "intertitle" is more appropriate in the infobox, would it be all right to use the poster illustration as an image in the body of the article? (Still trying to learn....) NearTheZoo (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, nice work, and thanks for coming here for collaboration and your questions.
 * The cast section should not be about the cast members other jobs, it should be about the show. Ideally this is indeed in prose, usually it is in a list because it makes for much easier separation and reading. Normally real world info for the cast is a casting subsection in the production section but more on the cast itself for example info on how certain actors portrayed there character in the show. Listing what other jobs the actors have done isn't really important to the show, unless they were casted based on that in which case it could go in the casting section.
 * I removed a bunch of external links because they failed WP:EL, YouTube isn't a good source, and trailers are not normally added as El', there was also a fansite, a link to a part of the official website (which is already present), a photo-galery, and a interview on a fansite, and a preview article. Last two might be used as references. The rest doesn't really offer what external links should, which is usually another (stable) place with ample coverage of the series, such as the official website, IMDb, Tv.com, etc. Those last two, while user-contributed, which should normally be voided, have a long standing "reputation" (not always good) and are places were users frequently go for more info.
 * Using posters is customary for movies, while using the shows intertitle is customary for television series. Yes on that last question, a poster could go nice with a promotion section for example, and since it displays some cast members it can be added to the cast section for now.  X  eworlebi (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, especially for teaching me the distinction between posters in infoboxes on movies and intertitles in infoboxes for TV shows. That's just the kind of thing I like to learn. Thanks also for confirming that the poster would still be appropriate in the article -- in the cast section, not the infobox. I'll add it.  Again, thanks! I did enjoy the premiere episode, which led me to the article, which I enjoyed trying to improve. Best wishes - NearTheZoo (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Camelot: Another question
Dear Xiworlebi, I keep thinking that we're collaborating on this article, both working to make it better! But I see now that you reverted my last change in terms of the start date for the series -- but all the Starz descriptions for the Feb 25, 2011, airing of "Homecoming" describe it as a "preview," not the official beginning of the series, which is repeatedly described as a series scheduled to premiere on April 1. I really don't think we can say the series is "airing" now: there has only been a preview of one hour of the scheduled 2-hour premiere. Could you reconsider? NearTheZoo (talk)

PS- Here's where Starz itself refers to the screening of Homecoming as a "sneak preview": http://www.starz.com/originals/Camelot/Episode101 I think we should go with the description of the show's people, don't you? NearTheZoo (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The two hour "premiere" is two episodes, the first one which has already aired, and will be rebroadcasted again on April 1, 2011 along with the second one. The same thing happened with Rubicon on AMC, and other shows like Perfect Couples did this to. They do this to create buzz around a show so that more people watch again the next time so they can claim higher premiere ratings, Rubicon went from 1.07 million to 2 million viewers on the "official premiere". They may call it a sneak preview but it's just the first episode again. Maybe "Airing" can be changed to something more fitting, but the first_aired should definitely remain February 25, 2011.  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Xiworlebi, I understand and already knew about the practice of sneak previews to create buzz - but I'll just agree to disagree with you about when the series (as opposed to one episode) began to air.  My point is that rather than editors using their own (sometimes differing) criteria to decide when a show begins, it is better (as we do for the body of wikipedia articles) to rely on "published" material (to me, that's an encyclopedic approach rather than "original research").  Starz clearly labels the Feb 25 showing as a "sneak preview," and publishes Apr 1 as the scheduling beginning of the series.  Anyway, maybe you could sneak in a "good faith" note when you change some of the work I've done? :)  In terms of changing the "airing" in the infobox to something else, I'll leave that up to you, because I don't want to open up another disagreement! :)  I do thank you for responding to my question, even if we must agree to disagree.  I am sure you have more experience with these articles than I do, but I do have enthusiasm!  Again, thanks. NearTheZoo (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

New quick question
New quick question! I saw you changed (correctly) STARZ to Starz, but I just added a direct quote from a printed source where the critic used STARZ in caps. I know that the manual of style lets us make some "silent" corrections, so should I just change this to Starz, keep it in caps and use (sic), or just leave it as it is? What do you think? NearTheZoo (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely Starz in lowercase.  X  eworlebi (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Another question
Another question! (I'd rather resolve questions here than deal with reverts in the article. Hope you agree!). I see that some TV show pages have a section for episodes (which later might turn into separate pages), using a table for the episodes. Is it appropriate for me to add that to the Camelot page now, even though there would only be one episode on it for now? Or is that something that should wait until there are more? NearTheZoo (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha, too late, there's already List of Camelot episodes, which I created the day after the episode aired. It is actually quite customary for episode lists (for full series, not miniseries) to start out as separate articles, and in case of early cancelation and a very short main article to be merged with it.  X  eworlebi (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Learned something! Guess I had the process backwards. NearTheZoo (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

House episodes
Hello, I want to know why you turned every House article into a redirect? I would like to know your rationale and where you discussed this before you went through with it? Such large amount of content deletion merited a discussion Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I found your discussion of Talk:House (season 7). You had a discussion with ONE other user. If you are trying to generate a discussion for actions of such magnitude, it is proper to inform people who edit the articles you are trying to remove so that they can discuss. You did not inform any interested user of this discussion (I looked up your contrib history to confirm this). You may think that these episode articles violate policy, but what you did violates policy. Such a massive edit merits a consensus, which you lacked entirely. You should have used a mass AfD before trying to do what you did. Please revert all your redirects and wait for a proper consensus. If you don't, I will sometime this weekend and then I'll inform an admin if you prematurely revert. (By the way recently someone did make an AfD for good chunk of House episodes and the consensus was a "Keep", see Articles for deletion/Hunting (House))

Article fails WP:EPISODE, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:PLOT: redirecting to season page per unanswered discussion Your discussion was unanswered because you did not inform any party about the discussion you are starting. A lack of answers does not mean you have a consensus.

To reiterate, I suggest your revert your redirects, create a single AfD that encompassed for every article your think doesn't merit existence (like the Hunting AfD I showed you above), and inform all recent or major editors to articles you were trying to remove. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am going to have to agree with Thegreyanomaly here on this one. There was an AFD a couple of months ago and it was KEEP. So, great you started 7 or 8 discussions. Only one person noticed any of them. It is a massive crapload to undo but i too am calling on you to undo every single edit you did in this matter. A lack of response to challenging consensus is borderline vandalism when you decide to follow through on the proposal. It is at best disruptive editing that you did. I glanced through the AFD and apparently there is some book and other stuff; this is where improving the articles is what is called for. If you don't like improving articles then you should just back off. I personally don't hold much fondness for the show and so am not looking to invest the time in it myself. It was also most uncivil of you to call all of them crap articles that make for a crap encyclopædia. I have read some of them and they weren't crap. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 03:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion on every season page as well as the complete episode list article. No-one bothered to respond. Only for season 7 were one user came up with reasonable rational why these articles should remain. For the record, there are no major editors any of the articles I redirected, because there is absolutely no major content on any of the articles. But I guess I'll revert and start an AfD, although redirects are much more appropriate then simple deleting the articles outright. By the way, this type of redirecting for this type of articles has been done for other shows.  X  eworlebi (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I considered it pointless to make the same argument on seven different pages, especially as you weren't listening to it on the first page anyway. You said you were going to start an AfD and I was waiting to respond on there. Redirects may have been created for other shows, but I assume there was actual discussion before it happened. --rpeh •T•C•E• 10:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For that season yes, because your main argument was "these are fairly new articles and can still be expanded" which held a little merit for season seven, but not at all for the other seasons like season 1 were the articles have been like that for 5 years. If you opposed the entire thing I would expected you to say go to the main discussion at the episode list article, or at least said so in the discussion. Clearly these articles are so well maintained that it took three days before anyone noticed.  X  eworlebi (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For someone so keen on referencing different WP policies, you should really pay attention to the ones that talk about wiping out huge chunks of information without any proper discussion. --rpeh •T•C•E• 11:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Proper discussion, which wasn't because no-one responded was had. The same discussion as for other shows' episode article redirects was started, which in those cases also went unopposed aka no response.  X  eworlebi (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Xeworlebi please heed the statements of Deliriousandlost (rememeber she proclaimed "It is at best disruptive editing that you did"), who is an admin and who probably has a much more accurate interpretation of Wikipedia policies than any of the three of us. If she says what you did was wrong, it was probably wrong. If no one responds to your discussion that does not mean you have the right to go forward with your proposal. You should have moved your debate to some talk page that people actually look at such as the WikiProject Television or WikiProject House talk pages.

Proper discussion, which wasn't because no-one responded was had. The same discussion as for other shows' episode article redirects was started, which in those cases also went unopposed aka no response Just because something like that was gotten away with for one TV show doesn't mean you can get away with doing that to House episodes.

Deliriousandlost also filed a motion on your AfD to make it valid for every season so we don't have to go through this seven times. I am backing the measure, I hope you would too.Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For starters, Deliriousandlost is not an admin, I have no idea why you think she is. Secondary, I started with the first season to see how it would go, in case of support I would continued with the rest, if not I would not as I have stated.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops I misread her user page, she is an admin on Wikimedia, not here, when I clicked verify, I didn't notice it was Wikimedia and not Wikipedia. I suppose that your progression pattern is acceptable. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)