User talk:Xeworlebi/Archive 9

Leave them be
I'm getting pretty damn sick of you reverting my edits with dismissive comments like "Leave them be. Make a damn case. Discuss it. I'm not a vandal and I resent you treating me like one. I don't make arbitrary changes, I have a rationale that I would be happy to explain if it's not obvious to you.  Or do you just get off on screwing with me? I spend hours of my time improving articles and you revert it all with some damn macro without a thought.Barsoomian (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For one you change a common format to a new one for no apparent reason, and I'll revert such edits every time, from you or any one else. Secondly you changed one of the headers to "?", which is nonsensical. Every edit I've seen you make has been to try to change common format to your own preferred system, without any reason. And that's getting pretty tiresome, as you already made clear before you have zero interest in using common formats, consistency, and accuse everyone of ganging up on you.  X  eworlebi (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See See Talk:List_of_Supernatural_episodes.


 * If I did make a mistake, you could fix that and point it out in the edit summary instead of just blowing me off with "Leave it be". And I reject your characterisations of me. So just discuss the edits, preferably without sneering too obviously. Barsoomian (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * the № symbol of course created the "?" as I used an external editor which apparently mangled whatever encoding that symbol uses. I'm careful about that on articles that use Chinese or some other foreign characters, but that's a trivial fix once you point it out, and is no justification for the bulk revert you did. Barsoomian (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just one extra thing to pile on the heap.  X  eworlebi (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously you're well experienced here and know how to put down people while avoiding violating the letter of civility rules. Unwatching this now; no reply necessary. Barsoomian (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Tags
I've reverted for two reasons. One, there's no reason to tag so many articles; the better approach is to bring it up at the central page and see what responce is received there. Second, some of your tags overlap and there is no reason to clutter the top of the page. --Ckatz chat spy  19:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "there's no reason to tag so many articles", these articles have problems, tagging them is perfectly appropriate. If you're referring to and, these do not overlap, see the TfD for more info if you want, bottom line, these are two different issues.   X  eworlebi (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The "allplot" and "plot" tags both speak to the same issue; choose one or the other. If you feel the article consists only of plot, then "allplot" is appropriate - but it would incorporate the same idea that "plot" covers. Plus, it only serves to confuse readers as they're seeing a massive template farm that appears to repeat itself.(I've no problem if you want to replace one with the other, but two is excessive.) --Ckatz chat spy  19:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No they don't. is about the article consisting of only plot, not that it is too long,  is about the plot being too long, not that the article consists of only plot, again see the relevant TfD.   X  eworlebi (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already reviewed the discussion. There is consensus that they address different aspects of the plot issue, but no indication that they are fundamentally different enough to warrant simultaneous inclusion in the same article. To echo what one contributor said, you are simultaneously arguing that a dual-tagged article needs to a) reduce the size of the plot and b) keep the plot, but increase the supporting material in the article to balance it out. As I said already, I'm not challenging the idea that one of them (your preference) is needed, only that using both at the same time is excessive, unwarranted, and creates clutter in the article that affects the reader. --Ckatz chat spy  19:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing that a) the plot should be reduced in size and b) that real-world information should be added. Two entirely different issues, which warrants two different tags. I'm not sure were you get the "keep the plot" from, neither tag suggests that.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Fleet Foxes (album)
Hiya! . You reverted my edit, which added a hat note. Your edit summary links to the page on hatnotes, only. Please be a little more specific about your reasoning. Thank you. d u f f  16:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you need further info on? I'll be more than happy to explain it to you. I'm not sure how to be more specific, WP:NAMB is already a very specific part of hat-note uses.  X  eworlebi (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI:On my device, WP:NAMB redirects to the top of the hatnotes guideline page, and does not continue down. However, I searched the page & found the other instance, which I've read.  To me, the hatnote added seems helpful and appropriate.   Was there some reason you chose not to simply edit the hatnote for the eponymous album; leaving the portion that led to the eponymous EP, where I also placed an analogous tag?  Further, the Fleet Foxes (EP) hatnote, I am sure you'll agree, could also be edited, such that each points only to each other, (where ambiguity certainly does exist) and not back to the source of the eponymity.  My sense is that the eponymity alone is enough to merit leaving both (all) pointing both ways, as with the hatnote on the band article.   d u f f   17:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't watch the EP page, so I did not see what you did there, on the bands article it is appropriate to link to both, as it is not disambiguated. The other articles shouldn't have the band as a hat-note because no-one would end up there looking for the band. I do see the logic in leaving the EP part of the hat-note. But this might also be a case of WP:RELATED.  X  eworlebi (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this actually is a case of WP:RELATED, which would have us locate that point at the See also section (at the bottom) or at an expansion of the article itself (in the middle), with the Main template. These two articles do not bear a similar relation to one another as do the articles Extraterrestial life and Extraterrestrial life in popular culture. Here's why:
 * Completely different tracklists
 * released 2 years apart: EP 2006 & album 2008, with another EP in between them that thereby rightly precludes its showing up on the infobox chronology.
 * Editors on both the EP & the Album pages would likely then establish by wasting time in talkspace that no, this is specifically not about that.
 * The dab belongs as a hat-note, on both articles, up at the top where the ambiguity can be addressed forthwith, without wading through the article & comparing tracklists. I do see your point about neither hatting back to the main band article & and agree I with it.  I've fixed them both.   d u f f   00:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the main article when mentioning WP:RELATED, not the album/EP articles.  X  eworlebi (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Guest stars
Is there a policy on guest stars on episode descriptions? I've always seen them and haven't heard anything different up until now. Thanks! Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if there's an explicit one, but I've always seen it as 'if they're not notable to have their character mentioned in the the summary, then they're not notable enough to mention'. Having such 'after plot info', has a tendency to get out of hand, first it's guests, then it's music, trivia etc. WP:MOSTV kinda touches on this, the short summary is for plot info, and the MOS says "To balance this, the relevant in-universe information can be presented in the plot section of the article with actor names listed beside their relevant characters as "(ACTOR)", while the real world information can be presented in a "Casting" subsection under "Production"." with the other options being a cast/character list and casting sections.  X  eworlebi (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Very true (about it getting out of hand). I'll work through and put the relevant info in the leads, as it currently is with List of White Collar episodes, if there are no objections.  It seems that that would be a better way to do it anyway.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be primarily for the main cast, guests are usually added after the characters name in the plot, for example like the episode "Free Fall", "Home Invasion", "Bottlenecked", etc. Although the plots for the latter episodes aren't really fit for that, as they don't really have any text.  X  eworlebi (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see. I'll get on that soon, and also try to clean up some other shows.  Kevinbrogers (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then
Can you atleast tell me which template appears when someone replyed to you but on their page? 92.30.163.2 (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your last post made no sense, this one just a little more. No template appears, someone can put on your talk page, but that's not a requirement, and some people don't like to get those as they're watching the page anyway.   X  eworlebi (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, Sorry for the inconvenience and I won't bother you again.92.30.163.2 (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, if you have a question you can ask no problem, but your first post made no sense to me, and looked like random IP nonsense.  X  eworlebi (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Combat Hospital
First off, if you have looked at Canadian shows and episode lists you would see that very few of them are bothered with. Endgame is the worst of recent shows. The main article is so small that splitting off the episode list makes so little sense i put it back. I looked at what you had. If i were you i would have tagged it for the introduction being too short or/and insufficient in its coverage of the subject. We i am certain will edit war over the 13 episodes because i list Canadian and British shows by their commissioning and production not by their broadcast because listing it by broadcast is treating the article as a tv guide. That and shows don't go 'unaired' like they do in the USA. We've been here a few times before. Surprised it took you this long to appear at CH. But the logo you made. That is so entirely NOT the logo from the titles of the show that i wondered if you really did make it up but it seems that it is the American promotional logo for the series. The logo from the titles that might be difficult since it is white on an orange background and includes a setting sun. But you omitted the helicopter from the image you made, which is the reason for the otherwise mis-alignment of the letters. Still, Canadian show so how about using the Canadian logo or screenshot instead. The same issue exists on rookie blue where it is an American promotional image used rather than the Canadian + titles logo. If you are going to make the logo files it would be nice if you used the in-show/domestic logo rather than what ABC decides to use. CBS also insists upon using a logo different from what CTV and the show titles of Flashpoint itself has. CBS also had a different logo for The Bridge. Most every Canadian prime time show seen in the USA has an "American logo" now that i think about it. Even reelzchannel insisted upon using their own logo for The Kennedys even though it was rather plain white text. (CA production company & CA broadcaster vs US broadcaster ) As for the link to rookie blue i suggest you read the review by Matthew Gilbert. He insults Combat Hospital and the other imported show on ABC that makes up the majority of new scripted programming the network offers in the summer. I just named it to remove the ambiguity. What really is odd is the blanket insult of the whole cast for their amateur quality of work yet back when Everwood premiered Matthew Gilbert sung the praises of Gregory Smith to such beautiful adoration for his talent and performance. Either Gregory Smith has gone from top-class actor to washed-up has-been who can't get work in the USA or there is some anti-non-American sentiment seeping into Mr Gilbert's reviews. Because Gregory Smith chose to come back home to work doesn't mean his talent was confiscated by customs agents. Mr Gilbert has likewise appreciated the work of other cast members of both shows in other roles from years gone by but here felt to bash the whole quality-of-all-imported-shows-seen-in-the-summer-on-ABC as a collective. And that is Combat Hospital and rookie blue. If you want to get into insults though the guy from the San Francisco Chronicle does one hell of an insult at the end of his piece, mocking everyone for their stupidity in setting the show in 2006. "The fact that the show is set in 2006 is odd, as if the Canadian creative team is worried that the war in Afghanistan might have ended before the show could air." If you know why it is set in 2006 then he looks like an idiot; if you don't know why it is set in 2006 he makes everyone involved with the show out to be idiots. Ignorance and a larger audience are a detrimental combination. These shows are generally not at all as bad as the fluff and puff USA and TNT have on this summer but they get extra servings of criticism from the American critics, often with some not-so-veiled-hint that it is because they are not American shows and Americans are being subjected to them. Yes, i think White Collar has lost its edgy appeal and rizzoli & isles has been of community access channel quality writing from day 1 yet millions and millions watch it. Pick an American show that just sucks. The Canadian critic won't be excessive in complaints just because it is an American show. Sadly the reverse is not really true. Rare is the American critic who sings the praises of something despite it being Canadian, assuming it is worthy of praise. delirious &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 08:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not a proper logo of the show. Whether there is a better one or not doesn't make that one legitimate. delirious &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 09:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've restored the logo, this one is just fine it's a proper one, and legitimate, no misalignment, That's the logo. Your hatred for the U.S. is laying pretty tick on this one. As for the separate article, I find this page to have sufficient info to warrant a split. The Rookie Blue comment came out of nowhere, and I don't particularly see it as relevant, in the review it's only mentioned in passing by, more as a 'all Canadian shows suck' comment. As for the episode count, we've been through this, do we have to do it again?  X  eworlebi (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is the hatred of Americans hating on things Canadian because they are things not-American and having to put their own stamp on it to make them moderately acceptable. Making American-only logos for Canadian shows is hardly a friendly move on the part of ABC & CBS. That is why i call it a fake logo. You call it based on the titles of the show. That is so bold a lie that i don't know how you came up with that since you normally are very accurate in such matters. Have you seen the titles of the show? They don't look at all like that. Mr Gilbert's entire review is basically an 'i hate Canadian tv shows' rant in which he bitches about Combat Hospital and rookie blue as both completely sucking like no American show could. Sadly most critics take similar approach. As for the episode count, we have been through this many times now. I thought you would get the message but i guess not. It is actually from you that i picked up on the 'don't treat the article like it is a tv guide' notion and the way you insist upon displaying episodes in the infobox is directly using the article as a tv guide. The rule you concocted for it is based on US tv industry practices which are irrelevant in the rest of the world. Yes, we have been through this. And every time you edit a Canadian show you are likely to go through it again. And again. And again. And your logo is of really the wrong colours; it is waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too bright. You have it closer to a candy-cane red when it should be more like a muddy orange. And it is not the logo for the show. As for splitting the articles.... i wrote about 73% of it. If i wanted credit for article creation i would have split it myself. But it isn't worthy of a split. It really is far from being appropriate to split it. It is actually just slightly better than stub class as i last left it. I suppose we shall continue this back & forth another day. Or shall we go to a different show and do the same fighting? Fake logo and episode count principle was taught to me by you and then you changed your approach on it to codify against what you taught me because others didn't like it. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 09:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The mis-alignment of the text in the logo is part of its design to allow for the helicopter which you left out. With the helicopter there is no perceived error. Without the helicopter it looks wrong, whether you like the logo or not. It is unbalanced. I have an extract from the actual titles that i would email to you for you to see about making into an .svg if only you were receptive to emails. So much for that compromise. But yes, so long as you want to put an American logo on an article about a Canadian show we are going to have great conflict. You might as well be putting a US Flag in the infobox of Canada. On a quirky mention NBC actually used the real logo of The Listener for the time it broadcast the show. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 09:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but the logo is valid, it is a logo of the show, it is the same show, I pick logos from DVD boxes, websites, promotional material, often these are all different, but they're all valid nonetheless. The colors are picked from the image, but if you want them lighter you can always suggest better colors that are closer to the original, pulling colors from an image with a wide variety can be tricky. As for the splitting, you really pulling a I want credit for the page creation? On the episode count issue, yes we've been through this, and I would have hoped you'd get the message too, I asked it at the template's infobox, and there was agreement with my version, little response, yes, but agreement nonetheless. It's inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia just because you want your Canadian show articles your own way. And what are you talking about with me teaching you something and then changing? I never talked to you about logo's and I've always supported the current episode count in the infobox. The logo is what it is, you call it misaligned I call it the logo. It is the same show, what logo is used isn't really relevant, your comparison to the US flag on the Canada article is one of the most ridiculous analogies I've yet to see on Wikipedia (and people come up with some crazy things here), it's so far out there I don't even going to argue with you anymore. You clearly like your Canadian articles your way.  X  eworlebi (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is what i was writing that i got an edit conflict on when i went to save it. Calling the comparison of American logo to Canadian logo like unto American Flag to Canadian Flag the most ridiculous thing you have ever seen here is so damn offensive i can't write what i feel without offending more people in a manner like unto your offending of me.
 * Suppose you are Danish. Your country has this little tv show that is brilliant. The BBC shows it in the UK and subtitles it for their English-speaking audience. The Americans hear about how big a success it is despite being in Danish and decide they have to have it for themselves. They take the concept and many of the specific details and make an English-language show and in almost everywhere call it an original series of American Movie Classics. There is only the faintest trickle of credit in the far corners of the media coverage about it really being a remake of that Danish show you love. The preceding is somewhat the story of Forbrydelsen and The Killing. Sadly, even on Wikipedia Forbrydelsen is actually titled The Killing (Danish TV series) because in the USA they call the Danish series The Killing rather than Forbrydelsen. The thing is people are more aware of shows that come from or are remakes of British or Danish or German origin than they are of shows from Canada. The fight to have things Canadian not labelled American is very difficult because everything in the USA calls X an American show if it is anything to be proud of. There is minimal coverage in Canada at all. If weighted by straight tally of references then Flashpoint, Being Human, rookie blue, Combat Hospital, skins, Due South, 18 to Life, Life With Derek, Queer As Folk, and The Bridge to name but a few would be American tv shows according to Wikipedia. That is pretty much straight up stealing the best of Canadian tv from the last couple of years and calling it American. The list excludes Republic Of Doyle because it seems hard to pass off Newfoundland as part of the USA. Camelot and somewhat The Borgias are actually labelled as being American shows by virtue of being broadcast by starz and Showtime despite being Canadian-Irish and Canadian-Hungarian-Irish shows respectively. The only time things are acknowledge as being Canadian is when they are labelled as 'imported Canadian tv that sucks'. If it is good it is American. Endgame is one show that is not seen in the USA but seems to have a lot of American fans who look for it via whatever means necessary. Murdoch Mysteries is huge in the UK and many people think the show is British even though it is set in 1898 Toronto and stars 2 Canadians, an Australian, and a Brit. So you take a Canadian tv show and slap an American logo on it and don't understand how that could be an offensive or hostile action? FYI : the forthcoming Titanic mini-series is a British-Canadian-American production from ITV Studios, Shaw Media, and ABC Studios. If ABC Studios is actually involved in making a show i don't have objection to stating so. It is when they do nothing but by broadcast rights and get treated as though they made it that i take issue. The Kennedys mini-series was made in Canada and commissioned by Shaw Media for History Television (the CA one) but the idea came from an American and once word of it first began to trickle out History Channel (the US one) got in on the action and for reasons i do not entirely know asserted rights of veto over everything. Then when it was done they called it unfit for broadcast and everyone in the USA had no idea that it was actually made by Muse & Shaw for Shaw's History Television and AETN's History Channel was an after-thought. Many hated The Kennedys because it was not all rose petals and larks singing at break of day. It was too realistic and too condensed and too unforgiving and too fictionalised and too real too -insertwhateverhere-. Not many blamed Canada. reelzchannel did their damnedest to keep mention of it being a Canadian production staring 90% Canadians out of the media. It made it harder to reference the article but it kept the hostilities to a minimum. The Kennedys has its broadcast network première tomorrow night on Global. The USA show Suits, aka A Legal Mind, is made in Toronto and is schedule to have filming run through 12 August. You can call and ask them; 416-398-6869. Just because it is made here in Canada doesn't automatically mean it is a Canadian show. Though i thought i recognised a few places in the background i still consider it an American show as it is made by NBC Universal for USA and stars a brilliant American whom i love and a Canadian whom i have never seen before. Somehow the article makes no mention that production moved from NYC to Toronto for series. The article also has no logo. If there were a Canadian broadcaster for Suits and they had a different logo i would not be putting it in the article and saying 'too bad'. There is a section that was started on the talk page of the skins remake (Talk:Skins (2011 TV series)) which is entirely dedicated to telling me to give in to calling all of these American shows because they are seen on MTV, Syfy (silly name), ABC, Showtime, CBS, starz, and NBC while it being meaningless that they are made by companies based in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver for domestic broadcast on CTV, CBC, Global, History Television, SPACE, and Movie Central and in almost every case the US broadcaster came into the picture after things got started. Why? Because for every 1 reference i have that says "made by Muse in Montreal" or "filmed on location in Toronto; produced in association with Movie Central" they have 9 or 47 that say "Syfy's new original series Being Human" and "MTV's new hit series, the US version of Skins" or "CBS's breakout hit Flashpoint". They want me to give in to calling Queer As Folk an American series even though it was produced by British and Canadian companies and filmed in Toronto for broadcast on Showcase all because it was seen in the USA on Showtime and set in Pittsburgh. This isn't just an issue with you or about a lone logo or episode count. It is about standing up to claiming as American every shred of Canadian tv that is enjoyed by Americans. Just because both countries are in North American does not mean national and cultural differences are ok to entirely dismiss. It would be like telling the Irish they are British because their home is part of the British Isles. You will make many an enemy by saying that. In short, it is not hating Americans; it is fiercely proud of and defending Canadian tv from patriotic bias in criticism if disliked and expropriation if liked.
 * And now back to response to your dismissal of my concerns with all of this. You think i want credit for an article which i told you i had every intention of likely never creating? You really should dedicate a little bit more time to reading before you respond and accuse someone of such nonsense. My article creation tally is 5 or 7 maybe. One more is hardly any sort of milestone or of any import at all. Combat Hospital will not likely go beyond one season and as such there is really no need for a separate list of episodes. If i agreed with you that there was need and that the article was able to stand on its own i could have done that when i last had edited it a few days ago. I do entirely disagree with you on both the need for it and its appropriateness as an article given the content it had. Oddly enough i was using what i understand to be your standard for assessing such. You apply clean-up tags to things while i directly address the issues i find. I was most confused when i saw that it was you who had created the list of episodes article. As to episode count we will always absolutely disagree so long as you want to have a running tally. You are the one from whom i learnt to 'not treat the articles as a tv guide'. You straight up don't see how having a running tally in the infobox which is not in agreement with anything else both treating the article as a tv guide and is unencyclopædic not to mention fundamentally unreferenced original research. The infobox running tally is in direct conflict with the series overview until the season/series is complete. The infobox has no reference for the digit displayed there yet the digit in the series overview, if written properly, will have a reference for the current and possibly the previous seasons too and especially for any future series which have been confirmed. I find your policy, which you have people agree with, most in conflict with Wikipedia not being a tv guide. Make it ok for Wikipedia to be a tv guide and you negate my fundamental objection to your way of maintaining that record. If you think the logo is of no relevance i dare you to put the Canadian Flag in the infobox of United States in about 17 hour form now and see what people think of it because after all a flag is a flag is a flag be it American, Canadian, or German. Maybe even put in the British or Mexican flags instead. See if anyone has any issue with it being the mark of a foreign party. I doubt there would be less issue if you put the 48 star American Flag in the infobox. You would probably upset people in 2 states. But hey, it is still an American Flag and which American Flag it is really isn't relevant. If you really think nothing of this then you are one of those people whom i guess would be in favour of telling me to give in to calling all of these shows American. American is not Canadian. America is not Canada. Canadians are not Americans. Canadian tv is not American tv. Blurring those lines or telling someone they don't matter or worse still that they don't exist is highly provocative. I am not and never will be eligible to be president of the united states. My birth certificate is a Canadian bank note (yes, that seems odd but through some time in the 1980s Ontario birth certificates were Canadian bank notes). Sadly many Canadians just don't care any more but i am not one of those apathetic non-Americans who will gladly be walked on. In the bigger picture it is holding on to that one portion which i value from being claimed as American by Americans just because there is noöne who could stop them from taking whatever they want. If you look at the really big picture the USA has become everything that it hated most about the British some 300-500 years ago. But it is unpatriotic for an American to say so. Which is bordering on the cause that had so many flee to the USA in the first place. Things are not irrelevant just because you don't care. So that is a lot that you might consider blah blah blah. And if your only response is "tldr" i would not be surprised as that is the common dismissal of anything remotely possibly disagreeable, be it one sentence or ten thousand words. I am so frustrated with your indifference that i am more convinced than ever that you actually are American despite all your user page says else you would probably be able to imagine the US staking claim to part of your culture and you might understand why dismissing Canadian for American on an article about a Canadian subject is in no way a welcomed action. But if you yourself are an American then it would be unlikely that you would be able to imagine such a scenario as it is hard to usurp what you already have. Or in other words your lack of empathy tells me you are in favour of anything and everything being called American which is a somewhat stereotypical American characteristic. But why was the mention of Combat Hospital being a Canadian-British show changed to just Canadian? It really is a British-Canadian show and should be listed as such. Yet someone who is a customer of Rogers in Toronto felt to remove the British portion of that. Throughout Canada there is an attitude of don't call it non-Canadian if it is Canadian but if it is American then call it American. Sadly in this case that edit is in error but i was curious to see if anyone other than myself noticed it and apparently the answer is no. All of that fantastic CGI is British work. A big chunk of the bills to make the show are paid by Artists Studios and Lookout Point and it was they who negotiated the deal with Sony for international distribution. If you want to call the section "Broadcast" you should probably start off with domestic first-run and then move into international first-run and then any ancillary broadcasting. Right now there is no mention of domestic firs-run broadcast in the "Broadcast" section which is why i titled it "International Distribution". For everything i wrote there is a reason. Your not liking a section heading now has it renamed and lacking the primary content for such a section. But it is the way you like shows' sections to be. Do you really have to edit every show i do? What was your interest in king? It was the most obscure of shows that almost noöne knew of until i wrote the article. I had to beg someone from 2HD to release it to the filesharing community. Yet somehow you show up at king and we have the same disagreements there as everywhere else. Not that many people actually watched king. If you are not in Canada there is a good chance it was very hard for you to learn of the show in the first place. Even in Canada it was not really promoted and there is almost no media coverage of the show until after it was broadcast. It being sold to M6 for broadcast in France is a huge deal. It is an indie Canadian tv show that got picked up by France's major broadcaster. It is nothing like the deals where NBC bought rookie blue and Haven in 138 or whatever markets. This is a one-on-one direct deal from a small Canadian company to a major French company and is quite significant for the show's future. But you call it inherently not notable and remove mention of the French company. How can i avoid these ongoing conflicts with you if writing an article myself about an obscure Canadian cable show still has you get involved in it? The only thing more obscure would be if i were to make up a show and write an article on it. But i would point out that you never fought with me over the episode tally on king. Instead it was an issue with hatnotes because there are two Canadian shows by the name "king". When you challenged me to find a search that would fail to generate the desired result i took you up on it. You seemed a bit offended when i came back to you with a search phrase which would generate only the incorrect result to the omission of both the correct article and the disambiguation page. I literally met your challenge and you showed contempt in return. But you gave up too. Take a guess why i have such issue with you and why this is probably actually close to ten thousand words by now. You agree that Flashpoint needs to be organised but object to removing all the superfluous and ancillary American coverage. Maybe you didn't notice but i simplified the series overview of Flashpoint and there is no longer mention of the CBS DVD releases. If you don't like that then you can construct the extremely complex table that includes all of the releases in all of their variance in each region because the proper season 3 came out in Australia in mid-May just after the wonky release from CBS. Would you support such coverage of Citytv's broadcast of Body Of Proof? O wait, you object to coverage of FOX life Italy's broadcast of the complete first season because it is in Italian even though it was months before the American broadcast of the show by ABC and ABC only broadcast 9/13 of the first season and did so grossly out of order. Of course you would object to coverage of Citytv's broadcast of the show. So how about coverage of the CSI franchise on CTV? The CSI franchise was after all majority owned by a Canadian company through some time in 2007. You haven't said that would be ok when i asked you before. For everything i have dealt with you in the only conclusion i can come to is that it is American first and one need show some damn serious cause to put anything American in second place with you let alone actually remove it from an article even for undue and disproportional international coverage. You are willing to dismiss things as irrelevant, not notable, or even non-existent to ensure prominence of American coverage in anything. If not so then you would probably be willing to work with me on Flashpoint rather than telling me not to. You have gone so far as to get policy enacted to enshrine this discriminatory censoring. You are even so picky as to insist upon spaces on either side of an = when there is no reason for them. I write without then quite intentionally and you come along and 'correct' me by adding the spaces. I long ago lost count of how often you do that but it is rather annoying. Of course i remove the superfluous spaces when next i edit the article. Yes, i have issue with most everything you do. That is why i was glad to have found Combat Hospital was a show you had no interest in. We agree that the last aired date in the infobox should not be used in perpetuity. That is not much to build on. So we are likely to remain in fundamental conflict most every time our paths cross. And it seems they cross a lot. They would noticeably cross a lot more but once you beat me to the infobox image i don't bother uploading the screenshot i have because it will get deleted as non-free and your sometimes ok and sometimes not so ok logo is free of copyright. Our paths cross a lot more than you will ever realise. We have talked about logos at one time i do believe. And no, i was not looking to upload a screenshot of Combat Hospital earlier but simply browsing my watchlist and saw a lot of edits from you. You could at bare minimum have the correct source of the logo. "Source Self created, design from the shows intertitle" is a lie as it is from a promotional image from ABC that has not a thing to do with the intertitle of the show. You could have changed that four hours ago. You chose to retain the lie. What is worse is that you knew where you got it from and i had to go looking to find it because all i knew was that it is not what you claim it to be. And you have a typo in "July" on the file's summary on Commons.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 13:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You should get an award for your tantrums. But seriously, I'm getting tired of you going on a tirade against me about shows being mislabeled when I have absolutely nothing to do with that.
 * This is what you said "As for splitting the articles.... i wrote about 73% of it. If i wanted credit for article creation i would have split it myself" (wether you would have done it or not), that sound like "I'll create it and get the credit for it, so you can't create it, I created 73% of this article it's mine *evil laugh*."
 * Again on the ridiculous flag tantrum? How is that even remotely relevant, the logo shows the name of the show, it is a logo for the show, the flag of a different country is not in any way shape or form the flag of the original country. This is making no sense at all.
 * I'm from Belgium, and don't very much care for America (or Canada or Belgium actually). If this has come down to just calling me a liar then you have hit a new low. Maybe I should take you user name a little more literally when trying to deal with you…
 * If you think Combat Hospital should be labeled then why don't you put it on the page. I haven't changed it to just Canadian, so why you're asking me this is beyond me.
 * Yes, and that's actually in the MOS that it should be called simply broadcast, that it lacks the domestic info is a lack of that info, not a reason to change the header.
 * I don't edit every show you do, if that's a subtle accusation at wiki-hounding then I reject it. Why did I watch King and now Combat Hospital? I have several RSS feeds with shows, both those shows passed by (only started watching CH after the second episode) and they looked like good shows so I watched them and watched their articles on Wikipedia, primarily for episode titles for the naming of my files.
 * I honestly have no idea why you have such a problem with me. We disagree, but you seem to take this personally every time, and dump all your baggage and complains about unrelated issues you have with other unrelated articles on me every time there's a conflict, even when that has almost nothing or just nothing at all to do with the actual conflict.
 * I never objected to "removing all the superfluous and ancillary American coverage", I objected to removing it in its entirety, not just the superfluous parts. I did notice that, and did you see me reverting it? I have never said you couldn't work on the Flashpoint. Seriously were are you getting all of this?
 * Again the Body of Proof article, for crying out loud! Read my posts! I have not objected to anything related to Body of Proof, please stop talking about Body of Proof I do not watch the show, I have not edited the article I have literally nothing to do with it! The next part is complete nonsense.
 * The spaces thing is equally annoying for me, but I guess you didn't think of that.
 * How did you know I was not interested in Combat Hospital? I watched the show and I liked it. How about you go to Body of Proof? The article you keep bringing up that I have nothing to do with.
 * That logo non-free free sentence made zero sense to me, I'm not even sure I can call it a sentence. The logo info is correct now, it's always the same info I put in it and I forgot to adjust that, it was from a logo I uploaded in June, and adjusted the "n", but forgot the "e". I could have changed that four hours ago, if I had noticed I forgot to change it, I could also have changed it when I uploaded the file, but I missed it when changing the rest of the info. You probably think I did that on purpose and I honestly don't care if you still do.
 * You're probably going to accuse me of 'picking at your posts' again, but that's the only way I can get through your walls of jumping-all-over-the-place posts. And seriously I have nothing to do with Body of Proof stop complaining about it to me and go do what you want with it. You have problems with the system, I can understand that, but please stop dumping it all on me, maybe start a blog or something.  X  eworlebi (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You had not edited Combat Hospital and i was glad to see that. No fighting. Then episode 2 is broadcast and you show up on that article and you pick at everything that is a sign i had edited the article and add nothing to it. Why? The show has been in production for about 2.5 years now. You show up last week. For 2.5 years the assumption would be you had no interest in the show as you had not a single edit about it. I had been playing with writing the first draft of the article for about a year and half now. I decided to wait and then someone else did it. You really still think i care about an episode list creation credit? I write when i am frustrated. You made some really weird accusations. I think i wrote a few times now that unless it got a second season it was probably not necessary to create an episode list article. I left Endgame to be written by others. Noöne did. If i leave Combat Hospital will someone else write the summaries? Maybe. Your involvement in Body Of Proof goes to your enacting the "not English = not notable" policy. That policy directly censors the Body Of Proof article by forcing the dismissal of the Italian broadcast of the series 2 months before the USA got it in English. It was also shown in Russian too. You could have added the domestic broadcast info since you agree it should be there but you didn't even do that much at CH. You just renamed a section and knowingly left it lacking the proper content to not be misleading. How is that not frustrating to find? I have a few blogs. One of them is on Canadian tv. Another indie music. Another on random personal thoughts. And there are a few more. Ever try to write about indie music on Wiki? If you want to experience 'inherently not notable' that is a subject to get into. I refocused to tv. Got fed up with the plethora of contributors disagreeing about everything on the American shows i enjoy so i refocused to Canadian shows because so many of them are rather ignored. Or they are claimed to be American shows because Americans enjoy them and how dare something an American enjoys actually be quite literally un-American. Here is the clip from the NFO file for the CLUE DVDrip release of Flashpoint s03e01 from the CBS-released DVD set.  Would you really be ok with seeing your cultural icons claimed by Americans as their own? It happens to all the best Canadian tv shows. All of them. Or they get commonly mistaken as British shows. Only the ones that truly are crap are the ones no other country claims as theirs and get correctly known as Canadian. That sucks. It really is offensive to see that comment by whomever from CLUE. Did i like adding in the American dates for Flashpoint? O no i did not. Why did i do it? To preëmptively try to avoid a big fight over what constitutes "season 4" both on Wiki and among FQM, 2HD, LOL, etc.  I am thinking that once season 4 gets established that the American dates will be stripped out of the article as it isn't considered important on any other show that an international broadcaster shows episodes later than the domestic broadcaster so why list them on Flashpoint other than to make the Americans happy. Though since it tells them they got the episodes much later it might not actually make them happy. That comment from CLUE completely disregards the entirety of production and domestic broadcast (which it considers international for reasons incomprehensible) and strongly adheres to the correct (actually grossly wrong) CBS.com data. CLUE's entire release was nuked for being dupes and/or mislabelled. There on many Canadian shows i frequently clash with you. There are a few on which we don't cross paths. O and i actually had to ask for someone from 2HD to release King.s01e01 so if that is where you got it then your interest and involvement in the show is entirely a by-product of my actions. I have noöne but myself to blame for that. But i hope you enjoyed the show. Since i am getting tired of clashing with you i am looking into adding filming info for many shows. There is this nice source that has info on tv shows, pilots, movies, tv-movies, and mini-series that are filmed or have post-production work done in Ontario. The available data covers 1998-2008 as well as current but lacks 2009-noncurrent. It is only one sentence per season but there is far to much for one person to do. If the articles exist for many of them this would be a first reference. I will still be on Canadian shows since that is the last interest i have that is keeping me around these days and since you don't like to write episode summaries someone has to write some of them :P I go from production sites and broadcaster press releases to elsewhere and Wiki adding in episode titles. You get them from Wiki for your files. I kind of do the same thing with files and actually that is what got me into updating info sites like this. "removing all the superfluous and ancillary American coverage" from Flashpoint would be about everything short of 'CBS broadcast the show in the USA through episode 51 at which point ION took over as the primary American broadcaster of the show.' Most everything other than that is what i consider "superfluous and ancillary American coverage". I don't think you agree with me. And it might not matter to you but my father's paternal grandmother was an American from Michigan's upper peninsula. She was a really nice lady. I don't hate Americans but i do not abide by them claiming as their own whatever they please. The typo about June/July was supposed to be a helpful comment to alert you to something it appeared you missed. Apparently you take things from me equally as hostile as i take most everything you write. Again, with Body Of Proof it is you who wrote the system that i have direct issue with. The show is merely a prominent example of the flaw in your system. 'Taking it to the show' got me 'the system' you wrote pointed out to me. Take a guess why i come to you about it and cite it all the time as an example of an ongoing issue. When the rest of the world has 13 episodes to a season and the 13 are shown before the show is done with episode 4 in its native language and only 9 are shown in its native language and yet the foreign language broadcast of the whole season is dismissed as not notable because of a policy you proposed and had ratified and you yourself put into force then of course i call it systemic censoring and take my complaint to the author of the proposal and policy. If you don't like having complaints brought to you perhaps you should not have proposed and authored this discriminatory and censoring policy in the first place. That 20 or 400 people agree with you only means that 20 or 400 people likewise didn't think through all of the consequence or they did think it through and they really do mean to have this policy effectively censor articles because they don't like non-English anything creeping in to English Wikipedia. And since you yourself are enforcing this policy at king, an article i wrote, why the hell not mention it here where i direct your attention to two shows your policy is effectively censoring. Like i said, if you don't like hearing the afterward-issues perhaps you should not have put forward the policy in the first place. So long as your policy exists expect to hear about it every time sometime tells me something in French or German or Spanish is inherently not notable due to its not being in English.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 15:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this is getting out of hand. If anything from this entire discussion sticks let it be this: There is no such thing as a "not English = not notable" policy. What you want to add is entirely within the guidelines that were agreed upon. Stop pretending that it isn't because it is, stop accusing me of a rule that does not exist. And maybe most importantly, when you have a discussion with someone, anyone for that matter, discuss the point, don't bring all your baggage with you every time you have a discussion with someone you have had a disagreement in the past. It is entirely unhelpful.
 * I already told you why I started watching CH, do you really think I look at every new article's history to see if you haven't claimed ownership of it already? I had no interest in the show because I had no idea the show existed. I made weird accusations? You have claimed we had discussions that we never had, you have stated that I'm against certain thing while I have repeatedly told you I was not. And since you aren't sure if you said you need two seasons before split, you haven't. I really do have better things to do than stalk you on Wikipedia, you're not the end-all-be-all. I edit articles of shows I watch, plan to watch or have watched, wether you have claimed ownership of that article or not is irrelevant to my participation.
 * I have no involvement with Body of Proof and I have told you a dozen times that I do not support your made up "not English = not notable" policy, such policy does not exists and I'm tired of you making things up and accusing me of them. I have also told you a dozen times that I have not dismissed the Italian inclusion, I have in fact stated that it should be included. But you refuse to comprehend that. You really should take a breath and re-read my comments on these issues, I have agreed with you on most of them, but you dismissed them and called it "picking at your post". You have made exactly one edit at Body of Proof and the content you want on the page is on the page. Stop complaining to me about a non-issue. If your going on a tirade about an article, at least pick one that proves your point. Body of Proof contains the information you want in it, so stop complaining, no-one's removing it, no-one is using your fantasy policy that doesn't exist to remove it.
 * I know you don't like shows being mislabeled, so do I, but complaining to me about it is not helping you one bit. If you have an article that is mislabeled, correct it, if there are others who change it back I would have been more than happy to help you set the record straight.
 * If you did not like adding the American air dates to Flashpoint then you should have not done so. Remember that you added these, I had repeatedly removed them in the past, I was surprised you added them. Adding hidden notes and keep insisting on the real original air dates would be my choice, but for reason you can see here, I had no interest in reverting you. As stuff like this happens every time I do.
 * And yes I did like King, just like I like Combat Hospital, if I have to "blame" you for that then so be it.
 * I don't like writing episode summaries because I know I'm not good at them, I have written some, and I'm always happy to see someone else write some decent summaries.
 * On the Flashpoint thing, you really don't think that noting the different seasons, DVD releases are notable? Because if you do then no broadcasting difference is notable to you. Including you oh so precious Italian broadcast of Body of Proof. But this is obviously a retaliation against the mislabeling of Canadian shows, and now you can remove anything U.S. related you will try to do so as much as possible. If [random pure American (U.S.) show] would be broadcasted completely out of order in Canada I would see that as notable as well.
 * Yes the June/July typo was well received, but you accused me of knowingly mislabeling the source of the logo, pretty obvious I do not appreciate such accusations, and I believe that you wouldn't either. You have shown time and time again that you assume bad faith in everything I do.
 * "My system" (which isn't mine) perfectly allows for the inclusion of the Italian broadcast, you keep ignoring that I said that the inclusion of that is no problem, but for some reason you keep bringing this up. It is not an ongoing issue, it is not, move along. Again stop making things up, this system is only discriminatory and censoring because you think it is, it simply is not. I'm sick and tired of you blaming me for an issue which does not exist.
 * Having a reasonable discussion with you is nearly impossible, every time we have a disagreement you bring up every little thing you have ever disagreed with me in the past, even when entirely irrelevant to the current discussion. You even bring up problems you have that I have nothing to do with, you refuse to accept it when I agree with you, instead you paint me as the boogie-man, and dump everything wrong on me. I'm closing this. I hope something has stuck from this; I'm not the bad guy, you make stuff up and blame me for it, make claims that I do not support certain thing even when I have repeatedly said I did. I'm sure you're going to ignore almost everything I said, as you have done every time, but seriously enough is enough, I'm closing this one. And I'm going to invoke a new rule, if you bring up Body of Proof in any future conversation we have, I'll just close or leave the discussion.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)