Misplaced Pages

User talk:Alex 21: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:47, 9 January 2019 editAlex 21 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors140,856 edits →Repeated improper (ironic) use of the "Thank" function, and hounding: Cease immediately.Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:32, 12 January 2025 edit undoAlex 21 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors140,856 edits →Bot making unjustified edits and general incompetence to incorporate anonymous participation 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{:User:Alex 21}} {{:User:Alex 21}}{{bots|deny=SineBot}}
<div class="tmbox">{{float|]: {{querylink|User_talk:Alex 21|qs=action=info#mw-pageinfo-watchers|119}} }}</div> {{float|]: {{querylink|User_talk:Alex 21|qs=action=info#mw-pageinfo-watchers|142}} }}
{{User:Alex 21/Tabs|2}} {{User:Alex 21/Tabs|2}} {{^|Holiday|until=|bgcol=#5E93FD}}
{{float|{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}{{User:Alex 21/Archive}}}} {{Archives|start=2014|auto=long|search=yes|style=float:right}}
{{Usertalkback|you=watched|me=notifications}} {{Usertalkback|you=watched|me=notifications}}
__TOC__ __TOC__
Line 10: Line 10:


--> -->
== This may interest you ==


== A barnstar for you! ==
I thought this may be interesting to you I had reported Matt14451 before for abusing his IP and suspected he may have been DownFame. Sure that didn't come to anything but wow, it looks like he was busy on here trolling. ] (]) 22:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
:{{u|Esuka323}}, ''wow'' is all I can say. I already had a report typed up months ago to file after I was suspicious of {{user|HumansFan}} popping up as a new account solely to support him and oppose me at a different discussion, but I never got around to it. But {{user|AlexTheDoctor}} as well? Who was specifically created just to troll my name and I? And six accounts? Thank you for bringing this to my attention! -- ''']''''']'' 23:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
== Revision 'List of Marvel Cinematic Universe tv series' ==
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:top;" | {{#ifeq:|alt|]|]}}
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Template Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For fixing {{tp|Television ratings graph}}, a template that had been significantly diminished for years without the Graph extension – your work returns the template to its full use again. ] (]) 22:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
|}


== ] ==
Dear Alex,


Can you please rearrange the list by the order of broadcast? Rollbacker Geraldo Perez and Magical Golden Whip want it to be per broadcast company as aired, which I believe refers to broadcast order. ] (]) 23:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Due to you recent revision of my latest edit, I have decided to explain to you why I edited it. As you already know, Tina Minoru already made a small appearance in the MCU movie Doctor Strange. However, the article states that a different version of the character appears in the Runaways tv series. This is not correct as both the movie as well as the series takes place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). The character is portrayed by different actors, but it is the same character... <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
: {{re|Brongers457}} If the article states it's a different version, then it's a different version. If you disagree, please start a discussion on the article's talk page. -- ''']''''']'' 02:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
::{{tps}} As noted by the included sources, the executive producers of Runaways acknowledge the fact a character called Tina appeared in Doctor Strange, but pointed out she was never actually named onscreen, and thus, the version on the TV series is a different version. - ] (]) 04:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


:@] Is there a reason you are unable to do so yourself? I'm not sure how this is a complicated edit. -- ]<sub>&nbsp;]</sub> 23:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
==Spliting discussion for ]==
::This show has 10 seasons total, so doing it on my own is difficult. ] (]) 04:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
] An article that you have been involved with ( List of Fuller House episodes ) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article ('Fuller House (Season #) ). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:List of Fuller Episodes. Thank you. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px">&nbsp;] </span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 01:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
:::As it would be for me. -- ]<sub>&nbsp;]</sub> 05:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


== James Bond Pages == == Episode list template is broken ==


Can you please fix it and see what the problem is? ] (]) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi Alex, not sure how familiar you are with the James Bond franchise, but you're an experienced editor and I thought of you when it comes to certain pages over there. There's currently three different pages about the Bond films: ], ], ]. For many months, I've been attempting to change the pages because they look incredibly outdated and the box office table in particular is truly awful. All of these articles are pretty bad in my opinion. However, there's 3(ish) users who monitor the pages (basically self-described "admins") who seem completely intolerant to any change whatsoever. Literally anything I do gets reverted, and I don't appear to be respected enough to be listened to, so I was wondering if you - being significantly more knowledgeable in Misplaced Pages rules etc. - could possibly have a look.


:{{u|Ahecht}} has introduced new code; I am awaiting them to fix the issue they have introduced. -- ]<sub>&nbsp;]</sub> 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
For example, I made a few edits on the ], attempting to alter the god-awful box office table. You'll find the edits in the edit history, of course. I only made a few changes but I thought it was better than it is now. This is probably one you'd be better with since it's a box office table and I'm assuming you know the true ins-and-outs of how box office tables should be. I also tried altering the ] page with a few overview tables at the beginning of different sections (as per other movie franchises). Again, you'll be able to switch between the current version, and my (now-reverted) version in the edit history. I don't see anything wrong with it, but the admins seem to require a full blown essay on why I've done my edits.
::{{fixed}} <span class="nowrap">--] (])</span> 23:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I noticed that the term "original air date" retired from the main table in favor of "original release date". Was it due to the rise of streaming? The viewer table was lucky enough to be kept though. ] (]) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] If we were going by airing vs. streaming, it would need to be "Original air date" and "Original streaming date". "Original release date" covers ''every'' format of release, and it now conforms with every other table we use, especially infoboxes. By viewer table, do you mean {{tl|Television episode ratings}}? -- ]<sub>&nbsp;]</sub> 01:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Sorry to just randomly barge in, but I'd like to ask a question regarding this new episode table change. Would it still be technically correct as to keep the AltDate parameter listed as " air date" if it syndicated on television, such as being out of its original country of origin? This is a common parameter used for anime that would still have to be defined as such, especially now because of streaming. ] (]) 04:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@] No worries! I don't see why not. For example, {{tl|Television episode ratings}} is still using "Air date", as that template is designed for episodes that actually aired. "Original air date" or "UK air date" (for example) are still completely valid alternatives. We're not completely phasing out the word "air", just developing a sense of conformity across most articles. -- ]<sub>&nbsp;]</sub> 06:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== Bot making unjustified edits and general incompetence to incorporate anonymous participation ==
Sorry to bother you and no worries if you don't want to do anything. Thanks. ] (]) 19:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
:{{u|TheMysteriousEditor}}, no problems with your question. I don't know much about the articles or film articles, so it may be best to take it to ] and/or ], and gain a firm consensus there. Do be aware, however, that you are well within your rights to report the other editor at ] for violating ] at ] for more than three reverts within 24 hours, including a revert against an IP. -- ''']''''']'' 03:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


Regarding ], you can't make up a justification a posteriori about an edition made arbitrarily by a bot. You should explain why the bot made that edition and defend it on its own merit.
== Update and request ==


I'm honestly sick and tired of bots treating well-intentioned editions as vandalism. And more to the point, it's also rather disrespectful to undo a legitimate edition rather than correct it to keep the additional information. If someone takes some time to add information that isn't presented in the place or manner it should, the responsibility of the person that notices it is to either flag it for edition with the appropriate marker so someone else fixes it, or to fix it themselves.
Hi Alex,


This sort of incompetence and indifference just deters spontaneous participation, which is why Misplaced Pages has become more and more a collection of ghettos that monopolize content in their respective areas of interest, with editors even getting notifications whenever "their" content is modified.
It seems as though you are checking in from your break/vacation. Thought I'd run two things by you. 1) Our old "pal" ] finished his most recent block in the last few days. He then proceeded to continue on with the same disruptive behavior primarily by vandalizing infoboxes. I reported his behavior to the admins who had blocked him previously and went about reverting his edits. It wasn't soon after that he was blocked again for another month. 2) I'd also like to point out to you a recent conflict that has been ongoing in two different locations. It basically started when one editor attempted to reformat the episode table over at '']'' by changing all of the paragraphs into bulleted lists. He proceeded with an edit warring posture but things seemingly cooled down for a few days following the intervention of a few other editors. Then today, two separate debates raged on here: ] and here: ]. The editor pushing for this bulleted list change attempted to change MOS:TV without a consensus and quickly engaged in editor warring-type behavior over there. And, after an attempt to determine local consensus, he promptly closed the discussion on the article's talk page. All in all, its been rather a mess and a headache. The sort of stuff I try to avoid on Misplaced Pages. Maybe you have a take on the whole thing. Thought I'd at least point it out to you. Hope your holidays have been well. Sincerely, ] (]) 03:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
:{{u|BoogerD}}, indeed I am! Back from the pool of family drama that always arises around the holidays. I saw that Joey was back. Eventually he'll be indef'ed, and it'll be another hassle dealt with. I've got a bit to look over for the next few days, so I'll take a look at the discussions and see what the result is. Thanks for bringing them to me! -- ''']''''']'' 09:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


] (]) 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== Resolution ==


:You mean your edit I reverted , that another editor also reverted ? Look at the edit summary, I gave a reason. There was no salvagable additional information, thus by removing it, I did fix the article. Not sure what you mean by "bot" here; no automated edits were made. Ta. (Oh, and {{tq|editors even getting notifications whenever "their" content is modified}}? That's not a thing.) -- ]<sub>&nbsp;]</sub> 23:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
On the draft, you are adament that "]" is the only episode of 2019. This is ], as you are drawing up a conclusion from an article only that stating the next full series is in 2020, and makes no references to specials in 2019, so hypothetically, there could be two or more specials in 2019, which doesn't contradict the <s>article</s> source. The sentence is also argueably ]. You also claim that when Chibnall said the Daleks wouldn't appear in Series 11, he was including the special as well, and "two weeks weeks left of shooting" means that two weeks until filming "Resolution" ends. This is not made clear at all in the article, and therefore this should be left out. Kind regards ]] 19:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
:Do you have a source backing up the statement of {{tq|hypothetically, there could be two or more specials in 2019}}? I certainly haven't seen any; I'd be ecstatic if there were more specials in 2019! Unfortunately, it's not the case, and sources only back up the fact that the New Year's Special is set for 2019, and Series 12 is set for 2020, with no further episodes. Either way, , . As for the Daleks, Chibnall stated on 19 July that , and the very next day, , with filming concluding on (the two weeks later). Hence, the talk about filming includes all eleven episodes, as the filming blocks included eleven episode with no traditional break between filming the series finale and the special episode. -- ''']''''']'' 10:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
::Well, then, why not use those sources you've given that explicitly state there's one episode in 2019, . btw. when I say {{tq|hypothetically}}, I'm refering to events that '''could''' theoretically happen without contradicting the sources in the article, so I'm not saying they're actually happening (or even likely to happen) and I wouldn't write that in any article, I was only said that to try to point out a flaw in the use of the Radio Times source. Hope I made myself clear. In regards to the Dalek issue, I admit I'm still a bit uneasy, but the source seems to confirm that Chibnall was basically lying about the Daleks. Happy holidays and enjoy the special! ]] 16:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
:::btw. I've changed the source saying that Resolution is the only episode of 2019 to the cinema blend one you gave. And regarding your username change, it says on your userpage {{tq|''Alex 21''. Not much to say. Twenty-something year old Australian guy who's a serious avid TV series watcher, and more addicted to Doctor Who. <u>Hence the name.</u>}} You might want to change that :). ]] 09:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
::::Good idea, cheers! -- ''']''''']'' 23:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


:::''Not sure what you mean by "bot" here; no automated edits were made.''
==Happy New Year==
Hello Alex. I gotta tell ya I'm gonna miss the Whovian part of your old username. Well it's almost 2019 for you so I hope you have a safe and happy Journey into the new year! ]&#124;] 03:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
:{{re|MarnetteD}} And a Happy New Year to you! Unfortunately I will too, as AlexTheWhovian is my handle on most sites, but I've received too many negative comments in the past about my relationship to ''Doctor Who''-related articles. New Year, New Me? -- ''']''''']'' 03:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
::Makes sense. Also it means your ready to take on the role at the 20th regeneration. Oh wait does the War Doctor mess with that number too :-) Cheers. ]&#124;] 04:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


::I'm talking about this edit here ]. It's supposedly your bot. Why the edit? Who the hell knows.
== Your signature ==


:::''(Oh, and {{tq|editors even getting notifications whenever "their" content is modified}}? That's not a thing.)''
I hope you can update your signature (it should directly link to Alex 21). Happy new year! ] (]) 09:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
:{{u|Hhkohh}}, I'll update it today. Cheers! -- ''']''''']'' 23:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


::Don't play dumb because you know full well what I meant.
== New name ==


::But I made my point and I'm not gonna waste another second looking at this page. Up to you to be constructive or join the horde of petty editors reigning over their little hills. Have a good life.
For a second, I saw "Alex 21" editing and felt they might be impersonating you, then I came to your page and saw it was you! Will take some getting used to for sure on my part ha. - ] (]) 17:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
:Ha, no worries! Still the same old me, minus the Whovian (]). It'll take some getting used to on my part as well. Happy New Year! -- ''']''''']'' 23:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


::] (]) 07:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
== Happy New Year, Alex 21! ==
:::You mean I restored a revision made by a completely unrelated bot? Would you have said the same if I restored a revision made by a completely unrelated editor? You clearly don't know what you're talking about. (If you look at ], you'll even see exactly who owns the bot!) Still also don't know "full well" what you mean. Nobody gets notifications whenever "their" content is modified. That's made up.
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;height:173px;{{border-radius|1em}} {{box-shadow|0.1em|0.1em|0.5em|rgba(0,0,0,0.75)}}<!--
:::Have a good life! Happy editing! Be careful of ]! {{smiley}} -- ]<sub>&nbsp;]</sub> 08:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
-->" class="plainlinks">]]
{{Paragraph break}}
{{Center|{{resize|179%|''''']!'''''}}}}
'''Alex 21''',<br />Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable ], and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages.
<br />] (]) 02:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)<br /><br />
</div>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''{{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}''
{{clear}}


== re: bludgeoning ==
== Multi-camera setup/Single-camera setup over at ] ==


I am having a very difficult time with the user who we have both asked not to bludgeon.
Hey Alex,


The renaming discussion led me to think that perhaps we need further guidelines for the future, because as fires increase, we will run into this issue more often.Because I am relatively new to editing, I left a message in teahouse about ''future'' guidelines, ].
Hoping you might take a look at another little instance of an editor raising hell over a non-issue. For the last two days there has been an editor over at '']'' that has been debating whether the series is single-camera or multi-camera. I would understand one's insistence in having a source for such information before a series is released, when it might be possible to not know one way or the other, but once a series has premiered it is generally clear which set-up is used and such is information is covered by ], being the series itself. I think the editor is confused and is under the impression that single-camera setup implies that only one camera is ever used to film any given scene. Obviously that is not the case, as anyone with a cursory knowledge of film knows that in many situations in film and television more than one camera is utilized to increase the "coverage" in a scene. "Multi-camera" vs "Single-camera" rather refers to the specific setup of cameras and the construction of sets. In a multi-camera sitcom, you'll have a set with three walls and there will be three cameras setup in a specific formation all pointing at the same thing. In a single-camera, you will usually have a full four-walled set and the camera setup generally involves one camera situated somewhere in the set. Though, in single-camera you may also have other cameras utilized for close-ups or wide shots but the basic "setup" of the series is still single-camera as it is defined in film and television production. Anyways, myself and Drovethrughosts have reverted the editor a few times and I am concerned at this point of passing the threshold into edit warring. Hope you might take a look at the situation and intervene if necessary. Of all the big hullabaloos around here in the last few weeks this one seems to be the most cut and dry. Hoping your new year is good thus far, ] (]) 21:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


They began to bludgeon me there, too, accused me of ], and then ] and then accused me of ].
::Pointing out this rather large conversation that transpired over at the talk page for the article. The conclusions that other editors were drawing would seem to effect numerous, numerous television series articles. I'd truly appreciate if you'd take a look at the one comment I left on the page: ]. – ] (]) 01:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


What can I do? Does this rise to the level of ANI?
== 24 Hours (again) ==


Thank you,
Hello again, here asking for a bit more help on ]. Season 2 premiere just finished airing tonight, but I am trying to add a new part for the column. With there now being two seasons, I would love to format it like ] where it lists the number episode for the season, as well as overall. Been struggling trying to figure it out for the 24 Hours page, so if you could help out, that would be great. Thanks again in advance, and thanks for how you've helped so far. ] (]) 02:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
delecto


] (]) 03:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== Infobox television season/fullname expensive parser function ==


:This is my first interaction with the editor in question, but if you believe you are being harassed, I strongly recommend you take it to ANI, yes. -- ]<sub>&nbsp;]</sub> 03:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Hey Alex, I was looking over the code at ] and its connection the infobox. That template is called 8 times as a parameter of {{tl|Ifexist check redirect/if}}, which itself uses {{tl|Ifexist check redirect}}, which uses #ifexist, which according to ] should is limited in the amount of calls that can be used in a page. We could cut this in half if we remove the section_redirect check. What do you think? --] (]) 13:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
::Okay. Thank you for your reply.
:Ok, I'm working on something which gives an answer whether it is an article or redirect with the same check so that lowers it to 4 and still retains the same functions. --] (]) 15:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
::I fear I am too sensitive to edit on wikipedia. ] (]) 03:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::I am super confused as to what they just did here: ]
== Olive branch ==
::Did they close their own comment thread with a note that it was necessary? I've never seen that before, but again, am new. ] (]) 03:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I believe they realized their back/forth arguing was more than what was needed, and hid the discussion, since it was unnecessary for the RM. Our oppositions still remain. -- ]<sub>&nbsp;]</sub> 03:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi Alex, I courteously invite you to take a breath and to reconsider the comment you just made at ], and again remind you of the policy at ]. We share the aim of improving the Doctor Who WikiProject. Have a great day, ] (]) 01:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
::::Got it. Thanks again! ] (]) 04:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you for commenting. I'm thinking about starting an RFC here for whether I should or not... -- <span style="text-shadow:0 0 1px #8dd">''/]/]''</span> 01:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
::@] I ended up doing so, ] ] (]) 18:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::Alex, I do have to agree with U-Mos that your comments about RfCs are uncivil and serve no purpose in resolving your disputes with U-Mos. --]] 01:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
:::Perhaps it's true. I'll be happy to revise them once the editor is happy to actually discuss the content, instead of automatically taking it to RFC or RM in poor faith of all other editors. -- <span style="text-shadow:0 0 1px #8dd">''/]/]''</span> 01:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hey Alex,

I know you're swamped with a million other Wiki things at the moment, however I was hoping you might take a look at something for me. I'm messaging you though to take a look at a film article I was editing today: '']''. Currently in a dispute with another editor over content in the article. I had included writing in the article regarding various producers on the film sourced to Deadline and Hollywood Reporter articles. However, the other editor removed the content as they said the information was "irrelevant". When I objected and pointed out that that was a more opinion-based reasoning rather than anything based in WP or MOS policy they responded by saying, "Relevant according to you. I conceded on some aspects of your edit but Misplaced Pages is a collaboration. I don’t agree that it belongs and so it’s gone unless someone else agrees with you. Additionally, i express the film’s titled because, before that date it was unknown. What is your reason for not noting it?" I'm trying to proceed with caution here and avoid an edit war. Perhaps, you'll take a look at the article. Get back to me as soon as it is convenient for you. – ] (]) 23:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
:{{tpw}} As I noticed this message {{u|BoogerD}}, I thought I might chip in. A discussion should be started at ] with {{u|TheMovieGuy}} to avoid the edit war. In regard to my opinion, I think it's ridiculous to say that naming the executive producers is "irrelevant"; it's info relevant to the film is it meets ]. However, saying this, I notice that TMG said {{tq|I don’t agree that it belongs and so it’s gone unless someone else agrees with you.}}, and then YoungForever agreed with you, so is that an end to the dispute? There does seem to be a ] stance coming for TMG., evidenced by their quote I quoted above. And TMG, just because something isn't in a infobox doesn't mean it can't be stated in the rest of the article; that's a ridculous idea. --]] 00:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
::Agreed with Ted. Discuss this with TMG on the article's talk page. But per their statement (which does indeed smack of ]) (also, {{tq|Misplaced Pages is a collaboration}}, and then {{tq|I don’t agree that it belongs and so it’s gone}}? Wow!), it seems that there should be no further edit-warring in the article, given ] from another editor. If the discussion can't come to an agreement, then ] is also an option. -- <span style="text-shadow:0 0 1px #8dd">''/]/]''</span> 01:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
::: If somebody else agreed that it belongs as ] say, then, in this user’s opinion, it belongs. I cede. ]

== Bandersnatch infobox ==

Hi. I noticed you changed the infobox to that for a film. It would be helpful if you could comment at ], where the third point I opened for discussion is what infobox to use. <span class="nowrap">— ''']'''<sub>]]</sub></span> 03:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

== Critics' year-end lists ==

Hey Alex,

Hoping to get your opinion on something. What do you make of these "Critics' year-end lists" subsections found here: ] and here: ]? I haven't been able to find any other sections like them in other television series articles. Do you think it's notable enough for inclusion? Does it need its own subsection? Should it be removed or maybe reformatted? I just ran across it during the last hour and was hoping to get someone else's opinion on it. Message me back as soon as it is convenient for you. – ] (]) 07:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
:{{tpw}} Considering both lists seem to backed up by reliable sources, they seem notable enough; it's quite a good indication of how good the critics thought the shows were. The fact that these lists aren't on many other articles isn't a reason to remove; Misplaced Pages needs new ideas, which tend to start off on one article, and also ]. --]] 16:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
::Good points. I hadn't/haven't formed an opinion just yet so it was good to hear someone else's thoughts on the matter. I will say that I'm not sure that the lists belong on the main article for ''Crazy Ex-Girlfriend'' though seeing as the series has separate articles for each season. It would seem to make the most sense for them to exist on the article's for each specific season. – ] (]) 16:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

== Repeated improper (ironic) use of the "Thank" function, and hounding ==

Alex, . It is an abuse of the thank function to say, as you have been doing for over a year now, "I am watching your edits, and I don't like them". On a related note, I would appreciate it if you ''stopped'' watching my edits: yeah, the most recent one was to a page you probably have on your watchlist, but using the thank function to try to intimidate me, as you have done repeatedly including today, is really, ''really'' inappropriate. ] (<small>]]</small>) 02:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
:Wrong. You mentioned me on a talk page I am watching, and deliberately decided not to ping me. I wonder why? Trying to undermine editors without them knowing? Anyways, I've ] to get off my page. No more posting from you here, please and thank you. -- <span style="text-shadow:0 0 1px #8dd">''/]/]''</span> 02:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
::No, rather I was trying to ... overmine (?) you. Given the amount of unjustified abuse you've put me through (including pretty blatant "no, no amount of evidence you can provide will be good enough for me" trolling and unambiguous personal attacks) I might have ''liked'' if you were the one who inserted some of the plagiarized text so I could "zing" you, but my point was specifically that it ''wasn't'' you who was at fault. ] (<small>]]</small>) 02:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
:::I have specifically told you to stop posting to my talk page. Cease immediately, else you will be faced with a report similar to those you threaten and intimidate multiple other editors with. -- <span style="text-shadow:0 0 1px #8dd">''/]/]''</span> 02:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:32, 12 January 2025

TPS: 142 Home Talk Userboxes Scripts Sandbox 1 | 2 | DW | Module: / Sandbox TV Shows Notes Contributions Subpages Uploads
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 2014Archive 2015Archive 2016
Archive 2017Archive 2018Archive 2019
Archive 2020Archive 2021Archive 2022
Archive 2023Archive 2024Archive 2025

A barnstar for you!

The Template Barnstar
For fixing {{Television ratings graph}}, a template that had been significantly diminished for years without the Graph extension – your work returns the template to its full use again. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

List of The Fairly OddParents episodes

Can you please rearrange the list by the order of broadcast? Rollbacker Geraldo Perez and Magical Golden Whip want it to be per broadcast company as aired, which I believe refers to broadcast order. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@BaldiBasicsFan Is there a reason you are unable to do so yourself? I'm not sure how this is a complicated edit. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
This show has 10 seasons total, so doing it on my own is difficult. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
As it would be for me. -- Alex_21 TALK 05:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Episode list template is broken

Can you please fix it and see what the problem is? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Ahecht has introduced new code; I am awaiting them to fix the issue they have introduced. -- Alex_21 TALK 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
 Fixed --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I noticed that the term "original air date" retired from the main table in favor of "original release date". Was it due to the rise of streaming? The viewer table was lucky enough to be kept though. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@BaldiBasicsFan If we were going by airing vs. streaming, it would need to be "Original air date" and "Original streaming date". "Original release date" covers every format of release, and it now conforms with every other table we use, especially infoboxes. By viewer table, do you mean {{Television episode ratings}}? -- Alex_21 TALK 01:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry to just randomly barge in, but I'd like to ask a question regarding this new episode table change. Would it still be technically correct as to keep the AltDate parameter listed as " air date" if it syndicated on television, such as being out of its original country of origin? This is a common parameter used for anime that would still have to be defined as such, especially now because of streaming. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@GalaxyFighter55 No worries! I don't see why not. For example, {{Television episode ratings}} is still using "Air date", as that template is designed for episodes that actually aired. "Original air date" or "UK air date" (for example) are still completely valid alternatives. We're not completely phasing out the word "air", just developing a sense of conformity across most articles. -- Alex_21 TALK 06:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Bot making unjustified edits and general incompetence to incorporate anonymous participation

Regarding this, you can't make up a justification a posteriori about an edition made arbitrarily by a bot. You should explain why the bot made that edition and defend it on its own merit.

I'm honestly sick and tired of bots treating well-intentioned editions as vandalism. And more to the point, it's also rather disrespectful to undo a legitimate edition rather than correct it to keep the additional information. If someone takes some time to add information that isn't presented in the place or manner it should, the responsibility of the person that notices it is to either flag it for edition with the appropriate marker so someone else fixes it, or to fix it themselves.

This sort of incompetence and indifference just deters spontaneous participation, which is why Misplaced Pages has become more and more a collection of ghettos that monopolize content in their respective areas of interest, with editors even getting notifications whenever "their" content is modified.

2A02:AA13:8104:2D00:B44D:42A5:A8CB:E946 (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You mean your edit I reverted here, that another editor also reverted here? Look at the edit summary, I gave a reason. There was no salvagable additional information, thus by removing it, I did fix the article. Not sure what you mean by "bot" here; no automated edits were made. Ta. (Oh, and editors even getting notifications whenever "their" content is modified? That's not a thing.) -- Alex_21 TALK 23:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "bot" here; no automated edits were made.
I'm talking about this edit here ]. It's supposedly your bot. Why the edit? Who the hell knows.
(Oh, and editors even getting notifications whenever "their" content is modified? That's not a thing.)
Don't play dumb because you know full well what I meant.
But I made my point and I'm not gonna waste another second looking at this page. Up to you to be constructive or join the horde of petty editors reigning over their little hills. Have a good life.
2A02:AA13:8104:2D00:B44D:42A5:A8CB:E946 (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
You mean I restored a revision made by a completely unrelated bot? Would you have said the same if I restored a revision made by a completely unrelated editor? You clearly don't know what you're talking about. (If you look at User:GreenC bot, you'll even see exactly who owns the bot!) Still also don't know "full well" what you mean. Nobody gets notifications whenever "their" content is modified. That's made up.
Have a good life! Happy editing! Be careful of WP:UGC! -- Alex_21 TALK 08:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

re: bludgeoning

I am having a very difficult time with the user who we have both asked not to bludgeon.

The renaming discussion led me to think that perhaps we need further guidelines for the future, because as fires increase, we will run into this issue more often.Because I am relatively new to editing, I left a message in teahouse about future guidelines, here.

They began to bludgeon me there, too, accused me of bad behavior, and then specifically said something to me that I asked them not to and then accused me of casting aspersions.

What can I do? Does this rise to the level of ANI?

Thank you,

delecto

Delectopierre (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This is my first interaction with the editor in question, but if you believe you are being harassed, I strongly recommend you take it to ANI, yes. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for your reply.
I fear I am too sensitive to edit on wikipedia. Delectopierre (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I am super confused as to what they just did here: Talk:Palisades Fire (2025)#c-Jasper Deng-20250110034700-Requested move 9 January 2025
Did they close their own comment thread with a note that it was necessary? I've never seen that before, but again, am new. Delectopierre (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I believe they realized their back/forth arguing was more than what was needed, and hid the discussion, since it was unnecessary for the RM. Our oppositions still remain. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks again! Delectopierre (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
@Alex 21 I ended up doing so, here. Delectopierre (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)