EauZenCashHaveIt (talk | contribs) |
Rswallis10 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
:::"''So how about we TALK about it on the talk page''" - That's what you should have done instead of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Big_Bang_Theory_episodes&diff=659002127&oldid=658922305 this]. I suggest you familiarise yourself with [[WP:BRD]] and [[WP:STATUSQUO]]. Despite your claims of wanting to discuss I note that even now, more than 5 hours after the above post, you still haven't tried to discuss on the article's talk page. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:green;">Aussie</span><span style="color:gold;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 20:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC) |
:::"''So how about we TALK about it on the talk page''" - That's what you should have done instead of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Big_Bang_Theory_episodes&diff=659002127&oldid=658922305 this]. I suggest you familiarise yourself with [[WP:BRD]] and [[WP:STATUSQUO]]. Despite your claims of wanting to discuss I note that even now, more than 5 hours after the above post, you still haven't tried to discuss on the article's talk page. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:green;">Aussie</span><span style="color:gold;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 20:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::{{ping|AussieLegend}} a similar situation is currently happening on [[The Blacklist (season 2)]] as well. [[Special:Contributions/EauZenCashHaveIt|EauZenCashHaveIt]] ([[User talk:EauZenCashHaveIt#top|I'm All Ears]]) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
::::{{ping|AussieLegend}} a similar situation is currently happening on [[The Blacklist (season 2)]] as well. [[Special:Contributions/EauZenCashHaveIt|EauZenCashHaveIt]] ([[User talk:EauZenCashHaveIt#top|I'm All Ears]]) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::::{{replyto|EauZenCashHaveIt}} You have a lot of nerve coming to my talk page and adding that. If you actually looked at the [[List of The Big Bang Theory episodes]] talk page, you would see that I actually explained my actions, and was never responded to. My edits on "Big Bang" were all positive and are actually still there today (more than a month later). What I am doing is NOT edit-warring. In my edit summaries, I have explained my actions (while you have not), and I even came to your talk page to discuss it with you. Before accusing me of edit-warring, make sure to get the definition straight first. [[User:Rswallis10|Rswallis10]] ([[User talk:Rswallis10#top|talk]]) 01:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== In response to your edit asking for a specific policy... == |
== In response to your edit asking for a specific policy... == |
Revision as of 01:17, 17 May 2015
Night Shift page
Hi there. Firstly, there is no need to be rude. I was put off replying to your initial post due to your abrasive manner. I also have never had to use one of these user pages previously, so was unsure of how to do so. Anyway, I recognise that the page does not belong to me, but it also does not belong to you. You may not realise, but there was extensive confusion on Twitter at the time that episode aired, regarding continuity. The writer himself commented numerous times that the episode was being shown out of order. So as to help get the word out there, I added that information here. It is cited, credible and highly relevant as the continuity across the episodes makes no sense and this offers explanation. For instance, one character leaves in the episode prior, but then is back without explanation in the episode that is in the wrong place. I appreciate that shows air episodes out of order, but the fact is that this show does not. The show is serialised and order is important, especially when continuity is involved. If it weren't an issue, the writer wouldn't have felt the need to explain. I have absolutely no obsession with this edit. I have made numerous other edits such as grammar etc. I simply added a fact I believed relevant. No one else seemed to have a problem with it, so I don't understand the issue. I cannot understand why you are so against it. Marap23 (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Epguides.com
Please do not source episodes using epguides.com. It is not a reliable source and therefore cannot be used in citations. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- @AussieLegend: I am not the one who cited epguides.com on that edit, I never actually looked at the source. I saw the information in a paragraph at the bottom of the page and decided to move it into the table, which, if I'm not mistaken, is acceptable behavior. If the information isn't reliable enough to be in the table, then I don't believe that it should be included in the paragraph below either. Unless someone else can provide an acceptable source for that information, I will delete the information in the paragraph myself. In the future, please make sure to look at the edit history on the page before accusing me or anyone else of using unreliable sources. Thank you. Rswallis10 (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Before creating a table entry, you should have checked the source to make sure the episode was sourced correctly. AlexTheWhovian reverted your edit with "Unreliable source" in his edit summary,[1] but you restored the table entry regardless.[2] Your latest edit went beyond just deleting the epguides sourced content. You also deleted a perfectly valid entry. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- @AussieLegend: I think that it's amazing that someone can have the nerve to revert my edit for having an unreliable source within minutes of it being saved; however, no one reverted the information in the paragraph although it was there for a couple days. I guess I assumed that the source was legitimate because it hadn't already been reverted after several days. I didn't undo Alex's edit because of the unreliable source, I undid it because I had coded it wrong. I still don't appreciate you accusing me for something I didn't do, and I don't appreciate you criticizing me for not paying attention to the small source provided, obviously you didn't pay attention either when you thought I was the one who put in that link. Pot meet kettle. Rswallis10 (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- There's no time limit threshold as to when an edit can be reverted. If it does not agree with Wikipedia policy, it can be reverted straight away. And obviously, nobody noticed the edit adding the paragraph that contained the unreliable source, whereas we did notice the table entry. If you'd coded the table wrong, and I reverted, it's easy to refix the coding after the revert. Is it not? And we're not all superheroes here, we can't take note of everything that happens every time. Wikipedia is an effort of many editors - if you'd read WP:SOURCE, you would have known yourself to remove the source. Collaborative effort. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- @AussieLegend: I think that it's amazing that someone can have the nerve to revert my edit for having an unreliable source within minutes of it being saved; however, no one reverted the information in the paragraph although it was there for a couple days. I guess I assumed that the source was legitimate because it hadn't already been reverted after several days. I didn't undo Alex's edit because of the unreliable source, I undid it because I had coded it wrong. I still don't appreciate you accusing me for something I didn't do, and I don't appreciate you criticizing me for not paying attention to the small source provided, obviously you didn't pay attention either when you thought I was the one who put in that link. Pot meet kettle. Rswallis10 (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Before creating a table entry, you should have checked the source to make sure the episode was sourced correctly. AlexTheWhovian reverted your edit with "Unreliable source" in his edit summary,[1] but you restored the table entry regardless.[2] Your latest edit went beyond just deleting the epguides sourced content. You also deleted a perfectly valid entry. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 31 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Madam Secretary (season 1) page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
April 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of The Big Bang Theory episodes. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. AussieLegend (✉) 10:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note that when you make changes that are reverted in good faith, it is not up to other editors to come to you on your talk page to discuss the matter, it is up to you to convince other editors on the article's talk page of the merits of your changes and gain consensus for your changes. Repeatedly forcing your edits into the article after they've been reverted, as you have been doing,[3][4][5][6] is seen as disruptive at best. By making 4 reversions in less than 9 hours you have breached the three-revert rule and could be blocked at any time if you persist in edit-warring. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- @AussieLegend: You could also look at it both ways, my edit was actually there first and complied with ALL of Wikipedia's policies, and there really was no REAL reason to revert it. i believe that Alexthewhovian also broke the 3 revert rule, but I don't see you going to his talk page and threatening to block him. Also, I didn't revert 3 edits, I went in and manually changed each time because I was making new changes in hopes of reaching a format that we can all agree on. Both of you two have let your inflated egos get in the way of logic and common sense. Instead of worrying about which one of you two "gets the last word" how about instead you focus on "what makes the most sense in this situation?" I would love to start a discussion about the format in the article's talk page' but you two keep reverting without trying to start a discussion first. At first, you even claimed that the "readers" would have a hard time understanding what my format meant; however when I showed your format (with rank in parentheses) to a couple of my friends (non wikipedia editors), they thought it looked "in the wrong place" and "tacky." One even asked me "what does that number in the parentheses mean?" So how about we TALK about it on the talk page, and let logic dictate our decision on how to format this table. I never thought that a good faith edit like mine would result in an egofest. Rswallis10 (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- The edit that was there first was the one that I initially reverted to, not yours. When content is under dispute we revert to the revision prior to the edit that resulted in the dispute, and that was the revision before your edit. AlexTheWhovian did not break WP:3RR. A revert is defined as
An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part
, and this was the case with each of your 4 reversions. - "I would love to start a discussion about the format in the article's talk page' but you two keep reverting without trying to start a discussion first." - As I've explained, the onus was on you to start the discussion, which you had plenty of time to do, and should have done instead of reverting.
- "So how about we TALK about it on the talk page" - That's what you should have done instead of this. I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. Despite your claims of wanting to discuss I note that even now, more than 5 hours after the above post, you still haven't tried to discuss on the article's talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- @AussieLegend: a similar situation is currently happening on The Blacklist (season 2) as well. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- @EauZenCashHaveIt: You have a lot of nerve coming to my talk page and adding that. If you actually looked at the List of The Big Bang Theory episodes talk page, you would see that I actually explained my actions, and was never responded to. My edits on "Big Bang" were all positive and are actually still there today (more than a month later). What I am doing is NOT edit-warring. In my edit summaries, I have explained my actions (while you have not), and I even came to your talk page to discuss it with you. Before accusing me of edit-warring, make sure to get the definition straight first. Rswallis10 (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- @AussieLegend: a similar situation is currently happening on The Blacklist (season 2) as well. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- The edit that was there first was the one that I initially reverted to, not yours. When content is under dispute we revert to the revision prior to the edit that resulted in the dispute, and that was the revision before your edit. AlexTheWhovian did not break WP:3RR. A revert is defined as
- @AussieLegend: You could also look at it both ways, my edit was actually there first and complied with ALL of Wikipedia's policies, and there really was no REAL reason to revert it. i believe that Alexthewhovian also broke the 3 revert rule, but I don't see you going to his talk page and threatening to block him. Also, I didn't revert 3 edits, I went in and manually changed each time because I was making new changes in hopes of reaching a format that we can all agree on. Both of you two have let your inflated egos get in the way of logic and common sense. Instead of worrying about which one of you two "gets the last word" how about instead you focus on "what makes the most sense in this situation?" I would love to start a discussion about the format in the article's talk page' but you two keep reverting without trying to start a discussion first. At first, you even claimed that the "readers" would have a hard time understanding what my format meant; however when I showed your format (with rank in parentheses) to a couple of my friends (non wikipedia editors), they thought it looked "in the wrong place" and "tacky." One even asked me "what does that number in the parentheses mean?" So how about we TALK about it on the talk page, and let logic dictate our decision on how to format this table. I never thought that a good faith edit like mine would result in an egofest. Rswallis10 (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
In response to your edit asking for a specific policy...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Blacklist_(season_2)&oldid=662624263&diff=prev
I already provided you the policy multiple times. I'll link it again and I'll even copy and paste the applicable sections for you: WP:TVUPCOMING
When a series is renewed for an additional season, a section is not to be added for that upcoming season until such time as an episode table can be created for the season. The information regarding the renewal of the series should be added to the article's lead, depending on when and what info is revealed. An example is the lead from List of Person of Interest episodes, when the series was renewed for a fourth season in March 2014 with an air date that had not yet been announced:
[…] On March 13, 2014, CBS renewed the show for a fourth season,[1] which is scheduled to premiere on September 23, 2014.[2]
A section heading for the upcoming season should be added to the page only when an episode table can be created for the season. However, years should not be added to said section heading until an episode actually airs in that calendar year. For example, for the eleventh season of NCIS, the heading on its list of episodes page would have been "Season 11" until September 23, 2013. After episode 1 aired on September 24, 2013, it would be changed to "Season 11: 2013". And finally, once episode 12 aired on January 7, 2014, it would be changed once again to "Season 11: 2013–14".
A possible exception to a section header being created for the season before an episode table is ready, is if substantial information for the season, that is not duplicated from the lead, is available. An example is taken from the "Season 8" section on The Big Bang Theory list of episodes page, before a season page or episode table was created:
You have not added any substantial content regarding the third season of The Blacklist, which is why I have reverted your edits and redirect the 3rd season article back to the main episode list. However, you are beginning to cross into edit warring territory, and I don't take part in that. You need to undo your edits and discuss them first, and if by some odd chance I happen to wrong, I'll back and won't have any issue admitting fault. Davejohnsan (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- I also informed you of said link in the lead paragraph here: [7]. Also, regarding the season finale: in each and every episode so far, the name is stated after "The Blacklist" opening sequence, usually with that person's/group of persons' blacklist number. This time is no different: the title is spelled "TOM CONNOLLY NO 11". The footnote satisfies the need to tell the reader that it WAS previously called Masha Rostova. I am not sure why you alone keep reverting everyone and threatening with reports. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
season4
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Fowler, Matt (June 25, 2014). "CBS 2014 Fall Schedule: One-Hour Big Bang Theory Premiere, Elementary Back In October, More". IGN. Retrieved June 25, 2014.