User talk:AussieLegend

Home	Talk	Contributions	Projects	Miscellaneous pages	Userboxes	Cheatsheet	Vandals, bad sources etc

RE: You comment on my talk page.

You could have just said that in your reason for editing.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In my reversion of your first edit[1] I did point that out so, when you restored the same information[2], the warning on your talk page became necessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I guess I didn't realize that "copyvio" was short for "Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing."Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, copyvio is just short for "copyright violation". The message I left on your page is a standard message. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

AussieLegend, please help me to unblock my account and regain my rights as a contributor. I am Tasos90 and have learnt my lesson concerning copyright, it was a msitake and i have shown no similar activity since the day i was caught. Please take this off me, and give me a chance or explain to me how i issue for an unblock. Thank You, --124.191.177.53 (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Suite Life on Deck Episodes

I do not want to fight over this or anything, so I offer the following compromise. Would you be opposed to me creating a box that states which characters from the original series (stars and recurring guest stars) reprised their roles and in what episodes they did so? This would include Brian Stepanek, Robert Torti, Sophia Oda, Charlie Stewart, and Brittany Curran. If you do oppose any of that, I would urge you to at least offer some sort of other compromise that can satisfy both of us. I would hope we can work together instead of fight. 68.43.237.119 (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

From your edit summaries I was under the impression that you opposed doing that. Isn't that why you reverted the inclusion of Brian Stepanek? --AussieLegend (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I do oppose listing recurring guest stars from the original series in that list as I think it is only necessary to list regular stars from the original series. However, I understand your point regarding consensus and I wanted to offer something that could possibly please both parties because the reason for my opposition is consistency. If we are listing stars from the original series, then only list the stars (which is my preference), however if people disagree with me and want to list Brian, then I think for consistency's sake we should list all returning recurring guest stars from the original series. So, even though I don't think it's necessary to list returning recurring guest stars (notice the term 'special guest star' is only used for Kim Rhodes and Ashley Tisdale because they were stars of the original series), I think if the consensus is to list Brian then we should also list other returning recurring guest stars to remain consistent and I would be fine with that. 68.43.237.119 (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out on your talk page, Brian Stepanek was in more episodes, was more important to the plot than other recurring characters, had episodes named after his character and in which his character was the major plot item, and he was going to be the star of a spin-off. This gives him enough notability to include. The others don't even come close to that. There's no justification to include them while there is more than enough to justify his inclusion. Justifying inclusion based on notability is being consistent. Including people just because they were recurring characters isn't. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

...and Brian is still not billed or listed as a special guest star as Kim Rhodes and Ashley Tisdale are. He is simply a guest star. I think that holds some weight unlike the fact that they almost, but never did, a spin-off with him as the star. He also probably appeared more and had more story lines than Ashley Tisdale in season three, but we don't take away her notability from season three given she was still listed as a star. Look, we don't have to agree, but nothing so far is pleasing you. Is there anything you feel can be a middle ground? I'm just trying to discuss here, not fight. 68.43.237.119 (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't have to be billed or listed as a special guest star to make the fact that he reprised his role true. As for arguing, at the moment he isn't even in the article and you have stated that you oppose listing recurring guest stars from the original series so I'm not evn sure what the point of this discussion is. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, dicussion over. I didn't realize you were okay with Brian not being listed even if you disagreed. 68.43.237.119 (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for keeping an eye on Millere08. Johnfos (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Singing Bridge

Thank you very much for cleaning up the article. I am not entirely sure that Tea Gardens-Hawks Nest Bridge is the official name of the bridge. The 1973-74 documents call it this way as well as Myall River Bridge. The Bulahdelah pacific highway bridge, however, is also sometimes referred to as Myall River Bridge. The newer documents of NSW authorities as well as the locals all call it the Singing Bridge. I'm fine with all names, just wanted to raise the point. --Quartl (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes

I like what you did for the general cleanup of references. I am not sure about removing the specific reference for future episodes though. I like to check the future stuff and like to see indications that the editor adding them has actually looked them up in a reliable source. Right now the edit notice says that future eps need to be referenced - I can easily change what it says but as of now there is a bit of a conflict. Thoughts? --NrDg 15:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My first thought was "Oooops!!!" because I forgot to fix up the cites for those episodes. They're fixed now. I think we need to continue to insist on citations for future episodes. The edit notice should remain as is, unless you can get it to reach out to people who ignore it and slap them about a bit. ;) --AussieLegend (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wish I could. I'm still trying to figure out how to craft an effective notice for the few list of episodes articles I have added one to. I don't want it too long or it gets a "to-long-to-read" reaction. I think the editors that ignore it just don't care or are just obstinate about doing what they want. I think it has cut back a bit on unreferenced future stuff - just not as much as I'd hoped. --NrDg 15:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop doing vandalistic reverts

Your recent behaviour is not productive or constructive, and the sign of an immature editor. Please cease immediately. Vandalism of anonymous edits is not more acceptable than for signed in editors. Please consider yourself reported. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you could see quite clearly that the History of NSW page needed to be created to enable the redirect. It is queued awaiting creating. It would have been productive of you to have created it. It was unproductive of you to delete the redirect in the History of New South Wales page! Please be helpful, not the opposite. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take some time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies and practices before you continue editing in the rather aggressive and uncivil manner that you have been. One of those practices is to create redirect pages before you add templates to articles claiming that this or that page redirects here when that is not the case. I don't know what you mean when you say that the History of NSW page "is queued awaiting creating". It doesn't need to be queued. Just create the article. You don't need to add the template to History of New South Wales. There's no need to create a disambiguation page so the template that you've chosen is pointless. Also, when you made this reversion of my repair, not only did you re-add a useless template, you re-added a link that went to a redirect page rather than to the intended article. The correct way of linking "Australian" since there is no article of that name is to write [[Australia]]n. The link will be displayed as Australian but will directly link to Australia. Australian is a redirect and redirects should be avoided in article space where possible.

As for "reporting" me (for editing properly), perhaps you aren't aware but everyone can see your edit history so making such threats and not following through just makes you look silly. It is probably best to avoid doing so in the future. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If you were as experienced as you claim, you would know that anonymous editors cannot create new pages. If you had looked you would have seen that I had to submit it to the Articles for Creation department and it is pending review. However you could have created it. Why don't you do that right now? That would be helpful and begin to change my opinion of you. 86.9.117.51 (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)