Why would I mind? I stole my from SlimVirgin...lol. Looks good. BTW, List of Smallville eps is featured...so you can put a little star next to that as well. :D BIGNOLE (Contact me)23:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we have a reliable source for filming, but since the show films throughout the TV season it seems inconsequential to mention. As for improving and assessing. They're probably all C-class articles right now, and I plan to continue expanding them I've just been busy with my job lately. I'm working to rearrange my schedule so I'm off Friday - Sunday, which would give me some extra time to finish expanding the articles. BIGNOLE (Contact me)00:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They probably are "B" class articles, but I meant that as they could probably be easily moved to "C" class without worrying about the criteria. Season 2 is probably easily B, and season 3 probably as well. The rest are probably Start or C, and season 8 and 9 are borderline and probably require a detailed look at the criteria for each class.
My thoughts on the templates is that they shouldn't exist. There should be a single Merlin template that contains everything. As for the episode pages, you already know my stand on episode pages. If you start a discussion about such a thing just let me know. If it fails WP:GNG then it doesn't warrant a page and I would say that it's probably safer to merge all into their relevant series pages (if they exist) and have editors work their way outward in expanding what they can where they can. Like we did with "Tempest" and "Absolute Justice". BIGNOLE (Contact me)02:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Always looking for more copyediting. Anything to trim wordiness or add clarification to something that may be missing (e.g., who is this random person just mentioned without identifying rank and serial number, or random plot point not discussed anywhere else).
As for Merlin'. I would initially be bold and merge/redirect all of the articles. If someone reverts, then I'd go the speedy deletion or prod. If that gets reverted (which would probably be by the same person), then you have a choice to either talk page discussion or AfD all of the articles. Chances are, if the titles are unique the discussion could yield a "merge" reception, as unique titles should be redirected and not deleted. It's really up to you how you wish to handle it. I only advise doing the bold merging/redirecting first (with exception to the first episode, which by the skin of its teeth meets the GNG, and any other ep pages like that). If the pages are just plot, cast, and a reception area that's basically just a Nielsen Ratings listing, then it should be merged. You could beef up the plots on the LOE page to satisfy the readers who would be losing any extra details, since the plots on the LOE page look rather thinned. BIGNOLE (Contact me)06:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cast is listed in the lead paragraphs. The only reason we have the "list" for the other pages is because with them being underdeveloped at the moment, the infobox bleeds into the episode table. As such, a simple "cast list" at the start keeps the infobox out of the table. As for the order, I disagree. I don't particularly care seeing that order on the season list pages either because you remove the context. If I'm reading about the writing or the effects for an episode that I haven't read the plot for, then I don't have any context to go by when trying to understand the information. It's the same reason why the film pages don't put the production info before the plot. The plot is there to provide context for the real world info, and if it comes afterward then the context is lost. BTW, I also see that season 2's page is really long. It does have one extra episode, but I think that if reliable, professional reception can be found for "Rosetta" or maybe "Calling" or "Exodus", those could be split off. I just had trouble finding any good reception on those episodes. BIGNOLE (Contact me)02:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Season 3 probably needs a peer review more than season 9, simply because it's much farther along. It's in the same boat as season 2. I've been searching for some reviews for episodes from season two (specifically the ones I told you about), but I think I need a Lexis Nexis account because I cannot find anything really on it. I think a Lexis account might open up the newspaper articles that would probably have more reviews found for those episodes. BIGNOLE (Contact me)17:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lexis Nexis is a search engine that you have to pay for. It has access to newspapers from around the world and all over the US. I won't think we'd be able to combine "Calling" and "Exodus" effectively, simply because we wouldn't have a title for a joint article. "Exodus" might work by itself, and "Rosetta" (the Chris Reeve episode). If you can find good reception awesome. I have some reception for the entire season two that I haven't put in yet (kind of busy in real life--should be doing paperwork right now as a matter of fact). As for seasons 4 - 7, I have the companion books for those as well, I just haven't do any real work on them. When I finished season 3, I started working on Characters of Smallville and all the individual character pages, so I never went back to the season pages. I'll try and start doing something with them here soon. There's no rush. Season two and three need to be cleaned up and the reception info I have on them needs to be added. Plus, I think they are missing some sources for the awards they earned.
As far as "AJ" is concerned, it was one broadcasted episode made of two individually produced episodes. They didn't film that episode as one thing, they filmed it as two separate entities and it was later combined. Episode 4 of season ten may very well be episode 199 and 200 at the same time, depending on your perspective. As far as the writers are concerned, it will be the 200th episode "produced". Technically, it will only be the 199th episode broadcasted. So, it's a semantical conundrum, because in reality both situations are correct. There are both 199 and 200 episodes, it's just a matter of what aspect you're looking at. I think as long as the "AJ" article is clear that it only represent 1 episode broadcasted, but 2 episodes produced....and that the season ten article is clear that episode 4 is the 200th episode produced, even when it's the 199th episode broadcast then we'll be fine. We'll all be a bit confused, but it'll be an accurate reflection of what is going on.
I put the timeslot stuff at the top near where we talk about broadcasting on the CW. Tried to rewrite and reorganize some of the other stuff as well. There's not much you can do about going from Zod to ratings, because you're going from the production info to the reception info. That's how it always is with leads. They just summarize the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me)16:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Feel free to work inside my sandbox. I forgot that I had already put the season 2 reception (reviews) links in the sandbox. I apparently did the same for season 3. I'll go drop what I have for season 4 and 5 into their respective sandboxes as well. I'll have to sort through season 6 and 7 stuff, as I apparently saved a bunch of individual reviews (and not season reviews) for those two seasons. They weren't enough to warrant a separate page for any specific episode, IGN just started to review every episode with regularity in season six and onward. So, unless we find a bunch of individual reviews for other eps, the IGN ones will probably just get ditched since I cannot think of too many noteworthy episodes in season 6, 7, or 8. I think that "AJ" was the first since the 100th episode...which I really want to find some reviews for because I have a lot of stuff for "Reckoning" (that was an extended section in the season 5 companion book...plus I have the separate DVD just for that episode where they go behind-the-scenes for filming it). BIGNOLE (Contact me)19:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping Geoff Johns announces he's writing another episode and says who he will be introducing. I love his episodes. Unfortunately, there are no companion books past season 7. Apparently, they did not sell that well and WB or the CW (whoever handles them) decided not to produce anymore. Which is sad, because they were a wealth of information. It sadly means that season 8 - 10 will have no where near the amount of info that seasons 1 - 7 have/will have. BIGNOLE (Contact me)20:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work separating the info in your sandbox. Though, I think that probably anything character related in "story" should be in "Characters", because they really haven't talked about the story a part from the theme. Even the stuff about Darkseid and his minions is more character based than simple storyline stuff. Same with Cat Grant and Jonathan's appearance. I mean, it's part of the story, but also part of the overall character descriptions so it's probably best to have it there and the leave the "storyline" stuff for the main characters. BTW, Johns said he is writing a Booster Gold/Blue Beetle episode. :D BIGNOLE (Contact me)02:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think Swimmer and Slavkin left before season nine. They were definitely there for season eight, because that was right after Gough and Millar left and they named them, plus Souders and Peterson as their successors. Then the former two left to do Melrose Place. BTW, love the Comic Con teaser. BIGNOLE (Contact me)01:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love how it showed the clone Lex Luthors. I hate the idea that they are using Routh's costume, I despise that costume with it's tight fitting collar, rubber cape, and dark color tones. Superman's costume needs to be true blue and bright red, and not Batman rubber. Where is the new teaser at? I've only seen the Comic Con stuff. BIGNOLE (Contact me)01:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't a fan. Plus the shield seemed too small. I don't think Welling would fit in Routh's costume anyway, so I wonder if they plan to tailer it to me and maybe make a few modifications to the color scheme as well.....one could hope.
Well, if you're referring to the film title, it's Superman (with italics). If you are referring to Smallville's Clark Kent, then it's Superman (sans quotations). But, if you're referring to the persona that Clark creates, then it's "Superman" (with the quotes). For example, "Superman saved the day" would be the former. The latter would be, "Clark Kent, as 'Superman', saves the day". Does that help? BIGNOLE (Contact me)02:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are your concerns with the headers? From a quick glance, the headers look fine. Are you worried that some sections don't have enough info? Overall, it looks fine. Though, the soundtrack cover art image doesn't meet non-free criteria (such things rarely do). One thing that pose an issue is the "Cast" and "Casting" section. The problem being that the "Cast" section isn't supposed to merely be a regurgitation of plot info (per WP:MOSFILMS#Cast). You could simply merge the sections. Drop most of the in-universe stuff and suppliment the real world info for each individual character. You could list the actor's names in the plot next to their characters and just let the "Casting" section represent both. There are a couple other ways to handle it, which the MOS talks about. Just having two sections for the same thing isn't necessary. BIGNOLE (Contact me)01:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I wanted to do a note for the page earlier but I couldn't find a page where I could see how the HTML worked. I was glad when you added it. I'm not sure how to decrease the name of it. I'll see if I can fool around with it. BIGNOLE (Contact me)01:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia is neither a TV Guide nor a substitute for watching a particular program. Thus, an organization using a non-free license basically means that we look at plot information as the context behind our real world information. We read about how they make an episode, but it's what's happening in that episode that gives us the context to completely understand the chain of events. Should the plot information come after the production information (or in some cases, as I've seen, dead last on the page) you actually lose that context because it requires readers unfamiliar with the topic to scroll down and try and understand after the fact. If it was first on the page, as is with film articles and most episode pages, then you get the context first. BIGNOLE (Contact me)21:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smallville uses a combination list/prose. As long as it's not a simple table listing character and actor then you're probably fine whichever way you choose. Just simply having the names of the characters and actors makes the list nothing more than an IMDb chronicling. BIGNOLE (Contact me)23:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I noticed that you put the content of the "Comparison with the book" section into the "Development" subsection. Might I ask why you did so? I don't think that's really appropriate because that section specifically focused on the differences between the book and the film, not the film's development. Also, the Manual of Style (film) suggests that adaptation from source material is an appropriate secondary topic to have its own section anyway. Cliff smithtalk16:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A "Comparison with the book" section, in my opinion, is redundant to have when the majority of the information specifically states the what was part of the development. Maybe, though, my main problem was with the section header? I could try using what the MOS states, "Adaptation from source material" under the development (it wasn't developed, casted, filmed, and then adapted into the screenplay) where it would fit more appropriately? If you disagree or anything, feel free to revert the change and place a comment here. ChaosMasterChat02:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose that would work. That aside, I commend you for your double GA drive with this and New Moon. I didn't really work on New Moon at all, but I wrote almost the entirety of "Production" at Twilight and Sergay (talk·contribs) did the "Comparison with the book" for Twilight and most of the rest of that article, as I recall (prior to your recent work, of course). Anyway, I hope that they both pass. Cliff smithtalk00:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And I was contemplating using my Twilight movie companion book for the article (like I recently did with New Moon) but I realized the article is already pretty good.... and the companion book isn't separated into the sections of the production anyway (ie. theres writing in every "chapter", there is set designs and special effects in every "chapter"). I did know Sergay worked on much of the "Twilight" films, but I was unaware of your input. So, thank you for contributing and writing the production section. You saved me a lot of work :P (please take that jokingly). ChaosMasterChat01:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks back at you. (And yeah, I got the joke lol.) I'm not even a fan of either the films or the books, but I knew that Twilight was going to be popular so I felt like the article ought to have more than just a paragraph on production, which is how much I believe it had before I started working on it. And as it so happens, I was actually going to suggest that Twilight be nominated for GA once Sergay returned from her vacation. Oh, and BTW, I think once Eclipse gets more about production it could be put up for GA as well. Cliff smithtalk03:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree about Eclipse beng nominated for GA as well, but I think once the DVD comes out, I'll write some more for the article (I think that once the DVD is announced there will be a flod of vandalism/constructive edits to the page until it has been released for a while). Sergay has been on vacation? Maybe that is why I haven't seen her for a while lol. ChaosMasterChat15:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just noticed there is no marketing secton for Twilight, whch isn't a bad thing. I might work on that. I'm also converting the awards section to prose, because honestly its god-awful. Do you mind taking a look and updateing/expanding the "Sequel" section for both New Moon's movie article and Twilight's? It would be a big help and its not much work either, just rewoding mostly. ChaosMasterChat17:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, something has come up and I probably won't be on here much for the next two days (rather poor timing, I know). I've taken a shot at updating/rewording the "Sequel" sections, but, of course, feel free to augment them as needed. I didn't have much time to work on them, at least not as much as I would've liked. Good point about Eclipse, BTW. Cliff smithtalk18:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I edited them a bit, but overall, they were well done. Do you have any idea of what a copy-edit is? I recall that its for copying any pasting, but I don't exactly know. The reason why I mention it is because in the Twilight GA review, White Shaddow recomended that we use copy-editing for the prodcution section. If that is the case, we have to go through some of the refs and change the wording in the article, which doesn't bother me, but will be a lot of work. ChaosMasterChat14:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your reversion of my reorganization of that section. I changed Main Article to See Also, as per your reversion note. Nonetheless, there is a very good reason to separate out the information in there are two different books. Also, the grammar of the version that you reverted to was off (using singular verbs when they should have been plural), clearly so because people were confused and thought there was only one comic. If you don't like the sub-sub-sections then just change the header. I checked every source and carefully separated out the information about the comics.—CodeHydro18:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be nice and clear, when an admin declines a speedy it is an administrative action and you may not revert it. If you feel the article should be deleted the next step is to take it to AFD. You don't get two bites at the cheery and you would be asking for a block if you did this repeatedly. SpartazHumbug!18:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, just be bold. I am fine either way (theres not much to loose if one page gets deleted, exc.) and theres so many redirects that I can't keep up with anything, lol. So go ahead and redirect or delete or whatever you feel is right and do it. If it turns out to be detrimental, I'll take the blame for ya :P ChaosMasterChat03:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel kinda funny when coming across deletion discussiosn with one title, and the relating article with another. So while hoping you don't mind, I have added the CSD tag back. :) Rehman(+)03:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop moving prose from sections to the lead, this information is about the season specific and should be under the season section. Please stop removing information from the series overview table, and moving it to the bottom of the page with just the DVD releases, it's less of the same information. Please stop adding the copy-pasted ratings table from the main article, these ratings are already there in a table with a bunch of needless information, it doesn't have to copy pasted on every article about the 2009 re-imagining of V. Smallville isn't the only article in existence, in fact, it was only recently brought up to date to the {{Episode list}} template, look at some other FAL's like List of Veronica Mars episodes, List of Carnivàle episodes, List of Numb3rs episodes, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, List of The Unit episodes, … and others. Thanks. Xeworlebi(talk)23:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, the lead is there to provide an overview of the WHOLE episode article. With so little information there, it is appropropriate to add the "Season One" information to the lead as its not that specific (not like thats the worst thing in the world anyway). When season two starts airing, its information will be added to the lead as well. The overview table was removed due to the redundancy of it, especially with only one season (and two on the way) aired. All you need to do is scroll a milimeter down the screen to find the premiere date and the number of episodes. Like I said in my edit summary for the ratings table, I do plan on adding prose above that and the DVD release (similar to List of Smallville episodes), but I have not gotten to it and I do not have a whole load of time this week (thus the "simi-wikibreak"). Plus, I plan to "revamp" the table later on to be similar to Smallville's also. All I can say about the other FAL's is that these are extremely redundant. It is better to have a separate DVD release section and ratings section where you can find detailed information that is in the overview and rid the article of the constant "Overview: 12 episodes, scroll, 12 episodes, scroll more, second season 12 episodes, scroll back up 12 episodes for season 2 in overview table". Not to mention it takes away from the unity and the neatness of the article. V's article still needs work, especially with the lead and prose. I'll get to it when I can, though. I'm juggling one current GA review and two or three more have been requested. I suspect by the end of August for all four-ish to be in the process of the review; plus I am busy this week. If you can possibly add links that could help with different sections of V's episode article so we can beef the prose up, that would be great, though please don't take that as a request. ChaosMasterChat02:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reception shouldn't be added in detail on the episode list in the first place, the appropriate place for that is the on the main article, and it is there. Or if it exists in more detail the seasonal article. No need to have it on the episode list again. The episodic ratings are already in the episode list itself and a simple average line in prose under each section is more than sufficient.
Your DVD table is exactly the same as the series overview except it's at the bottom of the page and contains less overview information. It is just less. So lets keep the better and more informative version. Why is it better to have the DVD section with less info about the season, like how many episodes there are on that DVD? Nothing. Series overview table are in incredible wide-use, and claiming one FAL over multiple I showed you especially one that didn't even use the {{Episode list}} template, and its main protector user refused it at first, isn't exactly the best model to go of. And your logic is especially weird since the ratings table you added contains exactly that info you want to remove for being so called redundant.
Keep information over the whole show in the lead, and put information specific about the seasons in there proper sections. The lead needs expansion but gutting other sections for it is not the solution. It makes it a lot easier if information about the season is actually under that section.
Specifics for ratings and DVD's should go in a season article or the main article, not the episode list.
This episode list needs a little work, namely expanding the episode summaries, this is definitely a step backwards. Add links for what to what? Huh? Xeworlebi(talk)09:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the MOS of ANY page, the lead gives an overview to the whole article. So why keep this in a separate section with a table? The second season does not have a table, and thus prose explains that there has been another season, exc. When a table is made, prose will be removed from the section and apprpriately added to the lead or the main article. For the overview: "The first problem is that it's unnecessarily redundant. First, and this is especially true for series that are shorter lived, (cough "V") why do I need a table that is telling me how many episodes were in each season when I can look right below it and see how many episodes were in each season. The same with the season premiere and finale dates. Given that the section headers should have the years of broadcast listed, the average reader will see when a season aired and go right to it if they have a question about it. Now, on to the last bit that isn't redundant to the rest of the page, the DVD release information. In this situation, it makes no sense for the DVD release info to be the first thing on the page. It isn't the first thing to happen in the production of the show. You don't put a reception section before you put the plot of a film. The DVD info should be one of the last things on the page, because it's the least important aspect of the primary concepts that need to be addressed. All it says is that the show was released for sale." And yes, a more elaborate section can be devoted to the DVD and ratings table in the main article, however, it is part of the episodes. You don't just see an episode and thats it. There is DVD's and ratings exc. Its similar to the release of a film. Its promoted then its released "recepted" and released on DVD.
"So lets keep the better and more informative version." How is my version any less or more informative than the overview version?
"Why is it better to have the DVD section with less info about the season, like how many episodes there are on that DVD? Nothing. Series overview table are in incredible wide-use," Because the DVD info is just that. DVD info. If there was "meant to be" a section devoted to DVD and series info, there would be a section after the table called "DVD and series information". And I do realize that the table has the number of episodes, but looking at Smallville's list, it doesn't list the number (for the same reasons). So I'll go ahead and remove them, then revamp the table to the similar style later on. Even though the overview table is wide-use, I'm here (I hope you are too) for the sole pupose of improving Wikipedia (with some accasional enjoyment :P) I don't see how looking at the V episode list or any other episode list and realizing how incredibly "stipid" some editors believe the average viewer is. No duh season one has X amount of episodes, just look in the Season 1 section under its year (usually next to the season). ChaosMasterChat00:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is called "Series overview" give information about the season and the DVD's, removing info and moving it to the bottom is unhelpful to anyone. What's next, remove all infoboxes because they contain the same info that is in the article and move it to a self made table and the bottom of the page? Once more, this is incredibly wide spread use.
"How is my version any less or more informative than the overview version?" well, lets read the previous sentence just before that one "Your DVD table is exactly the same as the series overview except it's at the bottom of the page and contains less overview information. It is just less"
"I'm here (I hope you are too) for the sole pupose of improving Wikipedia" yes, so stop removing a wide spread use of a simple overview table which is is incredibly handy for finding exactly this type of info, instead of trying against opposition to change current wide spread consensus. Which is exactly not improving. Once more, Smallville isn't the only article out there and is in my opinion a very bad one to take as the current standard.
It's weird you keep bringing up the word "redundant" as approval for your removal of information, yet you keep adding a ratings table which is copy pasted from the main article, and contains exactly that information which you seem to call "incredibly redundant". Xeworlebi(talk)08:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion here about the overviews (I commented here) that might interest you. I feel this disussion should have more oppinions than just you and I, and since there have been many discussions about it, we could join one that has been going on in the past few months. ChaosMasterChat02:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep changing "Critical Reception" to simply "Reception". Reception covers a lot of things like ratings, awards, sales of DVD's and media opinions. Critical reception is more specific which is why I changed it for that particular header. Jayy008 (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, we have ratings mentioned and mostly critics. Therefore, reception covers it in a broad sense, but if/when we get more generalized information, separating Reception with a subsection of "Critcal" would be fine. ChaosMasterChat02:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I don't give you a warning because I'm sure an experienced user like you would just be mistaken. But you inflated ratings of "America's Next Top Model". Why would you do this? Jayy008 (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source for ANTM stated a set of ratings, and the article stated different ratings. If a number such as 5.665 is presented on wikipedia as 5.66, it isn't as acurate as saying 5.67. While both are true, applying simple rounding (5+ makes the number to the left one above, -4 makes the number to the left remain the same), should avoid most discrepancies between "correctness". For Hellcats, I was just removing it for neatness sake (and partial redundancy; i.e. full cast above, scroll down a bit and have three others there). We can go ahead and add them at a later time, or even add them with a "<!-- -->" in between so we can use those images in the future. ChaosMasterChat21:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I.E. Top Model. However, you can't make that judgement for Hellcats, you're ownership issues are getting too much. You can't single handidly make as many decisions as you want. Jayy008 (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Hellcats episodes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Xeworlebi(talk)22:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't worked. Nobody has edited the article but me. I've expanded the article a lot, I'm still not happy with it. It needs a lot of different reception added and I need to expand the story lines section but it's a start. I'm going to move it back to main space as it's not your decision, once it's back in main space I am going to bring it up for discussion. Jayy008 (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for interrupting but as I read I realize that you two are probobly working on The Vampire Diaries article that is a mess. I am constantly trying to improve it too, so I want you to count me if you need help.
But I need to ask you something. First of all I am a very experienced Wikipedia user but on the mine language Wikipedia, so here I am seen like a newbie and that's OK but I need to talk to you. So, I am trying to improve The Vampire Diaries article but you constantly back up my changes, so I like we to work together. And also you erased my season 1 article. I understand that its unnecessary it simply stupid to have one, BUT I can count millions of shows that have separate articles about seasons, and all they have is cast section, the episodes and very brief introduction. And nobody earse this articles. And plus I was planing to expand the hole article. Nevertheless I won't contradict you, because if you and this other guy are working on this articles I want cooperate with you. So please let me now (here!) as soon as you can, so we can start working on the articles because I am tired of seeing the Glee articles becoming GA and stuff. :) Best wishes ---Max(talk)17:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was basing the edits on other featured articles. The only thing that would really fall under the guideline that you have pointed out would be the DVD color, not the ratings table. ChaosMasterChat19:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Present in featured articles or not, these are the guidelines and no individual project or user has the authority to override them. This is what it will end up looking like eventually. I don't know if you have noticed, but people has been pushing hard for a standardization site wide. It is an accessibility issue. See the new filmography table, for example. Nymfhideliho!21:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Can you post the guideline and a quoted sentence that makes you say so though? And the reason for my revisions was because after you deleted the color, you left a space for the color or left the table unorganized. I don't think you intentionally did so, but I thought you were an editor trying to vandalize a page and stating a guideline as an excuse. Sorry for that. ChaosMasterChat22:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was my first edit; in my 2nd edit which you reverted I had fixed that. See Wikipedia:Deviations. This is the paragraph: "In general, styles for tables and other block-level elements should be set using CSS classes, not with inline style attributes. This is because the site-wide CSS is more carefully tested to ensure compatibility with a wide range of browsers; it also creates a greater degree of professionalism by ensuring a consistent appearance between articles. Deviations from standard conventions are acceptable where they create a semantic distinction (for instance, the infoboxes and navigational templates relating to The Simpsons use a yellow colour-scheme instead of the customary mauve, to tie in with the dominant colour in the series) but should not be used gratuitously."Nymfhideliho!22:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. It will be fine with me if you revert that then. Thanks for cooperating. Also, why did you revert the DVD picture? I uploaded the actual DVD cover and not just the cover that looks like a poster. ChaosMasterChat22:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we could reach an agreement. I reverted as you uploaded a high resolution version, which is prohibited per WP:NFCC. If you can redo it in 300x379, please do that. Thanks. Nymfhideliho!23:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Because graphics is my thing, I saw this, and re cropped from the high res version, resized preserving quality and uploaded a version to proper fair use low res. I also fixed your fair use rationale (which was for Smallville). Hope it helps. Feel free to revert the crop if you don't like it. Begoontalk23:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Begoon. Is it possible that we can use the "boxed" version though? I was hopping it would be similar to the Smallville DVD covers, so the season article could have the same "look". Am I being too picky though? ChaosMasterChat23:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can use whatever you like (within fair use). I was just offering an alternative in passing. I thought it looked better without all the gumph, but if you're following a theme, go for it. Feel free to revert, or if you want, I'll resize the largest version for you, preserving quality and adding transparency instead of the white border - 350px wide should be ok. Begoontalk23:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:VampireDiaries.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Hellcats episodes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Xeworlebi(talk)18:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring. Since this isn't your first block for this, I'll assume you know the drill on how to appeal and all, as well as the "discuss instead of reverting" spiel I usually give, so I'll just leave it at that. Heimstern Läufer(talk)01:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Hellcats episodes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Xeworlebi (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey there ChaosMaster16, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:ChaosMaster16/The Last Airbender. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.
