User talk:ChaosMaster16/Archive2

Re: Smallville episodes

It's because Kryptonsite isn't considered a reliable source when it comes to future episodes (ask Bignole). Elbutler (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

TV.com, IMDB, MSN, The CW.com, all these sites are reliable, fansites and blogs aren't reliable. As long as you provide a source/reference, the episodes stay. Elbutler (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kryptonsite is a fansite, and thus they are not considered reliable unless they conduct a personal interview. IMDB, TV.com are actually not reliable. Both contain user submitted information, thus making them a glorified Wikipedia. TheCW.com, MSN, and TV Guide ARE reliable sources, but they operate on what the studio releases officiall, and not from scooper reports. That is why no other episode title and airdate is listed, because TheCW has not officially announced them yet.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Is AOL and Yahoo reliable?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Depends on the page. AOL owns some pages that are user maintained, or that take in user submitted information. The same with Yahoo. What you need to look for is the "About Us" section that lets you know how they get their information. To be honest, Kryptonsite probably learns about the stuff before anyone else, but they typically do not learn the exact phrasing of the information. If it looks like the information is identical to what Kryptonsite has in their "spoiler" section, then chances are the website you found is getting their stuff from either users, or just plain stealing it from Kryptonsite. Do you have some pages from AOL and Yahoo that I can see so I know what you're referring to?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just asking before I searched for any news or anything. I searched and all thats there is episode recaps on both AOL and Yahoo, so I don't think it's that helpful. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Trust me, I've been maintaining the Smallville pages for a couple years now. Unless there is an official write-up released by the CW then the only way to know future episode titles or airdates is when a cast or crew members does an interview and actually mentions it by name. That's how we know what episode Tom is directing, but there was an interview and the episode number was revealed ... but they didn't release the title. It isn't that Kryptonsite is not accurate, they typically are, it's because they are a fansite that relies on scooper reports (inside information that is not officially released) that they fail the criteria for a reliable source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

We do have other season pages that could use some sprucing, if you'd like to help with that. Right now, I know that Smallville (season 2)'s plot descriptions could use a little more detail, and possibly some complete rewrites. It could also use some season reviews (you could Google search "Smallville season 2" or "Smallville season 2 DVD"), as it is close to being able to be placed for featured article candidacy. I'd take a look at Smallville (season 1), Smallville (season 7) and Smallville (season 8)'s plot descriptions for a good idea of how to write fictional content, what to focus on (e.g., which episode elements are a bit too minor to the overall episode. For instance, an episode might feature the return of a character as a surprise at the end of the episode. To save space you could ignore this part, and if they have a prominent role in the following episode you could say "Character X returns and...."), and how long they should be. At the moment, season 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6's episode descriptions need a little bit of expanding.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure No Problem. And I just wanted to make sure the Smallville Wiki isn't a reliable source right? Sorry about being a huge pain. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

It's no problem, and you aren't a pain. No, the Smallville Wiki isn't a reliable source. Wikis are just Wikipedia without the rules.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I had to revert your image upload. The most important reason why is because of the "Kryptonsite" watermark. You cannot upload an image with their watermark on it, because it's infringing on their trademark of that logo. Secondly, the source has to be a real source (e.g., a url link, or a page to a book it was scanned from, etc) that actually shows that the CW created the image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No Problem. I just liked that poster a bit better than the origonal. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

So do I, but I haven't found any version of it on the web that either doesn't have a watermark, or shows that the CW actually released it. The one on their now can be seen on the CW's website as their background.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It won't really matter come sometime next week, because the official Nielsen ratings will be out, they are typically lower than the estimated numbers that are given the following day after the episode airs. Also, Kryptonsite appears to be using the "4.18" number, and the CW has "4.2". I'm guessing that the CW just rounded up.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The Secret Life

I'm not sure exactly where to find ratings for any show. Someone else found the Smallville ratings, and I've been using that website ever since. TVShowsBytheNumbers doesn't list the show among ABC's programming. But, I'm confused. The Secret Life of the American Teenager (Season 1) already has the ratings for each of the episodes that have aired. What other numbers are you looking for? As for images, they can only be uploaded (non-free images that is) if there is critical commentary on the image itself. See the fair-use criteria.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The ratings for all but the most recent show. I was on Google searching and found sqwat. Lol, Im starting to think no one watches it anymore. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Well, other than estimated ratings, official ratings won't come out till about week later. I would recheck the website that the page is currently using and see if they have updated anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey ChaosMaster, just wanted to say thanks for keeping on top of the episode listing pages. It was getting annoying that people kept splitting the one season into two! I don't have the time or patience to keep checking on it, so kudos to you! Mlf107 (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Independent sourcing for Elements of Fiction

You may recall the discussions at WT:FICT where you proposed that the inclusion criteria for an element of fiction should be in part determined on whether reliable sources could be found for that topic. I think that this proposal is generally agree upon, but there is now disagreement on whether those sources should be independent in addition to being reliable. As the discussions indicate to me me that we are very close to agreement on current draft of WP:FICT, I would be grateful if you make your views known.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

HP7

I don't think we need two articles, one should be fine, as with Kill Bill. Heyman confirmed that production wise it was being treated as "one film". Gran² 17:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to do two articles, however, I think it will be a huge article and I don't think it would look neat. If it is a big article, it can take forever to load and I don't like it.

Also, there will be marketing, releases, and cast, exc. on BOTH movies, and with each HP article, we have different sectionsfor each. If we have one huge article, it will be enough for two, so why not just make two now?

And Im putting refs on the two articles, so please be patient with that. Thanks. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Well it can always be split in the future. We have no idea at what point the film will be split, so let's wait and see. When we have such a small amount of information, it will work much better as one article for the time being. I've mapped it out as one article here. Gran² 17:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gran2 here. The film will be made as one, thus there will only be one production section for the film. The only thing that will receive separate coverage will be when the film is released and two distinct marketing and reception sections are not really enough to warrant a separate article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. J.Mundo (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the warning and rollback. I have rolled my rollback. Mygerardromance (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The same here, sorry for the warning, keep the good work up. --J.Mundo (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Smallville

We wouldn't create a season nine page until we had enough information to support the existence of one. Right now, there isn't even confirmation that a season nine will happen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why not a future section at least? As I said, what if someone wanted to know about the future of Smallville?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Because everything must be verified on Wikipedia, through reliable sources. I'm pushing it, because it's the policy. This isn't a case of "the sky is blue" and someone saying "prove it with a source". No one knows that these titles and airdates are officially. My point is proven even more since the CW supposedly moved "Infamous" back a week. Before then, we would have been publicizing false information that was not supported by any reliable source. It's one thing when someone reliable verifies information that later either turns out to be wrong, or is changed, and another when no one reliable reports it and that turns out to be wrong or changed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason I haven't included the "average" of season 8 is because I'm not sure it's as simple as adding up and dividing by the number of episodes. When you do that for season 7 you don't get 3.77, you get a higher number. I know the number is right because the source for that number is the same as the one for each of the 20 season seven episodes. I think that even after a week there is still some "estimation" going on, and it isn't until the end of the season that the official season ranking comes out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Newmoon.JPG}

Thank you for uploading File:Newmoon.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Newmoon.JPG}

Thank you for uploading File:Newmoon.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:SecretLifeAmTeenager DVD.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:SecretLifeAmTeenager DVD.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^(talk) 13:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Survivor-tocantins23.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Survivor-tocantins23.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — neuro^(talk) 13:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC) --— neuro^(talk) 13:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:51NgFrPgk0L SS500 .jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:51NgFrPgk0L SS500 .jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Newmoon.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Newmoon.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ejfetters (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The Last Airbender

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Alientraveller (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop restoring the heavily repetitive and lousy rewrite by World Cinema Writer. Go to the talk page if you want to flog this, but know you cannot just revert over consensus. Alientraveller (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Alientraveller (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Alientraveller (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you listen. Why must the casting info be separate from cast? Why must the article praise the cartoon? Alientraveller (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Everyone who reads this are morons" (yeah, thanks for patronizing your readers). Alientraveller (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I know WP:MOSFILM very well: it says it's ok to have casting information with the cast list. Take a look at any film article. Your point? Alientraveller (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, you seem to not want anyone coming in to edit the article. You don't want anyone to remove unofficial titles and an unsourced cast member. You say we should follow the suggestion at WP:MOSFILM you want. You oppose other editors removing the quotebox. You oppose unlinking the second time Shyamalan is in the infobox. You refuse to see what other editors think about the casting information on the discussion page, and caused an edit-war in which you broke the three-revert rule. I'm sorry, but I've reported you at WP:AN3. If you wanted dispute resolution, you should have sought it earlier with other editors like me who've worked long and hard already at making an acceptable lead for such a short article. Alientraveller (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)