User talk:Alex 21/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Doctor Who serials

Hi AlexTheWhovian. I wanted to alert you about the List of Doctor Who serials discussion as I know you have been heavily involved - I can understand it would have been frustrating for it to have gone on so long. Those of us left in the discussion feel we are coming to a consensus - we appear to have agreement on the direction of change - but the exact layout is still being worked on. However before we proceed wanted to get in touch with some more editors and commenters to make sure consensus has actually been reached - and if so hopefully gain further advice on the layout. Your input would be valued. Thank you. Dresken (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dresken: I'll take a look, but no promises. That particular discussion has given me numerous headaches and I've basically given up on it until something is executed. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Not a problem, I can understand completely. I had guessed you might have stepped back for something along those lines, but I didn't want us to be jumping the gun on changing anything either - definite hot issue. It could be easy for us to mistake a false consensus, instead of noting some have taken a timeout. Thanks for taking the time to look. Dresken (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
No problems. I've given my opinion on the matter. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Finding Bigfoot episodes

AlexTheWhovian, the article List of Finding Bigfoot episodes is in pretty bad shape, I think it is colour compliant, but the episode tables are all wrong. From Season 3 onward their is no colour in the tables, Season 4 is particularly bad with odd-coloured texts in "Series episode No." and Original air date. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Emperorofthedaleks: Noted. I'll look at it sometime in the near future. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Cheers. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:11.22.63 TV series.png

Thank you for uploading File:11.22.63 TV series.png. 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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:11.22.63 TV series.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:11.22.63 TV series.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: For both of the following messages, I checked the history of the file in question and found that the summary and copyright information had been deleted without a reason by an IP editor. It has been restored and updated. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

4 o'clock club

Hello,

Why did you write an edit summary saying undid a revision by me? I did not add a plot, I added a new confirmed episode. Please don't make false accusations again. Sponge58 (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sponge58: Please learn how to read the summary. "Reverted 1 edit by 90.208.24.123 (talk) to last revision by Sponge58". Besides, it's an automated edit summary, I didn't write it. "Please don't make false accusations again." Alex|The|Whovian? 07:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

BRD

Why do people cite BRD like it is a policy? It is merely an essay with a suggestion. Want another essay? How about Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". It's a good one too. Drmargi hasn't cited a single policy, guideline or MOS to support their position. None. The other two editors in the discussion who oppose the inclusion have. The other editor that did a drive-by revert, hasn't weighed in. Yet we're held hostage by one editor who has essentially offered nothing more substantial than ILIKEIT because of a backwards believe that there must be consensus to remove something? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

9Janedoe999

Sorry that's my older acc. I don't know how to delete so I just used it anyways. If you can delete it please that would be much appreciated {Wanheda (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)}

@Wanheda: I can't do that - you should probably ask elsewhere, and/or look up information of multiple accounts so you don't get in trouble for having several accounts. Alex|The|Whovian? 11:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Chasing Classic Cars

Hi Alex, I'm having problems with the Chasing Classic Cars article, when I tried to add a series overview linked from List of Chasing Classic Car episodes it showed the entire List of article. I can't find where the mistake is, also the List of Chasing Classic Car episodes article is missing the "s" at the end of "Car" and the title of the show doesn't show up in italics. What can I do to fix these problems?

Also the colour of the Season 3 section of List of Finding Bigfoot episodes isn't compliant. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Emperorofthedaleks: The issues in the first paragraph are fixed. I'll work on Finding Bigfoot sometime soon. Alex|The|Whovian? 11:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Great work, thanks for fixing it. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

One of those days

It's been one of those days when I wonder why I bother at all. This Mr. Robot thing is beyond absurd. And there's another beaut of a situation brewing on the main CSI article where, for reasons beyond comprehension, one of our favorite editors seems to think it's preferable to use a meaningless number than the name of the finale in the cast and characters list. I think there's too much loco weed around these days. --Drmargi (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Amen to that. And I've just taken a look at the article in question, and I see your point of view. I've given revert and review, you're entirely right there. Sometimes I just want to go back to a life without editing. 'Twas a lot easier. Alex|The|Whovian? 11:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, all's well that ends well. Did you see Dresken's final comment? Enjoy your enforced vacation! --Drmargi (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Game of Thrones Season 6.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Game of Thrones Season 6.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Vikings Season 4 / contribution deletion

Hello,

can you explain the reason for the deletion? The photo and information I added was obtained from visiting the filming site at Blessington Lake here in Kildare and I thought would be relevant to the article.

Thanks,

Roddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roddy Scott (talk • contribs) 13:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roddy Scott: I didn't delete the information, another editor did. Besides, it was entirely unsourced. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
@Roddy Scott: It was me who removed it. As I explained in the edit summary it was unsourced, which Alex has already pointed out, and personal observations by editors constitutes original research, which is not permitted. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your scripts

Have you thought about making them into .js files on here, so that users can import them into their common.js pages? I'd find that easier than making them bookmarklets, and in theory, I'd have easy access to them on my tools menu to the left. Additionally, any changes you make would presumably be updated automatically to people who are using them. Also, on a somewhat similar topic, have you considered applying for Template Editor rights? You'd be perfect to gain them, considering all the template work you do. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The common.js files idea is actually brilliant, I've never thought of that. Thanks! And I've applied for TE rights, however, I was denied. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
No problem! I thought of it as we were winding down fixing the color issues, and I saw you kept updating the script. In part because of my laziness, I didn't want to update my bookmarklet, and I was also used to the version I had, but felt the common.js would be great for that, and obviously the others you've made. And really?? That's unfortunate. Hopefully you can try again in a few months. It'd be great for you, and the TV project as a whole to have an editor with your knowledge have the rights. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
So, it may not be as easy as I'd hoped. Several scripts require content to be copied then pasted into the article; however, there's no pure-Javascript way to copy content. Then there's scripts like the line colour one that need the script to be run on websites outside of Wikipedia (the Snook contrast site). And it was rejected on the grounds of my occasional tendency to edit war, which, admittedly, may be an issue. Alex|The|Whovian? 08:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah. I see. Well it was good in theory! And yeah, things can get pretty heated sometimes, especially by committed editors who are passionate about a topic. It definitely takes self constraint to known you may be entering a war, and then having the upper strength to not continue and either get assistance from outside editors or take it to the talk first. I've definitely had a time where it seemed like I was in a war almost everyday. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: More than good in theory: I managed to get it into a proper script! User:AlexTheWhovian/script-linecolour. It's entirely independent and automatic now, and doesn't require us to do anything on the Snook contrast site or here - the colours are automatically selected, adjusted, and page saved. Easy. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Great job! Don't have a lot of time these next few days, but I'll try to look it over to process it better. And I'll definitely be adding it to my scripts!! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Harass!!

Posting warning for an edit war which you are part of too, Posting warning about being uncivil, posting warnings about being blocked just to push a point, Trying to threaten with a blockade in comments, trying to censor my userpage, all form part of WP:HARASS. I would suggest you to stop it.  A m i t  웃   08:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@A.amitkumar: I'm far from edit warring - I ceased reverting and took it to discussion. The warning for edit warring was because you were forcing your own views against the status quo, as we were discussion, and you were close to violating WP:3RR. Your uncivil comments are obvious and have been redacted by another editor besides me - you do need to remain calm. Alex|The|Whovian? 08:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Just because you have another editor who seems to be a possible troll supporting a viewpoint doesnt make your behavior acceptable! Refrain from my talk page. Talk in the article page if you need to about the article and report to an admin if you need to!.  A m i t  웃   08:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
@A.amitkumar: Accusing editors of being trolls isn't going to get you anywhere. You talk about my behaviour being unacceptable, and yet you're the one cussing at editors trying to discuss issues you disagree with. Alex|The|Whovian? 08:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 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:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Talk:Blindspot (TV series). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

6 reverts in the last two hours. It is really worth it? Just disengage. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: It is my opinion that this is completely unfair and unjust. Firstly, the edits were merely to obtain an orderly fashion of the discussion for the benefit of other users, not myself, all of which was reverted by an unruly editor who refused to further the discussion. Quoting a post of mine: "The editor refuses to abide by typical layout procedures in the discussion, forcing their posts in between other posts with no concern to chronological order and refusing to allow other editors to read and follow the discussion in an orderly manner. None of their comments have been directly editing in any way, with the majority of formatting and indents being inserted after my own posts, yet they claim I have changed theirs. They have decided to continue changing the discussion into an unreadable format after multiple attempts to tell them otherwise." While my edits were entirely contributing and not affecting the discussion nor the actual article in any negative manner, they both reverted and used an uncivil tone in their edit summaries, and received only half the block. The block posts states that I "should first try to discuss controversial changes". That's exactly what I was doing. You have shown zero faith in my edits. Alex|The|Whovian? 11:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, maintaining an orderly format for a talk page is not one of the exemptions to the 3RR rule (see the policy for details). When you are in a dispute such as this and want to avoid getting dragged into an edit war, you have two options. You can choose just to ignore it for a while. Or if it is so important that it can't be ignored, you can seek help from other editors, e.g. by posting at WP:ANI. I haven't looked in too much detail but I suspect the best option in this case might have been to ignore and correct it a week later when the other party had lost interest (if it needed fixing at all). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alex 21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Per my above post. (I'd duplicate it here, but it's really not necessary.) Alex|The|Whovian? 12:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sympathetic to your good faith motivations, but while you insist that your violation of 3RR is acceptable even though it does not comply with any of the stated 3RR exceptions, I really don't see how I can accept this unblock request. I suggest you make a new request and make it clear that you will not continue with any more reverts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Alex 21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay. I understand. Per MSGJ's post of explanation and Zebedee's fair suggestion, I will leave the discussion page as-is for the span of a week, and attempt to fix it once more if the other editor does not persist. If they do, then I will cease any further edits on the talk page itself. As for the main discussion that took place concerning the article, I will take it into my own hands to replace the offending phrase in the main article, so that no further contributions are required in the discussion, no further interaction would be required between myself and the other editor, and hence no further action would be necessary. Given my desire to eventually reapply for Template Editors rights, I will make myself more familiar with edit-warring policies, and immediately cease any future discussions or editing that may contribute towards me violating further warring. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I will take your assurances on your word and have unblocked your account. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That is a pretty good unblock request. I'll wait for comment from Boing! said Zebedee, but all I am looking for is some commitment not to edit war. I looked at the talk page and really don't see any issue with its format. Why don't you let that go? In the meantime I've imported an article on back nine order and tried to translate it. It's not very good because I'm not familiar with the term, but perhaps you help fix it up when you get unblocked. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Yep, that looks good to me, and I'm happy for you to unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, both. I'll see what I can do about expanding the back nine order article. Alex|The|Whovian? 21:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Little Red-Haired Girl

Greetings. Besides the colour thing, what was the reason for this edit besides 1. adding back pure and utter WP:OR by a persistent IP, and 2. changing the format of a TV title from italics to quotes? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mac Dreamstate: Terribly sorry, I appear to have edited an old version of the article, instead of the current version. Revert as necessary, but keep the correct colouring so that it doesn't get tagged in Category:Articles using Template:Infobox character with invalid colour combination again. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes, I saw that your addition of the colouring format was indeed legit, so I made sure not to revert that. No worries. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you fix this?

Hello ATW. I hope that you are well. I just noticed that there is some extraneous markup around the 12 Dr pics in the infobox here The Doctor (Doctor Who). I tried a couple things in "show preview" mode but they were still there. If it were just one pic I think I could have fixed it but I haven't dealt with a montage like this before. If not no worries - maybe we can leave a request on the talk page and someone will come along and fix it. Enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 05:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take a look at it. Though it's only one image, I don't think that the template or module typically supports imagemap with the multiple links. Alex|The|Whovian? 05:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

British-American productions

Thanks for your staunch defense of Sherlock as a British-American production. I've just corrected Downton Abbey so it is properly identified that way: NBC Universal is one of its producers along with WGBH, so it is really British-American. The Brits are going to get nationalistic about it, as they have in the past when it's been accurately listed as British-American, so you might want to keep an eye on it. --Drmargi (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, no problems. Seems some people have a real aversion to it. I've added D.A. to my watchlist so I can watch any such reverts on the page (I'll watch the series itself one day). Alex|The|Whovian? 23:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Quick question - if British shows with American production companies are British-American productions, then why aren't US series funded by the British (Band of Brothers, The Pacific, etc.) not considered American-British productions? --Unframboise (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Please post such discussions on the talk pages of the relevant articles - this is simply a request from a fellow editor to keep an eye out. Alex|The|Whovian? 21:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 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:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain this revert?

I am not sure what you were saying with your edit summary, A. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: Sorry. For one, she's linked in the cast list as well and that particular link wasn't removed, so the affected link should have been alright. And as for requiring a source connecting the two, that's where the part of Per "In other media" of character article comes in - there's an entire section on the character page under the section titled "In other media" that details how the character has appeared on the series. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The Lion Guard

The sources from zap2it were published long before the series began to air. Revisions later occurred. The plot line of "Fuli's Speeds Ahead" was instead combined into "The Search for Utamu." I watched on February 26. The episode titled "Fuli Speeds Ahead" never aired.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Wikicontributor12: Zap2It is constantly updated as the series airs and has always been viewed as a reliable source as an episode guide. Can you provide a source that supports what you've stated about the combination of the episodes? Alex|The|Whovian? 02:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Ultimately, when the episode "The Search for Utamu" aired (which I saw and is currently available on demand) in the episode; Bunga, Kion, Ono, and Beshte search for the Utamu grubs. On the way, Bunga tells the story of how he met Timon and Pumbaa. Meanwhile Fuli goes on a mission alone and overexerts herself, leaving her vulnerable to Mizingo and his vultures. According to zap2it, the plot of "Fuli Speeds Ahead" was "Fuli goes on a mission alone and overexerts herself." Unfortunately, the zap2it link you provided in the edit summary is currently buggy and is not loading to The Lion Guard episode guide. As I said, an episode titled "Fuli's Speeds Ahead" never aired on February 26 (only "The Search for Utamu" aired on that date), and judging from the zap2it summary of "Fuli Speeds Ahead" and the events that occurred in "The Search For Utamu", all signs point to the fact that the plot of "Fuli Speeds Ahead" was combined into the plotline of "The Search For Utamu." Unfortunately, I cannot provide any other evidence other than that at this time. I can only report on what actually aired.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I don't know about this specific case, but Zap2it often lists the Canadian air date if it aired there before the U.S., with absolutely no indication that it's the Canadian air date, and no mention of the U.S. air date. Not even after the episode has premiered in the U.S. They are not really good at updating other info if it changes either, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Your revert on Talk:Peter Capaldi

Hi there. I think you made a mistake with this revert. Please remember that per our policies and guidelines, anti-vandalism tools shouldn't generally be used to revert good faith edits such as the one you reverted, at least not without providing an explanation (cf. WP:Twinkle#Abuse). Since you neither supplied an edit summary to explain your change nor left the editor a message, this editor has no way to know why their edit was removed. I encourage you to remember that everyone starts as a newbie and has to learn how things work, registered editors and anon editors alike. Also, I would advise you to use edit summaries on all your edits, since it allows other editors to know what you changed and why you changed it without having to check the diff. Regards SoWhy 21:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Sorry, pressed the wrong button so I couldn't provide an episode summary. Wikipedia is not a forum. Simply because Peter Capaldi played a W.H.O. Doctor in World War Z, does not mean it relates to Doctor Who. This is typical fan spotting. Alex|The|Whovian? 21:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
As an experienced Wikipedian, I guessed that this was your reason to delete the comment. Unfortunately, a new anon editor most likely has never heard of that policy and might now - since you also didn't leave them a message - think their contributions are not wanted, potentially scaring away someone who could have become a great editor. Hence my message. Regards SoWhy 19:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please responsd

Hi AlexTheWhovian, could you please respond to this thread on my talk page. I have some questions about the topic that I need help with and could really use your assistance. Thanks. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 00:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

People Just Do Nothing series colours

User:AlexTheWhovian, I edited the People Just Do Nothing article to include series overview template and episode templates, but now I want to change the colours to match DVD colours (like I did with The Curse of Oak Island) and can't find DVD release, so do you think the colours could be changed or are ok? Thanks. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Emperorofthedaleks: They'll be just fine. Alex|The|Whovian? 21:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

MCU TV series

I see you have used the existing number of series parametre in the infobox for the other kind of series (the former being the UK version of season, the latter the series as a whole). I think it works for this page, which is obviously a special case, and was wondering if there was anyway to have the series above season in the infobox, so the three parametres (including episodes) could appear in somewhat more of a logical order. Not sure if that's possible. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: It was a bold edit to see if other editors approved of it, and since you've seemed to, I'd created a discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Number of series/seasons to swap the order of the two parameters. Alex|The|Whovian? 08:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Number of sections/discussions (as discussed around the tech pump)

Just in case you missed my inappropriately placed ping: See {{NUMBEROFSECTIONS}}.

Can be used in math like {{#expr:{{NUMBEROFSECTIONS|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 1}} + {{NUMBEROFSECTIONS|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 2}} ... up to /Archive 11 }} which gives 0

 fredgandt 12:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll be sure to use it. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome, but hang on! I'm gonna update the supporting module in a bit (working module sandboxed and almost ready to go (dog walk and testing first)) to take all the pages in one call. It should be much more efficient with the caveat that for every page listed, the same section levels will be counted.
So {{NUMBEROFSECTIONS|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 1|... 2|... 3|... 4|... 5|... 6|... 7|... 8|... 9|... 10|... 11}} will return the total 2s.
Better performance and a bit neater. I'll drop you a message when it's live. fredgandt 02:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Now 

{{#expr:{{NUMBEROFSECTIONS
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 1
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 2
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 3
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 4
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 5
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 6
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 7
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 8
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 9
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 10
}}+{{NUMBEROFSECTIONS
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 11
}}}}

works. fredgandt 09:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it does! Great work! Alex|The|Whovian? 09:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I figured 10 at a time is plenty. If I get my mind to behave and figure out how to do arbitrary numbers (some sort of delimitation) I'll do that; a missing pipe just kicked my behind though, so I'm watching TV instead. fredgandt 10:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@Fred Gandt: Made a small edit to it, which returns 0 for a non-existent article. Means I can include up to Archive 20+, it still counts 319, and I don't have to update it every time I make a new archive. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Huh! You highlighted that the test for bad requests I already built in was not working as expected (my bad). I've fixed the test; still learning. fredgandt 04:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Gotham

Hi, I've reverted that problematic editor twice now because his edits are erroneous, and a third time would probably draw undue attention to me as I'm an IP user, but I think I should bring it to your attention that Harper9979 and 110.171.182.13 are the same user. Check their edit history, their wording is pretty much the same. See these edit summaries for example. [1] and [2] it's such blatant and obvious sockpuppetry to try and force his opinion onto a page that I'm disengaging from this editor as I don't think it will solve anything. If anything he needs reporting. 81.106.156.18 (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I did notice the similarities between their edits, and said as much on the talk page, so I'll file a report for sockpuppetry. I've already filed for page protection for the article to prevent further disruptive edits. You may only be an IP editor, as you've said, but you've done great work reverting these edits and providing evidence for the investigation (now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harper9979). Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Help from a new user

Hi, AlexTheWhovian. By the advise of a user, I seek help from someone with TV experience. I'm currently creating new pages for Grimm and Gotham episodes and I would be happy if you and/or other people help me add information or something like that to make my pages work as I'm the only one editing them and planning the pages to be professionally made. I'm planning on creating more pages in the days to come like in the case of Gotham, to be each week while I'm working on the delayed episodes of Grimm. So please send me a message back with your answer. Thank you. Universe1609 (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2016 (PTD)

Pending changer reviewer

Hi. I added this to your account, so you can accept or reject changes. If you don't want it, let me know. Widr (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Widr: Thanks for that. It'll come in handy on the Clarke Griffin article. Alex|The|Whovian? 14:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I thought. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation for discussion on the proposal

You are invited in the discussion here regarding episode appearance count in TV show franchise pages. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alex_21/Archive_11&oldid=876085672"