User talk:Robinepowell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Robinepowell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for joining our community. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. First thing: be bold! Editors are always happy to correct or revert mistakes and discuss changes with which they disagree. Here are some links you might find useful:

And for more detailed information:

  • Help pages - the instruction manual, contains everything you could possibly want to know
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia - our principles, or how to get on with other editors
  • Manual of Style - how to format articles, where to place pictures, and other stylistic matters.

You can also check out the community portal, which has lots of ideas on how you can help Wikipedia.

All of this information can be daunting, but if you have a question and can't find the answer, you can always ask me on my talk page or go to Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. One last thing: please sign your name when leaving messages for others on article and user talk pages using (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. I hope you enjoy editing! --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Charmed broadcasters and DVD releases

Greetings. Regarding the above article, please do not add local broadcasters like your Fox44 station to the page. There are many many local affiliates that air syndicated reruns of Charmed; moreso, this article is concerned with stations that currently air the show, not ones that used to, as your entry seems to describe. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fox 44 Broadcast Information

Hi. I removed your edits to both Veronica Mars and Supernatural (TV series) concerning broadcasts on Fox 44. I didn't do so as an attempt to harass you; they both are just articles that I watch. I did so because I believe that local broadcasting fail to meet Wiki guidelines on notability. More importantly, they are clearly prohibited in WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory, which states (emphasis mine):

  • "Wikipedia articles are not: Directories, directory entries, a TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business."

While scheduled airings on the major network timeslots in domestic and international markets are notable and encyclopedic, local timeshifts for dual-affiliate networks, even in markets that service major cities, just aren't appropriate content, nor are they notable, IMO. I ask that you not add back the information without first getting a consensus on the Talk page of each article, individually, since it will most likely get reverted out due to the policies and guidelines I highlighted above. I hope you understand. Thanks. - Debuskjt 19:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Charmed Season 7 DVDs

Thanks for that, it allowed me to convert the existing cite to a non-retailer site, which is always preferable. TVShowsOnDVD is an excellent resource. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I meant that I replaced a previously added citation that linked to a retail site with the site you provided. It is always better when possible to use a citation to a neutral website (such as TVShowsOnDVD) so that it does not appear that wikipedia is favouring a particular retailer. Also, remember that when you comment on talk pages you should sign your message with ~~~~ (four tildés) so that your nickname and timestamp will appear, just like this one --> "-- Huntster T • @ • C 01:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)"

[edit] Re: Wiki aide

You mean to sign comments on talk pages? Okay, just place the ~~~~ immediately after your comment. Just look at how I sign my comments: not on the next line, but directly after the last word of my comment. The four tildés are important, so that both your name and the timestamp are included. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfect! Also, remember you don't have to start a new section for every post you make. You can simply hit "edit this page" at the top and scroll to where the conversation is taking place, or hit "edit" next to the section you want to add something to. This helps keep the conversation flowing. When you do this, use a semi-colon (:) in front of your message to indent it (like this post is); you can use more than one to indent several spaces. Take a look at various talk pages and you'll see what I mean. This is also useful for conversation organization. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 06:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note...

Hey, saw your edit at Charmed multimedia. I called it different from Region 1, as the original production is based in Region 1, rather than one of the others. Just as if a DVD was produced in Britain, everything would be different from Region 2. Also, grammatically speaking, I don't think you should use a word twice in the same sentence to mean the same thing (which is why I used 'alternate' in place of 'different'). Remember to do a quick check of recent edit summeries, to see if a reason is given for edits. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And upon re-reading what I originally wrote, it should have been "changed *from* their Region 1 releases". Oi. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Australia cover art

Slight problem here. Just because Australia has the same cover as Germany means nothing...they have always had the same covers. It is the United States which features different covers, so until the US image is released, we won't know if region 1 will look different from regions 2, 4, etc. I'm going to revert the page for this reason.

Btw, I'm just about to get to sleep (worked midnight), but I'll be on AIM if you want to chat this evening. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get your message until now, after I changed it a second time. I doubt we will get a different cover for Season 8 in Canada/USA. Only odd seasons have changed. And isn't just Australia, The Netherlands too now.


The cover is left noted as German because the text on the image is German. Please do not revert the article again. The warning was voted on. Until reliable information comes that says that the covers will not be the same for region 1, we will have a disclaimer. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It does not matter if they have the same cover as the german one. They are the same region, naturally they have the same cover. The note still remain valid as the cover shown is GERMAN. no matter how you look at it. The text is written in GERMAN. If you tried to sell it anywhere else they would have no clue wtf it said because it is written in GERMAN! And there is still no proof what so ever that Region 1 will have the same cover. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVD Releases

Do not remove the sentence "At this time, it is unknown if Season 8 will feature different covers for different regions." from Charmed broadcasters and DVD releases again. You have no source to prove that it will not be different for the Region 1 release, 3 countries in the same region having the same cover is not proof that all regions will have the same cover. No information has been reveled about its release. If you continue to remove the statement, you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it Mal, I'm taking care of this. The sentence itself is unnecessary given the caption below the image for s8. Also, do not make threats of this nature as you are not an admin and this is a good faith edit (aka, not vandalism). It is considered uncivil. Let's stop this now before 3RR is broken. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Hunster for your support. Btw, what's 3RR? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 03:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR is the three-revert rule. Read up! -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesnt matter if i am an admin or not. She removed a section of text(numerous times) that was decided on on the articles talk page, that is considered vandalism. Even after asking her to stop changing it she still continued to change it, therefor it is vandalsim, and i can very well give her a warning for it. As the picture is now no longer the german one, the note about it being the german edition can be removed. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 13:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodness someone's getting themselves all worked up. Lol! I provided Hunster with two other links for coverart and he decided to use Australia. I've also changed the wording at the that say "different covers for different regions" to "different cover for Region 1".


[edit] References

Please do not remove the reference section from articles as you did to Brian Krause here. It is considered vandalism and could get you blocked from editing. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 04:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Please stop. If you continue to remove reference sections from articles (as you did here) you will be blocked from editing. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 05:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you are not removing the word references, you are removing the wikicode that places the references there( <references \>). Doing this will not allow references to be listed. Currently there is only one reference but it still needs to be listed. Also when leaving a comment on a users talk page please sign your comments using 4 tildes (~~~~) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 05:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The section you are removing is for REFERENCES. they are used to cite things in the article. If you remove the section again I will bring this to WP:ANI and let an admin settle this. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 05:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule at Brian Krause. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

| Mr. Darcy talk 05:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And just to be clear, removing the <references/> tag from any article is completely unacceptable. Verified content is a core part of what we do at Wikipedia. There is no justification for removing all references from an article as you have been doing - none. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Responding to your email - you've been blocked for 24 hours; you can still edit this talk page to discuss the matter with others or to request an unblock; and I reviewed your edits before blocking you and found you to be in violation of WP:3RR. Your version of the page has an empty references section. You can't revert a page more than three times in 24 hours except in rare cases, such as to combat obvious vandalism, and none of those exceptions applies here. | Mr. Darcy talk 06:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
You asked via email: Also I tried to removed the whole entire "Reference" section but Malevious almost had a fit! So can I or can I not remove the whole section tittle "References"? The link to NNDB.com isn't needed twice. It is already under "Links". No, you can not remove it. I don't know how much clearer we can be on this one. The References section (sometimes called Notes or Footnotes) is a critical part of any article, and removing it on style grounds is never acceptable.
Also, to revert an article means to undo another editor's edits and return the article to a previous state. You were warned above that reverting an article more than three times in a 24-hour period would lead to a block, and you reverted Brian Krause four times yesterday. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to add that removing the "Reference" section is a form of vandalism, though you may not have intended to act like a vandal. The "Reference" section is the article's "Bibliography" or "Works Cited" section found in any academic research paper. The "External links" section, however, is for links to additional or more detailed information on the subject, but the links may or may not be used by the Wikipedia article. If you want to remove duplicate external links, then it's better to remove the link from the "External links" section instead. But even that should be treated with much caution. --TheFarix (Talk) 17:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holland

Hey Robin, where'd the data from Holland come from? I'm at work right now, but I'll attempt to locate the other dates when I'm clear. -- Huntster T • @ • C 20:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charmed Multimedia

Hi there. To explain the situation, in the citation, the title field is not a descriptive phrase, it is the title of the article you are citing from. In this case, it is "Season 8 Release Month!", which is what I changed it to. As to the External links section, the link that was there was a link to *all* of the Charmed article on TVShowsonDVD, not just season 7. There really is no reason to put links to each individual season, as they are accessable just as easily from that main page. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi Robin, regarding the edits you just made to Charmed multimedia, why did you remove the writer and publication date information from the citations?? I've changed this back, and also changed back the bit for the DVD covers, since because the DVDs are based in the U.S., the cover art would be changed from the Region 1 art, not the other way around. Cheers. -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Robin, the "date" and "accessdate" fields are two completely different things! "Date" says when the article was published. This is needed to show the age of the article in question. "Accessdate" says when the article was accessed by the editor who added the referenced material. This is necessary to show the age of the data that the source references, and to state that the data was good "as of" that date. Like I said, two very different things, and both are needed even if they are the same. As for both not being everywhere else, that is because either 1) the article being referenced did not include a publication date or 2) the editor didn't look for one or simply skipped over it when they wrote out the ref tag. As I've been saying to a lot of people over the last few days, just because one article or editor, or even several articles or editors, do things one way, does not mean that it is necessarily the correct way to do it. Also, you never answered why you are removing the article authors. Trust me on these edits and do not revert again. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 7th Heaven Family Tree

  • I fixed it. A vandal had edited the page before you see here and was never reverted. But the problem is now gone. the line extending to Ruthie, Sam, and David, i don't know how to fix. -AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message) 20:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commas in wikidates

Hi Robin, just a note, I've replaced the commas you removed from Charmed. Wikidates need to be written in the form that is commonly used in the country of origin for the article. Since Charmed is filmed in the U.S. and targeted to such an audience, the article should be written in the grammer and format commonly used in the U.S. (by contrast, the article for Wicca is written in British English format because its origins were in the UK). It really doesn't matter how it is written in the article, as registered users who have set their preferences will see wikidates in their preferred formats. It is just the 90% of the rest of the world that will see it as it is written in the article. Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Veronica Mars

Hello there. Thank you for taking the time to tidy up some of the MoS issues with regards to the VM page, however I've noticed you keep changing the 'Reception' section - when in fact it is currently fine as it is. The full stops should be inside the quotation marks as the quote is not contained inside a sentence; and using <ref> tags to cite a book, website or newspaper is the widely accepted and generally correct way of citing these sources, per WP:CITE. But as I said, the other edits are fine, and thank you for helping out. :) AllynJ 02:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Justification/Alignment

As long as you are referring to your own userpage, just use <div align="left"></div>, "right", "center", or "justify" around the text you want to align, and it should work. However, you should never, barring a very unusual circumstance, change the alignment of text in an article. You shouldn't change text size in articles either. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smallville casting

Ausiello doesn't meet reliable sourcing criteria, nor verifiability with most of his information. This is because he says things like "my reliable mole inside the studio..." and doesn't attribute any of his information to verifiable sources. This isn't to say that he's wrong, because he is generally right, just that we cannot cite someone that doesn't leave us with an avenue to verify what he says. Since he also says that the role will be cast in a couple weeks, we can wait until the official network announcement.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date formatting - British articles

Hello... in case you aren't aware, many of your recent edits to Doctor Who and Torchwood have had to be reverted. Unfortunately, your changes contradict the established style for those articles, and as such are contrary to the Manual of Style. (In a nutshell, don't reformat dates, spelling and so on "just because" - they should reflect the nationality of the entire article, or the first major contribution if country of origin is not of importance to the subject.) Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 22:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Robinepowell... as per your request, I'll make the above simpler. Doctor Who and Torchwood are British programmes. Their articles use British English, and British-format dates and numbers. Repeatedly changing this, after being warned, will get you blocked from editing. It doesn't get much simpler than that. Please ask if you have any questions about this; you may also be interested to know that you can configure Wikipedia to display Wikipedia-formatted dates as you prefer them. (For example, the wikified date "[[01 March]] [[2007]]" can automatically be converted for your login to display as "March 01, 2007".) Cheers, from the other side of the country. --Ckatzchatspy 00:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation spacing

Hey Robin, I've noticed you are adding spaces between periods (and other punctuation marks) and the beginning of the citation. This should not be done, as shown at WP:CITE#Footnotes come after punctuation. If you have any questions, please let me know. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 7th Heaven DVDs

If in future the DVD section should cause the article to become too long, then at that point it should be relocated to something like List of 7th Heaven DVD releases, in line with Category:Videos and DVDs. As it stands now, the article is not so long as to require the split. Otto4711 16:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The existing 7th Heaven page with the DVD releases is not too long. Even with the DVD releases it's less than 25Kb. It doesn't even trigger a long article warning when it's edited from the top. Otto4711 18:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, clearly you're having some issues with maintaining critical distance from this article. I don't intend to engage you any further here, so I will depart with a suggestion that you read WP:SUMMARY and WP:SIZE in hopes that you will understand that the main article is not too long even with the current DVD information and there is no need for it to be split from the main article. Otto4711 21:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 7th Heaven syndication

Considering the level this has escalated to, you need to take this issue to an administrator for further review if you want. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)! -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spice Girls article

Hi

Regarding your edits to the Spice Girls article, the additions you are making reflect unconfirmed media speculation. Nothing has been confirmed. Also, there are conflicting media reports - one newspaper is saying "ABC", another says "DEF", while another says "XYZ" and so on. Therefore these edits are inappropriate - Wikipedia isnt a rumour mill or news website, its a record of fact. Also, the edit you made is redunant because the article already contains a cited passage about there being a press conference on Thursday (and that is the only thing that is confirmed). So can you please refrain from editing the article with sorts of edits until we have confirmed information.

Also, can I remind you of the 'three edit rule', which basically says if you change the article a third time it is regarded as vandalism, and the adminstrators then get involved and take disciplinary action.Rimmers 01:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You dont seem to be following, so let me try and explain further: the information you posted about money, jets etc etc is media speculation - that is not fact. If you're at all familiar with how the press works, you'll know that most of what you read in showbiz columns is pure rubbish. Also, even if that information was correct, it doesnt belong on Wikipedia as its not worthy of an encyclopaedic entry. BTW I dont know if you're familiar with this, but when you make a post on another person's discussion page, or if you post on talk page of an article, after you've finished sign off by typing (Rimmers 13:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)) - but without the brackets - it automatically puts your name and time and date of your addition. Rimmers 13:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa Joan Hart

Just wondering what made you think "younger then she is" is correct over "younger than she is". - Dudesleeper · Talk 10:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 7th Heaven cast lists

Please stop changing the 7th Heaven cast lists. You have your own area to edit over at tv.com -- if you want to edit information to your liking, then you can do it there. And with all due respect, your site has several errors of its own with regard to which season various cast members starred in, Scotty Leavenworth to name just one. There's nothing wrong with what was listed here previously and an encyclopedia like this doesn't need to be too detail-oriented when it comes to episode numbers. Listing the years in which a cast member starred is perfectly fine...there's no sense in pointing out when an actor missed only 8 episodes -- it's something that can be discussed in a description if need be. I say this all very kindly, it's just that if you have a personal preference to see something in a certain way..and extra specific..you are able to do so at tv.com -- you're fortuante to have that extra bonus!

[edit] Commas

Just to let you know, this argument has already been fought on many pages, and the apparent consensus is that even though the links for dates automatically put in a comma for American preferenced dates, that is no reason to neglect grammer rules when inserting the dates.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing commas and links from dates.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
First, don't undo something for an entire page (as opposed to one specific section) then do something minor like taking out some spaces. Removing some spaces is hardly "hard work", and had you listen to my request for you to stop the first time, I wouldn't have had to worry about the commas being placed back in. I told you, it's already been debated (FYI, I was of the same opinion as you in regards to them), and it was decided that they had to go in, even if the links put them there automatically. BTW, you also corrupted a few things when you did that. You removed an image bracket when you took out a date link, deleted some letters from a name in a reference link as well. I went through and tried to take out unnecessary spaces where I saw.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's a hint, why remove them in the first place? Obviously you've missed the two times I've explained to you that it was already decided that they should stay. Secondly, about your edits, please don't remove links to pages either (e.g. we keep links in the references, because the publishers are not always listed in the text, and dates are ALWAYS linked). I saw you repeatedly removed links to pages, and/or changed the names. Please do not do that. If that is your so called "hard work", then it will be reverted, because you always link dates, and we link organizations where applicable in the citations we use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Also Robin, regarding references, another reason to always keep links to references, regardless of whether they are dead or not, is because links are occasionally recoverable, through the Internet Archive or other sites. Leave them be and allow other editors to try and replace them. If a link is dead, just place {{dl}} to the end of it, which lets editors know that it needs to be replaced. I'll echo what Bignole has said as well, regarding delinking dates (especially the "date" field in citations...it *must* be linked to work correctly) and other items. -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), if you have found dates that are not linked, then link them, don't remove all the others. The only field that does not get a "bracket" for the linking is the "accessdate" field of a citation. Why? It doesn't get it because that field is automatically linked when you put the date in, if you were to put extra brackets in it would disrupted the linking process. Also, it's Amazon.com, not Amazon. It's MichaelRosenbaum.com, not the actual person. Also, kryptonite is not capitalized. You don't capitalize "granite" every time you use it. It isn't a title, it's just the name of the rock.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not mask bad edits under the summary of "removing spaces". You are removing links, changings names, putting in incorrect capitalizations. If you want to remove spaces, do that, but I'm not going to go in and CORRECT YOUR MISTAKES if you continue to disregard what at least two people now have told you. ALL DATES ARE LINKED deal with it. Amazon.com is the name of the page, if you want to pipe the link, fine, but do not remove the link simply because you cannot grasp the fact that the page is called something else. BTW, all version of Amazon.com (i.e. all Amazon websites from other countries) reside on the ".com" page. I have told you already that many of those "publishers" have ".com" attached to their name, WHY? because it would make them something else if they didn't. You removed the ".com" from Michael Rosenbaum's site. The actor did not publish anything, it was his site that published it, thus removing the ".com" insinuates that it was him. Not everyone knows the abreviation for "Internet Movie Database", hence why it is spelled out. From looking at your edits, you obviously have some aversion to links, as I've seen you remove countless date linkes. I think you should probably read through all of the manual of styles to get a better understanding of what is what. It is not my responsibility to fix the mistakes you have made, if you make no effort to correct them yourself. Your mistakes out weigh any constructive edits you are performing. If you do not make an effort then neither shall I. Also, "kryptonite" is not capitalized. Do you capitalize "meteorite" in a sentence? No, you don't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's see some more problems. You removed the link to "recurring characters"; capitalized the "(Season 5)" in "Smallville (season 5)" which causes a redirect, since that isn't the article's actual name; dropped the link to People (magazine) in favor of "People Magazine" (that isn't the name); delinked "Canadian"; delinked "TV Guide" and bunch of dates; removed a piped linke to "The WB Television Network"; changed an mdash to a hypen (there is a difference); delinked USA Today and the Hollywood Reporter; more dates delinked; removed the piped linke to DVD region codes; and changed the reference coding at the bottom....all under the guise of "removing spaces". I believe the accurate term is "deleting a bunch of information I don't like". By your definition I could blank the page and call it "removing spaces". Now I've piped the Amazon links so they only show "Amazon" now and clean up a few other things, but a good portion of your initial edit was not constructive, but destructive. If YOU find dates that are not linked, then link them. It makes no sense to say "oh, there are some that are not linked, so I'm going to just delink all".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I went and checked, there were only 4 dates that I could find that were not linked on the entire page. Don't think that warranted delinking all for "consistency" purposes, since it would have been easier if you had linking them initially.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
I'm sorry, but unless you own the book and can show me where the word "Canada" is used in place of "Vancouver", then please do not change information when it is cited. Vancouver is what had the "Middle America" landscape. Saying "Canada" suggests that it is an entire country that has it, when in fact it is a specific location.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you keep removing Vancouver as the place that is the "Middle American" landscape, I am going to assume you are doing it purely to be disruptive and I will report you for it. As I have already informed you otherwise that "VANCOUVER" is the exact place referred to when talking about what they were looking for, you have no excuse as to why you keep changing it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You're pushing your luck. The rest of BC is not included in that citation. Stop labeling things as "minor edits" and then making big changes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Gilmore Girls edits

I responded to you on MY talk page. Whoops! What I wrote:

No problem - The edit I did comes right after the first line of each DVD section (season): |- style="background:#e98e95" I pulled the color code using the eyedropper tool in GIMP on the image of the DVD cover. I did notice that the references section is gone. I don't think it's a result of my changes, since several changes back on the history page the section is still missing. There must be some broken code somewhere near the end of the DVD releases section that is causing the references section to not appear. I only know very little about Wikipedia markup so far (I don't do a lot of edits or anything yet), so I'm not sure what the problem could be.

[edit] "Vancouver, Canada" vs "Vancouver, British Columbia"

Please stop changing "Vancouver, Canada" to "Vancouver, British Columbia". Vancouver is a city in Canada, that's what someone reading the article is most likely to be interested in. What part of Canada it's in is irrelevant. People that interested in Vancouver can click the link and find out exactly where it is. --Tango 19:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it again: Please stop. If you think it should say British Columbia, make your case on the talk page (and give a reason why your way is good, not just a reason why it isn't bad). --Tango 00:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Robin, please respect the views of the numerous other editors who do not agree with you. There is no benefit to constantly reverting - you are going to get blocked, and you are just creating tension where none is necessary. --Ckatzchatspy 01:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reported you for violating the three revert rule. You can expect to receive a temporary block shortly. When it expires, please discuss your thoughts on the talk page, do not continue reverting. Thank you. --Tango 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue at Talk:Stargate SG-1#Vancouver edit war rather than risking violation of WP:3RR again. Thanks! =David(talk)(contribs) 02:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Robin, please stop - you have already been blocked for a 3RR violation due to your refusal to listen to other editors. --Ckatzchatspy 02:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
(re: this comment) Robin, as you've been told many times by several different editors, this is an international project and we have to write in a manner that reflects the audience.With regards to the warning, you are well aware that you changed the Smallville article once again, against the wishes of other editors and in an identical manner to your edits at Stargate SG-1. --Ckatzchatspy 08:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I blocked you for 24 hours for violating the WP:3RR rule on Stargate_SG-1. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commas in dates

Robin, as Bignole as already stated before, stop removing commas from wikidates. This is a previously discussed issue. As shown here, WP:DATE#Autoformatting and linking, for United States-based articles, commas are appropriate even in the code. For British dating systems, it is fine to not have the commas, but leave them alone otherwise. Your edit at The Secret World of Alex Mack has been reverted. Please do not continue this. -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

I have no idea what you want me to simplify. Please point me to what it is you didn't understand and I'll try my best to better clarify myself. Also, you can either respond to my talk page, or here, as either will get you a faster response than my email address. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you ignore the part that said you'd get a faster response on my talk page. Regardless, if you say there isn't a consensus on the Vancouver issue, then why do you procede to change things away from what they've been for a long time. It seems to me that if a discussion is taking place (which I don't know if one is, nor do I actually care.) then why would you alter articles to reflect something that has not been agreed upon? You've had more than one editor tell you otherwise when it comes to Smallville, so it isn't like I'm the only one here. But again, you are missing the point that I initially made in the edit summary. That is, there is no such page as Vancouver, British Columbia. The page is called Vancouver. Why you persist in create a link that redirects is beyond me, because that is "ignorant" (using your own words to describe Americans). We aren't linking Vancouver, Canada. What is being linked are two separate words: Vancouver and then Canada. And yes, I'm going to assume that the casual reader might not know what country Vancouver is in, nor know what country British Columbia is in. If you want to play the personal attack game and say that Americans are ignorant about Canada, fine. I personally believe that most people just lack general geographic knowledge, no matter what country they are from. Since it's the opening sentence for the lead, it's probably best to say that Vancouver is in Canada, because I tend to think that most people recognize that Canada is a country, more than they recognize that BC is a province of Canada. Since we aren't talking about Vancouver, British Columbia, or Canada in any fashion other than that the show is filmed there, getting into the nitty gritty about the precise location of said cities, provinces, etc is not that important. Worst comes to worst, mention them all. I think it's slightly overboard, but hey, at least it's accurate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halloweentown 5

A tag has been placed on Halloweentown 5: The Magic of Destiny, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Fez2005 07:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Paulina Gerzon

A tag has been placed on Paulina Gerzon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. andy 12:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Access date

Hi Robin, I'd like to just let you know that the "accessdate" found in citation templates is the date that a particular reference was accessed, i.e. read by the editor adding it. If I were to look up a reference today, and add it to an article, I would use the format accessdate=2007-10-17, no matter what year the item itself was written. There are two fields in the citation templates, one is "date=" which is the date the item was published, and then the accessdate, which is the date I viewed the article. As such, I've changed the templates on List of 7th Heaven episodes to be correct with relation to access dates (that article didn't even exist in 2004, so access date could not have been then, lol). If you'd like to review the reasoning and full information on all the parameters, you can find it in the template's documentation. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 03:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode guide

Sorry, but Spoilerfix clearly indicates they are getting their information from Kryptonsite, and if we aren't accepting Kryptonsite--it being a fansite--then we wouldn't accept someone citing Kryptonsite.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And again, please stop trying to sneak in an remove the commas. I saw that you removed them again when you were adding those titles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
It isn't about who is right and who is wrong, it's about reliability. Kryptonsite is a fansite, as I said, and fansites are not considered reliable sources. Unless it's an interview that Kryptonsite conducts themselves, their general press release type of information is not reliable, no matter how "true" it is, or how many times they are right. As for the dates, without a reliable source we cannot assume that any date after what our sources say will occur. Anything can happen between now and when "Blue" airs, and since Smallville will be affected by the Writers' Strike, given that a lot of their writers are American, there may not be another episode after "Blue" for a couple months.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I would bet my bottom dollar that when Kryptonsite says "this is it" that it will happen, but "truth" is not the game of Wikipedia. The game here is verifiability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Couple of months in advance? You may want to read Smallville (season 1). They are only that far in advance in the early stages of the season, but as time progress they eventually get the point where they are still working on episodes the night before they are expected to air. My bet is, if there isn't an official write-up from The CW yet, then they probably haven't finished filming it. "Blue" is the last write-up that was released, and given that they just released promo images for "Blue", they may be just wrapping up "Blue" at this moment. "Blue" is schedule for the 15th, but "Gemini" isn't planned till at least December sometime, if we go by Kryptonsite it will be December 10. That means it could technically air December 27, which would be almost 2 months from now. The thing that needs to be worried about is how many scripts they have finished. The strike stipulates that you can continue to work on what you already started, but that you cannot start anything new. So, if they were on episode 11--"Siren"--then they can still work on tweaking the script during the strike. If that's the case, then there won't be anything to worry about, so long as the Writers' Strike ends before January, because the Directors Guild and Actors Guild won't be on strike until June--so they can film whatever scripts are available until then.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to List of Smallville episodes, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, WP:V means that you actually provide a source, not say "this is my source" in an edit summary. Second, I went to "Episode world", it's a fan run site. You can read that on their FAQ page, where they blatantly say:

EPisodeWorld.com (short EPW) offers information about TV-Shows. The information offered includes but is not limited to plot outlines, airdates, episode names, main as well as guest cast, and more to come. This site offers no downloads and does not point to downloads in any way. It's best described as an online TV Guide, so you can read up on your favorite shows and will know when the next episodes will air. Registered users can actively participate in keeping the information up-to-date by submitting changes to existing episodes or submitting new episodes. Registered users can also customize the information displayed (e.g. language) and can keep track of their favorite shows via bookmarks and mark episodes as watched.

This is not a reliable source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I cannot verify an edit summary, and the TV guide source does not even mention that date of "Siren". If you continue to post information without any source, without a reliable source, or forge information that is not present in the sources you do provide, after I have continually explained to you otherwise, I will seek Administrative action. You've been warned about adding informaiton without a source, and I've explained to you repeatedly what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Try actually taking the time to determine if the sources are reliable. In other words, try reading about who you are actually using as a source. You'll find that they don't meet reliable sourcing criteria.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I have already told you, NONE of those sources meet WP:RS. The TV Guide source does not say "January 10" anywhere in that article. This--last seen in January heading off with his newly formed Justice League.

--is the only time "January" is mentioned on that page. I told you I'd seek Administrative assistance, and you refused to not only put sources in the article for those dates, but you ignore me every time I tell you that fansites and fanforums are not reliable sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You were right about the airdate of "Siren" in the TV Guide source. I did not notice they were saying "Jan. 10", instead of "January 10". I have added it to Smallville (season 7), but in the prose portion, as we do not know what episode "January 10" will fall on. We cannot use synthesis to draw conclusions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Spoilerfix is not reliable, and that source for "Persona" doesn't talk about "Persona", or any of those episodes. "Siren" only gives a date, not an episode number. Please see my discussion with Administrator AnemoneProjectors on their talk page: User talk:AnemoneProjectors#Question. If you continue to ignore WP:RS and WP:V then I will be forced to assume you are only being disruptive.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You put sources in the edit summary, sorry that doesn't meet WP:V. You cite TV Guide which does not back you up. TV Guide says "Siren" will be Jan. 10, but it doesn't say what episode number. You cite Spoilerfix, which itself cites Kryptonsite--that is a fansite, and fails WP:RS. I've contacted an Anemone about your repeated disruption. As you can see form their talk page, they agreed that the sources you are using are either not reliable, or don't back up the claims you are making.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Please stop adding this information. Spoilerfix is not a reliable source and cannot be used. TV Guide does not confirm this information. You have been asked several times to stop doing this and have not. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Thank you. anemone|projectors 22:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to just cut in, but Bignole sounds like a broken record? You are the one who has been repeatedly told why these sites cannot be used as sources by more than one editor, but you refuse to listen. Nobody said Spoilerfix is crap - don't put words in people's mouth. I know Bignole personally trusts Kryptonsite, but he doesn't use to cite upcoming episode titles because it doesn't comply with Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources - it's a fan site and not official. When Bignole tried to explain to you that it wasn't a case of him not trusting these sites personally, you implied he couldn't speak English. It doesn't matter if you've ever had a problem with them, they're not reliable when it comes to Wikipedia. Now please take the hint and stop adding badly sourced information to articles. Thank you.  Paul  730 19:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You didn't hear from me because I did not feel the need to reiterate what I have told you multiple times prior (i.e. read this section again, because I've told you here). But if you must, Kryptonsite is a fansite, plan and simple. In lamens terms that means it automatically fails WP:RS. Unless they conduct a personal interview, which would be considered a primary source, their scooper reports--although usually accurate--are no reliable sources of information. The reason being is that they do not have any editorial oversight over their information. It is a webmaster that controls it all. Please read WP:V. We do not deal in truths, but in verifiable facts. Wikipedia is not a current events news organization. This isn't a "lets use an unreliable source and if they are wrong we'll just fix it later." That isn't how Wikipedia is meant to operate, no matter how often you choose to ignore policies and guidelines. On to spoilerfix, they're just a fansite as well, but a general fansite for all of television. They are not an news organization. They aren't TV Guide, MSN, USA Today, or any other corporation with editorial oversight. They simply report whatever they can find, no matter how unreliable the information is. What you fail, repeatedly, to grasp is that reliability has nothing to do with how often a source is right or wrong. Kryptonsite could be right 100% of the time--never make a mistake--but that has nothing to do with its reliability when it comes to sourcing information on Wikipedia. Spoilerfix clearly indicates they are getting their information from a fansite, not for any official source. If Spoilerfix quoted something they got from USA Today, and you wanted to put that in an article, guess what, you still could not use Spoilerfix. What you would need to do is go to their source and quote that. If it's TV Guide, then click their link and go to the source they have listed. It's called checking sources. It's how we determine reliability. If a source you are using is quoting a scooper, or unreputable source, then the information in question would not meet our reliability guideline. When it comes to Smallville episodes, The CW releases official write-ups which is what TV Guide and MSN post. Kryptonsite posts them as well, but the difference is editorial oversight. We cannot trust fansites, who have a natural bias toward whatever they are a fan of, to provide reliable information. Again, that isn't an insult to Kryptonsite, which I think is a great site to find really cool information---If you are a fan of a show, but not if you are an objective editor of Wikipedia who needs reliable sourced information when adding to Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you click those links then and read the policies? Alientraveller 21:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read this link (-->Wikipedia:Reliable sources)) and this link (-->Wikipedia:Verifiability). Back to spoilerfix. Please read the spoilerfix page. It clearly says on the page, "Source: KryptonSite". They are citing Kryptonsite, and indicating so on their own page. Please also read this line slowly: I do not distrust Kryptonsite. Kryptonsite simply does not meet WIKIPEDIA's criteria for sourcing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Click the urls: Reliable sources and Verifiability. If you cannot access these, then I cannot help you, and neither can anyone else on this website. I'm sorry, but you need to be able to access policy and guideline pages to be familiar with them in order to be an effective editor and I'm not going to copy and paste the entire policy page to your talk page, just so you can read it. Find someone computer savvy to set up your computer if it's something wrong on your end. There's nothing wrong over here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not respond to me until you have read Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources, and the policy on verifiability. I will not repeat to you again that "being right" is not a criteria for "reliability". Thank you and good evening.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop harrassing other editors for answers which can easily be found at the policy pages linked above. If you can't link there on your computer, that's your problem, it isn't Bignole's responsibility to spoon feed you. You have been told why these websites are unreliable sources by at least four separate editors. Continually asking Bignole questions that he has already answered is a form of trolling. You have been asked to stop.  Paul  730 16:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god I am actually so sick of you. For the LAST time, this is not a personal vendetta against Spoilerfix or Kryptonsite, this is a matter of Wikipedia policy. Sources that come from the actual makers of Smallville = reliable sources. Sources that come from a gossip/scooper/fan site (no matter how good they are) = unreliable sources. It doesn't matter how good the site is or how many time they are right... they are not reliable sources! Can you get that into your brain? How many times do we need to repeat ourselves before you leave us alone? You are completely ignorant towards other editors... we explain ourselves over and over and over but you still refuse to listen. You call Bignole "Binghole"... why? Are you trying to be offensive and rude just for the sake of it? He's not "chicken", he's just sick of repeating himself! Your complete ignorance has actually lend us to wonder whether you have some kind of learning disability which prevents you from understanding what we are saying to you. If so, then fine, that's not your fault, but if not, does that not tell you something?? Please for the love of God would you just leave us alone and stop harassing us? And bloody sign your comments, it's not exactly hard to hit the ~ button, is it?  Paul  730 03:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
First, stop removing commas from dates. You have been told about this before, so don't act like you don't already know. It's disruptive. Second, if you are going to cite a source, actually provide. Don't say "Futon Critic" when we have nothing to actually look at. It's one thing if one of the many sources we already have cited just update their links to include more information, and a completely different thing for force editors to do YOUR research. Notice how everything else is nicely formatted with citation templates and placed next to what they are citing. You don't even have to use the template, just put the source in reference headers. But if you continue to just leave "Futon Critic", or something else in the edit summaries (this includes leaving a url in the edit summary) then the information will be removed. Burden to provide sourcing is yours, and that doesn't mean provide it in the edit summary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Please read Wiki's policy on verifiability, the burden of supplying a source is on YOU, not me. That means, you need to bring it with you, not go "oh, it's at so-n-so" in the edit summary. It is not my responsibility to go search for YOUR source, and hope that I find it. It is YOUR responsibility to bring it and put it in the ARTICLE---NOT the EDIT SUMMARY. Excuse the capitalization, but I feel that given your blatant disregard for whatever is told to you, I must capitalize all the important words.
Secondly, read verifiability a second time and you'll see that it has nothing to do with TRUTH. It doesn't matter if they get it right. Guess what, they got the dates wrong, so the CW can change the order any time they like. If they don't, it doesn't change the reliability of Spoilerfix or Kryptonsite. You've had probably more than a half dozen editors tell you Spoilerfix is not considered "reliable" by Wikipedia standards, and Kryptonsite is a fansite. Let it go. Oh, and if you continue to not provide your source to the article, AND if you continue to remove content (i.e. this includes removing commas, I won't tell you again), I will see Administrative action against you, again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I went and found the press release on Futon Critic for you. Notice in the edit what "verifying the content" actually means. Please do so in further edits to any and all of Wikipedia pages. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 06:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing citation requests

Unless you provide a citation when one is requested, do not remove the tag. You did this on the list of Las Vegas episodes but didn't provide a reliable source for the information. With the strike happening, all is not set in stone. Please provide citations before removing tags. IrishLass0128 19:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friday's Las Vegas

I provided three verifiable sources (spoilerfix is not a verifiable source) that show "My Uncle's a Gas" is this Friday's episode. Please see the talk page with any questions. IrishLass0128 22:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I direct you to the talk page of the Las Vegas Episode's list. If you continue to change the content against 4 sourced citations the next course of action is to remove ALL future eps from the list as MOST of the other television articles do. See WP:CRYSTAL. IrishLass0128 13:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Four sources to one means you have NOT met citation. If necessary, we can completely remove ALL future episodes. Please discontinue from using edit summaries to plead your case, that is done on talk pages. Irish Lass 19:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, lookie, lookie ~ NBC schedule now says My Uncle's a Gas. Guess you aren't going to be able to gloat tonight. You really might do well to take the advice of others here and learn a lesson or two. No, it's not always easy to do such a thing, but it's a necessary evil to be able to edit Wikipedia correctly. CelticGreen (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

One more revert to add your information, your incorrect information that lacks citation, will result in your possibly being blocked for violation of the three revert rule which states you cannot revert an article three times in one day. You have reverted twice, against provided citations, please, do not cause me to report you and request you be blocked. Your edits were obviously being made in good faith, but you're still doing it incorrectly. Irish Lass 19:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits have been reported. Your caseIrish Lass 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Your edits, removal of verifiable content, is considered vandalism. Doing so again will result in a formal warning. Your behaviour has been noted by several conversations on this page alone. This is a formal warning. CelticGreen 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smallville and related

Please try and read this slowly, because I don't want to have to repeat myself half a dozen times like before. First, there wouldn't be an episode on Dec. 10, because that isn't a Thursday. Second, Kryptonsite is a fansite THAT is the reason it is considered unreliable. Now, please read this part carefully: Reliability is not based on how many times you are right or how many times you are wrong. Spoilerfix cites Kryptonsite, which is a fansite, and by default that makes their information unreliable. If they cited NBC, I still wouldn't accept them, I would expect you to click the link and go to NBC specifically to get the information. There has not been any official word on the airdate of any future episodes. There is a very good reason for that, it's because of the strike. The strike can change when an episode airs. For instance, if there is a hint that the strike will end soon, or go the distance an episode may be moved up sooner or pushed back later. The season 1 episode "Jitters" was originally supposed to be aired sooner than it actually was; it was a last minute change that pushed it back. Lastly, you cannot cite Wikipedia for itself. As for TV Guide, they don't give an episode number, which means we don't know when the episode will air. Say the date is Dec. 13, but given that ther are several weeks between now and Dec. 13, anything can happen.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out exactly what I mean, now Kryptonsite is saying "Persona" won't air till January 31, which means "Siren" won't air till at least February...well after the Jan. 10 date that was originally given in the TV Guide article. Which just goes to show that nothing is set in stone because of this writer's strike, and until the CW gives official plot descriptions, which give the date the episode will air, there's nothing out there reliable enough to say "these are the dates".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
If you cannot understand Wiki rules then there is no helping you--and I have answered your question, you just either don't like the answer or are too ignorant to comprehend it. Take your pick, doesn't matter to me which it is any longer. Sorry. You have no airdates, no titles beyond Gemini (you only have that because the CW gave it), and you have no episode number. MSN and TV Guide both post the official write-ups when they are released, that is where you get your future episodes. Unless you have a source that conducted an interview and get a title, airdate, and episode number (i.e. you need all three in order to know where to place the information, because you cannot synthesize an answer), then you have to wait for the write-ups.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
We have been down this route before, if you do not provide an actual source then don't add anything new to the page. We have discussed Kryptonsite's unreliability (strictly because they are a fansite). If they say the CW told them, then we need to show that the CW really did tell them. If it's a hush hush thing, then we can wait. If you continue to plead ignorance in your actions then we'll just seek Administrative action, again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop vandalizing pages

That included IrishLass' page which you keep leaving unnecessary comments on and the Las Vegas page. Set up is determined by Wikipedia MOS, not YOU. Do not continue to vandalize the Las Vegas Series page, as you do by adding unnecessary stars, and as you did with the List of Las Vegas episodes. Your edits, including the comments you leave to Bignole and Paul true border on the precipous edge of incivility. Do it again and you will be reported. CelticGreen (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get that people are asking YOU questions? No one asks you questions, just questions your existence on this website. You have made no constructive edits since I've encountered you. Your comments and "answers" are never correct so why would people ask you anything? Seems to me your lower level of intelligence which you freely admit to (accusing others of using words above your comprehension skills.) Misspelling someone's name on a talkpage where the name is at the top is purposeful incivility. CelticGreen (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your behaviour constitutes vandalism

Stop behaving like a child on people's talk pages. If you want to ask people questions or talk to people, fine, but your behaviour is is not to that of Wikipedia standards. Grow up and behave. CelticGreen (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Stay off my talk page if all you're going to do is ramble incessantly about nothing. IrishLass (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll just repeat the last statement I made. Stay off my talk page if all you're going to do is ramble incessantly about nothing. Why can't you just stop pestering people and actually read what is written to you? Continue such behavior and you'll be reported for trolling.IrishLass (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Stop bothering people. Your comments on my talk page were unnecessary and discuss moot points. Please move on and leave people alone. CelticGreen (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to List of Smallville episodes. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ckatzchatspy 10:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not add unverifiable content to the List of Las Vegas episodes article and DO NOT remove references. This is considered vandalism. If you continue in the removal of references you could be blocked. KellyAna (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to List of Las Vegas episodes. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay you three make no sense. "Unreliable Soruces"? I have been stating my source at The Futon Critic ALL season long, that hasn't changed. You can't get more reliable the TFC. Have any of you actually looked at the listings I've provided? I'd say not if you're stating "unreliable sources" as if I were making it up as I go along. No, I have not removed the reference listed there, it's still in place.

As you have been warned regarding futon critic, addition of material from them is considered vandalism and can be reverted. You may also NOT copy and paste from Futoncritic changing episode information. Furthermore, removal of reference links is against policy. Doing so again will get your reported for vandalism. I suggest you compare edits if you actually believe you have not removed references. IrishLass (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to List of Las Vegas episodes. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. KellyAna (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to List of 7th Heaven episodes‎, you will be blocked from editing. This is the third time I have seen you removing references and other things from this article: first on October 16, 2007, then here, and most recently here - Matthew Edwards | talk | Contribs 06:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to List of Las Vegas episodes. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Internet television guides are unreliable sources as is Futon Critic. You've been told several times to stop using Futon Critic, stop removing verifiable sources, and to avoid violating WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is about VERIFIABILITY and reliable sources. Again, Futon Critic is NOT reliable and Zap to It isn't either. Reliable sources include NBC, TVGuide magazine, and not much else when it comes to future episodes. The list of episodes is for what has happened, not predicting the future. KellyAna (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing references

Hello I have been alerted to your removal of references, from List of 7th Heaven episodes, now on three separate occassions and after warnings to stop, with the most recent rationale being "Do not need old references - old references = old news. Save the references for future release dates". I'm not quite sure what you mean by this but every single piece of information in the mainspace, ideally, should be verified through a reliable source. Removal of references, especially after warnings, is vandalism. Please do not remove these (or other) references again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So I take it from your revert you aren't going to talk, just act. Well please take this post as fair and final warning. If you remove the references from List of 7th Heaven episodes again, I will block you for vandalism and disruption. Instead of going down that route, why not attempt to discuss the edit and why you think it is proper. Playing the authoritarian is not my first choice, but I will act to prevent damage to Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I repeat this warning with the same as you removed the same types of references from List of Las Vegas episodes and then put in false or poorly sourced information. Do not remove links to sources with noted retrieved information. IrishLass (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
STOP removing references from pages. Your reverts and removal of information will be reported the next time you remove references. KellyAna (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruption and vandalism: removal of references from List of Las Vegas episodes after numerous warnings to cease such activities. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to List of Las Vegas episodes. Futon critic is considered an unreliable source. Discontinue putting information you find at futon critic. You've been told several times, please stop. IrishLass (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TV.com

TV.com is the television world's version of IMDb, which means it isn't a reliable source. TV.com has users (editors) who give the information to TV.com. Always read a sources "About Us" section, as you can learn a lot about their reliability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Robinepowell: You don't seem to understand; Futoncritic, TV.com, Zap2It, and TV Guide Blogs are unreliable sources. The information that comes from those sites isn’t sourced or verified. BIGNOLE, KellyAna, and Irishlass have addressed the situation with you several times. I also discussed the issue with you a couple weeks back, when you reverted reliable information three times. I would advise you to stop adding gossip info, as I see you have already been blocked once for it. [1]. Regards DJS--DJS24 (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
DJS24 and I agree on essentially NOTHING but we agree on this. You keep adding information from completely unreliable sources and then get huffy in edit summaries claiming no one has told you why you can't use those sources yet there are paragraphs and paragraphs telling you why these things can NOT be used. It's not about "right", it's about verifiability. That's what you don't seem to want to understand. Help us to help you understand why sources need to be reliable and your sources aren't. Please, we are only trying to help you. KellyAna (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Futon Critic

How many times do you need to be told that futoncritic has not been approved as reliable. You may think it is, but it's still just another gossip site just like the TVGuide blogs. Those aren't fact, they are gossip and gossip doesn't pass verifiability. You need to stop adding information based on poor sources. KellyAna (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Robin, people are trying to help you. You've been cautioned, warned, even blocked over this. Please stop, discuss, and listen. --Ckatzchatspy 07:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing citation requests

It is inappropriate to remove citation requests without providing references. Do not continue to do this, it is as much a violation as removing legitimate sources. IrishLass (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You've been warned repeatedly about removing sourced content, adding unsourced content, and now you are removing citation requests? That's not allowable unless you provide a citation for the information. You need to stop this type of editing behavior. Stop removing valid information and requests. FINAL warning. KellyAna (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Blogs ARE NOT reliable sources, you can't use them. A citation request means PROVIDE PROOF that someone was someplace at the time you say. Yes, they were on but either provide proof or remove them and leave them as part of the article, not the episode list. Your edits constitute vandalism at this point. Stop removing valid citation request. KellyAna (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop and Relax

Robin: Please, you need to stop and relax for a minute before you get blocked for vandalism. There has been several users to comment on this issue and all are trying to help you. I suggest you open up a discussion section on the Las Vegas Episode Page and state your reasons/sources. If you keep adding false info. from gossip sites, you will get block. You've already recieved a final warning, the next step is for your user to be blocked. Only trying to help. Thanks DJS --DJS24 (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing references

Stop removing references. You've been warned and even blocked from editing. Do it again, as you did today on List of Las Vegas episodes and you will be reported and subsequently blocked from editing. KellyAna (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

STOP removing references from pages. Your reverts and removal of information will be reported the next time you remove references. References don't expire, that's why there is a "retrieved on" date. Stop removing references. KellyAna (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You've been reported for this [2] comment and removal of references. KellyAna (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Robin: I'm not sure I understand your actions; you CAN'T remove references no matter what. References are important to include to prove that a statement or information is true. I don't know why there are no references for season's 1-4, but I can tell you that removing references is a reason for a block. Why do you want to remove references? I don't understand your actions, KellyAna has warned you, and I would stop NOW. --DJS24 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I warned her but a previous admin blocked her for doing it on other pages. That admin has been notified that she's doing it again. Had she not done it after my first warning, that would be one thing but she did it after and she knows better. She really needs to stop or be stopped. KellyAna (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I hope that admin. does something. She has been given several warnings to stop. --DJS24 (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days (twice as long as your last block) in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for among other disruptive actions, again removing references from articles after numerous warnings to cease such activities, . Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not come to my page, immediately after your block is lifted and behave the way you did. I am only responsible for the content I put in or is put in when I'm here. If references exist and you remove them, you're the one in violation, not me. As for your ridiculous claim of ME going back and putting in past references, that's not how it works. No one person is responsible and you have got to learn how things work as you constantly insist you're right when many people tell you you're wrong. Your comments on my page were just that, WRONG. Don't do it again and don't go removing references any more. KellyAna (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] n/a

Hi Robin, I got your IM. Wrong person though as I'm not User:Matthewedwards, I'm User:Matthew! Matthew (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Only warning

If you continue to remove references, you will be blocked again. You have been warned many times, do not continue to remove valid references with retrieved on dates. "Retrieved on" indicates the reference may change but at the date it was placed/retrieved it was correct. Your constant removal of valid sources is going to lead to a permanent ban. KellyAna (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You're being reported for removal of references AGAIN. You've had it explained why you don't remove references, now you'll suffer again. KellyAna (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Smallville

What "rest of the list of episodes"? You mean the episodes that were "TBA" on the List of Smallville episodes page? Check the history, I did not get rid of them, someone else did. Right now, until they actually annoucing titles and airdates, there isn't a problem in not listing blank sections.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the reference for her directing debut is on the Season 7 page. As far as that is concerned, I highly doubt she'll be directing episode 20 - if there is an episode 20. The reason being, they aren't going to give a first time director the season finale episode, which is typically reserved for the veteran directors who have shown that they can create strong episodes - like Greg Beeman (who no longer works on Smallville), or James Marshall, or Gough and Millar. If she directs, which I don't believe she will this season, then it will be one of the episodes before the finale, but we don't have a sourcing stating that she will directing any of those.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I hope so. Tom and Michael have gotten to direct, and their episodes have generally turned out well. I think she'd do good directing. Eight is the final season, so why not pull out all the stops.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you follow Ausiello's scooper reports, he claims that everyone is coming back with the exception of Michael and Kristin (and based on the trailer for "Descent", I would have to assume that includes John Glover as well). But, you never know till contracts are finalized.
Glover probably doesn't direct because he has no interest in it. You have to remember that he is a theater guy. He virtually left Hollywood to do theater, and it was Smallville that enticed him back over.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Glover, Durance, Ashmore and Vandervoort already had contracts into season 8. It was Kreuk, Rosenbaum and Mack who's contracts ended in season 7. That's because those three had their contracts established before Glover and the rest of the gang. Glover might have been contracted for season 8, but it doesn't necessarily mean he will actually be employed for that season. I'm sure that O'Toole and Schneider both had contracts that extended to season 7. Contracts don't typically say that they have to use you, but that if they want to use you then you cannot backout of it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
My first experience with him was in Gremlins 2, as the owner of the super mall.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please behave

If you took the time to look you would have found Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead". So as you can see, even though some of the links you removed were indeed dead (and one good and still valid link you removed was not), you should not be removing them. This is all the more true because of your past history with this issue. Since you had an incorrect but still rationale basis for removal of these references (as opposed to your previous removals), I am giving you another chance. Your job is to not remove references for any reason whatsoever. If you do so again I will block you immediately.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Degrassi

Everything you just wrote was wrong - Mistycyn wasn't recurring from season 1, she guested in 1 episode. She was recurring in season 2. She still had star billing in season 5, she didn't leave at the end of season 4. Daniel Clarke left at the end of season 6. He can't have left at the end of season 7 - it hasn't ended yet. Amadna Stepto doesn't need wikilinking more than once.

I have alsor eplied to your comments left on my talk page. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undiscussed page moves, deleting references (more incidents)

Robin, please stop - why won't you at least listen to what everyone else is trying to tell you? You've just deleted references from Doctor Who, as well as created a lot of work for Bignole and me in cleaning up your undiscussed page moves of Degrassi characters. Please, please be reasonable. --Ckatzchatspy 09:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for, among other disruptive actions, again removing references from articles after numerous warnings to cease such activities. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)}}

[edit] episode 105

episode 105 of las vegas is CALLED HIGH STEAKS. goto the nbc.com/lasvegas website and lookat the episodes section, TV GUIDE IS WRONG. NBC trumps any time guide. ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.147.130 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Futon Critic

I think we have a better source already stating that the 5 new episodes will begin April 17. As for the others, the only good source is the TV Guide source that lists the dates. They don't, unfortunately, list the titles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I did use the source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It depends on where the Futon Critic is getting their information. Given that the Futon Critic didn't post any titles now (even though we already know from Kryptonsite - which we can't use - what those titles are), I'm assuming that The Futon Critic waits for the official release from the CW before posting anything. In which case, we already have MSN and TV Guide which do the same thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I told you in my first comment above that that source wasn't any good. It doesn't give us an indication of where they are getting their information. If they said, "Based on studio confirmation", then we could use it. The problem is, The CW has not officially released any information for episode titles or airdates beyond "Traveler". Everything, at the moment is speculation on when an episode is going to air.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You gave me 3 sources, and my response was: "the only good source is the TV guide source that lists the dates". Now, that might have been a bit confusing initially, but to clarify, it was the third source you gave me (i.e. the one that is on the page now).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MSN

Here is the link. They go as far in advance as the CW goes. Meaning, whenever the CW releases an official write-up (which you'll see on Kryptonsite as well), that's when MSN updates their list...when they receive the official write up. The only difference is that MSN summarizes the write-up to their own standards, they won't copy it word for word.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We generally don't list "guest bands". Even guest stars only get their name next to their character's name in the plot section of the respective seasons. If you can find some media coverage talking about One Republic showing up in "Hero", then we can discuss that in prose somewhere on the Season 7 page, but general lists would hold no value to the article. Simply saying, "One Republic appeared on Smallville." isn't really relevant to the article, unless there was some significance to their appearance, or at least so long as we could talk about how the people at Smallville secured the One Republic appearance and such.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL, are you trying to tell me because you are attempting to spoil the episode, or are you trying to tell me because you think I don't believe you? I've seen the promos for One Republic appearing on the show. This isn't the first time a band has performed "live" on Smallville. Remy Zero performed "Save Me" in the season one finale; Lifehouse has been on the show, many other bands have been on the show. My point is that simply saying, "this band appeared on the show" has no value for the article. If there was context, like, "Gough and Millar really wanted to get One Republic for season 6, after hearing song X, but there were contract problems. They finally achieved their wish in season 7 after blah blah blah blah..." -- Do you understand what I'm saying now?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it was your presentation of the information that came across like you were either trying to spoil it, or prove that they were really going to be there. My fault for assuming wrong. As for Medium, the probably becomes, "what makes those guest stars more notable than the ones that aren't on the list?" If there is something special about them being on the show, then I'd be happy to have that information, but simply saying they were on the show just creates an indiscriminate list of names for either the main article, or all the season articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I already told you, what makes them "notable"? What makes those guest stars more special than any other guest star? List guest stars amounts to listing indiscriminate information, because we don't know anything but a name of the guest star that appeared; and when you say "notable" you begin specially selecting people. Smallville has 145 episodes, if we were fair and listed all the guest stars that had primary roles, there would be over 100 people listed - that's rather a lot for any one page. Prose is the prefered method of providing information, not indiscriminate lists that try to claim guest stars are more notable than they really are. A lot of guest stars are no name actors that people wouldn't know from the next stranger they walk by on the streets, so you'll obviously not list them because they probably don't have a Wiki page anyway. So then you've basically eliminated people because they aren't known, or just don't have a Wiki page. It's simply an indiscriminate list, and something that doesn't need to clutter up the main page, or the season pages. Lastly, even if we did, One Republic wouldn't be a "notable" guest star. They didn't do anything in the episode but play music in the background, how is that notable - especially for a show that has a history of securing live bands? As for the international listings, I have no idea what you are talking about. The main page has never had the "international listings", because no one has ever bothered to provide a source for the international listings.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to go back in the history of the article and give me a link to the previous version, because I'm not aware of what you are talking about. I know that Canada has been getting season 7 a day early since they switched stations, but that is noted on the LOE page and the season 7 page. If we ever noted all the different channels that the show was broadcast on, the only reason I could think that they were removed would be because we didn't have a source confirming that was the station they were broadcast on. Other than that you have got me as to why they aren't there, or where they would be placed if they were.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
They are saying that Tom Welling is directing the 18th episode, NOT the finale. The finale won't be until the 20th or 21st episode (depending on how many they get out). And yes, nothing from them can be posted unless they can show that they talked to someone specifically, by name (not some pseudonym to protect their identity, which is usually what happens when you get information from scoopers and not the official source). I'm sure someone else has covered the Welling directing thing, we just have to find it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, it's not my fault. I like Kryptonsite, and if they post something I'd be the first one to believe it. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't trust them as a reliable source, no matter how many times they get the info right. If it's a personal communication with people, that's one thing - like when Craig interviews the cast and crew personally. As for Allison, I highly doubt they'll let a rookie director take on the biggest episode of the season. My guess, I would say that either James Marshall or Glen Winter will direct the finale. I would like to see Allison direct, so here's hoping they bump her up and let her direct the 19th episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Allison will definitely come back. From the look of the screencaps on Kryptonsite, it doesn't appear that Lana will make it to the end of the season; at least not on the screen that is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WARNINGS

[edit] March 2008

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Degrassi: The Next Generation, you will be blocked from editing. Removing date formatting screws up how those not logged in view the article -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of commas to date formating

Robin, despite being asked not to change the format of dates to articles here, here and here, you still do it to Degrassi: The Next Generation. Your two most recent edits of this manner have been reverted, and I ask you to not do it again. If you are confused about the way in which to format dates, take a look at Wikipedia’s Manual of Style, and in particular WP:DATE. Your changes to the date are not only being viewed as disruptive and vandalism, but they cause problems for those folk reading articles and who are not logged in. As for Wikipedians who are logged in, they will have set their preferences to their preferred formatting of dates, and so upon reading the article, your edits would not have been noticed. As User:Ckatz said, “don't reformat dates, spelling and so on "just because" - they should reflect the nationality of the entire article, or the first major contribution” -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In so much as it pains me, I have to stick up for Robin in this instance. Her formatting, removing the commas, is procedure and is correct. Do not admonish her or call what she did vandalism, it is not. I have reverted your revert because you are incorrect. This was one of the first things I learned in regards to formatting, a comma is not necessary or desired between a month/day and the year. IrishLass (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episode list page move?

Wondering why you moved List of 7th Heaven episodes? Take a look at the category it's in, Category:Lists of drama television series episodes - titles don't generally include DVDs. It's an episode list that happens to have some DVD information in it - we don't say "List of 7th Heaven DVDs/writers/directors/airdates/production numbers/episodes". —97198 talk 06:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Robin, you should know better. I moved it back and fixed the page. Episode lists do not contain DVD info. IrishLass (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
"You guys"? I did nothing. All I did was ask. I see there's a separate thread at User talk:IrishLass0128 that doesn't look too friendly, so I won't intervene. —97198 talk 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing links

Hello Robinepowell, this recent edit has been brought to my attention. You didn't leave an edit summary, you said it was a minor edit (which it clearly wasn't) and you removed links from the text. Can you explain why you would think was appropriate please? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Please could you (a) use edit summaries to explain your edits and (b) explain why you edit against the manual of style, e.g. removing commas in dates? If you continue to edit in this fashion without explanation, you will find your account blocked for vandalism. Please feel free to let me know what you're doing. Plus, if you're giving "advice" by making major edits but not adding summaries, how do you expect us to understand what you're changing and why? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain why "... Natasha Bedingfield will sing as Degrassi's [17] Shirley Douglas makes a ..." makes any sense? Your edits are disruptive and if you continue to make them I will block your account. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain why this is correct? "Guest stared" does not mean the same as "guested". And why are you unlinking perfectly good wikilinks? Continuing to do this will result in your account being blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Robin, I know you think you're helping, but your edits are disruptive. Out of all those made to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, only changing "Jessie's Girl" to "Jesse's Girl" was right. You have split hour-length episodes into two and just copied the summary, removed punctuation, and more. As for removing the whole overview section giving information regarding the number of eps per season and DVD releases, if you think that should be done, why not take it to the article talk page? Other similar lists include this information, and I don't see that "the dates are wrong" is enough to justify the removal. If the dates were infact incorrect, simply correct them.

It would be really nice if you were able to work with people, but you're like the Lone Ranger. I have reverted your edits, and then corrected the details you pointed out as being wrong. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Robinepowell. Can I encourage you to use edit summaries so fellow editors can understand what you've changed and why you've changed it? As you can see, your recent edits to the Degrassi pages have caused quite some concern and have, coincidentally, been reverted. This is just a waste of your time and other editor's time. Could you also communicate with your fellow editors? Just reverting edit after edit without explanation is extremely annoying for those with whom you could be working in harmony. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note! Ok, what's going on now is called an edit war. You and Matthew have differing opinions on the way an article should be written. The only way this can be solved is by somebody (like me) looking at each of your edits and helping you both understand the best way forward. Even better would be if you could find a community consensus in your approach. Problem is, right now Matthew will check in later on and probably undo most of your edits. Please, please discuss these matters with Matthew or me before changing the pages. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Just talk it other with Matthew. If disruption of articles continue, I'll either protect the articles or block users. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Degassi reply

Thanks for finally communicating, Robin. I've seen the messages people have left before on your talk page and the blocks you receive, and I'm sure it's not nice but if you worked with people to make Wikipedia better, I think you'd find people would treat you nicer. Which is why I've been trying to communicate with you on this.

As TRM says, right now I feel like the only way to have a correct article is to revert your edits as soon as I come online (although I do check them first). You either remove references, add information that isn't referenced, or turn good sentences into gobbledy-gook:

"The CTV's website announced on December 5, 2007 that Natasha Bedingfield will make a guest appearance in the season finale, singing "Unwritten" and "Pocket Full of Sunshine" at Degrassi's Senior Prom. Shirley Douglas makes a guest appearance in the "Spring Break" special; as a Universiity Professor"

became

"The CTV's website that Shirley Douglas makes a guest appearance in the "Bust a Move Part 2"; as a Universiity Professor and Natasha Bedingfield will make a guest appearance in the season finale, singing "Unwritten" and "Pocket Full of Sunshine" at Degrassi's Prom."

Saying that, I do see that you also make edits that better the article, such as this one, so I am assuming that all your edits are in good faith, even if they are on the whole, quite frankly, wrong.

Now let me explain my reasonings for reverting your edits.

To me, the DVD/season overview is just that, an overview. List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes is a WP:Featured list, and all other episode lists at WP:FT have this information. Not only that, but it is a "parent" article to the season pages. Therefore, for consistency it should not be removed. If the dates are wrong, you should bring it up at Talk:List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, or simply correct them, not remove information. And for what it's worth, those dates that are there can be verified by TVShowsonDVD.com, which is far more reliable than Futon Critic.
Some of the episodes you separated into two parts actually shouldn't be. As evidenced by the DVDs themselves, and at the US version of iTunes, they are hour long episodes (actually 45 minutes without the commercials). Any old episodes now shown on TV, be it A-Channel or CTV, are split into half-hour episodes because of scheduling constraints. That's why the satellite tv guide lists them that way. As for the Canadian TV Guide, I can't say because I don't have issues dating back to 2002, and I doubt you do either. However, by separating the episodes into two parts, I can tell you you have created more episodes than actually exist. You see it one way, I see it another, but I can cite what I'm saying – can you?
Finally, I have a more than vested interest in the article as I managed to get it to Featured Status. I'm not saying I WP:OWN it, but I worked really hard to set the groundwork for what it is today, and to see it destroyed as it was this weekend by various IPs and false information added, is very disheartening.

I'm extending an olive branch here, and if you want to work together to make any articles better, that's fine. Either leave a message on my talk page or at the Degrassi articles' talk page (I have them all on my watchlist). You might also be interested in a discussion at Talk:List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes#Summaries that I started in order to find out the opinions of the regular visitors to the article, to find out whether episode summaries should be included on the main episode list now that each season now has an article with summaries. There are a number of other FLs, such as List of Lost Episodes, List of Desperate Housewives episodes, List of Smallville episodes, and List of The Simpsons episodes that have removed summaries in favor of placing them on season pages. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

--Not to butt in but List of Desperate Housewives episodes still has summaries. As you were. 121.209.233.237 (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, you will be blocked from editing. Collectonian (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Degrassi: The Next Generation 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 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. This is your final warning. Stop removing and discuss the dates on the article talk page or your risk being banned. Collectonian (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, you will be blocked from editing. Collectonian (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, you will be blocked from editing. Robin, the dates are referenced by Reliable sources. Just because you don't agree is not a reason to remove. That is the only content on the page not to be transluded -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 07:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick word of advice. Consensus overrules individual opinion here. Firstly try discussing your point of view before making large and controversial edits. Secondly, you must be aware of WP:3RR which you were in breach of earlier today and, in my opinion, were very lucky to avoid a block. Thirdly, what's wrong with just good old common sense and politeness - talk first, act later? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4), you will be blocked from editing. You have been asked multiple times to discuss and not just keep changing incorrect information. Stop your constant date changing and actually DISCUSS on the main Degrassi episode list. Collectonian (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been asked repeatedly to stop your reverting and actually join the discussion at Talk:List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes#Degrassi DVDs regarding the DVD release dates. Your continuing refusal to actually do so does not reflect well on your willingness to actually be a good contributer here who works with consensus and in a cooperative manner with other editors. If you continue this course of behavior, you will be reported, again, to administrators whom I suspect will be less lenient on you a second time around when you continue to ignore all requests to discuss rather than just keep reverting. Collectonian (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4). 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. Collectonian (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. - Philippe 23:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Going straight to level 3 because you've had plenty of warnings about this already. Stop changing the dates per one source when multiple other sources say otherwise and do not start your edit warring again. Collectonian (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I Report

Hello, Robinepowell. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, Collectonian (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4). 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. Again, you have violated 3RR. Stop the reverting, stop editing warring, and try actually learning from your many blocks already! Collectonian (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4), you will be blocked from editing. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated instances of disruptive editing. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Pigman☿ 03:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7), makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Do not remove the commas from full format dates as you did in your recent edit to this list. It violates the date MoS and is not appropriate. Also, given your history with these lists, I'm politely asking you to discuss any radical changes, such as changing all of the dates, on the talk page first and giving a clear, valid source (URL for web sources) to support your claims. Do not make such changes until it has been discussed and consensus agrees that your source is reliable and agrees to the change. I will also STRONGLY suggest you do not go back to your old pattern of revert warring and refusing to discuss without changing, otherwise you will find yourself blocked again. Also, don't leave insults in your edit summaries. Collectonian (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Robinepowell. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, Collectonian (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7). 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. Again, you are editing warring, ignoring discussion attempts, and refuse to stop your down right horrible MoS violations with your date changing. Collectonian (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7). 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. Again, you've been asked to stop, you've been reported, you've been blocked seven times and are facing number eight. Why do you persist in acting this way? Collectonian (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive behaviour; editor resumed edit war immediately following return from block for similar behaviour.. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Ckatzchatspy 18:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Block has been extended to one month per the agreement of Ckatz and the thread at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)