User talk:Alec2011

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this format: [5], You made a typo on my talk page. Anyway I am not fan of the new format, either. It was much better when the films were all arranged in one order, not four different ones. QuasyBoy 06:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly QuasyBoy 17:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to revert it back to the way it was, feel free. QuasyBoy 18:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just revert to the link I put up and save it. Unless you want me to do it. QuasyBoy 23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll do it then. QuasyBoy 23:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I couldn't find a promo linked online to use as a reference and figured I could get away without one seeing that the episode is airing next week anyway. There was likely to be more promos to air by then for people to see. Nice to hear from you again. - Jabrona - 00:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to start discussion about this but why are you doing this. Could you point me to the rules that states that ampersands should only be used in episode lists. The word "and" is sometimes used for particular reference, when two television writers generally do not work together. There are some television series that do use the word "and" and not "&". Ampersands are generally used for writing teams. I'm bringing this up because, this edits that you made here and here caught my attention. QuasyBoy 01:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am already aware of the discussion you with AussieLegend and with the discussion you had with Sunshineisles2, you say that there are Wikipedia guidelines about only using ampersands in episode lists, but where where these so-called guidelines? And referring back to your discussion AussieLegend, even he says that the word "and" can be used in some cases. QuasyBoy 01:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly confused by what AussieLegend said. He says nothing that a comma and the word "and" cannot being used in one instance, you contradicting what he is saying, by some of the edits that you have already made, changing "and" to an ampersand. AussieLegend himself cannot even specifically point out that "&" vs. "," is bad English, per a Wikipedia guideline. Also, what AussieLegend thinks is not "be all, end all", he is an editor like you and I, and sometimes edits be his own preference. QuasyBoy 19:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That could work to. My point is, the writers should be credited as they were in the episode, a comma, "and" or "&". If there is a specific Wikipedia guideline that says otherwise (using proper English), then we should follow that. QuasyBoy 18:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, in that shopping example that you used a comma is necessary. When it comes down to it is based on preference. Some of the edits that you have made, have been undone and disagreed with. Perhaps, the next time your edits are undone, it would be best to bring it up in Template talk:Episode list. QuasyBoy 21:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. QuasyBoy 21:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to two of your messages at my talk page, in case you were interested. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/victorious/episodes-season-3/303439 It is the truth list. I mean A Christmas Tori and Blooptorious episodes of season 3 not season 2. (Wnnse (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, Dan Schneider's Twitter adress is totally reliable. (Wnnse (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

http://www.nickutopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/IGot-Jungle-Worms-Shooting-Schedule.jpg That's picture? (Wnnse (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Where in this reference does it mention that Law & Order: SVU will air 23 episodes this season? The only mention I see of the show is that "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” returns with original episodes on Wednesday, April 11 (10-11 p.m. ET) leading to its season finale on May 23rd." but it does not specify exactly how many episodes will air. Davejohnsan (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to their official Facebook "Too much evidence can get confusing. Let us break it down so you can clear your schedule! We've got a NEW episode tonight and next Wednesday - then seven new episodes begin again April 11 @ 10PM!" - Alec2011 (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been nice to know sooner. Thank you for pointing me to it. Davejohnsan (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I probably should've told you, but there really isn't too much room in the "Edit Summary" to include it. Although tehe reference does state "new episodes return April 11th leading to the season finale on May 23rd" meaning new episodes all those weeks. - Alec2011 (talk)

I questioned whether to delete my comment I made to you because I already commented on Kevin's page and you were urging him to make the edits. So I didn't think I had to say anything to you. But seeing that you know about it anyway I guess I was better off leaving it there.

Now on behalf of me dragging in people from other websites, I didn't force them to come here and agree with me. The issue here was presented to those other sites by a user named Checker Fred on the iCarly Wiki whose also a user on TV.com named Ruffmann where he was also presented this Wikipedia discussion at. I presented all my evidence there and we discussed about how to organize the list there on those sites. People knew about the situation on Wikipedia and came in to give their two cents. As for my comment to Wnnse, I figured you would have seen it considering you talked to him regarding the Victorious episode list. Sorry if it seemed like was getting ahead of myself, but I did not present any of my evidence to him so you were wrong on that. I just told him to go to the page and read all of what was discussed and had the feeling he would agree with me due to the edits he was making.

As for my newest comment, considering a single season cycle of episodes did split into two airing seasons (which I strongly believe to be the case no doubt about it), then we have to acknowledge it and list the seasons the way it was intended airing-wise on TV. The production labels and DVD releases are one thing, but an airing cycle is another. I mean, we're not going to list the "Meet the Browns" TV show seasons by 20 episodes each because the DVD releases has them that way. It's going to stay the way it is on account for what the airing cycle was. - Jabrona - 05:56, 24 February 2012

No, that's your say. We mine as well lists episodes by their production order then since their airing cycle doesn't seem to matter. Hannah Montana never had to face a split season so I don't see what example you're trying to pull with that one. It's airing seasons ran coherently with it's production cycle so the DVD labels were going to fit fine there. In a situation like iCarly, it's not going to work out so well. You can't just ignore that because of how something is with another show. And for your information, each of the "Meet the Browns" DVDs say SEASON not volumes. Check this out: [6] - Jabrona - 06:19, 24 February 2012

I didn't say anything about "list episode pages by the airing order on DVD". I said something along the sort of listing the seasons the way it was intended airing-wise on TV. If a season split did happen with a show (as I know it did with iCarly) then it's airing cycle should be acknowledged. What was the point in the network making that decision if we're not going to list things that way? Again your Hannah Montana reference means nothing because it never had a split season where a single filming cycle of episodes were split off to air as two separate seasons where all the episodes have the same coding. So yeah, it's DVD releases are going to follow the labeling of the airing cycle. I'm talking seasons here, not episodes. And about "Meet the Browns" why would eight episodes be a problem to put out on DVD? Seasons 1 and 5 could have been a complete set while the others had volume sets. But why make a season DVD release out of 20 episodes each? The DVD releases indicate seven seasons when the show only had five airing ones? I don't know why that is, but does that mean that how we must list the episodes list now? I don't think so. - Jabrona - 06:36, 24 February 2012

I take it the production cycle is still accounted for. They could have released them on DVD the way it was on TV but they didn't and we all know all those 2xx coded episodes were from the same season cycle. It's like they could have promoted "iLost My Mind" as the new season premiere but they didn't and promoted "iDate Sam & Freddie" as the premiere. Well that episode just happened to have been the first one of the season produced. Hint. Hint. Who said the DVDs had to follow how the show is on TV, otherwise the "Meet the Browns" DVD releases would not be the way they are. It makes more sense in iCarly's case. Besides, we had a Nick press article reference it by listing all the 2xx coded episodes coming from Seasons 2 and 3. We wouldn't have had Dan or Nathan say anything in defense of it if it wasn't the case anyway. - Jabrona - 07:05, 24 February 2012

Okay, I brought "Meet the Browns" into this because you think an episode list should go by how a DVD season release is. Well that show had a five airing season cycle run with a different number of episodes whereas the DVD releases label seven season with 20 episodes in each set. I was pointing out how we're not going to revert the list and change it on behalf of the DVD (because you claim they have a final say) because that's not how the airing cycle went. You brought in Hannah Montana to support the fact that it's DVD releases went with it's airing cycle but it never faced a split season so of course things worked out well with that show regarding it's airing cycle number being the same as it's production cycle and so forth the DVD labels. Now as for this premiere promotion thing, iDate Sam & Freddie was remarkably the first produced episode of the season, yet the first in terms of story to come after iLost My Mind which was the second produced episode. Nick oddly labeled iDSAF (premiering in September followed by a weekly airing of three other episodes) as the season premiere even after it apparently started iLMM nearly a month back in August. It makes sense that Nick promoted it as the premiere because it was the first produced episode and just the second of the season to air a month after the first episode aired. This is a different from Hannah Montana because it's first two produced Season 4 episodes aired a week apart. I don't think it would have made sense for Disney to label the 401 episode as the premiere just a week after it apparently started months after Season 3 ended. Now as for iCarly's "iSam Him First" episode, it had three episodes that aired after it before Nick decided to air "iGo to Japan" which was the first to be produced of the second season filming cycle. It would have been a little late to promote that as the premiere don't you think when four episodes of the season already aired? The thing with "iDate Sam & Freddie" was odd, but understandable at some sorts since it was not only the first produced of the season, but only the second in terms of airing for the season and did so air a month after iLost My Mind aired and started a weekly run of episodes throughout the month of September. I don't know why you're bringing up "iGot a Hot Room" since we really don't need to talk about that. Of course it wasn't labeled as the premiere but it was since it was part of the next season filming cycle. Not every season of a show is going to be promoted as such. It seems Nick does this when they feel like it on rare occasions, like when Disney does it since they don't promote new seasons all that often either. - Jabrona - 22:05, 24 February 2012

Okay Big Time Rush was promoted it's premiere. Okay? I'm going with my gut and saying that Nick promoted iDSAF as the season premiere because it was coded 401. That's the only logical reason otherwise they should have promoted iLost My Mind as the premiere. Perhaps if iLost My Mind was made first (I still don't know why Dan filmed these episodes out of order) then it may have been labeled as the premiere. Seeing how every article is not laid out on behalf of the DVD releases I don't think they should be accounted for if the airing cycle is different. I don't think you want that to be the case. You're asking which episodes were split, well the ones that are listed as "Season 3" episodes of course - the one that have the "Season 3" intro. The intro does help in this which is why it was created in the first place unless those episodes weren't meant to be a new airing season. I don't see why Dan would go through with a mislead and he even stated here that he makes a new opening whenever there's a new season. He and Nathan confirmed this was the case and here's a video interview where Nathan talks about it at the 2:00 minute mark: [7] Miranda and Jennette were both right in terms of the season's filming and airing cycle. The fact we have Miranda referencing the airing cycle at this point in time is something meaning nothing has been discarded and never will because it can't as Kevin wants to believe. She did so on two occasions on twitter and a Formsprings social networking website: [8][9]. As for the discussion, I've been started to grow tired of doing all of this debating. But I'm willing to still put up a fight so other people who come across it can understand my defense on the matter. - Jabrona - 22:59, 24 February 2012

Considering the story of "iDate Sam & Freddie" takes place directly after "iLost My Mind" there's no denying it was going to air second. I don't know why you would be so upset with me saying how I'm right as many times as you, Aussie, and Kevin are trying to prove me wrong here. You guys are trying to say that the split never happened, I'm just proving that it did. But seeing how that can't be denied you guys wants to retcon it, again trying to pull this recent source thing on the whole thing because a production cycle label was used. I don't know why you guys feel something like this can be reversed all of a sudden or denied. Dan's blog is reliable as it gets because he would know pretty much everything about the show since he's the creator. You can't just dismiss simply because it's a blog. It's a very useful blog a that. The information on it just doesn't matter? A race moment sure does come to mind when I see you say something like that. It's things that like that that should definitely have exceptions here. Luckily we have more than just the blog telling us about the situation, but luckily it supports what Nathan says on the Star Scoop interview [10] and the video one I linked. Also you like to mention how websites such as iTunes a lot when to comes to how an episode list is set up or how an episode is titled. Well, they have the seasons listed by it's apparent airing cycle, always had and always will be because they know it's the case and will be throughout the show's run - the site that gets promoted by Nick often when an episode of one of their shows gets added there for the download. Yeah, the same goes for how Amazon has it listed. - Jabrona - 04:15, 25 February 2012

I think it should still be taken into consideration because it's very reliable. It shouldn't be dismissed just because it's a blog. I just think you want to do so because you just don't want to take in the information on it because it indicates something you don't want to be the case. But we have a lot of other things at my defense. As for the "race moment" thing, I'm not calling you a racist of course, but the way you're dismissing something just because it happens to be that something you don't like despite it's reliable information I was just pointing out how it was in the same vein. I'm sorry if you misunderstood that and took that offensive. It was certainly not my intent to insult you. I'm not trying to cause trouble here so don't make it seem like it because I'm trying to hold up a strong defense towards something I know is the case and is true. You still didn't response on behalf of my iTunes comment you like to use a lot when it comes to how an episode list is listed and if an episode is counted as one or two episodes if it's an hour-long special. - Jabrona - 05:55, 25 February 2012

Perhaps I should use better words, or better yet if I do say something like that then I must be more descriptive. I just came about and said it without backing it up until after you had your say about it. I just looked at some interviews from the cast while searching for more evidence and they often described these one-hour episodes as a two-parter. It's quite unique really because around the 30 minute mark of each one airs it's like the start of a new episode though we don't see the credits so we can basically tell it's a two-part episode but merged as an hour-long special. The cast and crew call them two-parted episodes because that's how it's produced - especially if there's a specific order amount for them in a season and there just so happens to be a couple of those episodes, we have to tally up the overall season number of episodes with that number. So since "Season 4", for example, was meant to be a 13 episode season when it was decide to split the intended 26-episode production, we have to count that many in the season so it's one-hour and 90-minute special have to count as two and three episodes overall to get a 13 count from the season.

But in regards to the whole iTunes thing, I was hoping for a response regarding the season listings from those sites including CastTV. I don't know if you saw this, but I posted on the Talk Page why these big cooperation sites have the listings on behalf of the airing cycle if they weren't the case. I provided links there, and I'll also show you here: Amazon [11], iTunes: [12], CastTV: [13], and LocateTV: [14]. If a split did not happen, then we wouldn't have had Dan or Nathan say anything about it or a Nick press article or Miranda referencing it, and these big cooperation sites surely would not be having the show's season listed like this. Soon after, I added this on the talk page regarded an episode promotion of "iThink They Kissed" from the official iCarly Facebook page that was written back on September 12, 2009 before it aired, indicating it was the season premiere [15]. So on behalf of everything else I presented, I'm sure this takes the cake in regards of the season split. - Jabrona - 01:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to a hour-long episode though it's produced as two episodes, it can be labeled that way on some episode lists of other websites while others just list them as one episode. Lots of shows here that have hour-long episodes are listed as two while others (like the Disney shows) have some that are listed as one. It's in similar vein to this whole iCarly season labeling thing where some web sources list the seasons by the broadcast airing cycle and others (like TV-Guide) by it's production cycle. There's a reason why an hour long episode can be counted as one episode, but there's also a reason why it can be counted as two. Nick and Disney does work different, so whereas a Nick show counts their one-hour episodes as two, a Disney show count it as one.

As for the True Jackson split, I was quite surprised to see this considering the only thing indicating it was how iTunes had it listed including Amazon. But I guess they're reliable enough sources if they were used to result in a change. Not sure where you see a second reference at indicating your "Notice how it says Season 2 & Season 3 (as season 3 as 2xx production codes)" statement that you made. In this case, iCarly not only does iTunes, Amazon, and CastTV has the show's seasons listed the way it's known for airing-wise but it has a lot more evidence indicating a split than True Jackson does that includes statements on the subject by the show's creator and a cast member, and a very recently discovered Facebook promotion on "iThink They Kissed" being the airing Season 3 premiere episode from the show's official page. The DVDs may say one thing (like the show's production line) and it's understandable why that is (the "Meet the Browns" DVD releases I have absolutely no clue why that is), but the airings are meant to say another. We just can't really ignore that. If I must say, it makes me pleased we're getting along again :D. - Jabrona - 02:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so you were sick? I was wondering where you were. What were you sick from? I hope you're feeling alright now.

Nick and Disney, two networks who are similar in ways but also have their differences. Half of me thinks a hour-long episode should be labeled as one episode, but at the same time I don't think so due to the overall episode count order of the season. I don't know which side I want to be on, and don't really want to worry about it too much.

As for True Jackson, yes those two DVD sets do say Seasons 2 and 3, but they're not actual Nickelodeon releases though. It states that Amazon.com's CreateSpace manufacture on demand (MOD) program was selling those so they labeled them according to it's apparent airing cycle, like how the iCarly seasons are listed on Amazon and iTunes for it's well-known airing cycle. So they're definitely manufactured DVDs which were given the rights to be made. You can learn about Manufactured on Demand DVD Releases here: [16]. iCarly's DVD season releases have all been officially released by Nick with the exception of it's latest season that has aired, the releases that you see listed on that link you showed me. When it comes time for Nickelodeon to release those two "True Jackson" seasons, I'm pretty sure all 34 episodes will be labeled as Season 2 because of it's production line. Plus, the airing Season 2 by itself wouldn't have been released all together in one set by Nick like it was by MOD because of it's high number of episodes anyway. Nick would have split it in two volumes like how we had the 20-episode first season of "Victorious". - Jabrona - 05:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I was going to tell you on behalf of getting plenty of sleep, to eat some nice hot soup if you had anyway and relax. But if you're starting to feel better then you don't need to that.

If we had to label the one-hour episodes as one, then only they should be labeled as such. The 90-minute specials should be labeled as movies. But again, I'm 50/50 on that whole situation so I can't really elaborate more on that. And you're welcome for the information on the DVDs. I did a little researching on those Manufactured on Demand things. Again, they were given permission to be made so while they're legal, they're not something released by the show's network itself but released on behalf of the network's permission. - Jabrona - 04:49, March 2 2012 (UTC)

Is that really necessary? With the way things look with the Jessie and Austin & Ally episode lists, might as well remove the production code columns altogether. You are using The Futon Critic for this information, while a reliable source, they can be terribly outdated sometimes when it comes to such information. Your work on the Victorious episode list is a GREAT example of you overusing the same reference for each episode production code, when attaching said reference to table header serves the same purpose (an edit which undid twice in the Jessie and How to Rock episode lists). Whatever other codes that are not listed in The Futon Critic, will be removed. The abc reference attachments have already stretched to double letters with aa, bb, cc and so on. It wasn't even necessary to do that for the first two seasons of Victorious. See: Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue#Over-citing Just putting in my two cents, But I doubt will waver on this issue. QuasyBoy 19:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, That makes more sense at least. QuasyBoy 20:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'm glad you understand my point. :) QuasyBoy 20:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider these to be reliable sources for the production codes of "iStill Psycho" and "iBloop 2"? iStill Psycho: [17] and iBloop 2: [18]. I wanted to clear this up with you before I had put those in case they weren't. - Jabrona - 21:24, 13 March 2012

To answer Alec's question, Yes. I used that site to find production code information for the first season of Victorious. QuasyBoy 21:46, 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) QuasyBoy 21:50, 2012 (UTC)

But ı think articles barely fits into series overview that way, better to a little wider.

Awesome job with List of The Legend of Korra episodes. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 03:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bow-bb (talk • contribs) 10:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why iCarly season 6 is don't looking green-white? like other seasons. (Bow-bb (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I mean, other seasons like that: http://s10.postimage.org/4bhsxzh7b/cats_crop.jpg But season 6 just white: http://s13.postimage.org/xplfu08vp/nhju_k.jpg Bow-bb (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tv-lins.eu is a reliable source?Bow-bb (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to

Hello, Alec2011. You have new messages at Hghyux's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I liked that color too, but Bow-bb kept reverting it. Best to bring it up on the talk page. – Confession0791 ^talk 12:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the Eric Dean Seaton reference down to the last episode listed, there it will still used as the main reference for future episodes and production codes. That was all I did. Anyway, I wanted to talk to you about having a consensus to have the production codes columns completely removed from the the Austin & Ally and Jessie episode lists. Nearly all of the production code spaces are blank anyway, unless they are referenced from The Futon Critic or Eric Dean Seaton's website. The Futon Critic is terribly slow with this information and Eric Dean Seaton isn't going to direct every episode for both shows. Nick and More is out of the question, since its a blog, unfortunately and the only other way to know what the production codes are is from the iTunes Store, where you actually have to purchase the episode. Unfortunately, Disney Channel shows, aren't like Warner Bros. and 20th Century shows, where they actually show the production codes in the end credits. Think about my suggestion and get back to me. QuasyBoy 17:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Add A.N.T. Farm, too. QuasyBoy 19:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that would be best. QuasyBoy 21:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I really didn't want it to come this, but why have a bunch blank spaces for the production codes, if we can hardly source them. QuasyBoy 21:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, most of the production code info that I have gotten is from Nick and More, They have been reliable to me on many occasions. But AussieLegend decided that since it is a blog, it can't used on Wikipedia. So figured, oh well, can't use them, The Futon Critic is too slow, on iTunes you actually have to buy the episodes to find out what the productions codes are, so just remove the columns altogether then. QuasyBoy 21:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally. QuasyBoy 22:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If want to get rid of it, feel free. :) QuasyBoy 21:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Only should be posted if the project is picked to series. QuasyBoy 14:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alec2011. You have new messages at Drmargi's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

We previously discussed use of the ShortSummary field on my talk page, specifically your preference for hiding it when the field hasn't been filled out.[19] You'll be happy to know that, as the result of some recent changes we've make to {{Episode list}}, it's no longer necessary to hide the field, as it has been modified to automatically hide if the field is empty. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove those two episodes from the List of How to Rock episodes? 24.193.54.118 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it's unlikely they would change the title? And I've seen other pages use it, for example List of Bob's Burgers episodes. 24.193.54.118 (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've seen it there for quite sometime so I don't think they'll be removing it anytime soon. I've never seen anyone have a problem with this, but you. They've already filmed the episode so why would they change the title? 24.193.54.118 (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

criteria for speedy deletion

, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a

mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

Hello, Alec2011. You have new messages at Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template talk:Episode list's talk page.
Message added 21:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please invited other users as well. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Episode_list#Episodes_Numbers — Preceding unsigned comment added by WP Editor 2012 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://twitter.com/DanWarp/status/243398674128986112 Here's a source for Victorious episode called "Opposite Date" can you add it to episode list page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.61.178 (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mdann52 (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first episode aired today so likely credits were added using the episode itself as the implied reference by someone who viewed the credits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see the episode, had work all night, haha. As implied in the note, it was a one-hour episode, with only one set of credits, it should only be listed with one number. Will add the writers/director back in. - Alec (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got tagged with

I see. I reverted it and added a description. If added again, I will revert and put a note on their page. If it happens a 3rd time I won't revert but mearly add to the 3 revert rule list and hope they get banned from editing the article for some time. Sorry you had to deal with those types of people. - Alec (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The production code for iShock America from the Futon proving to be unrealistic at this time. There is no production code like that for this show. The production code is 510-511. I do have a few references maybe that we can use but I don't really know if that will help. First one is http://www.nick.com/videos/clip/icarly-510-ishock-america-invitation-clip.htmm in the Url you can see that it is 510. the scence is from the first part of the show. I don't have a link for the second.

The second reference is https://twitter.com/#!/YaBoyBooGie/status/197771059519430656, which is the actor who plays T-Bo. the only problem is that the twitter is unconfirmed.Also some of the cast members do follow him and and he follows him. Maybe we can work around the rules since the episode has aired and now know its not fake.

So untill then I took out the production code until a better on can be provided. I have a source but it sometimes take 4 months to update.

Second, I guess production code gets solved the episode numbers will be fixed. Since there are 109 episodes iShock America is a 2 part episode. So it is counted as two episodes not one. it should be labled 1-2, until then I won't do anything about that.WP Editor 2012 (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagreed with removing info from a reliable source. I have commented on this issue at Talk:ICarly (season 7). --Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I just commented on it as well. Agree with you. Let's keep this in the Talk Page and not on each editors talk pages. - Alec (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alec2011. You have new messages at Talk:List of Disney Channel series.
Message added 18:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Input would be great. Don't keep reverting until a conclusion is reached. if you do it will be reverted. It seems that your the only one who disagrees on this. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff Kennywood fan (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These episodes aren't being aired together that's why they have to be listed separate we usually do this at most episode pages. Koala15 (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well for example pages like

List of Adventure Time Episodes and List of Rabbids Invasion episodes. I think the Phineas & Ferb episode page should be changed too, when you use a or b it wouldn't make any sense cause the episodes air separate. Koala15 (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of Suits episodes page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hello, Alec2011. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was checking links to a category that was renamed, and noticed that you have several user drafts (see