User talk:Knownalias

GREAT job on them. We are probably the only two Wikipedians that actually watch this show, LOL. QuasyBoy (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about possibly merging the episode list to main series page. I expanded the main page a bit by putting in character bios, but putting the episode info in the page could really make it more whole. I might do it when the series ends, But what do you think about my idea? QuasyBoy (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing; even posted the question on both talk pages, though no one responded. I guess no one objects. And the debates I've witnessed on the USA shows' episode pages recently about content size (issues about when to separate seasons into separate articles) actually mandate that it be done; neither article by themselves justify their own exsistence. Don't know that there's a rush (I was sort of waiting for the last episode, myself) but it can be done, and needs to be. You've got my blessing if you want to go. KnownAlias contact 20:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, Thanks. :) QuasyBoy (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap conversation on IP talk page HERE
well I would stop if I found a source on there where it actually states they will have at least 20 episodes, and anothing is if this is true then why doesn't the episode guide go up that high? thank you --75.18.50.150 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles cited in the body of the text that FOX ordered an initial 13 then 7 more for fall. That's 20. The episode guide doesn't "go up that high" because the show is still in production and not all of the episode details are available. A half-empty table saying "TBD" repeatedly is not the way to go here. - Dravecky (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was that aimed at me? 'Cause I don't recall doing or suggesting that, or I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. And if it was aimed at the IP user, delirious & lost and I already had that conversation on the IP user's page, where the conversation actually started (the IP user replied on my page). KnownAlias contact 03:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the mysterious guest-star blanker you reported to

I can uncramp my fingers now. Thank you! KnownAlias contact 17:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finally getting a proper source for

Not wrong. The original source for SpoilerTV that gave them Thunder Roadtrip was the one who confirmed the name change for that site (I'd already changed it in the hidden note a week ago). But you should be thanking

American Dad! (season 6) might not be the only ill it could cure. KnownAlias contact 12:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Overlap conversation on -5- talk page HERE (See: Young Justice schedule)
Yes, the pilot is airing over the first two weeks. It is up to you whether you want to petition to unprotect the page, or just have the edit protection run its course. I can go with either one.-5- (talk) 10:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It threw me off because I thought the sources listed were from DOC, and they don't report summaries. I put the source next to the text so that there isn't confusion as to where it came from. Thanks for letting me know.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know those production numbers don't make sense right? We know that "Booster" was filmed before "Kent", they just swapped the broadcasting order, yet their production codes indicate that "Kent" was filmed first.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do; one of them is 21, which is one of the last two episodes, but the issue is always supposed to be

WP:VER, right? I followed the policy, but I'm not lifting a single finger to stop you from fixing it however you deem appropriate. KnownAlias contact 17:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Fixed it; in spite of the inconsistency of Finale pt 2 being #20, I do believe those are the right numbers now. I'd have done it sooner, but I was

ripping a sock. KnownAlias contact 22:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The writer/director info is in the link that you was posted: [2], under the crew section. ;) QuasyBoy 19:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the problem; I'm only seeing a cast section when I load that page. KnownAlias contact 19:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Bummer. :( QuasyBoy 19:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Seems like a weird oversight to happen only to my computer; and I loaded the page on Internet Explorer (I'm a Google Chrome regularly), so it isn't that. I guess I can still add the link and let others like you find it, or wait for MSN, where I can see it (I've grown to suspect MSN is using Zap 2 It as it's main, if not only, source). KnownAlias contact 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am using Firefox. QuasyBoy 20:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So i saw the fun on the Body of Proof episode list. Crude formatting but good intent. You had been reverted. References were added. That be when i saw it. I merged the two tables using this convenient |AltDate= option. My Italian isn't great but i can read the Italian broadcaster's website and everything that was there was correct. I added in the air dates. I mention this because there is potentially more fun to come from this. You may recall 4 episodes of Grey's Anatomy were bumped to season 2. Given the dates involved there is a really good chance the same sort of thing is going to happen with Body Of Proof if it gets renewed. The potential problem is that 1 of those 4 episodes has already been shown in Italy and the other 3 are for the first three Tuesdays in April. I think you know what might come from this.
And just to plug something, the Canadian show The Listener premièred on Fox Series on 1 March 2009 and didn't make it to Canadian tv until 3 June 2009. I took what was there and constructed a similar layout of data on The Listener's episode list though for Body Of Proof the US date is second because there is to be ratings data included and sticking ratings between two dates just looks wrong.
I watched a bit of the Italian tv rips of BOP and wasn't that impressed so i might not drift back to it much. Good luck. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me; I didn't have access to that information, and the two separate tables was completely unacceptable. Looks great, though I don't know how many editors will consider the Italian dates of note on the English Wikipedia. That may yet get flak in the future; just not from me. And for what it's worth, I don't think this will be a continuing problem if there is a season 2; it was the numerous schedule delays that put this thing behind a European debut. If they renew it, it will likely come back in the fall just as Castle did, or at least be given a set delayed production schedule ala V. I don't see Europe getting the drop on us again. KnownAlias contact 09:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed what i was hinting at - IF it gets renewed then "Point of Origin", "Second Chances", "Missing", and "Hard Knocks" which have already or will be broadcast in Italy and the ROW as part of season 1 will probably be bumped to season 2 in the USA & Canada. Most US shows are ending around mid-May this year and ABC only released a schedule for Body Of Proof that included 9 episodes and runs through 17 May. The fight to come, if it does, will be over whether those episodes be counted on Wikipedia as part of season 1 per the rest of the world or if it goes by the ABC broadcast to the ignore-everything-from-everywhere-else and puts those episodes in season 2. The bumping of episodes from season 1 to 2 happened with Grey's Anatomy, but Grey's Anatomy didn't have ROW broadcast in advance which blatantly confirmed the US broadcast had been changed (in this case both episode order and amount of episodes). Can you say   c   o   m   p   l   i   c   a   t   e   d ?
Regarding the tv series Murdoch Mysteries, it premiered in Winnipeg on 20 January 2008, the rest of Canada on 24 January 2008, and in the UK on 19 February 2008. Season 2 was same date but due to time zone differences between Toronto and London it premiered in the UK about 6 hours earlier. Season 3 premiered in the UK about a month earlier than Canada. For the fourth season the UK got the show almost 4 months before Canada. It is a Canadian show. Some PBS stations have shown the first season of Murdoch Mysteries. Point being that "Europe getting the drop on us" is more common than most people realise. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 18:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how the ratings hold; if it's a hit, they might likely push through the summer and start a new production cycle as soon as possible (the season 3 renewal of Glee was all about how soon they could start looking at those lucrative syndication dollars), but if it's modest/average, you may be right. KnownAlias contact 18:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grey's Anatomy was a hit and ABC still decided to cut it off at 9 and move 10-13 to season 2 even though they were already made. They did it with The Practice too, moving the 7th - 13th into somewhat random spots in season 2. If it is a hit then ABC's previous behaviour regarding post-mid-season premières would indicate holding them back. Even more fun is the DVD releases which if episodes are held back by ABC would make for the kind of discrepancy seen with Flashpoint, Grey's Anatomy, and somewhat like Prison Break where different regions (countries in the case of Flashpoint) have different episodes in the seasons. If you continue with editing Body Of Proof this is something to consider. Cheers delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 23:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shows what I know, using logic unlike ABC, or your tendency towards...what's that...research! Yeah. (Can you tell yet why I pretty much stick to listings?) KnownAlias contact 23:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will last long but i registered my opposition to the exclusion of all non-American info from the broadcasting in the episode list. Merged back in with other subsequent changes to the intro and ratings as well as on the talk page. In the UK the season 1 DVD of Grey's Anatomy is almost 200 minutes longer than the North American release.... the 4 episodes bumped by ABC but part of season 1 internationally. Not being American i couldn't give a crap about American dates. Having to concede to American dates and British dates and others for various Canadian shows just means i understand why people fight against it but if i have to give in on the Canadian shows then the Americans have to likewise give in on the American shows or else it gets really Anti-Non-American. Then i am not so friendly. I think this is well beyond too much involvement with a show i can't stand in any language from any broadcaster. If it didn't have Dana D then the show would be maybe watchable. Research is ok. Other shows with multiple countries include

List of K-9 episodes (an Australia/British show with world première in Sweden). There are some more but there is this person who insists upon changing the broadcast dates for Law & Order UK, which half-premières in Canada, and once again has it all messed up. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

An IP changed №/# to Series Episode/Season Episode on the numerous

MOS:HASH. Season 4 led to THIS SET OF EXCHANGES, which led to this on SchrutedIt08's talk page. I've got respect enough for SchrutedIt08's work, cross paths with his edit history fairly regularly, and only know Courcelles by name, having seen it pop up only a couple of times, but he's an admin, and he's winning that argument, (hard not to, given how SchrutedIt08 handled it on his talk). I didn't take it to List of In Plain Sight episodes, as I didn't want to start anything, but thought I should set a precedent somewhere currently quiet like List of Rizzoli & Isles episodes, in possible preparation. At least that way, if (BIG if, I admit) their argument spilled over to our experiment, I could point quickly to R&I as a compromise.
I might still be in battle mode; effectively spending a massive amount of time and energy on a sock puppet obsessed with a trivia table on the Bob's Burgers related pages. But if it's that important to you, it's not that important to me. Just wanted to plan a couple of moves ahead on the board, but it can wait until there's an actual problem. KnownAlias contact 10:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Let's not make things any more difficult. I do know Courcelles, and he's a good guy who's not afraid to stand up to some of the more strident editors. Let me go read everything before I say anything more. I'm on your team. Drmargi (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I read everything. I think we're grappling with a couple issues:

• First, the issue of the №/# and whether it's clear or appropriate to use those headings to head columns that contain differing information when they mean the same thing. To me, to head two columns with symbols that both mean number and figure they will differentiate the columns is ludicrous. From what another editor who tends to wade into the discussions tells me, there is a lot of discussion of this elsewhere, and it's basically being pushed by one editor (you know the one -- we've talked with him elsewhere) who tends to take a "my way or the highway" approach. It appears a couple editors have gotten busy and made sweeping changes to these headings with very little support, and the IP (118, etc.) is along for the ride. The IP is another story...
• Second, the MOS issue. My reading was that № (using this symbol) is unambiguously not acceptable at any time. 'Nuff said there. However, my reading was that # should not be used in lieu of No (which is acceptable) in sentences, just as & should not be used in lieu of the word and in sentences (I have a personal war against what I call the lazy ampersand.) It's not as clear whether # should not be used at all. But I may be wrong in that narrow interpretation.

Which brings us to where we find ourselves now. I have no strong feelings one way or the other about use of # versus No, and could live with replacing the former with the latter on R&I and IPS. Perhaps what we should do is change the headings and replace # with No, which is clearly in compliance with

I left a message for Courcelles asking for a bit of clarification. Let's see what he has to say. Drmargi (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated, and having no wish to clutter up your talk page, sympathies for the sockpuppet headache. I've just worked with another editor and two admins to get a global ban in place for as pernicious a sockmaster and farm as you'd ever care to see. I understand the headaches it all brings!! Drmargi (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. He learned about auto confirmed recently, but seems to be quiet the last day; I know he's been trolling me (actually tried to delete my last couple of RPP requests), but think he's been trolling me in my conversations with admin C.Fred (talk) as well, who agrees with me that a "town meeting" to Access New Initiatives in baning him outright may soon be in order. Damn sock's got me in a "stitch in time" frame of mind.
Admittedly, it was late, and I must have missed the difference between No and №, visually. Fair enough, as it seems pretty obvious in the glow of the morning dew (one more sentence, and I'd have gotten it right). Otherwise, as I said, I was just being preventative to a problem that wasn't really ours yet. KnownAlias contact 12:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a similar experience with trollling right now; no idea why, although I have my suspicions, but it's gotten my talk page protected for a while. I talked to Courcelles, and his feeling is any article that uses a hash mark will fail MOS if it comes under FA or GA scrutiny, which is a pretty good indication it's not acceptable. So, shall I go revert my change on R&I and add the No? Do you want to change IPS or leave well enough alone? I have no particular love for the hash mark, and am happy to use No instead. Better still, we've got good ammunition to change the dreaded №/#. I'll hold off doing anything until we chat again. Drmargi (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor choice of words; I just meant WikiStalking...my last conversation with C.Fred last night ended with an edit summary that said "ready to go", referring to An/I, and my sock repeated the offending edit again on both of the two related pages twelve minutes later with two separate edit summaries that said l e t s GO!, then proceeded to edit war with two separate editors, one apparently another admin checking out my entry, as he was summarily blocked indefinitely for edit warring and because (new angle) the sock's already inadequate source itself was a copyright violation (they even removed the link to it in one of my posts when I provided it to answer their question about it).
Mine is always a reaction; first to the confusion, which started with #/#, continued with Series #/Season #, and and seems to have doubled back somewhat to the original problem with №/#, and now to Courcelles's apparently knowledgeable opinion on the matter, so in light of that opinion, I've gone ahead and changed them both. KnownAlias contact 13:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be slow responding. I knew what you meant about trolling v. stalking, funnily enough. I've had the same experience a couple times while involved with sock-farm removal. It's never pleasant, that's for sure. In the end, their hubris is their undoing, which is clearly what's happening with your guy. Meanwhile, the new headings look good, and there seems to be no fuss. The MOS issue helps us out; if neither № nor # is acceptable, the dreaded heading is gone. Good luck with your "initiative". I'll keep an eye on it. Drmargi (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up/FYI: the dreaded symbol issue just popped up at List of The Glades episodes. I made the change to the older format, but this might be a new place to try the newer one out in time. I'm waiting to see if either of our strident friends pops up to pick a fight over the change first.

Looks like a new editor, which seems to be the ones obsessed with converting it to what they mostly seem to see on other pages. I have my doubts you'll get much trouble from reverting it back to what it was when there wasn't a problem with it on that page yet, but sadly I'm not actively fighting that battle like you are. On the plus, I kind of decided to convert to our format wherever a problem did arise, including a "trying this" and an

MOS:HASH ref in the edit summary. Yvesnimmo (talk) had to revert a column of "1" on List of Glee episodes on the 17th, and I took the liberty of converting it and the season pages, and nothing has been done to revert it in five days (as of now, it's still the last edit on the main list page). We have a winner. KnownAlias contact 16:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not actively seeking out the changes so much as making them as the opportunity arises, such as with this article. Unfortunately, it appears the IP editor is settling in for a long edit war; he's already violated

WP:3RR (I tagged him for it just after your disruptive editing warning) so this may be tough without using the 3RR ANI. I've opened a discussion on the article talk page; let's see if he/she makes an attempt to talk. Drmargi (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

He's on five reverts now, and ignored the discussion I started. I've put up a notice on the 3RR noticeboard. Hopefully they'll either block him or page protect. Drmargi (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's down for now. I'd personally like to know what featured lists he thinks this nonsense appears in; a quick search led to THIS, and as you can see, with the exception of the first entry which leads directly to MOS:HASH, the rest all seem to focus on Featured list candidates having MOS:HASH quoted back to them, and saying the # is wrong. KnownAlias contact 19:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, anyway. As aggressively as he edits, I'm not sure 24 hours will entirely do the trick, but the hope is it will get his attention. We can go page protect from here if need be. As for the FA bit, heaven only knows where he got that notion! Drmargi (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize there was actually a source. The user who added it has a long history of making edits based solely on presumption. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's back. This time he's User:Greg Xavier. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:15 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I've gotta say, if it is BlueMondo, it's not the same BlueMondo. The BlueMondo we blocked was a combative jerk when no one was on his side. This Greg Xavier seems to be minding his work and...creating episode articles. Diligently. A little light on sources (including the use of tv.com, not a reliable source), but copied in style from the existing articles, and updated with the relevant information for that episode. He hasn't addressed your accusations on his talk page, or in an edit war (as of now he has yet to revert your edits removing it). In fact, he hasn't addressed you at all; he's just kept working. I hate to admit it, but Mondo may have made some valid points about us shouting down other support for this, but his own combative style and socking really did make it hard to believe that anyone but him was supporting this (he really did damage his own efforts by simply being himself). I even expressed misgivings when I accused him of being DavidP1953 (on the record as having done so), as DavidP's tone was just far too civil to be Mondo, and in re-reading the original Talk:Bob's Burgers conversation, even DavidP's last comment acknowledged the superficiality of the information; not a Mondo comment. As soon as Mondo admitted openly to socking with his own IP, I diverted my focus solely to him, as his patterns became discernibly clear.
We're not an exclusive club, and there is no initiation. Anyone can edit if they do so by the rules, and so far, Greg X seems to be doing so. I caution you against assuming another editor is someone else, much less openly accusing them of it without the supporting evidence. There are procedures for that, and you have to wait for the crime to fit and merit the punishment. Plus the truth is, in my first protest of these edits on the Talk:List of Bob's Burgers episodes page, I said that if this information belonged anywhere on the encyclopedia, and I quote myself, "It belongs, at best, in the info box of individual episode pages, ala Futurama's opening caption/cartoon or The Simpsons' chalkboard/couch gag", which Luminum (talk) helped to enable as his last act of this conversation on Bob's Burgers by creating a Bob's Burgers specific info box incorporating that information (which, given that it is on the template, may be the only reason why Greg X/not Mondo incorporated it?). If he's found a junk drawer for his junk, leaving the kitchen clean for the rest of us, and he's willing to finally play nice, I say let him play. I'll keep an eye on him, but right now, I doubt it's him. KnownAlias contact 10:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I thought it was him because around the timespan BlueMondo was blocked, he was devoted to editing Bob's Burgers related items. This Greg Xavier makes his first Wikipedia edit the 14th and it just so happens it's about Bob's Burgers. Too big a coincidence. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:54 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And DavidP chimed in the first time with the word "Respectfully" immediately after the civility policy was quoted to Mondo's IP for the first time. DavidP is still unblocked, and has yet to rejoin the conversation (his last edit was two weeks ago). Coincidence can happen. The burden of proof for wrongdoing is on us; we cannot assume to accuse. Like I said, I'll watch him. Right now, I'm not seeing it, but it took a week to see the patterns on List of Bob's Burgers episodes, so it could still be. KnownAlias contact 14:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the real late reply, but it's also odd that when I accused him of sockpuppetry he stopped using the account. He hasn't been on since April 19. Odd? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:17 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. Same thing happened recently when I out argued DavidP on the list talk page by establishing notoriety as the crux of my argument. No sooner did that happen than David P went quiet again, and some IP just happened to be looking to see if we had settled this debate, as he was looking for Burger of the Day updates. I'm not going to bother

Assume Good Faith until the evidence supports otherwise. The fact that his childish behavior doesn't honor those policies doesn't absolve us of them, though in the long run, it does disprove the merit of his contributions. You underestimate just how much my talk page comments were on one level designed to bait him out so he'd reveal himself. As much as I'd have liked to call out his most recent IP, the most I could do was not dignify him with a response. We're stuck being strong and vigilant, but that's also what validates our efforts. Unlike Mondo, we've stopped "speaking as a child" and have "put away childish things". KnownAlias X 13:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I added back the WWYD? fall premiere, and this time put a reference. Hope this FINALLY makes you happy and suits you! lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Core2012 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would have if there had been an actual source in it instead of just a <ref> tag. Like I told you on your talk page, Primetime hasn't officially even been renewed yet, so there's no way it can be on the schedule for mid season. And as you can see, I'm not the only editor who thinks so, since you were just reverted by someone else. KnownAlias X 22:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll now see, the reference is clearly direct form John Quinones himself, who personally told me about it. You can't logically now say that he is lying, or doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Core2012 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you should know that if you are going to use a Twitter account as a source (generally frowned upon as not being a reliable source, but at least the minimum criteria of John Quinones's account being verified is met to make it acceptable to some), you can't just link to the general account, because new tweets will be added until the information you want to direct people to will be too hard to locate; you have to link to the actual tweet. Like these tweets; I scoured through John Quinones's Twitter all the way back to May 17, and all he actually says is they're filming for next season and they're preparing for fall. You still have nothing saying that Primetime is coming back on a specific night or time, much less when it would do so, unless you're going with the sin of

Original Research by assuming that it's Fridays at 9 pm ET because that was it's time slot last year. Note also last year that it aired the whole year, starting in the fall, but this year, Shark Tank has moved up an hour into it's place. Note also that John Quinones's Twitter bio also says he's a correspondant on 20/20, which has been renewed and is on the schedule. These popular What Would You Do? segments (the only thing I've seen keeping the Primetime brand alive) could simply start airing as part of 20/20, or simply air as Primetime specials for sweeps, or both, sort of making him ABC's newest John Stossel. Until you have a source saying it's on at this time on this night, you have no cause to keep adding it to the schedule. PS: He didn't "personally tell" you about anything. He tweeted that generality to 11,000+ people. A statement like that makes you sound like you're dangerously in need of perspective, just so you're aware. KnownAlias X 10:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

First of all, he told me it LONG BEFORE May 2011, so I recommend you track those tweets much further back. Second, even if it's not necessarily going to be on the same timeslot this fall, it's still renewed which means it must at least be added to the "Returning series" column under ABC's list. Third, You could at least explain how to source SPECIFIC tweets, because I have no clue otherwise I would have done so already. Also, irrespective of the timeslot the show is remaining it's own series. It is never going to suddenly be used as segments on 20/20, because that show is simply sometimes used as a promo platform. I am smart enough with entertainment that I know my facts are accurate, and just typing this makes me feel lower than I am and dumber than I am. THANK YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Core2012 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point I made was that you need to track those tweets much further back, and when you do (freebie), you click on the time stamp below the tweet to isolate it. And for what you say you know about entertainment, you seem to prove you don't know about Wikipedia; I don't care if Quinones told you himself over cocktails, to get it into Wikipedia, you need to attribute it to a

verify for the rest of us that it's true. Otherwise it's just going to keep getting removed by someone. And I'm sorry if I offended you so much about the idea of it being incorporated into 20/20, but without that proof of renewal those are the possibilities I'm allowed to consider, and I have yet to find it myself. No one is jerking you around. We're just trying to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia by making the information accountable per the project's policy. As such an ardent fan (and colleague?) of a news program, you can surely understand that. KnownAlias X 20:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Why can't you just accept that I am correct and leave the edit alone? Why does John Quinones have to have a "reliable" third-party source to back HIM up? Why can't the HOST of the show be reliable enough? Jane Lynch from Glee and John Stewart have not a damn thing to do with any of this! P.S.: If you want a reliable source SO BAD, how about you try and find one for yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Core2012 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HE doesn't if what he said has been documented (he is a journalist), but YOU do; how do I know you've had contact with him unless you can prove it? That is the very reason

verify it for the rest of us, we'll happily share it with everyone. PS: I tried to find a reliable source, and so far my sources do not show it renewed, including the ABC upfront for the 2011-12 season which mentions numerous shows not yet on the schedule until mid-season, but NOT Primetime, and the Primetime page on The Futon Critic, a reliable TV program guide, which says it's status is "on hiatus or fate to be determined". Besides, you're the one who insists it's true; why am I responsible to prove you right? KnownAlias X 16:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

There's a HUGE problem with your sources. You didn't even use the ACTUAL ABC 2011-12 Primetime Fall Schedule to find info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Core2012 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It most likely won't begin airing in 2012, because on Hulu.com/Bobs-Burgers, it says it will return in Fall 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ral725 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't add that source to your edit, making it an unsourced edit anyway, and the Fox upfront press release currently linked to that information says what I told you on your talk page; American Dad! at 9:30 ET in the fall, Bob's Burgers in the mid season. Always check the existing sources first, and then use your best judgement; I'd trust Fox over Hulu. KnownAlias X 23:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They've come back after their 1 week block and vandalized again. I've already reported them to AIV, if the ticket's still up, please feel free to comment on it. Thanks. Hasteur (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you got him all on your own, and in 9 minutes, too. Nice! I went through the block log last time and made clear in my AIV report that he had only been off block two hours before going right back in. You seemed to handle it right doing similar. That seems to be the trick with this boob; if he's just waiting by the computer to start screwing around with us again, AIV will waste just as little time re-blocking him. KnownAlias X 00:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case you check up, it took him 3½ hours to do it again after your block on him ended, even two weeks later. It took me a day to check and find it, but AIV blocked him for six months for this one. Hopefully he'll forget about us by the start of the New Year. KnownAlias X 01:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was wondering if you'd noticed Let Me Eat Cake (talk · contribs), and whether you would agree that it was another sock of JimmyDarmodyRules (talk · contribs). Account was created a few days after 'Jimmy' was blocked indefinitely because he was evading block with IPs. Let Me Eat Cake (talk · contribs) is editing Arrested Development, Falling Skies, and Hell on Wheels (TV series) pages, just like our previous socks. Editor is removing/unlinking red-links, as before. Editor complained of something being "too negative" on Falling Skies [3]. Editor removed "Plot" maintenance tags on a Falling Skies episode page without addressing the issue [4],[5], just like before [6]. Thoughts? --Logical Fuzz (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly know him from his blanking the Falling Skies talk pages as both JimmyDardonRules and AllianceApprovedMagician, so I'm not as familiar with his over-all M.O. as you seem to be, and no, this hadn't come up on my radar yet. But the "way too negative" comment does make me suspicious in spite of only changing one word, especially given the timing of the account creation. If you really do have that much evidence against him, go ahead and report him, but I would be sure to compare prior bad acts from the old and new accounts (did X as JDR on these edis [1], [2], [3], and the same or similar as LMEC on these [1], [2], then did Y as JDR...) and, of course, the convenience of the account creation's timing (dating JDR's last edit and LMEC's first edit) will be helpful in motivating the admins to have a real look at him, even if the checkuser doesn't pan out (you will especially want the preponderance of evidence to get them to use the checkuser, which can sum the matter up in a blink.) That method has been very successful to me for a sock we eventually got banned on Bob's Burgers (actually got another party blocked temporarily as a sock of his given the evidence, but turns out he wasn't; not that I don't think he's a meat, so I don't feel too bad) and against another guest-star obsessed multiple IP on Psych who finally did with his most recent account (after a begging plea on my part on his talk page; guy was actually trying to do the right thing) learn how to source his edits.
On the other hand, he seems to have built on the plot for the Arrested Development pilot (doesn't explain the removal of the other two tags, and I don't have time right now to read it to see if it brought it up to snuff), so I'd be sure whether or not he's going to do the work before going after him for that. KnownAlias X 23:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Knownalias. You have new messages at Talk:List_of_Young_Justice_episodes#Series_overview_colors.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This debate is re-emerging at Talk:Futurama (season 6). Just thought I should warn you Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading