User talk:Pic Editor960

Welcome!

Hello, Pic Editor960, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Merry Headcheese!-hexa Chord ² 21:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to Doctor Who (revived series), as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. Andy (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revived series

Thanks for your edits. The page did look good but I did check this and all of the infomation in this article was in the Doctor Who originally. That was why the redirect was put in. You got the warning because you blanked the page, it probably would of been better redirected. Regards. Andy (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the redirect back on and I would recommend to continue discussion on the Doctor Who article itself, you may well be able to get some sort of a separate article with good referecnces, length and well written. Regards. Andy (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would create the article well and then in the See also at the bottom of many articles, and I would put it there. Alternitively, you could put separate section in the main article once you have created the Revival, link this in the section as the main article of that section. I know that sounds confusing see Chicago and there are many small sections with main articles on them sections for example Climate of Chicago has a small section in Chicago but it has its own article because of it's relevance. Andy (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly it. Good luck with your project and happy editing. If you need a hand with anything hit me up! :) Cheers. Andy (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be deleted because of the info being in Doctor Who. You need to split it up into sections, with references, links. It is a good summary but it needs extending to have hope of staying. I'm heading to the article now to see what is going on and I'll see what I can do for you. :) Regards. Andy (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep going with the article, regarding the table, what style are you looking for? Andy (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the Afd and the vote was delete par concensus, when this is the case it is very difficult to change. What I would do now is look around the Doctor Who area and see if there is any gaps in existing articles, edit them and BE BOLD!!. Once you feel confident in this write a new article and take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria if you want to really challenge yourself!:). You could join the Doctor Who Wikiproject if you are intersted or any other project, I am in the severe weather project BTW.

I know this is completly off topic and a bit late (:D) but for the table,

{| class="wikitable", this tells the computer it is a table
! marka tell the computer it is a header in the table.
|-, This separates the table up
|, After this, you put in the infomation and it splits it up in the table.
You so these 2 (| and |- until you are happy with your table.
|}, this closes the table

Take a look at formatting on (on edit this page it shows you this) The Day After Tommorow (the cast and roles table) for an example of a simple table and Chicago (the climate table) for a complicated one with colours and all.

Hope all this helps. Regards. Andy (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Userpage

You created your user page in the article name space. I have moved it into the user name space. Before creating pages in the article name space, please see WP:YFA. Let me know if you have any questions! Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 22:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preview button

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. 217.155.34.29 (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

217.155.34.29 (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Doctor Who (revived series)

I have nominated Doctor Who (revived series), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who (revived series). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Rodhull andemu 23:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 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 (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Doctor Who (revived series) List of episodes

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Doctor Who (revived series) List of episodes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

from List of Doctor Who serials based on deleted content fork, and although well-formatted, raises copyright issues.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Rodhull andemu 01:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Doctor Who (Revived Series) List Of Episodes.

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Doctor Who (Revived Series) List Of Episodes., suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

unnecessary, although well-formatted, fork from List of Doctor Who serials with possible copyright problems.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Rodhull andemu 01:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Doctor Who (Revived Series) List Of Episodes.

I have nominated Doctor Who (Revived Series) List Of Episodes., an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who (Revived Series) List Of Episodes.. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Rodhull andemu 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Oneiros (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't experiment

... in article space.: Experiment in a sandbox page in your user namespace.

Your edits to List of Charmed episodes was not only inappropriate, but also broke part of the common appearance of that first half-season section by affecting the table displayed in adverse ways.

While the article needs a lot of work, seeding every episode title with {{main}} is just the opposite of the history of the encyclopedia and trend within the series, which eliminated separate articles for individual episodes and morphed into that very series List page. Only the first and last episodes meet notability guidelines in general, since the Charmed episodes are merely fantasy entertainment, not amazing cultural events which changed how millions of people view the culture or society. Hence {{main}} is appropriate only in those, since the others are redirects into that very page indexed by section.

Adding expansion information to those inadequate synopses is greatly encouraged, and most of the episode titles are now a redirect page, through which one can retrieve the old article page and use that to build a better section.

Most of the original people that did an excellent job of building those articles have now left this wiki (I suspect many of them on active on the Charmed wiki)

If you're looking for a useful task, all the redirects need visited and should have {{R to Charmed}} added, and the one's for the second half seasons should all be redirected to the proper section title.

If I can help you figure out how to do something, or whether this or that is a good idea, feel free to ask. I've been part of the Welcoming Committee for nearly four years now, and go out of my way to help new editors. BTW- welcome to wikipedia! // FrankB 02:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: This question and Charmed

you asked: Well if its not allowed/not really accepted on wikipedia explain why other television programmes have these separate articles into separate pages (e.g. Buffy, Angel, The Franchise of CSI episodes). So i think it is a good idea to do this as this separate articles on other series have been of useful information to people. Please Reply, Pic Editor960 (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of what was allowed, but 'of what was and was changed'. Wikipedia has "Notability Guidelines" (?WP:NOTE???) (Which I opposed and still disagree with in the main) and the separate article in the series were turned into redirects last fall.

That activity may have been a rouge editor expressing his Point of View, so changing all to redirects. I only know this list article is inadequate coverage, no synopses whatever, and rates piss poor on my ratings scales. I've been meaning to datamine old existing articles, but it might be interesting to list a bunch of those episode articles and see if there is a trail to a discussion or it is the action of one or a few POV motivated grinches.

Me, I figure like Jimbo. If someone cares enough about a topic to make a decent article about something, it ought be part of the wiki. Unfortunately, he nor the foundation board have ever made that policy, so the active vandal patroling lobby of admins has a disproportionate say in this conflict.

Undoing a big group of the redirects might be interesting... see who pokes their head up with a message complaining, or undoes your edit. (All editors being equal, works for me! Especially since will save me an awful lot of work turning this list page into decent synopses in a table. // FrankB 20:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On further mature reflection...

Let me work up a template that will allow a list of the redirect history pages to be sampled and examined, if you're around, see if you can see a pattern with a group or single individual making the changes to redirects. A good admin pursuing a close out of a talk discussion would normally cite the decision in talk spaces in his/her edit lines. The couple I saw don't fit that pattern. Duh... {{Las}} will do the job for a single article. so... with the help of cut N paste in Notepad.exe...

Second half, 2nd season

Episode No. Title Writer Director Original Airdate

   34 2.12 "Awakened (edit talk links history)" Valerie Mayhew, Vivian Mayhew Anson Williams February 3, 2000 When Piper comes down with a life-threatening disease, Prue and Phoebe cast a spell to cure her, unknowingly spreading the deadly disease to others. After ignoring the code preventing witches for personal gain,it also backfires, and causes the sisters to lose sleep. The media become involved when the doctor treating Piper is suspicious to how she recovered so quickly and Prue decides to quit her Job.

   35 2.13 "Animal Pragmatism (edit talk links history)" Chris Levinson, Zack Estrin Don Kurt February 10, 2000 A trio of mortal college girls looking for men on Valentine's Day, turn to magic for a solution by transforming three animals into men, with some indirect help from Phoebe. Meanwhile, Piper deals with both Dan and Leo wooing her for Valentine's Day and Prue adjusts to being unemployed.

   36 2.14 "Pardon My Past (edit talk links history)" Michael Gleason John Paré February 17, 2000 One of Phoebe's past lives comes back to haunt her as she learns that in the 1924 her past self was seduced by a warlock named Anton, in attempt to steal her cousins' powers. She finds out, to her dismay, that she is cursed by her evil power and that her cousins were Prue and Piper, the ones who tried to kill her.

   37 2.15 "Give Me a Sign (edit talk links history)" Sheryl J. Anderson James A. Contner February 24, 2000 A demon known as Litvack orders his henchmen to kill Bane Jessup, who Prue helped to put behind bars when Bane tried to have the Charmed Ones killed. Bane kidnappes Prue but all he wants is help from her. Meanwhile, Phoebe casts a spell that will give Piper a sign when it comes to choice of her true love.

   38 2.16 "Murphy's Luck (edit talk links history)" David Simkins John Behring March 30, 2000 After Prue prevents a Darklighter from killing a potential Whitelighter, by tempting to commit suicide, she becomes the target for his anger. To get revenge, he throws Prue into deep depression with a curse, that could put her life at risk in the Magical World.

   39 2.17 "How to Make a Quilt Out of Americans (edit talk links history)" Javier Grillo-Marxuach, Robert Masello Kevin Inch April 6, 2000 A group of three elderly witches, one of them a sister of the Halliwells' grandmother, summon a demon called Cryto, to restore their youth. However, in return, the demon wants the powers of the Charmed Ones.

   40 2.18 "Chick Flick (edit talk links history)" Zack Estrin, Chris Levinson Michael Schultz April 20, 2000 The Charmed Ones encounter a warlock who has the ability to make images from a film come to life. And when he brings characters to life from old B-grade horror movies, he sends them after the Charmed Ones.

   41 2.19 "Ex Libris (edit talk links history)"

is a bit busy, but the links are present. Let's do some investiging. I'm no fan of arrogant prigs pushing their POV where there is no clear concensus or precedent either. // FrankB 20:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in improving Charmed coverages, see the discussion below this answer for background on a new collaboration... can use help resurrecting synopses and improving them for all eight years. I've no DVDs, so any you can access will be a big help. // FrankB 16:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:I do have the DVD's but it seems that the page has already edited to fit most things in the episodes as per the fact that the DVD booklets only have about 4 lines of information about the episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pic Editor960 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

See ongoing expansions:

I was referring to a more dedicated effort data mining the video's themselves for synopses. I'm stuck with aired repeats by way of contrast. Detecting a lack of enthusiasm on your part, how about at least considering filling in the gaps in expanded synopses when I've no access to being able to replay an episode either because I missed it, or was out of record space. (There are around two-and-a-half seasons I've yet to see the first episode in, four, five and 1st half of six, irrc. For example, I'm prioritizing and getting through season 4 at two episodes a day/10 per week courtesy of TNT's reruns.) // FrankB 19:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed [Again]

re: Well i am in the middle of watching Tru Calling and CSI: Las Vegas/CrimeSceneInvestigation (re-watching) but tru calling is only 28 episodes so when i can i will watch them and start with season one and type a sypnosis will watching. WB WB Pic Editor960 (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you can do. Specific known needs in Charmed, Season 3, 2000-2001,

1.19 Exit Strategy
1.20 Look Who's Barking

I know I had to delete those before making up an adequate synopsis, as I went back to flesh them out today... no dice. The first in particular is important as the second when Cole plays double agent in the underworld... and the mind reading Demon Rayburn (sp? name?) almost turns him back to evil. Whatever those details, Phoebe was upset enough in the next one, to be vulnerable to the Banshee. In the current cycle, I doubt I'll have a crack at either of those again for about 15 weeks, if I calculated the cycle (close to) correctly TNT is doing with the reruns... and that assumes they cycle back to week one and begin again. // FrankB 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the point. This is all progressing, but only two of us are currently working at it... and that's mostly me. Bottom line, a year ago, the "Rules Nazi's" raped the articles on all the episodes on notability grounds, and the List of article became a joke. TV blurbs have more detail than what was up before December. The List of Page is under Construction, so anyone can pitch in. I've been waiting for another to finish converting to the neat tables now in season 1 and 2... and mainly working to get some kind of coverage in each episode in the by season pages already split out. The last four years we'll get to in due course, no doubt. // FrankB 00:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, he's been doing the List of Charmed episodes tables changeover, but left me a note he's been busy with school work.
Wonder what you mean by saying you'll do eight seasons... that's quite a bite assuming you're gonna maintain quality of writing and avoiding in-universe language. This stuff needs written for the stray reader, not people familiar with the series... that makes things long, and the phrasing has to be carefully worded. Have had the same problem with another lengthy series I've worked.

Best regards, but make sure we're pulling the same directions. Admittedly the season pages are a mismash of things tried ... such as wholesale importing of infoboxes from the historic articles turned into redirects I've been data mining. Do play a bit with {{Chrmd|...}} and it's various modes... making currently the full url links to the old pages or to the history page of such. At some point, we make the template vanish the links, so leave that alone, please. Think I may quit tonight too. TTFN // FrankB 00:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed Episode Tables

I'm really busy with school and homework at the moment so if you can pitch in that would be great. :) TheLeft orium 11:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel stressed about doing it right now if you don't have time. It can wait. And don't worry about the colors, I can change them later. —TheLeft orium 11:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KK ty Pic Editor960 (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC) anywho i must go grab a DVD i'm going to edit season 1...brb Pic Editor960 (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. The colors are wrong, though. They should be like this. —TheLeft orium 12:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to undo them, the old version is available here. —TheLeft orium 13:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol, thanks! ;) TheLeft orium 13:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. I changed the colors a bit. TheLeft orium 16:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you should save the page more often. ;) TheLeft orium 18:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if I agree with 'more often', as my read is that you've made small changes with too many saves, but worse, haven't left shit for an edit summary... which means we have to waste time to figure out what you were doing... not too polite, that. So... Can you clue us in what you've done, please. // FrankB 13:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes!!!, check your work on a finished page. (somehow lots of leading whitespaces begin lines in several sections... I'm peeing on it!) // FrankB 14:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you were trying in Season 2, but it seems to have been to tweak the colors to season one's color scheme??? Whatever, it messed up a whole bunch of sections, so I reverted back to my last.

If you want to change colors, just globally search and replace:

|LineColor= E56024... to "|LineColor= NewColor" ... on the whole page in one edit... far easier, and only one save to proof back against. Some table beginnings may need an additional graphical tweak, but that's the benefit of using a template. Cheers, btw, the arrangement on the top of that page or season 4's was the way I was evolving things, but see my talk comment in 2 (reply to your post). We should all have a say on that. // FrankB 14:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: My comment here: Episode Tables Yikes again on Season 1... you've killed the episode section links for petes sake... so all the redirect have no targets again. I asked you to go cautiously... feel out the changes and trends. Asked for help on the content, not the f***ing format I also advised you was being reconfigured. Please don't confuse activity with progress... you just took three steps backwards being Active in the wrong direction. Appearance can wait on content, forsooth! // FrankB 14:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: See this exchange... while I reverted the mess in season 2, I'd prefer you deal with this season 1 page by reinstating the sections and formats or at least telling me it's okay to revert you. I hate reverts, and rarely resort to such. I've done less than 20 or so, excluding vandalisms in five years of editing well over 6,000 pages, so perhaps you should feel in an exclusive club? <g> Well... you are in a way! <g>

Really want your help, but format display stuff decisions should be a group decision, and TheLeftorium apparently had technical difficulties so told you to do something retro and unhelpful. Sorry I took a day for family time, but I was getting burned out. // FrankB 17:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season 1 looks okay

... but that's a cumbersome way to do that kind of effect. If we want white, just change the defaults in {{Charmed episode}} and we can do away with all the clutter.

Use Tt0 to make a test change to {{Charmed episode}}
subst that for a few sections, to give it a thourough test that doesn't break pages,
then put the new version in place and tidy up.
I can do that if you and Theleftorium think that a better look. (I frankly don't focus on such much as some wise guy usually comes along and thinks he's improving things with his ideas of what looks better. Ahem! <g> (You can be teased, I hope!)
In any event, data mining the old redirected episodes, and manually fixing up the redirects per my talk note to Theleftorium would be useful. I've just morphed {{There}} into {{There2}} to work for linking within the articles, but can also be used on the redirect pages. Just give:
1. #redirect {{There2|Charmed (season N)|Episode's title}}{{R to Charmed}}{{R to section}} on the same line.
  Or do the long hand:
2. #redirect [[Charmed (season N)|Episode's title]]{{R to Charmed}}{{R to section}} (Which is less likely to confuse others looking into the redirect page.)
I'm not a big fan of ugly whitespace gaps caused by the TOC...
1. 1. the MOS allows for it to be nested right, so arranging things to do that is usually a nicer looking page to my tastes.
2. Ditto, prefer something Logoish with the trinity knot to identify the charmed articles. We can't use the copyrighted one, but the reproduction sketch is at least symbolically the same, and we can colorize that later if it's on a page.
3. Don't see the need for the TV series infobox at all, at all... (as I noted in talk page, Season 2's I think) it really doesn't do squat, alternatively, it should link to the episode list and all eight subpages (Season pages) using the prev, next fields.

Other than that on appearances, matters of taste all, though, the page top looks okay, ~~so good job~~. I'd simplify the formatting so less can go wrong with a judicious edit and expanding the template capability.

Sigh

Why'd you remove the formating and stubbed in {{Also starring}} recent adds??? Without the article, Lefty and I both agree we need to cite actors, etc. See my comment/question to him on the width. The format of that template allows a lot of flexibility that the infobox I also tested a few places doesn't. // FrankB 17:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

exchange

Ping // FrankB 18:16, 26 January 2009

Keep this section's contents in mind when considering changes to format

Whatever we do with formatting, having the capabilities in this quilted section are desirable. I experimented with several layout formats for {{also starring}}, so if you have a better idea, let's work it out. As far as I'm concerned, it gives a good balance between useful whitespace around table like data and sufficient whitespace setting off clear paragraphs. If we don't use indenting (Admittedly, it's become far less common in these days of justified text fonts and HTML formatted pages, but was the common standard in all kinds of text... and IMHO, still has uses in setting things off distinctly in an easy to read way.) "{{I2}}" should just be replaced with {{2}}... {{I}} with {{1}} to maintain editable separation and overall vertical spacing. // FrankB 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Its Moi Again

xposts included... I fixed Charmed (season 1) tell me what you think now... Pic Editor960 (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, umm...It didn't look very nice but try below the summary

Also Starring:

A
B
C
D

Pic Editor960 (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would create a lot of useless whitespace, don't you think?

The key is, if it's in a template, the template can put it anywhere we all decide it should go... whether Summary is above or below, or we can slide to the bottom and reset it so it puts out the bullets you seem to be suggesting. Keeps the editing neat and easy.

These things can be worked out together... putting the data IN in the first place takes a lot of time, and is where the work is most need now.

Placing also starring inside the Summary field was and is a temporary expedient while the process of compiling information and building pages goes on... the series was raped by notability guidelines, I think we can agree. How best to recover from that institutional insanity... to make the new pages work for the tasks needing done needs a common talk page I think. If we work things out on private talks, people will feel free to mess with whatever we come up with. Hell, I've already lost at least an hours editing talking to you and Lefty this morning. Errr, longer... now it's afternoon! (I've got to get back to Quilting! <g>) // FrankB 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to put the Also Starring below the text? Pic Editor960 (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it breaks things up from that table header like this, which I think looks better. It would also compete with the "Of special significance" notes I've been adding to more significant episode bottoms... where would those go if you put the other on the bottom? But anyhow, my main care is doing a thorough job putting information out in a clear, not-In-universe manner. Put together other trial format arrangements... something in a sandbox page and let me and Lefty take a look and compare on what you have in mind. // FrankB 22:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another need...

Any assistance fleshing out List_of_Charmed_characters page would be a good short burst kind of effort. All the bluelinks using {{chrmdchar}} need followed, checked and vetted, as it's structure lies since it connects to sections like {{there}} and {{There2}}. // FrankB 22:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: A thousand apologies

A belated answer...

...but apparently someone else posted a message just after and I didn't see the above until today...

Don't believe stars, or regular cast needs stated for each episode. Best handle that on season pages, as they've evolved in the write up leading into the tops of the episodes. (Currently show up, but that's to my mind temporary for the Rcs# fields. See below.)
The recurring supporting characters (Leo, Cole, Darryl, Andy, etc) were and were not in the low program budgets episode to episode, so were and were not in an episode, especially in the first two seasons, though more so for Darryl when Cole (co-star) was a principle character. So for completeness, I documented that in {{also starring}}, whereas, my long term planning is to have that field just not manifest in the template, or manifest as perhaps a cite... so each episode would only list the "TRUE guest actors". It's easy to let the computer do the work that way, and forms a cite for other editors documenting data that has been researched and verified. To make things disappear in a template, all one needs do is alter the capitalisation, for example.
Placement of where is moot. I think it more appropriate up top, not as bulleted trailing lists, because of IN-UNVERSE versus NOT described as In-universe conveniences... basically that means, (See what I put up) the character lists can be written to explain in advance the role played in the narrative summary to follow... in a expository way that eliminates some of the criticisms of fan_cruft AND unclarity. So to me this is a biggie.
By now, I trust you noticed I reverted the non-sectionalized changes in Season 1.
If Phoebe, Piper, Prue, etc. are deemed necessary, then I'd group them and the Rsc# characters as a "Stars and Co-stars:" titleline. Adding a number parameter to the template solely for seasons 1-3 pages, can be done as a global search and replace, the parameter sensed there upon page build to select between Paige or Prue. (Paige's five seasons giving her the default state.)
Ditto juggling where things are displayed. Since BriefSummary={{also starring|...}}<hr/> ... precedes each Summary (Or the few experimental stabs at a synopsis and a summary... some writing in seasons 3 & 4, iirc)

A quick fix solution would be:
1. Add a postfix field "LongSummary" to the template after the "BriefSummary" field manifests (shows up), reserving instead BriefSummary= for a synopsis field, perhaps.
2. Globally Search and replace (GSAR) the strings "}}<hr/>"
  
    with "}}<hr/>LongSummary=" or depending upon the desired order...
  
    with "}}LongSummary=<hr/>" (In Notepad.exe or the equivalent.)
  
     The page(s) first edited will be organized in the new order, those lacking the global changes still appear as if the template didn't have the new field... and not exploit it either.
3. By similar means, one can add a field: "ActorsList=" to the template, and GSAR BriefSummary=...}} and morph it into "ActorsList={{also starring| ", so the field can be put where ever you want.
4. By the same token, you can eliminate or move "<hr/>" if that kind of reformatting is wanted.
Regardless of this feedback, do what you want. I'm currently minded 'to make no more edits' here on Wikipedia. See Blocked for why, but while I changed my mind back in November, this place is really wearing on me, so I consider it pretty foolish to go on... time will tell. I've walked away for a while before.

I'm really getting weary of all the nonsense. Five years of free time is enough wasted.

Best wishes. Sorry again about the delayed reply. // FrankB 18:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I drop this xpost here...: let me add that you can also incorporate {{Also starring}} INTO {{Charmed episode}}, and use that merge to reformat and rearrange things in another (second) methodology, as well. Be Well

List of Charmed episodes

I don't really have time either but I'll try to do it in the next couple of weeks. —TheLeft orium 19:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to answer.: // FrankB 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Just a note to let you know box office gross isn't added to the infobox until a film completes its theatrical run because it changes on a daily basis. LiteraryMaven (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untouchable

Untouchable has not been released as a single yet, therefore it should not be added to the Girls Aloud discography. Please do not re-add it until it has been released. Thank you. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 15:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of CSI: LV U.K. Weekly Ratings

I have nominated CSI: LV U.K. Weekly Ratings, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSI: LV U.K. Weekly Ratings. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. MBisanz ^talk 05:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

90210

I'm sorry I couldn't help (I wasn't at home all day), but I'm glad you figured it all out. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Bill_lawrence_scrubs_g-1-.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Bill_lawrence_scrubs_g-1-.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe McElderry

The AfD for Joe McElderry which you participared in closed as Redirect to List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_6). There is a proposal now at Talk:List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_6)#Joe_McElderry_2 to restore an independent article and your opinion would be welcome there. I42 (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Pic Editor960. You have new messages at Theleftorium's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ratings don't really mean much to a show like The Simpsons, and the article is already rather large. It also didn't help that the table was incomplete, and some of the sources, such as "fbibler.chez.com", quotenmeter.de and the one from Geocities (which, by the way, is for personal websites, it's not a news site), were questionable. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to List of The Big Bang Theory episodes (season 3). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Your addition to Iron Man (film series) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby

I didn't mean she was shot, not enough space in the comment box to say who I meant, it was changed from heart to chest. And as for the ambiguous thing, if you have a source, add it, but otherwise its just unsourced information and can't be added and either way it shouldn't be added in the plot section, it'd be in development or casting. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Portstewart, you may be blocked from editing. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about A Space Oddity (CSI)

Hello, Pic Editor960, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Space Oddity (CSI) whether the article A Space Oddity (CSI) should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving A Space Oddity (CSI), which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! JDDJS (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please do not vandalize articles like you did at Lady Gaga. You've been asked before not to make non-constructive edits like this before. If you do something like that again, don't be surprised if you end up getting reported. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Pic Editor960. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"CSI: Crime Scene Investigation/Archive 1" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CSI: Crime Scene Investigation/Archive 1. Since you had some involvement with the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation/Archive 1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]