Jump to content

User talk:SchrutedIt08/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of House of Lies episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Hopkins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hogcock!/Last Lunch

Hey, I hope you don't think I'm trying to be deliberately irritating joining the list of people trying to change the title of the 30 Rock finale back to just "Hogcock!" and "Last Lunch". I did initially concede that NBC appeared to be promoting the episode as "Series Finale, Part 1: Hogcock! Part 2: Last Lunch", but they are listing the episode in their episodes section, video catchup and photo galleries as "Hogcock!/Last Lunch" now, and the reviewers are referring to it in the same way as well, so I've come to assume that the "Series Finale" addendum was just for promotion. Let's face it, they could do with ratings going up a bit. I noticed that they were never referring to it with the "Series Finale" addendum on the 30 Rock website, since it was otherwise noted that it was the final episode. Just thought I'd give a more detailed explanation to you, so you don't think I'm just being oppositional for the sake of it. What are your thoughts on it? One Among Many (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's all good, believe me. I only changed the titles originally to include "Series Finale" because the sources were changed. But if most other sources aren't referring to it as such and only using the primary titles then I'm fine with leaving it at that. It's not a particularly big deal anyway, so there's no point getting into a big edit war over it. Thanks! -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

AdamDeanHall and Start date

Just an FYI, AdamDeanHall was changing prose dates to use {{Start date}} in various articles, as well as arbitrarily changing date formats so I warned him.[1] He actually asked me to fix all his errors for him, but I told him that was really his responsibility.[2] Even though I specifically said that {{Start date}} was meant for use in tables, not for general use in the prose, he's changing uses of it everywhere, as you've seen. He's also arbitrarily changing date formats and in at least one instance replaced {{As of}} with a standard date format. I've had serious WP:COMPETENCE concerns about him for some time and they seem to be borne out with this latest instance. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

People have always had problems with him, especially his attitude about owning articles and wanting things to be done his way. But I'm really not sure what he was trying to accomplish with changing the date formats. Are you thinking of, I don't know, "doing something" about him? -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
As I said, I've had serious WP:COMPETENCE concerns about him for some time that probably warrants further action at WP:ANI. I just need to compile some examples. I'm not sure if mentoring will help. He just doesn't seem to "get it". The latest incident demonstrates that all too well. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
From looking over his talk page he's obviously demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to learn. Editors and admins have been on his case for years about edit warring, ownership, edit summaries, vandalism, unsourced additions and all manner of no-no's. I don't know if he doesn't "get it" as you said or if he just doesn't care. Either way, you and I are not the first editors to have concerns about him. Not by a long shot. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I notice sometimes that AdamDeanHall has a volatile temper on some of his comments and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I am REALLY confused right now!

I have no recollection of changing the Episodes to Season 1 on Beauty and the Beast (2012 TV series). I could have sworn I did it the other way around, hence the previous edit summary. Thanks for the quick work in changing it back. MisterShiney ✉ 11:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Californication episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Hopkins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for what you do, re: TV

I just wanted to say I've noticed you add press release information and a lot more to many TV episode pages. You do a lot of work. It's small work that is needed. I just wanted to let you know that. Also, I think you've improved a few of the summaries I've expanded. (I think it was you.) After reading a few I wondered why I didn't think to write it like that. I guess that's the beauty of Wikipedia projects. By the way, what's going on with this AdamDeanHall guy? After you reverted what he did I checked his contributions and see he has been putting on many of those summary templates and you've been reverted them. Lol. ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 02:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. I don't think I've seen you around much before, so welcome! (just in case) To be honest my enthusiasm has been sort of dying the last couple of months. Mostly what I do (reverting copyright violations, filling in ratings references, etc.) is busy work that just never seems to end. It's hard to keep on top of everything, but it has to be done. Your appreciation makes it easier, so thank you. As for AdamDeanHall, I honestly have no idea what is going on with him. It has been seriously suggested that he has some kind of mental deficiency. As you can see from his talk page archives practically no one gets along with him (or has ever gotten along with him: complaints about his behaviour go back about five years or so) and he never seems to get any better at co-operating or collaborating with other editors. I think all of his edits about summary length have been reverted by myself and a few others now, but it won't be long before he does something else. He does do some good work, but it's difficult dealing with him sometimes. Thanks again for the compliments, keep up your good work too! -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I've probably had a Wikipedia account for about a year but, to be honest, I don't have much to contribute. When I stumbled onto how Wikipedia works I became really interested. The elections, Arbitration Board, and all that goes on it neat. I almost wanted to become a really active editor just so I could get on a board or become an administrator - seemed exciting. Shhhhhh, don't tell anyone I said that. That wouldn't be the best reason to go through the process to became an admin. Lol. I realize how difficult that is to get through and I know I would never do anything like that. • I haven't looked a great very much but so far the only place I'm able to contribute is television episode summaries. It's not that I'm that great at it but more needs written than just a couple of sentences. I wanted to remind myself of what happened on a show of mine and found out that many are lacking a very good summary. I just started writing some of those. • I really no very little about how to format Wikipedia charts and boxes. I have thought about making a decent User Page but haven't. After I wrote you I looked at yours and several of your boxes would apply to me - right down to us being close in age. • AND, by the way, I noticed you reverted my idea of putting the symbol "♦" as a sort of paragraph marker. How dare you! Lol. ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 08:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there no way to communicate with another editor privately on Wikipedia? Are you an administrator? ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 08:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no way to privately contact another editor, message boxes, etc. Only talk pages. And no, I'm not an admin. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted two edits at once. I guess I just don't know how to do that. Do you have a Twitter account or something you'd post on Wikipedia? ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 12:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I can revert two or more edits at once because I have rollback rights. You can read about it at WP:ROLLBACK. I have no idea how I got rollback rights, I didn't request them, but you can ask an admin if you can be given rollback rights. And no, I don't have a Twitter account. There's too much pressure to be interesting and witty if you have one of those. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

TV article help

We've interacted before on Family Guy, The Cleveland Show and American Dad!. I need your opinion about these edits here. An editor who previously added this unhelpful bit to the article here has now for some unknown reason added Australian air dates to what appears to be entirely a Canadian tv show. I have no idea where they got the new "season three" air dates. I rarely edit tv articles, other than to revert vandalism or bad edits, so am not sure what wikipedia policy is here. The article appears to have no senior editors. The wiki project tv page doesn't get much activity (unlike the wiki project film page). Any suggestions? - Fantr (talk) (formerly fanthrillers) 18:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Something like this is pretty simple to resolve. It's a Canadian show, therefore the only dates that matter are the Canadian air dates. International dates can be useful, but since it's such specific information, it's best to have that kind of information on season articles, which this show doesn't have. I'd revert the edits because US/AUS air dates aren't relevant for a Canadian series. As for the season three air dates, if you do some looking around on some TV sites, you should be able to quickly verify whether or not they are correct. Any information about upcoming episodes must be accompanied by a source, otherwise it needs to be removed. If you can't verify it, then ask the user where they got the information from and ask them to provide a source. If they can't, or their source is unreliable, remove it. Hope this helps. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! - Fantr (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Aeusetereleiea

Since The Mentalist (season 5) is unblocked now, you better keep an eye on Aeusetereleiea if he continues what he does. If he does it again, you better report him to admin again or something like that. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Will do. If he starts acting up again I don't think it'll take much convincing to get him blocked. We'll just have to see how it goes. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Family Guy Volume 4.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Family Guy Volume 4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Revert on List of Game of Thrones episodes‎

Thank you for quickly reverting my rollback on said article. The rollback was indeed a mistake caused by a misclick. I thank you for correcting this sooner than I could have! —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 22:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem! Being a finicky, nit-picking editor is what I do. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit revert - List of Arrow episodes

What's that about? Why did you revert my edit? Please use a talk page to voice your complaints, or if you are going to revert an edit, please explain why. Thanks.--ɱ (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 01:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There is already a section on the Arrow talk page as to why having an episode list is premature. Perhaps you should use the talk page before making significant edits like that. If I hadn't reverted it, someone else would have. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
What, so three people decided to do this article later on? That's dumb. I have the basis for a decent article, why revert it now? That's just silly. And soon you'll be reinventing the wheel to create the article. The article is very long and should be cut shorter. For a show that has 20+ episodes with descriptions, it needs a separate page. Why, Sherlock (TV series) has a separate page for episodes, and they've only got a meager six episodes! Six!
I didn't post on the talk page as it's usually standard procedure that a full television show will get an 'episodes' page once someone creates it or once there are enough episodes to make the page awkwardly lengthy, both of which happened. Okay? Also, the Arrow (TV series) article itself does instruct editors to "create a "List of Arrow episodes" page there is an additional episode order of 22 episodes.", (Only viewable on the edit screen) so I followed those instructions and created it. Don't go busting me for following instructions. Instructions on your article too.--ɱ (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 01:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
See the talk page, because what's on the article edit section isn't necessarily reflective of what was discussed later. It was done earlier, when we had people creating the page after barely half the season. Again, I point you to WP:SIZE.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Well if you have such a problem with this episodes article (even though I don't see any reason why you should want to object to it), then I suggest that you remove or remedy that hidden text instructing editors to create such article at this time. You'll probably feel it best to remedy it some way like this: "create a "List of Arrow episodes" page once there is an additional episode order of 22 episodes on air." Or removing that text altogether will end the matter with greater ease and other benefits.--ɱ (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 03:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, just to let you both know, since of the case of your extreme opinions, on 16 May (the day after episode 23 airs) I plan to essentially redo the edits on the Arrow main page and that redirect page to recreate the episodes article. In case someone beats me to some of that after the episode airs (entirely probable), I'll just do the edits to the two articles that they missed. Just to make everything clear. And I assume that, based on this conversation, you both are entirely accepting of these future actions? An alternative that I rather favor is that I suggest that we preempt this measure by contributing to a sandbox article of the episode list, and then when the time comes to publish it on the mainstream wiki, we'll already have a decent article free of many or most imperfections. Would the both of you agree that this is a good idea?--ɱ (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 03:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Hannibal episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Thompson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Ratings

May I ask why you've reverted all our site's contributions? Do you work for TVBTN? Our site only wishes to provide detailed ratings information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB MrTV (talk • contribs) 05:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't work for TV by the Numbers. I reverted your edits because they were completely unnecessary. The site you added posts literally the exact same information as TVBN, so there's no improvement there. Other than that all you did was add an additional decimal place to the rating, which (as you can tell by all the ratings on the pages you revised) is largely ignored on Wikipedia. The third decimal place has been deemed an overkill of information, which is why we round the number either up or down to the next decimal place and leave it at that. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

So you said that you would like to reach a consensus about the addition of the "Featured Characters" section on Once Upon a Time (Season 1) and Once Upon a Time (Season 2). So I don't know the steps in reaching a final consensus regarding this topic, but I just would like to say that, in my opinion, we should add the section just so it would emphasis which characters each episode are focusing on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonofaphrodite (talk • contribs) 04:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You have already been involved with a discussion about adding the featured characters column, over a year and a half ago. The discussion is still visible on the LoE talk page, where you failed to gain consensus, called everyone an idiot and went off in a huff. All the arguments against it still stand. If you have something new to add, there would be the place to do it. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Six Feet Under

I have restored obviously notable Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series-winning and Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series – Drama-winning seasons. These are obviously among the most notable season in television history. I fail to understand any rationale to delete them. WP:AFD them if you want.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE, WP:SIZESPLIT (among others) are my rationale. Winning the awards is why an article should be created about the seasons, but not in their current form. That alone is nowhere near enough justification because all you have on the article is a couple of DVD release dates, the episode table and a subtemplate about the awards. That's nothing. There isn't any information about the cast or production of the seasons, their critical reception or viewing figures or anymore specific information about their accolades or awards. Gather up enough of that information and then I would agree with you. Until then having such a tiny amount of information (all of which was included in the LoE page to start with) is a waste of space. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
We have been here before. I assume no responsibility for editing TV series seasons. Basically, StewieBaby05 likes to create TV show seasons mostly based on episode lists. As he does, I tag the ones that won the Emmy, Golden Globe or SAG award for best comedy or drama series or that were the top-rated show for the relevant years with the proper templates. In this case {{GoldenGlobeTVDrama 1990–2009}} and {{ScreenActorsGuildAwards EnsembleTVDrama 2000–2009}} both include seasons affected by these reversions. The various people concerned with season articles have reached an equilibrium of sorts that seems to have stopped a lot of edit warring. Basically, I don't fight you to keep series that he has created that are not helpful to any of these template series and you don't fight against the seasons that are essential to the modest sets of templates that are better with distinct articles for seasons. Yes it would be great if I wanted to get involved in actually editing the seasons that I think are good for these templates, but I am doing a lot of other stuff on WP. Let's not go back and forth about each season individually and just let those that are useful for the templates stay and I won't fight about any that aren't. We could expend a lot of energy arguing about all the seasons that he creates, but we could save a lot of everyone's time, if you just let the one's that have won major awards stay regardless of their state of development and I won't bother you about the others. It is a lot simpler than arguing each TV series on a case-by-case basis.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned season articles serve no useful purpose. Season articles need to be transcluded onto the main episode list, which needs a valid {{main}} link back to the season article. If this isn't the case, all that happens is the season article and main list end up out of sync and then some other editor has to come along and sort out the mess, which usually ends up producing a sub-standard article. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wilfred (U.S. season 3) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • RTitle = <ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.thefutoncritic.com/listings/20130624fx03/|title=#307) "Intuition"|work=The Futon Critic|accessdate=June 25, 2013}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ray Donovan (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

SpoilerTV

Firstly, SpoilerTV gets it's information from official sources like casting calls or press sites of the channels. Also information regarding the shows are sent to them by the TV sites. Secondly, "any one" cannot log on and post on the site, SpoilerTV has a team of contributors and only they can post on the site.

I am just a regular visitor of the site and I asked about their credibility when I first started visiting the site. --103.20.1.134 (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

DVD color changes for Rookie Blue

Hi, SI08. This is no big deal (if they choose to have mismatch colors, that's fine with me), but on each season of Rookie Blue, I added the DVD covers and changed the articles' covers to match "blues" from each. My edits were reverted, without explanation, mind you, back to inexplicable funky colors that horribly clash. The colors I had can best be seen on List of Rookie Blue episodes, as they have yet to see them there. Again, no big deal, I don't really care. Just irritating to do all that and it gets undescribably reverted. — Wyliepedia 11:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah editors get a little protective when it comes to season colours. I don't really know why. I was just trying to discourage two editors who were contuinally changing the colours on the Dexter LoE. Although, if a lot of the DVD cover art share the same colour motif (i.e. blues) then it becomes a bit pointless trying to match them. It's all right for shows where each DVD set has its own distinctive colour scheme (shows like The X-Files or The Simpsons are good like that) but otherwise you wind up something like The Vampire Diaries where three seasons in a row are all basically the same colour. It gets annoying, but to each their own. Sons of Anarchy is an LoE page I edit on regularly where I reverted an editor who tried matching season colours to DVD colours. All of the SoA DVD's are either black and white or grey, so I didn't see the point. If only those DVD companies would keep WP editors in mind when designing cover art. Bastards! -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Zou Bisou Bisou image

You are extremely active at List of Mad Men episodes, Mad Men (season 5) and related topics. I am having some trouble at "Zou Bisou Bisou" with File:Jessica Paré in a miniskirt performing Zou Bisou Bisou.jpg. There is discussion at Talk:Zou_Bisou_Bisou#Non-free_image regarding its removal. I would appreciate it if you would comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Aeusetereleiea

I don't trust Aeusetereleiea. He could very well commit disruptive editing on The Mentalist (season 6), like he did with The Mentalist (season 5) and others relating to The Mentalist. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither do I, but there's nothing we can really do about it at the moment. I don't think we're allowed to request page protection or blocking editor until they've actually disrupted the page, which he hasn't yet. Best thing to do is just continue as normal and if he stirs up trouble again, we'll just have to go to the admins again. If we both keep an eye out hopefully it'll go easier than last time. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Or report him on the noticeboard here if he becomes disruptive. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Dracula

What about the links that were NOT from IMDb? Even if IMDb is user generated, you have to pay a membership of $15 a month to edit that site? VsanoJ (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

...and Due to the process of having the submitted data or text reviewed by a section manager, IMDb is different from database projects like Wikipedia, Discogs, or OpenStreetMap in that contributors cannot add, delete, or modify the data or text on impulse, and the manipulation of data is controlled by IMDb technology and salaried staff. VsanoJ (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

True, but the IMDb staff do not ask for authentication. Anyone could have created an account (IMDb is completely free; it's IMDb-Pro that you have to pay for) and added that information without it being true. Because there is no way for us to verify what is or isn't true in regards to the IMDb, it is almost universally unacceptable to use it as a source for information about upcoming films or television episodes. You should read WP:RELY and WP:Citing IMDb for more specific reasons. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Good points, but I am somewhat surprised. I have tried to update an IMDb entry AND I was asked to pay for that edit(that was a few years ago, so I could be wrong). Message boards is a different story. In the film biz, it is a very well regarded site, so i apologize. No harm intednded. VsanoJ (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
No harm done. The content is there, you found good sources, so there's no problem. Not much sense squabbling and making a big deal out of it. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Glee (season 4) article color

SchrutedIt08, I notice that you tried out the new background color based on the Season Four DVD, and then reverted. I was wondering what you thought the way forward might be.

We've already had one person try to change the color, back before we had a reliable source with the cover—which, incidentally, matches the UK cover that's been out since last week at least, including the background color—and I don't think it will be long before someone tries again.

We've been going with a preliminary background color for the first year, and then switching to the DVD background color as the season color once the season's DVD cover was set. But season four is about halfway between season one's yellow (with a slight orange flavor) and season two's orange: not nearly as much contrast as we'd like. If we're going to retain the DVD connection, however, I don't see how we can avoid this yellow-orange mix, which comes out to basically the color mixture you selected. (We could make it a bit more white, if we wanted.) I think it will be helped by using black text rather than white (a quick experiment showed that black is more readable in the infobox and the episode table with the new color).

We could also discuss it on the season 4 talk page, so if there is a consensus to stray from the DVD color, we can point to it when the inevitable edits happen. Thanks for your input. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about the best way to proceed with this. The only suggestion I could really think of that made any sense is to change the season one colour to red. Even though the primary colour for the season one box is the yellow we've had for the last few years, the red would at least match the text of the cover art. I did a small test edit (without saving) and it didn't look half bad, but I wouldn't want to make that change without starting a discussion about it.
My only other suggestion would be to simply abandoned the DVD-matching motif. It's a good system of visual identification, I think, but it's only a custom and not mandatory. We can discuss it further on the season four talk page if you like, but I was just going to defer to you and go along with whatever you think is best. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Abandoning the DVD-matching motif might turn out to be best. The other possibility is to change from matching the cover background color to matching the "glee" logo color: red, lightish blue, yellow, and teal. The problem here is that seasons two and four aren't as far apart as might be desirable, probably because of the similar background colors to contrast with. I'll go over there and make a post. (Just did so; it'll look somewhat familiar...) Under the circumstances, it's best to have a discussion, since not everyone will want to defer to me. ;-) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

SpoilerTv Not Reliable?

I don't understand why their not reliable when they get their information from Foxfast (which is one of the official scheduling things for Fox)... Also, I've seen sources on other articles that used SpoilerTv and no one ever changed those.. So why is it different for Glee? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijoshiexo (talk • contribs) 20:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Foxfast is no longer available to the general public, so there's no way for regular users (like myself) to verify that it provides those titles. SpoilerTV is not reliable because it is user-generated, with people logging in and submitting stories without the need for verification. More often than not the site adds information citing itself as the source, without disclosing where the story came from. It's not different just for Glee. SpoilerTV should never be used as a reference for information about upcoming episodes or series. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
To my embarrassment, I didn't realize this very salient point until after I had created redirects for the episode titles they provided: when I afterward looked more closely at SpoilerTV, it was clear that not only was this a site by fans for fans, but that the particular author of these two Glee stories, "Ben", was not even listed as a staff member. I agree that SpoilerTV cannot be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. Back when I could get direct access to FoxFast, I found it to be generally more accurate than Fox or FoxFlash; unfortunately, as SchrutedIt08 notes, they have closed it off to the general public, so there is no way to confirm the information. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hidden notes and Visual Editor

SchrutedIt08, the few times I was precipitated into Visual Editor before I managed to shut it off, I discovered that hidden notes are not shown there. Visual Editor is WYSIWYG, so all those notes we've carefully placed in the various Glee articles to prevent unsourced material additions or typical problematic infobox edits turn out to be invisible to people using that editor.

This failing—and as far as I'm concerned, it is a failing—has been mentioned Village Pump, but I didn't see any indication that Visual Editor would be changing. As a result, we can't simply talk about hidden comments when an editor has been using Visual Editor, because the person can't see them and certainly isn't willfully ignoring them or even deleting them, they're just writing over what's invisibly there, and Visual Editor is apparently removing the invisible comment.

I have no idea whether this is the case for people using one of the Mobile editors; my assumption has been that they use a version of the source editor, and can therefore see comments. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brooklyn Nine-Nine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ! scope="col" style="background-color:#0000ff;"| U.S. viewers<br />(million

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of The Mindy Project episodes may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" width="100%" style="margin-right: 0;"
  • {{Episode list

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brooklyn Nine-Nine may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" style="width:100%; margin:auto;"
  • {{Episode list

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Under the Dome (TV series) does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! --Musdan77 (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

RE: Episode titles for AHS: Coven

Hello, SchrutedIt08. You have new messages at CAWylie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
 Done! — Wyliepedia 12:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Whew, I just removed 6K worth of information by condensing/merging! Last month, I was going to leave it be until October, but it just had to be fixed. — Wyliepedia 03:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
You did a good job. Big articles are always a lot of work. Maintaining and tweaking and reverting. That's why I hardly ever bother. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. If we don't fix it now... — Wyliepedia 03:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Haven episode names

I don't understand why you saw it necessary to remove the episode names for Haven season 4, especially when you were the person who added all the names for season 3 unlinked. Your comment was "Unlinked text in navboxes should be avoided. Wait until episode articles have been created." You know that each of them will be linked soon enough and readers will have transparent access to the names and what they can access. I've reinserted them, which I hope is not a real problem to you. -- I.Hutchesson ► 02:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC) I didn't even have time to finish this message before you reverted this. It seems that you forget so easily that you didn't revert your season 3 names insertion !! "If there's no article to go to, then there's no point." That is your opinion, a changed one at that. You saw the point last year. -- I.Hutchesson ► 02:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a problem for me, because it's a problem for the site. Read this section of the Navbox article, which clearly states that navboxes are templates for navigating between articles that already exist, not articles that will exist at some point. I added the unlinked season 3 titles last year before I knew about this rule. Now I know better. My opinion changed because I became aware of a rule I was violating that I hadn't previously known about. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
You were "violating" nothing. What you refer to in the Navbox article is a recommendation, not a rule. It doesn't say "don't" (rule): it says "should be avoided" (recommendation). You saw the utility of including the names last year. That same utility exists now for this season. People like to know. Wiki is about informing people. -- I.Hutchesson ► 02:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Which is why we have an episode table. The titles are there, linked or not. Navboxes are designed for easier navigation between articles. How can articles be navigated to when there are no articles? What my position was last year is irrelevant because it has changed based on new information that became available to me. The WP guidelines are not mere recommendations, they are a guide to creating and maintaining articles in the most efficient and useful way possible. While is it not against the rules, per se, to deviate from these guides, following them is the preferred method. They exist for a reason and there should be a strong justification for not following them. Putting unlinked titles in the navbox serves no purpose because it does not aid with navigation, which is the primary function of the navbox. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
This discussion looks familiar. — Wyliepedia 03:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Guidelines are recommendations, SchrutedIt08. If the circumstances recommend another course then you take it. One has to know about the episode table, but the navbox is on every Haven page. The navbox is not merely functional, but informative as well. You saw how much trouble the names from last year caused: none. No-one objected, though there were lots of people objecting to lots of things in the Haven articles. The guidelines are helpful, not restrictive. The only person who has a problem here is the one reverting the edit, someone who had no problem putting the same information in last year. I think you should put the material back. -- I.Hutchesson ► 03:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I will put them back, when there are articles to link them with. As I've stated many times, my position last year as ill-informed. Had I known about the rule, I wouldn't have put them there. I know better now, so it's irrelevant. The MOS is very clear that unlinked text shouldn't be included in navboxes. Point me to the page that says the MOS guidelines are just recommendations and can be ignored on a whim, then maybe I'll reconsider. Until then, I'm standing firm. If poeple want to know the episode titles, they can go to the episode page. If you want to start a larger discussion and involve other editors or an admin, then you're free to do so, but don't re-add the titles without gaining a consensus from the larger community. If I'm out-voted, then that's fine. Any other editors who add them will also be reverted. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Any other editors adding them will tell you what the consensus is. You don't represent a consensus here. You are one editor, who has already contradicted himself. -- I.Hutchesson ► 05:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Any other editors who join in the discussion and are fully aware of the Wiki policies, will tell me what the consensus is. Not editors who simply add them without discussing the matter. It may seem as though I have contradicted myself, but as I have explained to you many times in the course of this discussion already, I was unaware of the policy when I made those edits. Another editor has since brought it to my attention and I now realise I was in the wrong. If the third season titles that I added were still unlinked I would remove them now. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
When all else fails, WTAF, as was done for 401. — Wyliepedia 08:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

AHS: Coven "Chapters"

Did you notice at Futon that they call the episodes "chapters"? It would be cool if they would insert that into their titles, i.e. "Chapter: Bitchcraft". — Wyliepedia 00:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually I didn't notice that. Seems pretty weird to refer to them as chapters in one place and just as episodes in another. I agree it would be pretty cool if they did. I don't think we can though, unless it's sourced from somewhere else as well. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

SHIELD Ep 3 Director

Hey Schrutedlt. I saw you added the Futon Critic release for the third episode of Agents of SHIELD. However that source changed the director. I wanted your thoughts on this, as MSN and Marvel's own source list David Solomon as the director (Zap2it does not list production members, and TV Guide does not have the episode listed yet). The Futon Critic wording and styling seems very similar to the Marvel one, so is it possible Futon has it wrong? In this case I may be inclined to go off of what was given from Marvel's own site, as that is a direct source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that too. Futon gets their press releases directly from the network. I checked ABCMEdiaNet to make sure TFC hadn't just made a typo, but they list Cheylov as director. Both are good sources, so I don't really know. I'll just go along with whatever you decide. The episode airs in a couple of weeks anyway, so that will settle it either way. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. Yeah we can probably just wait until it airs. I know sometime when we work on Big Bang, their press releases list one director (when it's not Cendrowski) and it ends up being another. So it is not a huge issue if it is different once it airs. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The Marvel source has been updated and now lists Cheylov as the director. I'm sure Solomon will shoot an episode eventually (he's Whedon's favourite) but I guess the wires got mixed up somewhere. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Merging cancelled series' episode lists back into their home articles

I asked this here, but should we merge the Copper episode list back into its main page? Take away the lede and the table would fit according to SizeRule guidelines. Not a big deal, just thought it would keep readers from the extra navigation. I asked Drmargi for her input and she thinks two seasons worth of episode summaries might lengthen the page. I think it won't if you add the list near the bottom of the page's prose. Thanks for your input. — Wyliepedia 22:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would say that two seasons or more justifies an LoE page but it seems like the Copper Loe is pretty scant on information. If you think merging is a good idea then I'll go along with that. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It's situations such as these where I am also indifferent. There are no season pages for it, there are no episode articles, so those unfamiliar with the show would be short-changed if merged and reduced the summaries a bit to "make it fit". My on-the-fence approaches usually end up with my taking the path of least resistance/less work, meaning leave it be. However, I will soon make a more-concerted notice for the episode list. Thanks. — Wyliepedia 05:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Scandal

See Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and WP:MOSTV.--Alrofficial (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

MOS:TV states clearly states : "For very lengthy series, generally 80+ episodes, it may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists." Scandal has only aired 30 and by the end of the third season will still only have 50. Read WP:SIZERULE and WP:SPLIT and read the discussions about similar topics here for a comprehensive discussion. In order to justify splitting an episode list into individual articles, you have to have a large amount of information specifically related to that season. A few sentences about guest stars and a cast list does not come close to being enough. The only other reason to split LoE pages is length, and the Scandal LoE is nowhere near large enough to merit splitting. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)^
This season is very notabile, many news in press. Cable shows like American Horror Story also not made '80+ episodes'.--Alrofficial (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The articles for American Horror Story are packed with information about casting, writing, production, filming, post-production, critical reception and home media releases. You have not provided any of these things for Scandal. Also each season of AHS is an independant mini-series, so using it as an example is not really appropriate. Are you planning to provide all of those things for articles not just for season three, but for the first two seasons of Scandal as well? Again, just because you think it is notable doesn't mean that it actually is. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Also see Revenge (season 3), Haven (season 4) or Parenthood (season 4). Also in this pages not information about production or critical reception. --Alrofficial (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
What other pages do or don't do has no bearing on this discussion. Taking a course of action simply because another article has done it is not a valid reason to proceed. It's true that the articles you mentioned need beefing up, but I don't see how that relates to this situation. The Scandal LoE fails the size rule by a wide margin. The main reason to create a season article is to keep an LoE page from getting too large (50k of text is the cited line, if memory serves) and keeping that in mind, Scandal would have to have at least five or six seasons before meeting the size requirements. Simply put, the Scandal LoE is not big enough to need to be split up and there is not enough information on the season three page to justify having it without the size rule. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Following, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Williamson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hostages locations

I understand for the white house, but for Carle Place High School, it is a definite fact. The senior parking lot is where the kid (forgot his name) is beat up. The art room is in the middle school, and the room with all the doors looking outside is the main lobby. I know this because I go to this school. Where the lacrosse team practices is behind the school, and where the kid's father and friend run across is the girls soccer/lacrosse field. If you go on the Carle Place High School page, there is a picture I just uploaded that if you look in comparison to the picture in the infobox, it is obvious. —SPESH531Other 06:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what original research is. Adding filming locations is a fine idea for a production section, but we have to be able to verify that the series shot there. We can't just take your word for it because you go to school there. You need to provide a reliable third party source to back up your claims. I'm not doubting you, I'm just saying it needs to be referenced. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
That better?—SPESH531Other 06:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Yerp. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the picture uploaded doesn't seem to be free, so can't remain on Commons. Looks like it is a picture of a TV or something showing non-free material. Unless there is permission or proof that this material is free, it shall be deleted. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me˱M @ C S˲» 07:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I got a bad feeling about something on The Mentalist

I got a feeling that in the Red John finale, something will happen to Rigsby and Van Pelt, judging by their planned departure and Red John story possibly ending in the eighth episode. I think one of them will die by Red John's and the other will resign afterwards. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

No! Don't tell me! I haven't seen any of the new season yet!! Actually, I always thought Rigsby could've been Red John, but the seven suspects thing blew that out of the water. It wouldn't have been that good anyway. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to Mob City

Greetings and felicitations. I see that you reverted my edit to Mob City—what about it did you not like?—DocWatson42 (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, a See also list is supposed to be used as a means of linking to articles that are "tangentially related" to the article topic. A list of films or television series that you think have similar premises (which without a source comparing the two is original research) has nothing to do with either the production or content of the series. The exact same thing happened on the Almost Human page, with editors linking to articles about books/comics/movies/series that they felt had the same ideas and ultimately wound up having around ten different links and was a complete mess. If you think two films have similarities to Mob City, then another editor might think the same about three or four different films and why shouldn't they be included when your's are, and so on, and so on until you wind up with a giant list that actually has nothing to do with the show. Best to avoid that mess before it starts. If the book L.A. Noir had an article, that would be an appropriate link for a See also section. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Redundant season articles

TonyTheTiger has started a thread at WT:TV regarding the restoration of season articles. I have specifically mentioned Six Feet Under (season 1), Six Feet Under (season 2) and Six Feet Under (season 3), with which you've had some direct involvement. Accordingly, your comments at this discussion would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Please note, TonyTheTiger has posted the following at the above discussion:
"Why am I getting the feeling that people like SchrutedIt08 and QuasyBoy are setting this up for some sort of a WP:3RR debate at individual pages rather than forming a consensus here?"[3]
I think it would be prudent for you to respond to this allegation. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Season splits

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#.2BThe_Beverly_Hillbillies_.28season_1.29.2C_The_Beverly_Hillbillies_.28season_2.29_and_many_others regarding splitting out season articles from episode lists.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

DVD and Blu-ray regions

It's disrespectful to expect other editors to fix your mistakes when they're pointed out. Regions 1, 2 & 4 are DVD regions, not Blu-ray regions, so this edit was appropriate. It's not a case of disagreeing, as indicated in your edit summary,[4] the heading was clearly incorrect. Your response should have been to fix the problem if you wanted to include Blu-ray releases in the table, not to expect another editor to fix it for you. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

You have made a number of reverts on the mentalist (season 6) article. Enigmamsg 03:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I did. I was reverting incorrect information added by a number of different IP users. That's an edit war? -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Enigmamsg 05:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Whatever. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Unless it's obvious vandalism, repeatedly reverting is edit warring, period. Please stop. Enigmamsg 06:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Fine, I'll just sit back and let idiotic IP editors flood the site with blatantly wrong information. That sounds good. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, you're right, but it's still better not to edit war. If you're having a problem, come to me and I can semi-protect the article. Enigmamsg 02:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello.

Hello, Schrutedlt08, I don't know if you participate in featured list candidates of articles, but I would just like to ask if you want to participate in this one, and tell your vote or judgment of what needs to be done, as of now you are the main editor of the article. Blurred Lines 13:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Red Road

I am constantly searching and updating the page with new information as the February premiere date inches closer. Please just keep the episode table up there as I did put in the work to create it. I can accept hidden until new sources come up, but deleting all that hard work just seems counterproductive since it's going to be needed regardless. Also it creates an edit war which is against the rules. Encmetalhead (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Girls titles

Happy New Year. Try Googling the titles. The links seem to work in Google on one browser. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Helix (TV series) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Category:2014 television series debuts

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gotham (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Reilly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

List of The Blacklist episodes

On 14 January 2014, you changed the title of episode ten of The Blacklist from "Anslo Garrick (No. 16) Conclusion" to "Anslo Garrick (No. 16 – Conclusion)."

I changed it back, and presented an explanation of my edit here: Talk:List of The Blacklist episodes.  Feel free to read my explanation, which I anticipate you will find completely satisfying.

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Almost Human eps 9

How are the other episodes any more sourced? Please reinstate my additions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anubis1975 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Episodes don't need to be sourced after they have aired. But information about upcoming episodes needs to be verifiable. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Dracula...

Hi

I saw the note, and although the 10th episode isn't being shown in the US until the 24th, it was broadcast in the UK on Thursday 16th January... As this was already mentioned in the lede, I had assumed that this would meet the requirements for broadcast episodes, as this was a US-British series. Come this Friday, you guys will finally catch up, and you can update it!

Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Black Sails Summaries

Besides the one I added for episode 1 I believe he is copying the summaries from someone but can't prove it. Maybe you can investigate further! Encmetalhead (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Two and three were copied from here: http://www.superchannel.ca/genre/13600436/Drama/?Tab=series. I can't find where four was copied from, but I'm sure you're right. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scott Nimerfro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page America (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchrutedIt08/Archive_4&oldid=1077452607"