That's my fault. My browser crashed during the "merging" and I thought it was complete. My apologies. --Son (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, check out WP:TVGS. It's the Television Game Show WikiProject. It was reactivated recently and we're recruiting! If you're interested, stop by and add your name to the participants list. Your participation in the Duel (game show) article is greatly appreciated from the WP! Thanks! --Son (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Two points: (1) "Presumably"--almost by definition--indicates OR. We don't know how they do it (they *could* repeat the same question, and force players to "re-cover"), and since it's not live, they can edit stuff out. (2) I'm of the opinion that "singular 'they'" is simply bad grammar. It may be acceptable for common use, but I think it should be avoided in WP whenever possible. Samer (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in this case, there is evidence to back up the "one question" argument--that is precisely what Greenberg said when it happened. As for "re-doing" the same question, it is possible: if both players lock in on the same set of answers, they could simply re-do it before revealing the answers. Again, I'm not saying this is what happens, merely that this could be what happens. I admit that the more likely process is that if the answers given are the same, they (A) move on to the next question, and (B) edit the tie out of the episode that airs.

As for "they", my point is simply that in edits I make, I refuse to use that construction (I've been paid to edit in print in the past, so it rankles me a bit more than most). I'm not going to remove it simply for the sake of doing so (it's a waste of my time, frankly), but I try to find a better workaround wherever possible. Samer (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my messes, as we both edit the Duel article. You have a better sense of what is going on here than me, it seems. Thanks for all of the work you have done! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Heck, I'd like to get rid of the co-exec, and all of the producers that don't have articles. As with other television shows I've seen of late, Duel has a huge amount of "executive producers." Obviously, there is some sort of seniority (probably by the order they are listed in the credits), but are they really "executive producers" if there are eight of them? I know that the title of "executive producer" gets you better pay as well. They really need a new title above that... until that one becomes overused ;). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

while the TPIR facts may be trivial, they do not constitute vandalism. 64.91.201.195 (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the BNL page, since not a single person replied, lets just keep the biography paragraph in with the "outside the music" section. No one seems to mind since no one has said anything. It's cleaner too.

I want to nonimate the article for "good article status" but I don't know how to. Do you know how and if so, can you?

Also, please reply on my talk page, I'm not going to delete it. This is important so please reply.

EDIT: One more thing, can you PLEASE upload SOME kind of image of Jim? It doesn't matter what quality it is, if all you have is group shots, then you can take that and just crop Jim out of it. Having an image of Jim goes a long way in getting the article up to GA status, the admins really care about having images. He's the only one who doesn't have a solo image, I'm saving a section for it. Please upload something, anything of Jim. Thanks.

Writer1400 (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't think to check the Imagineer wikilink. I'll fix that. As far as I can tell, the man does not have an article, and I didn't put brackets back around his name. What I know (from Starlog and some online thing about BTTF that I didn't manage to find again last night) is that he's a Disney Imagineer, or was at the time. (There seems to be a writer with the same name as well as the producer, but I saw nothing last night to link either person to this guy.) His only significance to the subject is that he wrote I think two articles on the subject of time travel in BTTF (with which Zemeckis disagreed, if I recall correctly), and has an online article about locations for the film. Just trying to get some relevant out of universe stuff in there. Anyway, sorry for the confusion! I'll see what I can do to clarify. Thanks, and Happy New Year! --Karen | Talk | contribs 05:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed the imagineer wikilink, and tracked down the article Bob Gordon wrote about BTTF locations, which is referenced in the Hill Valley article.[1] The only references to time travel theory in this particular article are jokey oblique mentions of Gordon's "second Marty" theory as expounded on in Starlog, so it's not terribly relevant to the timeline article. The bio at the bottom of the article mentions the three Starlog articles, and the locations article itself has several references to Walt Disney Imagineering. It's therefore suitable for identifying the guy, but probably not worth a ref. What do you think? --Karen | Talk | contribs 05:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm really annoyed with myself. The man's name was Bruce Gordon, and he died last month. Google turns up lots of stuff about him under the correct name. --Karen | Talk | contribs 05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - none of the Wikipedia Bruce Gordons are this guy. Given the number of Disney books he wrote (I own a few of them!), his status as an Imagineer and the number of obits and tributes I read tonight, he probably merits an article, but I don't feel up to tackling it! (Well, maybe another day I will.) There are people who work on the timeline article, but mostly it's a constant back and forth over small details, or the number of DeLoreans in later timelines. It would be nice to get some good out of universe sourcing, but I don't see it happening. --Karen | Talk | contribs 06:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My last post was for the good of the article. Can you please put your issues with me aside for the good of the article? If I offended you so badly because I said you were morally wrong, then I'm sorry. The reason why I believe you were morally wrong for not uploading another image even though you have alot is because even though there your pictures, you should just be greatful that the band even let you take photos of them. That's the way I see it anyways. I don't think all bands allow cameras in concerts so it's nice of BNL to allow that. What your doing is unnecessary. There's no reason to ignore me. I'm trying to make the BNL article as good as it can be. Don't you want the same? Please reply on my talk page, I won't delete it. So overall, I'm sorry if I offended you but you did things to offend me too so hopefully we can just stop this. Writer1400 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've listed this article for peer review because it right now seems oddly cluttered and, despite my adding of a lot of references, it lacks reliable source citations. Although I've already requested another peer review for another article, as long as it helps the articles get better, I've got the time. Any helpful comments are appreciated, as this should help me in expanding other Star Wars-centric articles (particularly bios like that of Luke Skywalker and Han Solo, also in dire need of certain expansion). Thanks. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 03:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you are not hesitating to step up and deal with the recent additions to the page. I was hesitant myself, as I've been involved in trying to cut the fat from some articles that the other editor & his/her two sock puppets have been systematically adding to a series of articles. On one, another editor and I had to take it to dispute resolution, though that isn't going so well, as the editor just stopped using the other username while we've been working on the article. I plan to file a sock puppet case about this after this weekend, which is when the editor said he/she would be back from holiday vacation. In any case, good luck, I'll keep peeking in. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So even after I apologize, you still refuse to talk to me so we can try and get the article nomiated as a "good article". I don't think your allowed to do this and if you are, can you please show me the rule that says this is alright to do? I'm asking an admin what he thinks about this because I really don't think you can even do this.

I think I'm being very reasonable, I apologized to you and I never once flamed you so I have no idea why your doing this. It's a shame. I'm trying to make peace with you here and you are refusing to even reply. Oh well, I'll see what an admin thinks about this.

EDIT: I just read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and by those guidelines, I never once personally attacked you. I simply said I thought you were morally wrong and I APOLOGIZED anyways. Also, I just read the line "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article" which is exactly what I have been doing. My recent messages on this talk page have been polite and I've been trying to make amends.

So please show me where you are allowed to just ignore messages on your talk page. Writer1400 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:KittyC1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I just read your post on Jehochman's talk page.

You said "Calling a user amoral for choosing not to do so is not acceptable behavior for a wikipedia editor, and verges on a personal attack.",

I ADMITTED I was wrong and I apologized. I explained why I said that and what my beliefs on it are. So what is the problem? I don't understand what your upset about there.

You also said "It is not appropriate to constantly explain every edit you make on the talk page of an article, ending each with a variation on "I hope [user] doesn't revert it all just to spite me", implying to all readers that that user had ever done so, when in fact, they had not."

well you did do this once so I wasn't lying. One time I went and did a cleanup of all the text in the article, you then went and reverted a majority of the changes even though the changes I made have since been brought back. Also, the reason why I said that is because as you even admitted once, you were snippy with me. I wasn't sure how you were going to react to me making huge changes to the article such as creating the "outside of music" section.

Like I've said, I'm sorry if I offended you and upset you. What else do you want me to do? I am NOT here at wikipedia to have feuds with people. One more time, I am SORRY for upsetting you. Please accept this apology. Writer1400 (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, forget it, I'm done as an editor. From day one, I've tried my best to do as good as possible with all the articles I worked on. Yes, I don't know alot about wikipedia, I learned alot along the way. I tried my best with what I knew. I know my work hasn't been great but I didn't think it was that bad. I really thought my work on the Barenaked Ladies article was an improvement. When you look at the page now, compared to how it used to be, it definitely looks better now in my opinion but you have never said it was an improvment. That's too bad, I really thought I did good with that article. Yes, I have made mistakes. I've apologized and I still get talked down to. I don't want to do this anymore. Goodbye. Writer1400 (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey bud, I was looking over your page and saw thata you like Deloreans. I owned a 1983 DeLorean and finally sold it a few years back with only 17k on it. It broke my heart, but I felt it was time for someone else to enjoy it. The 1983's were the best ones to own because all of the kinks had been worked out. It was a great thing that they still have a parts warehouse! My injection system went south and it cost me a fortune to have it fixed. That's when I figured it was time to think about letting her go! But it is nice to know that there are others out there who loved the car. It wasn't a fast car, but it sure caused people to pay attention to you! I also gave an opinion on the Grammy awards page about deleting the records section. I think we need to leave it, but somehow take it to a sub-category so that it's not a main feature of the page. I feel it has importance, it just needs work. I have already started doing some of the research for sources and cites. CheersJunebug52 00:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We at the Simpsons WikiProject have managed to get into contact with the one and only Bill Oakley (who showran The Simpsons from season 7 to 8) and he has agreed to send us some images and to do an IRC chat in the future with us so that we can ask questions about things that we can use in articles. The transcript of this chat will hopefully be posted at NoHomers.net, which I think will be a good enough sorce. Failing that, we'll try The Simpsons Archive. Every member is more than welcome to take part, which will be held at our #wpsimpsons channel. Because not everyone will be able to make the chat, a page has been made where any member can post questions that can be asked. Remember, no fan questions, and due to a lack of time, try to limit it to ones that will help improve an article. That page is here. If you have any questions, ask myself, Xihix (who is the one in contact with him) or post it at WT:DOH, which is where any future updates will be posted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:BN4Ch.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you run across any editors lately that remind you of User:Debbiesvoucher or her/his sock puppet names User:Dooyar, User:Nyannrunning, or User:Onittles? Another editor and I had opened an official dispute mediation with this user on the Johnnie Ray article and suddenly, he/she disappeared. Given the persistence this person showed on several articles, it's a bit hard to believe she/he is gone. Also, given the propensity for creating usernames, I suspect this person is still here, but moved on to other articles with which we aren't familiar. If you've seen signs, please let me know. Also, with the unexplained absence, it could be time to trim the fat from the What's My Line? article. What do you think? It will either be fine, or the darling will pop up. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:Nightlight.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor has nominated Back to the Future timeline, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back to the Future timeline (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. When I reverted that edit, I didn't even look at the other shows that were already listed. I read it as saying it was among prime time network game shows, which in retrospect, wasn't entirely how the paragraph reads. You're right in that none of the shows are prime time network shows. But also, there is no foundation or citation to establish that any of the shows belong on the list. Without a reference, it would be non-inclusive original research. The entire paragraph has issues and needs reworking and I was only looking at the show that was added based qualifications as prime time network. Worded as it is, it's misleading (and I consider myself fairly literate) and a bit of non-sourced peacockry. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Wars#Why_don.27t_we_talk_about_Star_Wars.27_prodigious_impact_on_pop_culture_in_the_opening_paragraph.3F

Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:WML1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am currently working on improving Star Wars to Featured Article status, and I noticed that you have made a substantial amount of contributions recently. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you could help out and improve the article. Right now, the primary thing that needs to be done is the addition of more references - the article simply is not referenced enough. I have added {{fact}} tags on the page, which shows up as [citation needed] to make it easier to find what information needs references. Thanks for your time! Gary King (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the one editor has returned, using a different username. You might want to take a look at what's happening there. I tagged the page for a few things arising out of the recent additions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:TTD2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say a few things
1) On the point of linking to copyright-infringing website, what is the WP consensus on this issue? Could you show me some WP articles that have passed consensus that lay this out? Certainly, by this logic, a link to YouTube on the YouTube article should be removed as well (I'll leave it to you to guess whether or not that link exists).
2) Since when have you become the keeper of all things overtly relevant? I appreciate difference in opinion among Wikipedians but going around telling people their edits are not relevant is not the best way, I think, to work with other users. I won't reedit anything I wrote back in even though I think some of it develops the paragraph better, but please keep this in mind. --DanielNuyu (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:BNStick1.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

Regarding to the new infobox I had inserted into the Sheppard-Yonge (TTC) and McCowan (TTC) articles. I have created these new infoboxes to substitute the old ones, because I believe the old infoboxes need serious and major improvements A.S.A.P.. If you look at other's cities subway station's infoboxes, they are considered as much better than the ones we have in Toronto. Out of all of these infoboxes, the ones of the MTR appealed to me the most. Therefore, I decided to implement that into the TTC system.

I know, if I were to directly apply the changes onto the existing infobox, there will be other protests and it will only stir up more troubles. Good thing you reverted my infobox edit. I want to know, WHY did you revert my infobox? Was there anything not good about it? How is it not clear? Surely, you can tell me the issues, and I will fix it. My long term goal is to replace all existing infoboxes with this new one.

Appreciates your help!

The Canadian Roadgeek 21:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings again,

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate it very much. The infoboxes certainly need a lot of work, and would you mind if you assist me with the infoboxes? I think it would be better if I have someone who has experience with infoboxes to work with. We're all trying to make matters better, so why not work together?

Once again, I appreciate for all your help.

The Canadian Roadgeek 01:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Next time, when you are replying, try to file your message under the categories I have provided. Makes reading and archiving a lot easier! Thank you.

Hello TheHypo,

I have fixed the overall aesthetics today for a similar infobox for Viva. Check if that infobox is up to your standards, if not, please offer some ideas as well as help fixing it. You can access the infobox via this link : Template:Infobox Vivastation Thank you!

Smcafirst the Roadgeek (Road Talk) 22:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for filing your message!

Please discuss here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Safe_Crackers#Strategy

I am having difficulty understanding your reasoning behind the strategy. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to leave a note to let you know that the user with which you were dealing on this and maybe some other articles, has been banned and so will likely not be a factor on some of the vintage TV articles. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Same to you. Any constructive help is always appreciated. I believe User:Doctorindy was the one who started the pages. At the time it wasn't a big priority since the show had been off the air for so long. But now with the new season, it's nice to get fresh looks at the whole thing to make the articles better. S. Ellis (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:LouisArmstrong PeterDavis1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your question, I'm always happy to help expand and improve knowledge on the GA process. Usually the reason that I don't make the change myself is that I want to alert the editors on common mistakes to avoid. I believe that if I always fixed the simple mistakes on the articles for the editors, they wouldn't learn to correct the mistakes themselves in working on future articles. By educating the editors on the common mistakes, they can also make other editors aware, and hopefully improve their writing skills in the process. I don't just point out mistakes for my own benefit, I want the article to be in the best shape possible, even if it is just for GA status. At times, editors may not see mistakes because they've been working on the article for so long (I've done this myself and always appreciate when someone points out the mistake(s) I made) and I just need to remind them to be more cautious before nominating. I do enjoy fixing errors and do it on a variety of articles, but once it is nominated at WP:GAN, I want to help educate editors on improving their editing skills. I hope that answered your question, and if not, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)