User talk:Alex 21/Archive 32

A request

Hey Alex, I would really appreciate if when you change anything in the live version of an infobox, you update the sandbox with the same changes. When I try and copy over sandbox changes I come into conflict with code that I then need to figure out where it came from. Thank you! --Gonnym (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym, is it not typically the responsibility of the editor making tests in the sandbox to update it to the live version first, then add their changes? -- Alex^TW 11:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It is, but your changes were never in the sandbox. While I do trust your code is correct and not pointing that you didn't use the sandbox to test it, I just asked that if you do add to the live version (without first testing in sandbox), please remember to also update the sandbox as then it just creates forks which someone (was me in this scenario) needs to figure out what to do. --Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Matt14451

This discussion at User talk:BeebleBrox may be of interest to you, since you are mentioned in it. It's a discussion about if it's appropiate for Matt to retain their pending changes reviewer right. Thank you TedEdwards 19:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Supergirl page

Ok it seems that there was a misunderstanding on my part. I saw Cole the wonder removing content from the page without explanation so I checked their talk page and saw they had done similar things in the past and (incorrectly) assumed that they were continuing to do so with the edit to the Supergirl page. However when I saw your revert of my revert it was somewhat cleared up that it was in fact not them doing a bad edit, so I just struck out my warning to the user with a message below it. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 02:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sakura Cartelet: No problems. It seems that this was one of their view valid removal edits; because the cast hadn't appeared yet, the content was listed in prose and not added to the list because they hadn't appeared, but now that they have, the cast can be listed in the primary cast list meaning that the prose is no longer required. Better for us all to always err on the side of caution, though, so all good. -- Alex^TW 02:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Man in the High Castle (TV series)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Man in the High Castle (TV series). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Sister Maggie

Thanks. I don't mind a change if it sourced or a decent explanation is given but Faver1fan93 has ignored this once already, and ignored it again on the Daredevil (TV series). I cannot be sure from his edit summary but I think maybe he was claiming WP:EGG but I honestly don't think that applies here, there are so many names on the cast list already that do not exactly match the name of the page they link to.

As an Anon IP it is endlessly frustrating trying to follow the rules when others blatantly ignore them, revert everything, and rarely bother to explain. I half expect to be accused of edit warring for my efforts. I fully expect my edit to be reverted again so I'd appreciate it if you could do the next restore when he changes the name again on the article Daredevil (TV series). -- 37.110.218.43 (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The Cat in the Hat (character)

A sensible edit, but I considered converting to a redirect myself & decided to CSD since I did not think that the redirect was a useful one; I've nominated it for deletion.TheLongTone (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh Come on!

Alex, I Just want to have The Cat in the Hat article just please revision to me! I just want Dr. Seuss happy because he is the mascot of Dr. Seuss' franchise! Please put things back! Please PickleAndPeanutFan (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

PickleAndPeanutFan, create the article as a draft and then submit it through Articles for Creation. It has been nominated for deletion by two separate editors for not conforming to article creation guidelines. I recommend following what's been suggested to you. -- Alex^TW 01:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian, How? I don't know any reception of the Cat in the hat. Please tell me how do i make this different? Please.

Tracking categories

Hey Alex,

I was actually thinking of Category:Pages using infobox television episode with incorrectly formatted episode list yesterday as I fixed some Goodies infoboxes. Do you think this is something a bot request could do or would it cause more problems?

I was thinking of maybe something like this:

1. Get list of articles from category.
2. Get the series name from the |series= param.
3. Next step has two options
   1. If |series= param does not have a value, skip article.
   2. If |series= param had a value, check if an article exists at "List of <series> episodes".
4. Next step has two options
   1. If list article does not exist, skip article.
   2. If list article exist, add it to the episode_list value.

What do you think? (unrelated to this, but related to tracking categories, is it ok to categories userspace? I've worked on finding all the television tracking categories this past month and put them all in Category:Television articles needing attention, but did not know about your userspace one. --Gonnym (talk) 08:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but it might not clear out as many articles we want, due to any possible differences in disambiguation between the parent article title and the episode list title. I actually filed a bot to fix this about this time last year (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NihlusBOT 3), but it seems to have expanded since. The same procedure should be doable. -- Alex^TW 03:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Sheffield spoons

The observation about spoons is accurate and, I think important. I did a Google search and found several sources. Didn't feel i Should include them all. What do you believe is needed? HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48, this belongs at Talk:The Woman Who Fell to Earth. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 00:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Definition of recurring

Hi. I've been having some issues regarding the definition of "recurring" on List of How to Get Away with Murder characters as you can see here: [1], [2], [3]. As I stated, a character should only be introduced to the recurring table after 3+ appearances within a season, otherwise they're guest stars; I've been following other shows' characters list, where this is assumed. Is there any rule on Wikipedia I can use to prove my point? Cheers. - Chairhandlers ^{(Talk to Me!)} 13:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, as it's one of the Television Project's "standard practices" that we don't have formally written down. You could, however, link them to the discussions at the project talk page that reside within its archives. (It's been a job of mine to write down all of these standard practices we have into some FAQ...) -- Alex^TW 03:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Demons of the Punjab

Hi. I was just wondering if it's okay to edit the above draft? I have some production info about the episode from the latest Doctor Who Magazine that would be beneficial, but I don't want to tread on anyone's toes. - JuneGloom07 Talk 17:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

JuneGloom07, it isn't my draft or anyone else's, if you have more info for it, go for it! -- Alex^TW 00:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't too sure how those drafts worked. I usually create drafts in my userspace and hate it when others edit them without asking first. - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

No problems. We're deliberately creating these drafts in the Draft space so that everyone can edit them, and then we move them to the article space once the episode is airing in the UK. -- Alex^TW 03:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry for the mix up on The Ghost Monument. I've been chewed out by other users for not spotting copyright violations in 3 new articles and 1 draft (in all 4 cases OTHER users, more experienced and some with NPR rights ALSO missed said copyright violations- yet they don't get in trouble for it and I did). I thought that unreviewed articles don't show up in off wiki searches but I forgot websites might come to Wikipedia and copy the stuff from articles, even unreviewed ones (I guess Doctor Who is high traffic article). so I'm sorry. JC7V-talk 08:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

JC7V7DC5768, no problems! (I know all about copping the flac because of something I have/haven't done and other editors getting away with the exact same thing. It's annoying, buy we prevail.) Just thought it was odd when it came up on my watchlist, as I've monitored the progress of the article since its creation. Anything Doctor Who is definitely high traffic at the moment, due to the popularity the series is getting at the moment with its major change-ups and its currently-airing status. All the best. -- Alex^TW 08:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Accusations of bad faith towards other editors

Could I ask you why you thought it was acceptable for you to say my edit here to be in extremely bad faith (as said here) when you called this edit an actual personal attack (as you said in this edit summary)? TedEdwards 14:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

JOIN THE DISCUSSION ON THE TALK PAGE BEFORE REVERTING, WE HAVE TO TRY TO REACH A CONSENSUS!

Sebastian James (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: Yes, we should try to reach a consensus, but it is fairly standard practice to revert to the status quo in a dispute, hence Alex's and my reverts. And while Alex is very welcome to join in on the discussion, he doesn't have to. And I believe you've made several more reverts than he has. TedEdwards 13:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sebastian James: Your recent WP:BOLD edit has been reverted. Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring per WP:EW, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. -- Alex^TW 18:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

CSI Miami season 4 driven

I hope You saw this Episode so Acording To Director or Writer, wat Posible Comon Sense Reason Y didn’t Dumb Delko ask Hayden if He can describe the Thief’s Dam Face to Sketch Artist?(2601:204:D97F:E584:2D96:1655:41D4:B8F0 (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)).

Never seen it, sorry. -- Alex^TW 23:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ur name was on Revision History season 4 of Csi Miami?(107.77.214.185 (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)).

Yes, an automated edit that was made across a multitude of articles; I've never actually visited the article itself, nor watched the series. -- Alex^TW 00:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Date validation for Template:Infobox television episode

Hey Alex, I'm trying to do a correct date format check for Template:Infobox television episode like you did Module:Episode list, but I'm having problem making a correct validation check. I'm not sure if the {{Start date}} template itself is causing the data to be formatted before I can check it, or if it's something else. Do you have any idea how to make this work? --Gonnym (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to get this right, you're trying to make sure that {{Infobox television episode}} is using {{Start date}}, and checking for articles that don't? -- Alex^TW 23:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I've tried doing something with the code below, but it doesn't work. Since this isn't module code, I can't use your exact code, but maybe you might know how to do it.

{{#if: {{str sub find|1={{start date|1993|02|24}}|2={{start date|}} }} | Substring is found | Substring is not found }} --Gonnym (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym, I'll take a look into it for you, but that won't work - templates are executed from the inside out. This means that in your example, {{start date}} will execute first, returning the formatted date it's meant to. Then {{str sub find}} will execute, but it won't find "{{start date", because there is no "{{start date", there is only the formatted date. -- Alex^TW 12:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that, as I had a feeling that might be the issue but couldn't verify if that is how it worked. Another option is maybe creating a module that takes that value and expands the template and checks it. Think that might work? --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym, no module required. Instead of using "{{start date" as the search term, use "dtstart", as this is a string specific to {{start date}} that is generated by the output of the template. Try the following:

• {{#ifexpr: {{str find0| {{start date|1993|02|24}} | dtstart }} != -1 | Substring is found | Substring is not found }}

It returns "Substring is found". I'm using the another template as {{str sub find}} requires the exact position of the search term; {{str find0}} does not, making it easier to use, and returns -1 when it's not found. -- Alex^TW 12:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

That's great! I've found that this does not catch these cases. Are they issues?

• Text before template: {{#if: {{str find0| prefix {{start date|1993|02|24}} | dtstart }} != -1 | Substring is found | Substring is not found }} -> Substring is found
• Text after template: {{#if: {{str find0| {{start date|1993|02|24}} suffix | dtstart }} != -1 | Substring is found | Substring is not found }} -> Substring is found --Gonnym (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  Gonnym, what cases are there to catch? Both of those use {{start date}}, which is what we want in the parameter. Was the goal not to make sure that {{Infobox television episode}} is using {{Start date}}, and only categorizing articles that don't (i.e. ones that just use "February 24, 1993")? -- Alex^TW 12:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, that is the main goal yes, but an entry might be considered malformed if it was "|date = {{Start date}} 20:00 local time" or "|date = first broadcast: {{Start date}}". It might also not be, which is why I asked your opinion if these are issues or not. --Gonnym (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym, I wouldn't say that they are. I very highly doubt many articles include such content at all, and if they did, it would vary article to article, series to series, so it would require a lot more than a template check to track any such cases. -- Alex^TW 12:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

If they aren't an issue that's great. Tracking them really isn't a problem though, it just might require a bit module work and not template. The reason I asked is because while fixing The Goodies (TV series) infoboxes, almost all of them did not have {{Start date}} and also had the time it aired (Tower of London (The Goodies)). --Gonnym (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym, so it's less about tracking unformatted dates and more about tracking dates with abnormal additions. Someone could do an AWB run without editing any articles, and find any articles that don't match the pattern of using just {{start date}} or an unformatted date, hence finding something that's not meant to be in the parameter. -- Alex^TW 12:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, it's both. The infobox requires the use of {{start date}}, so any date not using that should be found. Second issue is the abnormal additions (which may or may not be an issue). So the first could be tracked by the code you've supplied. The second if needed can be found by an AWB run you say, which is better than nothing but not optimal as an automatic process. --Gonnym (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym, I see. AWB is automatic when pre-parser mode is on. Effectively, it just goes through the articles, finds any matches, and puts them all in a list then ends its pre-parser mode run. No editing through the program, just: article, check, find, next article, check, find, next article. -- Alex^TW 12:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

But do you need to routinely ask someone to do it, or once created, does it recheck every day/week? It also does not place the articles in categories which then can be emptied, but a list which needs editing. But overall they serve the same function. --Gonnym (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

It doesn't look like you were notified. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Ratings for Dr Who - Demons of the Punjab

I accurately added the correct final viewing figures for Demons of the Punjab. You removed the accurate final viewing figures and replaced them with an incorrect figure. Please don't edit articles to introduce incorrect, unsourced figures. The source I gave is 100% accurate. It is here: https://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/four-screen-dashboard/. Please don't reverse my accurate edits to replace them with incorrect, unsourced data again.27.131.36.174 (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about the typo of 84 instead of 48? We all make mistakes. Don't be mad. Perhaps you should have added it correctly in the first place, then I wouldn't have needed to fix it. -- Alex^TW 22:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Same with you, Sebastian James. -- Alex^TW 22:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I did add the correct figures with the correct reference. You undid it and made it incorrect. You didn't make a typo. You deliberately undid a correct edit and made it incorrect. Whether it was a typo or not, you undid a correct edit to an article and thus made the article incorrect. Wikipedia is supposed to be accurate with accurate sources. You inserted an incorrect figure with no supporting citation and in doing so, removed accurate, cited information. Your attitude is unhelpful. If you wish to attack editors who make correct editors with sarcasm simply to justify the mistakes you make, then good luck to you and your alter-ego Sebastian James. 27.131.36.174 (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I made a typo. Get with the program. I'll be watching your edits in case you ever make a mistake, before I jump onto you about it. We'll see what you think then. Your attitude is unhelpful. If you wish to attack editors who make correct editors with sarcasm simply to justify the mistakes you make, then good luck to you. You're clearly not here to edit the site. Bye bye! -- Alex^TW 02:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Richard Bott (clergy) and Richard Bott (skeleton racer)

Thank you for initiating a title swap in order to make Richard Bott (clergy) the main Richard Bott. Although "Richard Bott" now directs to the article about Richard Bott the clergy man (yay), the article is incorrectly titled Richard Bott (skeleton racer). Likewise, the article about the skeleton racer is now titled Richard Bott (clergy). I do not have the skill set to swap titles, so could I ask you to? Thanks you. Guinness323 (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, the article about the clergyman needn't have the parenthetical disambiguator as it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as noted in the accepted request. Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- Alex^TW 11:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!! Guinness323 (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

A Discovery Of Witches

Hi! I saw you edited the page for ADOW and since I wanted to add something and create a page for some of the actors of the series someone sudgested me to contact one of the editors and here I am. I tried to do it by myself but I am new and it seems very complicated, plus my native language isn't english so I was wondering if you could do it. Daniel Ezra as Nathaniel Wilson and Freddie Thorpe as Matthieu Beny are listed but do not have a Wikipedia article plus Julian Kostov as Timur, Rorie Stokton as Timothy and Leo Ashizawa as Osamu aren't listed and do not have a page. i hope you can help, sorry if I bothered you. --Valeriaorl77 (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't create articles for actors. Best of luck. -- Alex^TW 00:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Returning the Favor

Hey AlexTheWhovian,

I was hoping you might do me a favor and take a look at the most recent edit over at the article Returning the Favor. Another editor has consistently attempted to remove an entire section of the article regarding accolades/awards that the series has received. The awarding organization "Got Your 6" has partnered with various entertainment companies such as 21st Century Fox, NBCUniversal, CBS, HBO, Viacom and Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Lionsgate, A+E Networks, Live Nation Entertainment, UTA, 44 Blue, The Ebersol Lanigan Company, DreamWorks Animation, Endemol Shine North America, and Valhalla Entertainment. The awarding event was reported on by Variety as seen here: https://variety.com/2017/tv/news/got-your-6-veterans-the-gifted-disjointed-1202607620/. The other editor has argued that the paragraph/section of the article should be removed and cited General Notability Guidelines and Undue Weight as an issue. I may be in the wrong here but I am of the belief that the information warrants mentioning in the article given the stature of the organization within the entertainment industry and the fact that the awards event was covered by a major publication (being Variety). I don't know...maybe give the article and its edit history a look and let me know what you think. Worth noting that I've created an article for the organization here: Got Your 6. – BoogerD (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

BoogerD, first off, I would recommend posting that paragraph on the talk page for the opposing editor. -- Alex^TW 06:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

American Horror Story dates

In the episode articles for American Horror Story: Apocalypse, editors have assumed that because part of the season takes place in October 2021 (evidenced by a character saying that an email sent on October 20, 2021 was sent a week ago and the next episode was set on Halloween no more than a few days later), an earlier event (a nuclear missile hit LA starting the titled Apocalypse) must have taken place in early 2020 as the the show says the 2021 events took place 18 months after the bomb hit. They also assume that flashbacks must have taken place in 2017 as these events are described by the show as being three years before the bomb. What I'm asking is if these assumptions are OR or not? As I believe you don't watch the show, I hope I've explained the situation clearly enough. TedEdwards 14:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

TedEdwards, I don't, I only edit the articles to keep my partner up to date, as she watches it. If you have to put "assume" in your sentence, then it's textbook OR. To include content about the nuclear missile occurring in 2020, a source needs to explicitly state this. Same for the flashbacks. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 23:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Slander against you

There was an edit by an anon reverted by another anon on Kerblam! very recently which basically said something horrid about you by name. That anon needs serious blocking and investigating to see if it's someone we know hiding behind the address. Unlikely they'd be that stupid but you never know. Good hunting. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

ZarhanFastfire, thanks for the heads up. I've had a bit of that recently and I think it's the same editor; take a look at the history of my talk page and the three edits I reverted by the two redlinked-users. To be honest, I'm not overly worried about it; giving them attention is what they want, so I just revert and go on my merry way. All the best! -- Alex^TW 01:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It's now persistent and by multiple IPs. We need protection. I assume you can do this? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

ZarhanFastfire, not myself, but I've requested page protection. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 07:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Good because I need to go to bed. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The Gifted (season 2)

Sorry I missed that I was reverting the edit summary and thanks for catching that. I thought I was reverting only the reference to Ken Kirby, which I could not find a reference for as an actor or character in the series. A stunt person is listed as portraying the character(?) in the IMDB which is rather curious so I am may have missed something there too. Donner60 (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Donner60, no problems. If that remains unsourced, then sure, you can remove it. I thought I was reverting only the summary-revery, my bad. -- Alex^TW 03:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I meant the plot summary; I think you realized that. I should stay away from that article! I seem to stumble over every time I touch it or write about it! Thanks again. Donner60 (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Locations based on Doctor Who has been nominated for discussion

Category:Locations based on Doctor Who, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bondegezou (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Trivial

I added the source for other IP's sentence. Is it still not enough to stay on the page? Sebastian James (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sebastian James, see the article. -- Alex^TW 23:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Pardon me, you are too fast or I am too slow. Sebastian James (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing Episode Tables

Hi Alex,

I was wondering if you might take a look at a discussion (see here Wikipedia:Teahouse#Secondary sources on episode lists) that I've been pulled into in the last two days. An editor recently removed an episode table from an article I was working on citing a lack of sourcing. However, in the last year-and-a-half of serious editing I've been doing on here, I've been led to believe that such sourcing of titled, directors, writers, and airdates were unnecessary if the episodes of said series have already aired or been released. The two editors engaged in the discussion have stated that this is not the case so I am hoping if you, and potentially other in the WP:TV community might be able to help here. Thanks, BoogerD (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies

If it’s worth anything, I’d like to apologize for my conduct during our Dracula discussion. Regardless of whatever was bugging me at that moment it wasn’t something you deserved to have get put on you. You were absolutely right to move it back to draftspace. And it’ll remain there until filming can be sourced. Sorry again, and hopefully I can be civiler in any future discussions. Rusted AutoParts 04:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts, no problems. Apologies for my accusations as well, they weren't in overly good faith. All the best. -- Alex^TW 04:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

More Slander Trouble

You got more trouble being done against ya. I kinda been to your talk page when I saw what was done on Kerblam! a while back, and now it seems that the same user, whom you suspected worked on an IP user, is doing it again. This time with The Witchfinders. I gonna get an admin to put that article under page protection, but you need to put up an alert about this. I know you want to ignore them, but I don't think it will work. GUtt01 (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

GUtt01, wow, someone has a real bone to pick with me, it seems. Thanks for requesting protection! -- Alex^TW 18:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

No problems. But I think the person whose causing you this trouble seems intent on the same style of attack. It just boggles belief, to be honest. Considering the whole trouble with things, I wonder if wikipedia really should maintain an open policy of editing, in regards to allowing anyone not registered to edit articles. It just seems more like a headache to allow it. Why don't they just restrict editing to those with accounts, rather than this? GUtt01 (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

GUtt01, I've always been of the opinion that IP contributions should be heavily restricted as well, but I'm sure there's been dozens of RFCs and essays on the issue. -- Alex^TW 18:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

As a mere IP user who has viewed many users edits, I’ve noticed a large number of your edits especially ones replying to other users regardless if they are an IP editor or registered editor to be somewhat insulting with a hint of cheek around them, especially if an editor gets something wrong or inserts information without a source. You can’t fully expect other people to respect your contributions if a fair number of your edits towards other people’s edits come across as quite cheeky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.219.214 (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Am I to refer to the recent slander against me as just a mere lack of respect? No, it's way past that. (Is that "cheeky" enough for you? Also, sign your posts.) -- Alex^TW 22:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I feel bad for you. Why do people hate you so much? By the way, there's an ANI you're involved in about the IP. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 01:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Oshawott 12, I have a strong way of expressing my opinions (apparently one way to put it is "cheeky"), and particular people don't like that, and seem to believe that the most mature way to express that is vandalize articles. And I've contributed to the ANI thread, cheers. -- Alex^TW 02:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Doctor Who: Series 11 episode durations

This source differs from this one when it comes to episode durations. Which one is more appropriate? I guess the latter one also includes trailers for the upcoming episodes. Sebastian James (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sebastian James, definitely the BBC one, as the links direct to the episodes themselves and are thus probably the best source. The trailers aren't going to affect the lengths that much, as the trailers at the end of each episodes are typically only a few seconds. -- Alex^TW 22:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)