Jump to content

User talk:D'oh!/Archive 1

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

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Sb617 (Talk) 02:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox company

Please stop trying to "close" the discussions. They do not need it, for one thing, and it is not aiding anything. Further, while you were acting in good spirit, your editing of other people's comments is called refactoring and is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Therefore I have reverted it. Afterwards, I reinstated your edit protected request, pointing to your original attempt. Also please do not rename discussions, as you did here,[1] when there are already links to the discussion as it breaks those links. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but why can't I close the discussion? No one supports the change. -- d'oh! [talk] 01:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
It isn't necessary to do so. The consensus is obvious, and it isn't dragging on or becoming overly long and involved. In general, discussions are only formally closed in certain areas, like AfD, or if it "involves many people and the outcome is not clear", or if its become "irrelevant or disruptive" or very heated. Neither applies here. See Wikipedia:Closing_discussions for more details on this.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Colors were still not matching on the Transit Lines involved. Most articles defaults to grey/unknown. KMs were showing on some articles and missing on others. Sb617 (Talk) 08:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know, in the new infobox the parameters have change and some was removed. I was just about to go though all the line pages and updated them to the new parameters and change the template to the proper name. -- d'oh! [talk] 08:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Railway/Busway Station infoboxes.

While I do appreciate your work converting most infoboxes, Railway and Busway Station infoboxes require more information then the basics listed over at Operators/Lines. I'm also working on the railway/busway station infoboxes on my own pages.

The "next/previous" station information is currently integrated into the infobox, as well as the Lines it serves. Also, I do think it would be better if its based similar to the Melbourne box, but changing the Title background to the black/orange that is currently being implemented at Busway/Bus and Train Stations across South East Queensland. The orange bit would have to be minus the logo due to fair uses guidelines for logos. Sb617 (Talk) 15:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree as the navbox ("rail network") provides that info, plus the navbox is easier to update when there any changes. I am updating the infobox to Wiki's style, as it going to be hard to change up with TransLink's different colours for every new station. Plus there is already about three different styles. -- d'oh! [talk] 15:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I would however replace the region color with Train/Busway Line color/s in place in your sandbox. Putting region colors ahead of line color would frustrate the average reader on a particular bus/train station. I'm not always on 24/7 so there may be some disagreement with changes if it comes to fruition. Sb617 (Talk) 15:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree, I will de-colour the region. I am fine if anyone disagree with my view, as you might have a better idea then me. -- d'oh! [talk] 00:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Both articles are looking good and they may well be B class. I certainly wouldn't revert an assessment as such, especially after I read the articles again and noticed the lead section B class criteria had probably been met. The citations, particularly range and formatting are well done as are the images and infobox on the TransLink article.

I wasn't sure if they were comprehensive enough, covering every important aspect of the topic. I recall there being some criticism of the limited topping up locations of the go cards and some places had run out of them, frustrating commuters. I noticed both had lots of short paragraphs which should be merged. I also noticed some words in bold and lots of white space which wasn't ideal. The TransLink article has lots of short sections which should be expanded or merged. However since these are more good article criteria I will upgrade my assessment and be more careful in the future. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Sorry if my question on your talk is strange, as this is my first time trying to understand the rating system. :) -- d'oh! [talk] 06:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Translink article

Thanks for your prompt action in withdrawing this from peer review. Please feel free to renominate in few days' time. Brianboulton (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Operation Titstorm

Can you elaborate on your recent devaluation of the article? Wikilinks in an edit summary don't really help.Cptnono (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead doesn't summarize the article, it should include a bit more on Background, Response and Project Freeweb. After getting the article other read my concerns about WP:NEU is gone. The article is a B, but the lead is holding it back a bit. -- d'oh! [talk] 07:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SCV

Hi! :) Thanks for pitching in at WP:SCV. Your work is really appreciated. However, you should probably be a bit more careful when you compare an article to a source. For example, you missed the copied plot summary in Surviving Paradise. Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I just had another look and you are right I did miss the plot. In the future I will take greater care when comparing articles to a source. Thanks. d'oh! talk 02:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Guru Nanak Thermal Plant

http://bathinda.nic.in/html/industry.html is a site that belongs to Government of India hence all info it carries is in public domain Please reply at my talk page  Jon Ascton  (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The text may belong to Government of India, but unless the status of the copyright is known I have to assumed its not in the public domain or under a free license. Remember just because text or photo may come from a government doesn't mean the info or photo is in public domain. I hope this helps. d'oh! talk 13:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The sites that belong to Govt of India do not have any extra thing about copyright written over them, it is simply understood that they so... Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Like I said before unless you can prove the text is in the public domain or under a free license, the text can't be used on Wikipedia, and with the website claiming copyright I doubt that the text is in the public domain or under a free license. But if you are interest in the subject you are welcome to writing up your own text for the article, and I am know there will be editors willing to help you too. d'oh! talk 16:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Yup, you are right. Even if the copyright allows it would be cowardly to just copy-and-paste like dumbies. A man must write his own test always, and so I have done. Now there ain't a single thing there that smells of copy-vio. Thanks for being so helpful. See ya  Jon Ascton  (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I am glad I could help, and the article is looking good, d'oh! talk 13:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Since I see you were involved in this conversation, I just wanted to let you know that you are right that it is neither public domain or licensed compatibly; see Talk:Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant for more details, if you like. And thanks for chipping in at SCV! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. d'oh! talk 14:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Cedar Sigo

Hello Gezzza. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Cedar Sigo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Any writer whose had a book reviewed isn't really a speedy deletion candidate. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 19:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I did not know that. You learn something new everyday. Thanks for letting me know. d'oh! talk 08:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. The difficult thing at New Page patrol is to remember that for good faith contributors it is usually the subject we are considering, the article as it could be improved to be and not the article in its earliest one sentence version. Also the test is much lower than at AFD - speedy is supposed to be for clearcut uncontentious deletion, anything ambiguous should go to prod or AFD. If you want to learn more about some of the quirks of speedy deletion you could try some of the stuff at User:WereSpielChequers#We.27re_Spiel_Checkers_-_thoughts_on_deletion. Cheers and happy editing. ϢereSpielChequers 10:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Lingtsang Gyalpo

The issue of deleting the page have been discuss on the talk page and here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Schuhpuppe#Lingtsang_Gyalpo Can you please remove the tag? All best wishes, --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits at Template:Infobox book series and Template:Book list

Your changes to these templates have been reverted. The first is used on hundreds, if not thousands, of articles, and the latter is used on several hundred articles as well. Neither should be changed without proper discussion, testing, and consensus. Please feel free to start a discussion on the individual template's talk page detailing your proposed changes and why you feel they should be done, to allow for discussion and consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 05:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the changes for both templates, but if there is WP:SILENCE I will go ahead with the changes. Also if you disagree with the changes - which I believe you do - please say so as per WP:CYCLE. Thanks. d'oh! talk 12:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, despite the bad faith in your remarks at RPP, I don't disagree with most of them. I simply want to be sure proper process and discussion is handled first and that the changes are considered by more than one person. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
You are right the proper process and discussion needs be done in terms of templates. Also I am sorry for misjudging your comments on this and other subjects, I hope we can become friends and help each other out improving Wiki. :) d'oh! talk 14:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
No worries :-) Always happy to see someone else taking an interest in the book areas :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 14:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Harbingers

Just to let you know that I haven't forgotten the promised copyedit. However, extended connection problems have slowed me up and I am behind on my regular work. Hopefully, these problems won't persist, and I should be back on track in a few days. Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :) d'oh! talk 04:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

CityCat wharf

If I remember correctly, the Citycat wharf photo you asked about is of the Hawthorne wharf. However, I am not positive about this because there is another CityCat wharf which is very similar in appearance to the Hawthorne wharf (if not identical in appearance), and I can't remember exactly which wharf it was that I actually took the photo of (this is the only reason why the name of the wharf is not listed on the photo page). Figaro (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Busway merge

If the individual busway stations haven't expanded significantly and you try again in 6 months or so, I would support a merge. Your argument that they aren't likely to expand would have more credence by then. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been watching those articles since March and they haven't improve (other then my and others minor edits). I even tried to find sources for the articles, but failed. If they can be improved into good articles I will have no problem with that in fact I will support and help out the best I can. But when I see the articles not moving from stub in the future something else got to be done. How about this, I am currently writing up a replacement on all the Queensland bus articles, including busways, bus stations, interchanges, operators, etc. This will take me a few months for research, etc, plus few months for PR and FAC. If the articles are not improved by then I will bring up the merge again and if there is no objections I will merge them. This will give you and others about six months to try improve the articles. Remember the articles can always be recreated if sources become available. d'oh! talk 09:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Harbingers copyedit

I have finished copyediting the main text. I have not attempted to correct the long strings of quoted material that appear in the refs; often I simply couldn't work out these quotes. Whether the article is any good I can't tell, but at least the prose is now grammatically correct. Brianboulton (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit. :) d'oh! talk 03:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Bold edit revert - infobox

As you link Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle : quote "How to proceed: Discover the Most Interested Persons, and reach a compromise/consensus with each, one by one"

There are already two interested persons - with experience of implementing infoboxes - I reverted the change. This go to step 2 "Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person." Step 3 is "Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise."

There's also an amber light at Wikipedia:Be_bold#Template_namespace - these templates do indeed affect 100s or even 1000+ articles - that's why it's a good idea to discuss first major changes to the template. It's different from making "maintenance edits"

Also I don't see any reason to believe that getting consensus on infobox image size would have been difficult if it had been tried - after all the size can be manually set. However altering this without discussion doesn't seem to me like a good time to use bold - it affects thousands of articles without warning.

Also you didn't make the 'bold' edit, someone else did, and it's not clear that they knew it would be contentious at all.Sf5xeplus (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I did make the original change[2]. There is 781 articles[3] linking to it, so it not a high-risk template yet. You right I did miss read the two policies. But you shouldn't using the image size to change the box width. d'oh! talk 07:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Having thought more about the boxes in general I've started to wonder if half the problem is with the number of fields -eg Template:infobox train has well over 50. My thoughts are that maybe the box should only contain limited info, more applicable to general interest eg name, country, railway company, top speed, year built/service, and a few others carefully selected. The rest of the info should be presented in a different way, probably in a 'technical section' - it seems to be that doing could be an improvement. (also mentioned on infobox train talk page).Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Give Yourself Goosebumps

I left an answer for you in the GYG page about your sugestions for a merge. MJN SEIFER (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

4shared

What exactly should be changed in the article from your point of view?--Bewitchedyegor (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, first off thanks for coming here and helping Wikipedia. When you edit Wikipedia you are required to have a neutral point of view. In your case you have a conflict of interest in writing these articles because your the business owner of the website in question. Finally to answer your question, there can't be a Wikipedia article on everything, so the subjects of the articles must be notable, which requires reliable secondary sources and in this case there isn't. I hope this helps. d'oh! talk 11:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just like file sharing services and I thought it was a good idea to post articles about the most popular ones. I'm working on the article about Hotfile now and I'm planning to write about other file sharing services as well in the future. --Bewitchedyegor (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I know you are the owner of 4shared, as such you can't write a neutral article about 4shared. As a general rule if you are in anyway connected to the article's subject, you shouldn't edit the article. You are more than welcome to edit other articles, but make sure you have a read of the links above. I hope this helps. d'oh! talk 13:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
That would really nice to be a 4shared owner and earn that much money, indeed, but I'm not a 4shared owner in any way, unfortunately. Check out my user page (Bewitchedyegor). There's my pic and it also says I like music and Fallout (RPG). Let's see: I have a web site dedicated to Fallout. It is http://fallout-archives.com/ . It has "About" page which has my photo on it (http://fallout-archives.com/html/site.php). I have also another related web site which is dedicated to nuclear weapons: http://www.nuclear-attack.com/ . Go to the "About" page and you'll see my photo again (http://www.nuclear-attack.com/site.php). I have other web sites as well. All these web-sites are being updated daily by myself. I also play in a band and you can see my videos on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ItY9cVuQXc&feature=related). I'm 21 years old, how can I possibly own something as big as 4shared and why would I bother working on anything else at all?--Bewitchedyegor (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I did look at your user page, but I also google your username and found it at the end of a press release as the company's skype. That plus your edit history suggest that you are the owner or is connected somehow to the company. Remember this doesn't stop you from editing Wikipedia, but you need to follow the Wikipedia's policies. d'oh! talk 08:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Sending press-releases doesn't make me a company owner. I just don't see the differences in terms of quality of the articles if it is detailed and doesn't suggest or advice anything at all. Well, thanks for your time anyway.--Bewitchedyegor (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Goosebumps

Anon e Mouse Jr. has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made him happy and he'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Anon e Mouse Jr. has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I realize you're trying to improve the site, and I accept that. It's just that I put a lot of effort into things on there, finding the details and the like and getting them organized (the page was a mess before I created the tables, and I eventually had to request protection on it and a few other pages to stop vandalism), and seeing it changed into something completely different after all that work... well, it irks me. I understand your reasoning, and I'm not going to try and change it back or anything (although I REALLY wish you'd put books 18-20 back on there - there are a lot of people, or were, who came here looking for information on the future books). But as mentioned, I prefer my own version of the article, and I will simply continue to maintain it on my user page. (Until next time... Anon e Mouse Jr.) Anon e Mouse Jr. (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie. I have re-add the future books on the page. d'oh! talk 16:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
You are very welcome, and thank you for restoring the future books. (Until next time... Anon e Mouse Jr.) Anon e Mouse Jr. (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

1956 Grand Canyon mid-air collision

I see you edited in a Mayday TV Series category tag for this aviation accident. May I ask why? It has never been the subject of a Mayday episode.

BTW I undid your edit.William 14:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

In Mayday: Science of Disaster episode "System Breakdown". Also just a suggestion, don't alien editors from making edits to Wikipedia, if you continue you will scare away editors and the project will fall apart. -- d'oh! [talk] 15:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Frankly do you know how much BS is posted to Mayday TV Series main page or the List of Episodes page. People every year have put up something as an episode that never was made. The mythical season 8 episodes are just the most recent example. Someone may up a wikipedia page for a aviation incident that never happened then put it in as a Mayday episode. Go in the Mayday's history for posts around September 2007 and look for a episode for Thai Airways Flight 358. Also episodes have been listed as made for Air NZ Flight 901, China Airlines Flight 120, Northwest Airlines Flight 5.
I'm trying to maintain the accuracy of the page. If it scares off the bs artists and wishful thinkers, so be it.William 15:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Every good editor have to revert a lot of BS off of pages, but that is no reason for the crap you have give me with my edits. I also know how much BS the Mayday articles are subject to, which is why I researched and confirm all my edits before making them. So next time please assume good faith. -- d'oh! [talk] 15:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Treehouse of Horror

User:D'oh! please join the discussion at Template talk:Treehouse of Horror , your input is appreciated. About the width restriction, for a greater than 20 line list hard breaks or carrot br/ carrot are required (there are 21 episodes now). With out table boxes exact spacing for alignment between the episode column and segment column are required for the smaller screens. Yes, a horizontal bar may show up on smaller screens, but it's either that or the list becomes askew and the titles don't properly match.

And yes, a month ago when it was width restricted it wasn't necessary, but that was with a table box for each row line.

Also, please chime in about the segment debate, Scorpion242 is under the impression that more information and convenience in browsing is a bad thing. Fixblor (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have replied to both issues on the talk page. -- d'oh! [talk] 08:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes

Please weigh in on Talk:List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes#Inclusion of episode segment links, so we can generate a consensus. Thanks, Fixblor (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mayday Episodes vandalism

He really did a workover on the page. I edited out the fictional episodes he listed. The other fixes, which are substantial, involve work done by you. I'll let you fix it.William 19:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I have reverted the vandalism. -- d'oh! [talk] 02:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Mayday! Bering Sea

Is not an episode of Mayday/Air Crash Investigations. Mayday is produced by Cineflix, Bering Sea was produced by Gurney Productions. It can be verified here.

http://www.imdb.com/company/co0178610/

The episode you listed has a similar title but its not the same show.William 10:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I know, I just didn't realised I added it, until you took it down. That is what happen when you edit tried. Thanks for taking it down. -- d'oh! [talk] 11:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:AGF was how I approached that Bering Sea edit. I trust you unlike some other people editing the page not to make stuff up. We had someone doing that yesterday again.
The edit of mine you undid- BTW Cineflix on their website says there are 8 eight seasons of Mayday. Discovery Canada says nine. Shouldn't Cineflix take precedent? It's their show. Here's the Cineflix link-
http://www.cineflix.com/home/article/178
What do you think?-William 12:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Difference between articles

Could you explain the difference between Rail transport in South East Queensland and Rail network in South East Queensland? I want to make sure I get any contributions correctly placed. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Rail network in South East Queensland is a list-of-stations article, split from the QR article, while Rail transport in South East Queensland is the history, etc article. But both articles are in a bit mess at the moment and no planning went into (or is planned) for either article, so if you have the time and/or ideas for the articles please do what you think is required. -- d'oh! [talk] 15:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Plain cigarette packaging

Hi D'oh! I have moved the Plain cigarette packaging material to your userspace - User:D'oh!/Plain cigarette packaging - as it is not appropriate for WP:Limbo as it hasn't been deleted. You may get assistance in creating the article at WP:AfC. Any questions, please contact me. SilkTork *YES! 11:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to edit your talk page in Monobook

Your header covers the edit links and such at the top of the page. Take a look: [4]. I guess in Vector you're trying to cover the header with your name and "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", which depending on the visitor's font size and other customizations may interfere with other things. Anomie⚔ 15:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, it should be fixed now. -- d'oh! [talk] 05:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion nominations...

The ones you have done for the railway stations were not dab pages, but redirects.

If you want them deleted, either take to Redirects for deletion or go to Requested Moves to get them moved.

Alternatively, give me a list of the page moves that you want made, and I can consider deleting and moving the pages.

Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

See your talk page, you mis-understand I wish to drop the dab off other pages and move them. -- d'oh! [talk] 06:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Mayday Season 8 listing

I was unable to find any listing online with regards to the CORRECT titles and broadcast dates for Season 8 of Mayday. The changes I made were based upon the actual listings in my PVR and I was unsure how to reference that. Rest assured that all the info I added is 100% correct as broadcast. As I don't wish to waste more of my time, the ball is in your court now... Rampage Rick (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you didn't have any kind of response, yet continued to undo the work of others, here you go: Rampage Rick (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

For the last week, I been at the hospital twice and I have physio which ended the idea of me having any free time, this was caused by a injury which I got on the same day as your message. So you can understand how I only had a bit of time to give to Wikipedia, of which I spent watching out for vandalism. Next time please be patient as most editors do have life which can take their Wikipedia time away.
To go back to your original message, when a episode of Mayday airs the channel airing the episode will sometimes change the title of the episode as well as the "original" aired dates. Additionally the DVR is not and should not be a trusted source as the information can be wrong. For these reasons a reliable source is required, for the original date the episode aired and the original title of the episode. The dates and titles you provided maybe correct but until they are verified they need to stay out the article, so they don't confuse the reader if they are incorrect.
Finally I will ask you to please do not use the edit summary to attack other editors. If you have a issue with a edit in future please use the user's or the article's talk page, in fact if you read the talk page you world have got your answer. -- d'oh! [talk] 06:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that Discovery Channel is in the habit of queuing up episodes on a Video Toaster in order to change the title captions in the episode itself. Also, I don't see any other networks running the episodes before Discovery, plus the fact that the original broadcast dates shown correlate to the first three referenced elsewhere, with a precise offset of 7 days throughout the run of the season. I am familiar with the potential for errors in the program descriptors themselves, the most glaring being the reference to "Panic on the Runway" as the Season 9 premiere.

"The dates and titles you provided maybe correct but until they are verified they need to stay out the article, so they don't confuse the reader if they are incorrect." Well then perhaps you could have spent some time looking for verification then? I've spent considerable time doing so and have come up with nil. All things being equal, and the fantastically remote chance that I've fallen out of a parallel dimension, I thought that presenting the reader with useful information would be prudent. Someone might actually want to know this information, and given the relative scarcity, this could help them out.

With regards to reliable sources, much of the information referenced for Season 8 appears to have been written before the season was even broadcast. You're telling me that future predictions are more reliable than a record of the actual event? I think you're confusing the medium with the message. The Internet is no more a trusted source than my PVR. Look at all the alternative titles for various episodes, those were all referenced at one point. Evidently they were wrong... I could write an editorial drawing parallels between your actions and the Church's book burning, but that doesn't make it true. Wikipedia is a perfect example of how the Internet can be one of the least reliable mediums.

Barring any other reliable sources, I think what I have is the best you have to look forward to. It becomes a case of posting information with an infinitesimally small chance of being wrong, or an absence of information altogether. On that thought, I see no reference to those specific episodes having ever been aired. Following your own reasoning the section requires massive cuts. You can't stand behind your argument against my additions without deleting other parts as well.

Lastly, I did read the talk page and it answered none of my questions. I don't even know which question it is that you think I got an answer to. Stuck a few of my own there. Enjoy! Rampage Rick (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have anything else to add, since you have backed up my argument that your PVR is not a reliable source. If you have a read at the sources, you would know I didn't used the "internet", in fact I used press releases from Discovery Channel and Cineflix to get the dates which is a better source. Wikipedia is unreliable, because editors add information from unreliable source, such as a PVR. Also the images you uploaded are copyright violations, you should remove them. -- d'oh! [talk] 12:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The press release you reference only covers the specifics of Episodes 1-3. Please delete the entries for Episodes 4-8 as they are not referenced to the standards you've specified. The televisual portion of the screenshots I've uploaded are eligible for fair use for the purposes of commentary; the fact that this information is not available elsewhere helps my case. My research thus far indicates that the software-generated graphics are a derivative of the GPL'd DishLinux code.
Anyways, I base my stand from the following excerpts from WP:SOURCES: "The word 'source' in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a date and title), "the creator of the work (Discovery Channel sets the broadcast dates, Cineflix sets the titles), "and the publisher of the work" (Discovery Channel or Bell TV depending on your perception) Are you calling Discovery Channel or Bell unreliable? I'd say that the volume of news programs they publish put them in the realm of reliable. "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." I particularly like this one: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities" Rampage Rick (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Nothing your quoted helps you, the information from your PVR is not published works even if it comes from Discovery Channel or Bell TV, therefore you are trying to add original research to article which is not allowed. The existed of the episodes is not in question, since the episodes have aired and is not going to be challenged they don't need a source, however the titles and the air dates need a source since they have been challenged. Also I have marked your images for speedy deletion as per WP:SPEEDY#F5, fair-use content can only be used in articles. -- d'oh! [talk] 14:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Titles yes, but I have not seen any challenges with regards to Season 8 broadcast dates. Please cite an example... Also, looking back at the Mayday page I see something in need of your attention. The screenshot of the opening disclaimer, followed by the text "The opening text seen in every episode, informing the viewer that official records and interviews was used to create the episode." is erroneous, as the text varies between episodes depending on circumstances. While the wording you've posted does appear for the episode "Panic on the Runway" the remainder of Season 8 episodes show the text "This is a true story. It is based on official reports and eyewitness accounts." Some of the previous episodes also differ, such as when official reports were unavailable. Cheers! Rampage Rick (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Airport railway line, Brisbane

Hello. no prob. at all with your work on Bris rlwy stations; but thought this one should be left alone (Sydney and others). Feel free to discuss Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)).

I agree, but can you create a dab page for all the articles at Airport railway line. -- d'oh! [talk] 10:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

US Airways 1549

Yes it does it is official so do you know what offcial means? Even if it wasn't official it would give viewers a chance to see a preview of the new episodes. Thanks Qantasplanes (talk) 4:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I said official announcement, there has been no announcement about the new season. Wikipedia is not a place to preview up and coming episodes, Wikipedia is not a tv guide. -- d'oh! [talk] 05:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

FAQ for List of Mayday episodes

While I think it helps explain why the episodes are listed the way they are, I'm sure we're going to have to continue reverting vandalism there. They will keep coming back no matter how many times they are told they are wrong. Look at this page's history, the behavior has been going on for at least three years. In the summer of 2007, an editor made up a hoax aviation incident, Thai Airways Flight 358, and went even further saying it was a Mayday episode. Extra incredible- The article survived a deletion discussion. A second deletion a month later, by which time a large pile of evidence had accumulated showing it to be a hoax, got the article deleted.William 18:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I know the FAQ is going to do nothing to stop the edits but now editors reverting can just point to the FAQ instead of explain over and over again why the edits are wrong. -- d'oh! [talk] 04:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Aris and Mayday

IMDB has credited as a narrator for 4 Mayday episodes.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0034877/

Just a heads up.- William 00:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but are they the Canada aired episodes or the UK remakes. -- d'oh! [talk] 04:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Atmosfear (series)

Considering failing this GA. As mainly it doesn't tell the reader what the game series is. It states that it's an Australian game and uses a board and multimedia. Beyond this naff all. See more on the GA page. Note I will apply the GA quick fail test in 24 hours. Thanks KnowIG (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

From looking at this I may have to fail it before a ruck starts. His a bit of a bully apparently. See the review page from what I mean. Sorry dude. KnowIG (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Mayday episodes

See Talk:List_of_Mayday_episodes why I reverted your undo. Look at the source next time. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael5046 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

i am trying to get the facebook show the image for mayday series in the community page. can u help me with this. thanks. /flyingpostaldude — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingpostaldude (talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a problem for Facebook not Wikipedia, so please don't destroy the article for Facebook issues. -- d'oh! [talk] 12:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

yes but many other pages work fine. this is the only page i see with this problem. and i am not destroying the page. the page isn't yours. it is open source. perhaps the problem is with using html tags div in the picture section. can you remove those and let it go for a while like that to see if it works. what harm would that do to the page? i don't understand.

Wikipedia is not open source (read up on what Wikipedia is) and the page is not mine, but so far you have wasted resources by uploading at least two useless images of which now needs to be deleted by admins. The HTML tag is not causing the issue and it is not going to be removed for Facebook. -- d'oh! [talk] 13:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

what a douchebag you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingpostaldude (talk • contribs) 15:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion of Telecommunications in Australia

Why did you delete the entire content? In my book this is vandalism. Needless to say I have reverted. --Rmarsden (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My reason is in the edit summary, which is the whole article is not sourced and contains incorrect information which is misleading readers. Your edits draw my attention to the article. I acted in good faith in blanking the article, it is not vandalism. — [d'oh] 12:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

NBN

Eeeep, sorry I wasn't clear. The draft can't be in mainspace - it should be the actual draft article which is at Talk:National Broadband Network/draft, with discussion continuing on the original talk page at Talk:National Broadband Network. See WP:SUBPAGE. You'll probably need to tag the mainspace draft as CSD G6. Sorry about that! bou·le·var·dier (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you were clear and I know about that rule, but for some reason it didn't click. —[d'oh] 08:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

National Broadband Network

I raised a couple of small things on the talk page, but it's impossible to overstate how much you've improved the article. Our older coverage was embarrassing, but the article you've written is something we can be proud of. Awesome work. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. :) —[d'oh] 17:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your olive green cigarette package image, as used in Plain cigarette packaging

The legislation on cigarette packaging actually before parliament describes the required colour of cigarette packs as "drab dark brown" rather than the olive green earlier proposed. I suspect it's because the olive growers complained that the connection gave their product a bad name. (They really did!)

This means that the pic you supplied is not really appropriate any more. Are you able to provide a new one? HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I just uploaded a new photo, its not the best, but it will do until the packs are made. —[d'oh] 08:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:D'oh!

User:D'oh!, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:D'oh! and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:D'oh! during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Qantasplanes (Talk!) 10:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Why? —[d'oh] 10:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
closed. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs 12:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:D%27oh!/Archive_1&oldid=1141590840"