User talk:MusicLover

Simple Life Episode List

Good job with the episode list, it's pretty well done. Needs a bit of cleanup and expanding, but I will help with that.

Just wanted to know where you got the titles for Season 1 episodes? The ones listed on the DVDs are totally different.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Simplelife409screenshot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Simplelife409screenshot.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. BetacommandBot 14:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Simplelife409sshot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Simplelife409sshot.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. BetacommandBot 14:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gimmemorecover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gimmemorecover.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. BetacommandBot 16:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SimpleLife5DVDCover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SimpleLife5DVDCover.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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 02:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Womanizer (song). Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. — Realist² 22:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Dan56 (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Names of writers and producers on Katy Perry's "Roar" song

Hello MusicLover,

Apparently you have made changes to the names of writers and/or producers of the song "Roar", by Katy Perry. If so, you seem to prefer birth names instead of their artistic names. The problem is that musicians go by their artistic names, not their birth names, and currently in that article we see the same person being called two different names (actually, this happens twice). Please explain your position on the matter on the talk page, where we can try to reach consensus. Here's the direct link to that topic:

Talk:Roar (song)#Can we agree on the names of the producers and songwriters.3F

Many thanks in advance. Dontreader (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Music Speaks may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

url=http://www.billboard.com/charts/2014-03-08/billboard-200|title=Billboard 200: Mar 8, 2014|work=[[Billboard (magazineBillboard|publisher=Prometheus Global Media|accessdate=February 28, 2014}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Everything track list

Hi, I was just wondering, what is your source for the producers and writers on the album My Everything by Ariana Grande? You seem to know all a lot of the credits but I can't find that anywhere. Divine618 (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The writing credits are listed in the album browser of iTunes. Not sure about all of the producer information but that was there before I started editing anything. MusicLover (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for answering! Divine618 (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie J

Hi, I saw you have been working on Jessie J's new single "Bang Bang", I'm a huge fan of hers, so I would like to ask you if you could keep an eye on the US charts, like the Billboard Hot 100, so if this song enter that chart you could be able to update it on this song's article. Waiting for your answer in my talk page. Thanks for helping. JD3rulo (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I'll make sure to contribute anything that I find if anybody else hasn't already added it. :) MusicLover (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Pinkprint

It would be appreciated if you looked over and voted on the move request for "The Pink Print" to the "The Pinkprint". Up to this point there hasn't been a direct response as to which spelling was correct. Nicki Minaj herself clarified the question directly stating it was written, "The Pinkprint", (https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/497117375712329728). Leave either your support or opposition for the move here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Pink_Print#Requested_move_06_August_2014. Thank you for your time, KaneZolanski (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited X (Chris Brown album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RockStar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm Livelikemusic. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Nick Jonas (album), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The information you added was not available in said-citations given, and has not been confirmed by any reliable third-party sources. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Pinkprint

Co-Producers are an unnecessary addition. Also you removed some of the producers originally there w/out reason. My bad for removing the names that were wiki-linked though. Re-add them w/out removing some producers. Contributor82 (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I'm not trying to sound argumentative at all so sorry if this comes off the wrong way but from what I can see you've been a member for less than a month...how can you say what is unnecessary to add? No offense, but that's not really up to you or I. Co-producers are listed on EVERY album's page if they are credited in the booklet. Why shouldn't they be? Secondly, why would I leave producers that aren't in the booklet on the page? You reverted my edit because you thought it was inaccurate but yet you want to leave inaccurate production credits to remain on the page. The booklet is really the only source we have for things like this...all the producers that were added earlier were probably just assumptions made by people who looked at the songwriters. MusicLover (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well the credits listed on the page are credits listed on Itunes so thats why I said they shouldn't be removed. In fact here are the itunes credits from the EXACT SAME website you referenced on my talk page: http://www.nmlite.com/?p=3372 Contributor82 (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

iTunes credits show nothing more than who wrote on a song. So we know nothing about who produced the songs based on that. I didn't remove any names from the songwriting credits with the exception of one (James Strife) and that's because his name isn't in the booklet OR listed within the iTunes file. Sometimes people add their own names to songwriting credits to troll or promote themselves. That page means nothing regardless of if it came from the same website. Why would we list anything other than what is the album booklet? I feel like I keep repeating myself lol, but really...nothing else is a reputable source here. That list means nothing. All someone did is make assumptions based on the songwriters listed on iTunes and assumed every producer who wrote on a track actually produced the track they contributed to. Sometimes producers can just take part in the songwriting process only, so that source isn't relevant. MusicLover (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, MusicLover. You have new messages at Calvin999's talk page.
Message added 09:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— Calvin999 09:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Britney: Piece of Me. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Breathe Heavy and Pink is the New Blog are not reliable sources. livelikemusic talk! 15:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's cool to leave a message saying I'm adding unsourced content when that's truly not what I did. If I had, none of what I added to the page would still be there and clearly you chose not to remove my additions to the page. I cited two different sources for each piece of information. You could have told me that BH wouldn't be accepted as a source without that template. No hard feelings though...that being said, I actually had a question for you about something in the article because I see you're a frequent editor and I'm not sure what to do. MusicLover (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Make Me (Britney Spears song). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

I've removed the Australian Hitseekers Chart peak from Capsize (song) because the Hitseekers peak merely means a song hasn't reached the top 50. Just as we don't keep songs' Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles peaks on pages after they make the Hot 100 in the US, the Australian Hitseekers number 1 position is equally as unnecessary as it's already in the top 100. Ss 112 15:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MusicLover. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MusicLover. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Summer House Martha's Vineyard logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Summer House Martha's Vineyard logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS violations

Please do not violate MOS, which must be followed on Wikipedia. More pointedly: MOS:TABLECAPTION and DTAB. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

Please don't link centuries, years, common terms. See WP:OVERLINK. Tony (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on American Sports Story. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Alex_21_TALK 23:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE, a core site policy. -- Alex_21_TALK 23:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the next plan of action here? Because I disagree and won't be bulldozed into accepting your preferred edit, which is in violation of MOS:TV where it clearly states "Episode title, writers, directors, episode numbers, airdates, production codes, and viewership numbers must be reliably sourced, either from the opening/closing credits or from secondary sources". Not to mention, you reverted my addition of the information first, making my initial edit with the production codes included the WP:STATUSQUO, not yours. Using a valid parameter available in the episode table most certainly isn't a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE either. Your edits blatantly violate the Manual of Style, which outlines no limitations to production codes being added so long as they are accurate. I also asked you to provide proof of production codes not being added unless episodes are aired out of order as "standard practice", which you didn't provide. Your edits violate WP:OWN and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, you not liking production codes or finding them relevant isn't a valid basis for removal, especially when your edits go against the manual of style. Your preferred edits that have no basis in the manual of style do not rule over others. You do not own the article.

I did find this discussion, spearheaded by you, in which you argue in favor of removing production codes. A whopping 8 people participated, and of those eight you can't even say all of them agreed with you because they didn't. And even if they did (which again isn't the case), I don't see any rule that states personal opinions of users override the manual of style. Now perhaps if you had zero opposition to these changes you could do that on the basis of consensus. However, you did not reach a consensus in this discussion. In cases where there is no consensus, it makes sense that the manual of style would be the guideline. We could take this to the talk page, although I doubt we'll get any input there. MusicLover (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explain why the production codes are not indiscriminate information. What purpose do they provide to the reader, or are they simply being included for the sake of it? The above paragraphs fail to focus on this at all. As a newer editor, I'd be happy to educate you on the difference between the "rules" of Manuals of Styles, and the standard practice of editing, if you'd like. -- Alex_21_TALK 05:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Production codes are not indiscriminate information because the MOS openly acknowledges and allows them, with NO restrictions mentioned, and the episode table has a perimeter allowing their inclusion too. Indiscriminate information isn't allowed on Wikipedia so therefore it would make zero logical sense for Wikipedia permit the addition of production codes if that information was a violation of another one of their policies. That would be a complete contradiction and it's an intellectually dishonest argument.

Production codes are a piece of identifying information relating to a specific episode, just like everything else in the episode table is. Some people may find it useful and interesting and others may not. By your logic, I could argue that I personally don't care about writers, directors, and viewership figures and thus I can remove all of that information from episode tables based on my own personal opinion. Writers, directors, and viewership figures are addressed in the same exact way that production codes are in the MOS. So what's stopping me from removing them? If those pieces of information are available, the MOS openly permits their inclusion regardless of whether or not YOU personally find them useful or interesting. You can't solely decide what's useful to the millions and millions of people that use Wikipedia every day. I'm not the first person to disagree with you on this, so why does your opinion supersede mine or any of the other users who have disagreed? That's why the MOS exists, we're not supposed to edit based solely on our own personal preferences. You've already acknowledged yourself here that the MOS permits the use of production codes.

You've failed to address how this isn't a WP:OWN and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT issue on your end. All of your arguments boil down to you not liking production codes, which isn't an argument based in policy and is an argument that Wikipedia prohibits when attempting to reach consensus. But sure, I definitely want to see a policy based justification for you forcing your preferred edits despite not reaching a consensus in any of the numerous discussions you've had about this. You have always received opposition with no resolution yet still forced your preferred edit regardless. Right on the main MOS page, it says this: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a wikiproject cannot decide that a Wikipedia policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." I don't claim to know everything about Wikipedia though, so educate me if I'm missing something here. In my view, you've blatantly violated that guideline by your persistent removal of this information. MusicLover (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, you've failed to answer my question on how you are not violating a core policy by including indiscriminate data, and decided to go on the defensive WP:WALLOFTEXT instead. Noted. -- Alex_21_TALK 07:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except I very clearly answered that in the first paragraph, evidently you didn't like the response and have no retort. MOS:TV permits the use of production codes, just as it permits the addition of writers, directors, air dates, and viewership data. It's as simple as that. They would not permit the usage of something that violated their indiscriminate information policy, as that would be completely contradictory and illogical. You have no argument so you decided to deflect and criticize the length of my response because you don't have an answer based in policy, hilarious. You've taken it upon yourself to label the information indiscriminate, the MOS states the opposite. There's not a single policy that justifies the removal of the information. By your logic, editors can remove any informational aspect of the episode tables that they personally don't find useful or informative without consensus. You've removed production codes based on your own personal opinion and preferences as if you own the article, violating WP:OWN and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

You've failed to answer how you haven't violated those right along with the MOS guideline stating "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a wikiproject cannot decide that a Wikipedia policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Because that's exactly what you have done here, used a discussion between a limited group of editors (8 to be exact, and even several within that very limited group of 8 didn't agree with you) to override existing policy and guidelines despite not reaching a consensus or convincing any of those opposed to the changes you've made. You've told me several times that you're going to explain how your edits were justified based on policy, how you were going to "teach me the rules of Wikipedia" yet still haven't done so...because you can't. Noted. Ridiculous that it's even an argument and that valid information from editors trying to improve the articles would be removed without justification. We'll need to escalate the dispute further to try and find resolve then if you continue to remove the information in violation of policy and guidelines. Unfortunate that you've shut down having a discussion, but that shows you know policy isn't on your side here. MusicLover (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These walls of texts are typically generated to intimidate opposing editors. In my active decade here, it hasn't worked.

You said production codes are a piece of information to identify an episode. Production codes designate the order that they were produced. If that order is the same in which they aired, then they are simply duplicate information that serves no other sorting purpose, and thus becomes indiscrimiate information. Production codes at List of Futurama episodes list their different production order vs broadcast order; Arrow season 4 shows episode 4 and 5 aired in order but were produced in reverse; Supergirl season 1 shows the correct production order of episodes 4 and 5 despite having switched airdates. Hope this helps explain how you included indiscrimiate information!

-- Alex_21_TALK 10:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that just two paragraphs is a "wall of text" is quite the reach. I'm long winded by nature, sorry...all of my responses have been addressing the dispute at hand and my point of view based on policy though. There's no limit to the length a response can be so long as it's productive. You're not the only one allowed an opinion or point of view. There's nothing "intimidating" here. Despite you calling me a "new editor", I've had a Wikipedia account since 2005. I'm an editor that actively avoids conflicts whenever possible. I'm here to improve articles, not get into petty arguments and edit wars. If anything, intimidation is forcing your preferred edits despite violations to the MOS and no consensus or compromise between yourself and the users that oppose your edits. You endlessly revert and threaten blocks until the other person gives up and your preferred edit stands. That seems far more intimidating than me writing a couple paragraphs explaining my perspective. Apologies that I haven't backed down in the way other editors may have.

Last I checked, a production code does both. It is a unique identifier for an episode (every episode of television produced has a unique production code relevant to only that episode) and yes, it also indicates the order the episodes were produced. It can be both. What I disagree with is that production codes count as indiscriminate information. "Production codes should only be added if episodes air out of order" isn't a policy or guideline on Wikipedia, it's a rule you made up based on your own preference and opinion. And again, a WP:OWN violation. You want articles to be the way you prefer them, even if your preferred edits have no basis in policy. If production codes were meant only for series where episodes aired out of order, the MOS would state such a guideline clearly. In actuality, it says nothing about that. You know that and I know that, you've even admitted it in past discussions, which is why you're claiming production codes fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The indiscriminate policy is very clear, and it's obvious a very short 6 character production code doesn't apply here. Nothing about duplicate information is mentioned there either, although I disagree about the information being duplicate.

You've yet to explain why the MOS would encourage the use of production codes with no limitations if they were in violation of the indiscriminate information policy or any other policy and how that would make any sense. You've also yet to explain how you removing production codes is any different than people removed all writer, director, and viewership information from articles without consensus, which is what you've done. Another example, all 10 episodes of Grotesquerie are written by the same 3 people, the writing credits are the exact same for all 10 episodes. Does that mean we remove the writing credits from the episode table and include them in the main infobox only because of "duplicate information"? No, we don't. Funny that you cite MOS when it benefits your preferred edits yet completely ignore it in this case. You can't pick and choose based on when it suits you're preferred edits, yet that's exactly what you do. You don't have to like or agree with everything in the MOS, but it is meant to be followed. MusicLover (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another wall of text of you repeating yourself that I won't be entertaining.

I've answered your question on the production code. If you want to remove the writers information, go for it, see how well it is received by other edtors - be bold! Kindly minimize your deliberate inclusion of indiscriminate content in the future. Thanks! -- Alex_21_TALK 22:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You answered with lies, inaccuracies, and mischaracterizations of policy that doesn't actually apply here to try and justify forcing your preferred edits sure. What you didn't answer though is how you didn't violate this MOS guideline..."Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a wikiproject cannot decide that a Wikipedia policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Along with WP:OWN and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Because this is exactly what you've done repeatedly, therefore you can't address it and no surprise you won't be entertaining that. Using a limited discussion with less than 10 editors, in which you weren't even able to gain consensus among those 10 users, to justify ignoring and overriding the MOS in all television articles. A blatant violation of said guideline, undeniably so. But you know you can get away with it because you've been doing this for years and nobody has challenged you. Unfortunately I'll have to waste my time escalating the issue further to get others involved, because you refuse to rectify your blatant disregard for policy. I would tell you to kindly stop deliberately violating policy to suit your preferred edits, but alas this has been a nonstop issue. Our conversation is done for now, great, but you'll be seeing me "repeat myself" again because unfortunately I'll have to take this to the talk page and/or through dispute resolution, just a fair warning that I plan to do that. Bye for now! MusicLover (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, bye, happy editing! Let me know when you remove the writer's info!

(Just do give WP:BOOMERANG a read - I now have further I can contribute concerning hounding.) -- Alex_21_TALK 08:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Special Ops Lioness Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Special Ops Lioness Poster.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]