User talk:Xeworlebi/Archive 8

356:

on 6 different matters as he told me all the ways in which i was in error. Until last night i didn't know July comes before May but according to Bignole it does. I had a laugh at that one. The complete series DVD release of Smallville was announced in late April and it says 218 + Superboy pilot from 1961 and Bignole unilaterally dismisses that declaration from Warner Bros. about the episode count. But he won't accept that in Canada the première was 2 hours and that the DVD release is not a re-edited special made just for that DVD release but rather is the standard debut for the show, which the USA was not privy to. The article itself actually makes that claim without reference and why? He believes it and he damn well knows there is no reference for it. What reference is given for the première DVD doesn't come close to making the claim he is implying is found in the reference used to cite the existence of the DVD release. For the way he meticulously references things there is no other viable explanation. That would be one reason why i usually do nothing more than read the Smallville articles. Damn that day i found the episode list had become skip-numbered and i had the courtesy to read the talk pages instead of unilaterally fixing it. :bang head on desk now:

1819:

on the many episode pages you've tagged. You haven't shown us an example by, say, editing one of the pages yourself to make it notable by your standards so we can follow suit and then remove the tags without further trouble. Nor have you accepted the contention that if all the page consists of is plot, there is no need to demand references, as the episode is its own reference, even though that is acceptable WP policy. Such a page should have a "plot only" tag, but it's absurd to demand references for a page that has, as yet, nothing to reference. You can find my request here:

723:

want to work again / retain their broadcast license. The way the infobox doc was changed by yourself reflects the American (and a few other countries') practice of discarding shows that are not performing to satisfactory levels which result in episodes not being broadcast. Episodes also have to be shown within a specific time. That is partly why Flashpoint returned to CTV in January while CBS held it back another 4 months. I could give you a pile of links to all of this stuff but i get the impression you wouldn't want to read it (most people don't) so unless you ask for it.

2049:, I'll ignore the IP hopper from now. Problem with dropping notes everywhere is that several shows don't have a wikiproject, and that the people unfamiliar with the guidelines and policies usually don't read those pages, and if they do they'll just say that I can't do that and then use that as a valid reason to remove any and all valid tags. Wikia is indeed the better place for most of this content, which is why it was created in the first place. 2030:

may be wise before embarking on tagging a specific show's episodes, to drop a respectful note on a WikiProject page (if one exists) and the talk page of the main show article a day or so in advance to give interested editors a heads up and a chance to perhaps prepare sources. (If you'd like help drafting such a note, let me know.) Again, not a requirement, but it may smooth things over and hopefully keep the inevitable drama to a minimum.

387:. I push not-notable = not-notable, English or not. I have told you this now numerous times, yet you keep putting words in my mouth. Arguing with me is only futile because you make it so. You have given many examples in the past were you claimed I was against certain info, and I have agreed with you on most (maybe even all, can't keep track of every example you have thrown at me) of them, if something is notable then 353:

UK who knows as of writing this, they could show 13 over the next few months). Care to weigh in on this mess your change in policy creates, effectively lying to English readers and keeping hidden the existence of 4 episodes of a show because they have only been broadcast in Russian, French, Italian, Spanish, and who-knows-what-other-languages. Perhaps revert the change in policy. :nodshead:

1306: 1191:, and gave it B quality, and Mid importance. I have to admit I'm not particularly familiar with the ratings system, and have not been very interested in them, they're WikiProject related, A quality requires some kind of mini review, somewhat like GA, so putting up a GAN is pretty much the same amount of work, and I'e always found A class some weird class anyway. 2289:

Xeworlebi performed a revert! There are five places from which he could do that, in all of which he could have perfectly seen my edit summary which reads: "Undid revision 434810997 ..." I am not as active as he is, but when I see the word "Undid..." I discover that either A BRD contest or an edit war

2029:

is resolved, I strongly suggest that you refrain from tagging any more television episode articles. While you have every right to do so, it would demonstrate good faith and a willingness to collaborate. I also ask that you refrain from commenting on the IP editor; it is not helping. In the future, it

352:

It is not a common issue but your pushing forward the ENGLISH ONLY has resulted in keeping hidden the fact that Body of Proof has 13 episodes in its first season, and that said season has been seen in a variety of languages all over the planet. But in English only 9 are being shown (Australia and the

1818:

I have requested editing dispute assistance, as your random mass "notability" tagging seems impossible to resolve. You have not once described what you would consider acceptable noteworthiness (or whatever the word should be), nor have you explained how you are suddenly the gatekeeper for notability

1735:

You don't need to cite notability guidelines to me, I am quite familiar with them. The point is, there is a consistent format for articles across a series--it would not make sense for a few episodes to have articles and a few not, so if you believe the articles are not notable then you should make a

1682:

articles, without providing any rationale as far as I can tell. There has been a longstanding consensus that individual episodes of these shows have their own articles. If you believe that should change, I recommend you start a centralized discussion at one of the parent article's talk pages, rather

1057:

with a notability tag. It seeems to be a well established consensus that every South Park episode is inherently notable and gets its own article. Not sure why this episode should be treated any differently. In any event, if this article was to be put to AfD, I seriously doubt it would ultimately be

990:

Currently the infobox reads "No. of episodes: 6", which at the very least is misleading, as evident by previous changes in this article and in those of most other current TV series. I see no reason against extending the information to list both released and produced episodes, as explained in my edit

722:

I have revered your change to Endgame which was done per your change to the infobox doc because the change you put into the infobox doc is explicitly non-Canadian and you are applying it to a Canadian show. Canadian shows don't have unaired episodes if the production company and the broadcaster ever

1931:

And you seem to not understand "Take it to the Talk page". You're creating a big deal where there isn't one. I've read the articles you mention, and they're not relevant. You've got a history of not liking TV show episode articles. I don't care why. Take it to the appropriate talk page or just

355:

As to Smallville, it is futile to disagree with Bignole. Much like it is futile for me to disagree with you. But i still do. Perhaps even worse to disagree with him about Smallville because he effectively has final say on anything and everything Smallville related. In one comment last night he lied

409:

be added. But looking through those article histories, you have appeared to make no effort to add such info, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about, if you haven't added it why are you then surprised that it isn't on the page? Make your case at that page, complaining to me won't change the

1740:

of them into lists, rather than just tagging a few at random. These episodes have had individual articles for years and, as far as I can tell, this has not been challenged. Personally I don't have a very strong preference either way, although I think coverage in reliable sources probably exists

983:

asks to only list aired episodes, I presume you were referring to that. That documentation adds something about number of produced episodes in case of a canceled series, so it apparently does not demand to ever only list the number or released episodes (which, in the case of Game of Thrones, is

2329:

One or two doesn't matter: Your edit was a sign of interest in conflict rather than interest in entering discussion. And as far as the article is concerned, there has been two reverts, not one. Apparently, administrator Fastily agrees with me too, since he has locked down the article for "Edit

1851:

Do we have to go trough this every time? Thought all the previous discussions made it pretty clear there was nothing wrong with the tags. I suggest you read up on the discussions and all the policies and guidelines provided in them. Reverting is not a solution, a possible solution would be to

2344:

I only made one revert, if you must accuse someone of edit warring my I suggest yourself? You who reverted two independent editors, not showing interest in starting an actual discussion but just going to the talk pages of the users accusing them of edit warring, requesting discussion but not

960:

episodes (which it doesn't, and I looked before it made that edit), or where community consensus is suggesting anything like it (nothing on the template talk page, and I looked before I made that edit), and what fault you found in my explanatory edit summary of my edit to just revert it like

1103:

As someone who has a great deal of experience on Knowledge, would you mind looking over and possibly rating a couple new articles I've created? I want to make sure I didn't miss anything, and have a third party read over and fix anything I may have done wrong. The articles can be found at

1950:

is not relevant when we're talking about notability, or why you think that several other articles talking about exactly this are not relevant either. I indeed have a history of not liking episode articles full of problems and not notable, I love the ones that aren't problem ridden and

44:

for a while and I recently came across a post saying it's going to need more comments because so far there has only been two supports and one oppose. So I was hoping since you and I cross paths every now and then, that you wouldn't mind posting your comment on the matter. Thanks. --

1461:

Not really, prose is almost always preferred over tables, only when a table format would be considerably more accessible it should be used. For a single season a table format is quite excessive. If we're several seasons in such format may become ore preferable, for now prose is

1575:

is not protected so can be edited by anyone. Thirdly, calling this putting you in handcuffs is like saying I'm keeping you hostage because you can't leave the planet. Editing that page won't be necessary for the time being. Any relevant info you want to add you can add to

1404:. I was under the impression that the content at tv.com is free to use (because it's freely editable by users). I just wanted to say that I am relatively new to wikipedia and wasn't aware that my edits would constitute copyright violations. Apologies for that. -- 791:"|right" puts the image on the right side of the page, which is automatically done when using |thumb anyway, so not actually needed. "|upright" uses your preferences regarding the thumb size but at 75% of the size, it's used for images in portrait mode. 2102:

episode articles, filled with running gags, goofs and other fan-cruft. I've been wanting to start an RfC on these episode articles for some time now, every time I think that I'll let it cool down a bit before starting it, and then it pops up somewhere

1741:

somewhere for most of these episodes. I am just saying that, if you think these episodes are not notable, you need to start a centralized discussion about how to deal with all of them; drive-by tagging a select few is not going to solve anything.

1631:

I have again no clue what you're talking about. Besides there being absolutely no reason to "get to work on it", there's no-one stopping you from doing so, although reverting probably will happen if you do. Why don't you work some on the main

1419:

No, everything you post to a website usually becomes theirs, even here on Knowledge. Additionally, TV.com is often a copy from some other website/magazine/press release. Now you know it shouldn't be a problem in the

421:

situation is kind-off a mess, mostly because The CW made it so. And Bignole does have a stranglehold over those articles. I kinda gave up on it after trying to get a decent reason for it, which appears to be opinion

213:

lists several reasons why links should not be piped just to avoid redirects, little about the act of doing it but about the end result of the link in the article, which is you geussed it, not piped just for avoiding

1715:, if you can't show notability for an article then the tag is perfectly appropriate, if you can add the sourced information to the article establishing notability then by all means remove the tag after you do so. 2079:

My god, the hours of my life I've wasted at Buffy.wikia. This dispute couldn't have been about Arrested Development or some children's cartoon, nope... hours of time suck practically required of me. :)

305:

Did you just accuse me of disruptive editing by upholding a guideline, when you reverted that guideline supported edit fully knowing it shouldn't be done in the first place? Anyway, discussion moved to

1073:

That's not how it works, if the notability is questioned it should be established by adding reliable third party sources to the article. I'm not treating this episode any different then all the other

41: 2137:- I'm aware of the notbroken policy, but when I tried the link it took me to the "others" subsection. I've tried it again a few times and it works correctly now. Weird - must have been a glitch. 1540:

Alright, douche... How about you answer me properly! Putting everyone else in handcuffs won't make it easier to edit this site. It's necessary to have the page after it airs and gets a pick-up.

151:

It clearly says that you should not pipe a link just to avoid a redirect. Stating that something shouldn't be done obviously implies that it should be reverted. The point? you can read those at

2345:

bothering to start one themselves. Anyway closing this here, as your only goal here seems to be accusing me and proving that you're right in doing so. I suggest you read the first sentence of

1911:

And this shows that you have not read any of the previous posts either at the previous discussions or just a couple of posts above this, I suggest you do to find out what defines notability.

1257:

Too early for a season article, all relevant information can go on the main article for now, when that one gets to big a season article would be needed, or if the episode list gets to long.

455:

s quote boxes, so do you have a better suggestion? Perhaps another shade of blue? (I dislike the default grey color). After all, other series' articles have their own colors (like

750:. If you think Canadian shows should get an exemption from this, I suggest you discuss that at the template talk page. Although I see no reason to make it even more inconsistent. 1446:

Isn't it common practice to have full season ranking in a table format? That way full season information is easier to find, and prose is used for individual milestone episodes.

1166: 2073:) is still a good place to put general notices. (I remember when I worked on WikiProject Tibet that we did this a lot, especially since the WikiProject structure was fubar.) 179:

but that it doesn't do as much harm as reverting harmless edits does. Since you seem unwilling to properly engage in discussion on this issue, I've requested wider input at

1890:

Further, if you have problems understanding why something like that is notable, perhaps you should ASK before tagging it. You may be missing something pretty obvious. -

2243:

I saw you made a nonlogical edit and I reverted it. I do not check every page history of every article were someone makes an edit I revert. I started a new section at

2190:

Halting pointless accusations of edit warring after making a single revert, this discussion is not constructive in any way. Actually relevant discussion continues at

1773:, the tagging is entirely appropriate, you have to start somewhere, this is not tagging a random article, this is tagging one of many. You might be interested in 1620: 1556: 1508: 889: 833: 748:"The number of episodes released. In case of cancelation a reliable source is required if the total number of episodes produced is greater than the number aired." 391:

if it's not then don't, just airing in a country is not notable to me, be it Belgium, be it Pakistan, be it Canada or the U.S. I (again) have nothing to do with

2070: 1604:

Okay sorry. It seems I am the douche. But every time I click on Falling Skies season 1 page it re directs me. Can I please just get to work on it?

817:

I want to remove the nonsense on the List of Falling Skies episodes Talk page. It's silly. Just people arguing and nothing there is constructive..

845:

Shouldn't be done, talk page discussions should not be removed unless they're vandalism and the like. If a talk page gets long it's appropriate to

1355: 1335:

You keep removing my contributions to the Falling Skies episode table. First off, the table is dreadful. It would look better if it looked like

1995: 731: 364: 2069:

Yeah, the WikiProject thing is an issue, but even if there is a WikiProject a lot of people don't watchlist it. So the main article talk (ie

2286:

Xeworlebi is an active Wikipedian; hence I thought it is unlike him to revert without checking history. But I wouldn't mind; that happens...

1820: 1133:

Sure, I'll take a look at them later today. On first sight, not that much wrong, some mark-up gripes I usually have, some tense issues and

2353:, and then maybe the definition of "repeatedly", as well as when saying that something is "not allowed" you cite something better than an 209:

What? I have read your post, and you say you shouldn't do it yet you did it just to revert me? All I can respond is what I already said:

1616: 1552: 1504: 945: 885: 829: 1981: 1336: 1243: 646:, I can't read those things so I have no clue if it was correct or not. But I don't think I ever said you were required to use IPA. 286: 256: 197: 138: 1946:

There's indeed no big deal, this article simply does not establishing notability. I'm not sure why you think a section called the

1106: 298:

Kinda impatient, do I get the time to respond? I've given my answer serval times now, you just have to click the link and read:

2218: 1367:

Absolutely pointless at this point, the show hasn't even premiered yet, there's absolutely no need for a season page nor for a

307: 90: 1856:, if you can't do that then the tag is entirely appropriate. By the way, just saying something is notable doesn't make it so. 1711:

There's absolutely no such consensus, there's in fact a widespread problem with non-notable episode articles for many shows.

1581: 2204:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

103:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2390:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1612: 1548: 1500: 881: 825: 343:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2351:"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions" 1743: 1685: 1025:, guess I didn't look closely enough which page it was, although I don't find having two numbers especially preferable. 124:

means is, don't go about doing it specially. It doesn't tell you to revert people who do it: what is the point of that?

268:

Do you have an answer to my question above? Because if not, it means you pointlessly reverted a harmless edit: clearly

1351: 1019: 977: 747: 1774: 737: 370: 672:

I tidied up dead links (almost all from RS) as well as cites without titles (eg.Killer Queen: A Tribute to Queen).

1572: 1489: 410:

article. There is no need to change the guideline because nothing in it says you can't do what you want to do,

401:

right? If not, please provide a correct link), but I already agreed with you that what you appear to say about

51: 1833: 1347: 1222: 26: 2267:

Yes, because one revert by Xeworlebi obviously counts as 'edit warring'. In fact, I see exactly one revert

93:, no reason to do this at two places. Closing it to avoid going through this twice at two different places. 2346: 2335: 2300: 2233: 2214: 1712: 1178: 1123: 2142: 1233: 1058:

deleted, so the notability tag seems pointless. Anyhow, just my observation, I won't push this further.

725: 624: 358: 280: 250: 191: 132: 2098:

if you want. I've been tagging those episode articles as well, they're in an even worse state than the

1937: 1895: 1881: 1841: 1608: 1544: 1496: 1343: 1284: 1188: 1162: 1111: 877: 821: 2274: 2271:

and the other edit was for punctuation. Please check your facts before needlessly accusing people.

1788: 1669: 781: 677: 299: 210: 152: 121: 109: 46: 17: 1906: 1824: 1706: 1004: 993: 963: 691: 613: 553: 526: 474: 1221:

Could you assist me in developing my new article on Covert Affairs season 1, The draft is right

2331: 2296: 2229: 1778: 1761:

I do not have to start a centralized discussion to tag an article, just like I've tagged many

1451: 1174: 1119: 988:, since one additional episode was made available to subscribers on various Internet portals). 846: 785: 37: 1769:

and many other shows. This is not tagging a few at random, many episode articles do not meet

2354: 2138: 2085: 2035: 1752: 1694: 1409: 1228: 1138: 1063: 620: 275: 245: 186: 127: 60:

Done, first time involved in FTC, so I took some time to look it over when I got back home.

873:

Fair enough but if you wan't stuff perfect why has the episode table not been fixed up..?

2222: 1933: 1891: 1877: 1837: 2309:

The fact that you call a single revert edit warring, which is just a huge over-reaction.

776:

For future reference, what is the difference between "right" and "upright" for images? --

2228:

If you think I am wrong, please discuss in talk page before committing further reverts.

1339:. Second, I am trying to fix it up. If you want to fix it up, great. So go ahead then. 2359: 2311: 2249: 2244: 2191: 2160: 2105: 2051: 2008: 1953: 1913: 1876:

It's part of a notable series. That's enough. I don't feel the need to go further. -

1858: 1795: 1717: 1634: 1586: 1522: 1464: 1422: 1377: 1311: 1294: 1259: 1193: 1143: 1079: 1027: 910: 851: 793: 777: 752: 698: 673: 648: 606: 598: 569: 495: 424: 312: 235: 216: 157: 116:

you should have been aware that I read it. What that edit-summary said was as follows:

62: 2210: 2046: 2026: 1947: 1853: 1782: 1770: 1577: 1568: 1054: 1047: 543: 516: 464: 397: 180: 2372: 2339: 2324: 2304: 2278: 2262: 2237: 2173: 2146: 2118: 2089: 2064: 2039: 2015: 1994:. I hope it'll be OK, but ff you're unhappy about it, could we please discuss it on 1966: 1941: 1926: 1899: 1885: 1871: 1845: 1827: 1808: 1756: 1730: 1698: 1647: 1624: 1599: 1560: 1535: 1512: 1477: 1455: 1435: 1413: 1390: 1359: 1324: 1298: 1272: 1251: 1206: 1182: 1156: 1127: 1092: 1067: 1040: 1009: 998: 968: 923: 893: 864: 837: 806: 765: 740: 711: 681: 661: 628: 582: 562: 535: 508: 483: 437: 373: 325: 293: 263: 229: 204: 170: 145: 75: 54: 1991: 1447: 1401:

Hello! I am writing about the episode descriptions that you reverted earlier today

269: 2350: 2076:

And seriously, you know it bothers them, calling them a hopper again is not cool.

2081: 2031: 1405: 1059: 489:

It's way to dark, maybe take the same color as the infobox on the main article:

310:, so closing this one, as there's no point in doing this at two places at once. 2247:

because putting Windows first is doing everything you cite should not be done.

238:. Please could you explain to me, in one sentence, what actual practical harm 2181: 2001: 1289: 605:

to use IPA, it's just the standard. There are other options, spelled out at

2225:) is a non-negotiable pillars of Knowledge. Violating it is unacceptable. 302:, I can quote the entire section to you but that seems just unnecessary. 1571:, calling me a douche won't help you in any way. Secondly, the article 1371:

column now. What is there to "fix up"? At this point nothing. Also, no

2209:

Xeworlebi, may I remind you that once a contribution is contested per

1683:

than randomly drive-by tagging a large number of articles. Thank you,

908:

No clue what you're referring to nor do I see how you made that jump.

688:

Nothing tidy about removing URL's. Dead links should be tagged with

1283:

Thank you, Xeworlebi, for your helpful copyediting to the article

1141:, which is always a good step if you want to go GA/FA/GT/FT etc. 383:(probably will have to repeat it at another time so,) once more: 118:

WP:NOTBROKEN doesn't say, "Revert anybody correcting redirects."

1520:

Not sure, maybe in a couple years, when there's a need for.

944:, kindly show me where exactly in the documentation of the 175:

You clearly haven't read my comment above, which says that

91:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy)#Fixing non-broken redirects

1987:

I've made a small modification to the first sentence, see

1053:

I am not sure why you are marking the South Park episode

112:

a second time. However, since I clearly linked to it in

2268: 2154: 2134: 1988: 1402: 940: 642: 636: 540: 513: 239: 113: 1003:

In absence of a reply I will now restore the change.

1832:

My solution is to just revert him, as I just did at

1793:

as is the appropriate way to do for those articles.

1137:

being somewhat short. You can also always request a

991:

summary, as long as reliable sources can back it up.

348:

Speaking of keeping things hidden from everybody...

177:

I know you're not supposed to fix working redirects

1173:article as much as possible soon. Thanks again. 1397:Game of Thrones (season 1) episode descriptions 609:, but it would be nice if you tagged them with 8: 849:them, just removing them isn't appropriate. 718:Endgame & your change to the infobox doc 395:(I am correct in that you are talking about 1781:. I'll continue tagging articles that fail 1077:episodes that don't establish notability. 2071:Talk:Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_(TV_series) 2295:Which part of my conclusions are wrong? 1580:, and episode summaries can be added to 448:Well I just chose that color for all of 1990:. I did so based on looking at lots of 619:so that it can be completed quickly. — 1996:Talk:List of Band of Brothers episodes 1368: 643:four days later someone filled it out 7: 2200:The following discussion is closed. 1821:Knowledge:Editor assistance/Requests 813:Talk: List of Falling Skies episodes 99:The following discussion is closed. 2045:Just saw this after I responded at 1674:tags to a large number of articles 1161:Thanks. I added a request for the 1287:. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- 946:Template:Infobox television season 934:Template:Infobox television season 24: 1982:List of Band of Brothers episodes 1375:delete comments from talk pages. 1337:List of The Walking Dead episodes 973:I note that the documentation of 379:Okey, I'm going to tell you this 2386:The discussion above is closed. 1304: 1135:Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe 1107:Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe 339:The discussion above is closed. 2219:Knowledge:Neutral point of view 412:it even explicitly says you can 2217:and are not allowed? Besides, 1582:List of Falling Skies episodes 1: 2330:warring / Content dispute". 1948:general notability guideline 1742: 1684: 385:I do not push "English only" 2283:I did check the fact that: 1713:Notability is not inherited 1666:I see you have been adding 234:You're missing my point, I 2405: 1331:Falling Skies episode list 1169:. I'll try to expand the 2373:08:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC) 2340:08:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC) 2325:07:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC) 2305:06:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC) 2279:19:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC) 2263:19:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC) 2238:19:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC) 2213:, subsequent reverts are 2174:14:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC) 2147:14:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC) 1967:17:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC) 1942:16:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC) 1927:16:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC) 1900:16:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC) 1886:16:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC) 1872:15:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC) 1852:establish notability per 1846:15:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC) 1187:Okey, done some edits at 108:Thank you for linking to 2388:Please do not modify it. 2202:Please do not modify it. 2155:I corrected the redirect 2119:13:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC) 2090:13:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC) 2065:13:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC) 2040:12:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC) 2016:16:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC) 1828:10:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC) 1809:17:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC) 1757:16:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC) 1731:16:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC) 1699:15:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC) 1648:18:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 1625:18:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 1613:AllianceApprovedMagician 1600:17:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 1573:Falling Skies (season 1) 1561:16:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 1549:AllianceApprovedMagician 1536:06:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 1513:23:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC) 1501:AllianceApprovedMagician 1490:Falling Skies (season 1) 1478:06:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 1456:22:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC) 1436:06:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC) 1414:23:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC) 1391:12:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC) 1360:12:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC) 1325:09:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC) 1299:09:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC) 1273:21:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC) 1252:20:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC) 1207:15:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC) 1183:15:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC) 1157:07:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC) 1128:04:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC) 1093:07:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC) 1068:21:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC) 1041:07:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC) 1010:19:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC) 999:11:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC) 969:10:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC) 924:17:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 894:17:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 882:AllianceApprovedMagician 865:16:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 838:15:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 826:AllianceApprovedMagician 807:20:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 786:20:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 766:15:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 741:10:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 712:14:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC) 682:15:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC) 662:07:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC) 629:05:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC) 583:16:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC) 563:20:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 536:20:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 509:20:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 484:20:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 438:15:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC) 374:15:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC) 341:Please do not modify it. 326:15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC) 294:15:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC) 264:15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC) 230:15:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC) 205:15:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC) 171:14:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC) 146:14:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC) 120:And so it doesn't. What 101:Please do not modify it. 76:17:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC) 55:06:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC) 2245:Talk:QuickTime#OS order 2192:Talk:QuickTime#OS order 1834:Sexual Harassment Panda 1492:be able to re-edited. 1015:Yes I was referring to 771: 637:I did that 7 months ago 493:, it's a lighter blue. 2347:Knowledge:Edit warring 2025:Until this dispute at 1484:Falling Skies Season 1 952:fields must list (and 27:User:Xeworlebi/Archive 2180:Your edit warring in 597:Per your comments at 2221:(and it subsection, 2096:Arrested Development 2094:You can do it about 1736:suggestion to merge 1285:Santorum (neologism) 1189:Pilot (White Collar) 1163:Pilot (White Collar) 956:list) the number of 461:Parks and Recreation 236:suspect deliberately 89:Discussion moved to 42:good topic candidate 1775:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1569:no personal attacks 114:my own edit-summary 18:User talk:Xeworlebi 2203: 2133:Hey there. About 1020:Infobox television 978:Infobox television 258:District Collector 102: 2277: 2201: 2129:Harry potter edit 2014: 1910: 1710: 1628: 1611:comment added by 1564: 1547:comment added by 1516: 1499:comment added by 1363: 1348:JimmyDarmodyRules 1346:comment added by 948:it says that the 897: 880:comment added by 841: 824:comment added by 601:, no, you're not 560: 533: 481: 100: 38:Spooks (series 7) 32:Spooks (series 7) 2396: 2371: 2352: 2323: 2272: 2261: 2172: 2157: 2117: 2063: 2013: 2011: 2005: 1999: 1965: 1925: 1904: 1870: 1807: 1792: 1747: 1729: 1704: 1689: 1673: 1646: 1627: 1605: 1598: 1563: 1541: 1534: 1515: 1493: 1476: 1434: 1389: 1370: 1369:|EpisodeNumber2= 1362: 1340: 1323: 1308: 1307: 1271: 1249: 1246: 1238: 1236: 1231: 1205: 1155: 1091: 1039: 1024: 1018: 1007: 996: 982: 976: 966: 943: 922: 896: 874: 863: 840: 818: 805: 764: 739: 734: 728: 710: 695: 660: 645: 639: 618: 612: 581: 559: 554: 551: 532: 527: 524: 507: 492: 480: 475: 472: 454: 436: 372: 367: 361: 324: 308:the village pump 292: 289: 283: 278: 262: 259: 253: 248: 228: 203: 200: 194: 189: 169: 144: 141: 135: 130: 74: 2404: 2403: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2358: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2310: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2248: 2206: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2185: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2159: 2153: 2131: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2104: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2050: 2023: 2009: 2003: 2000: 1985: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1952: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1912: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1857: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1794: 1786: 1745: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1716: 1687: 1667: 1664: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1633: 1606: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1585: 1542: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1521: 1494: 1486: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1463: 1444: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1421: 1399: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1376: 1341: 1333: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1310: 1305: 1281: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1258: 1250: 1244: 1241: 1234: 1229: 1227: 1219: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1192: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1142: 1101: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1078: 1051: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1026: 1022: 1016: 1005: 994: 980: 974: 964: 939: 936: 918: 917: 916: 909: 875: 859: 858: 857: 850: 819: 815: 801: 800: 799: 792: 774: 760: 759: 758: 751: 732: 726: 724: 720: 706: 705: 704: 697: 689: 670: 668:Unconstructive? 656: 655: 654: 647: 641: 635: 616: 610: 595: 577: 576: 575: 568: 555: 548: 544: 528: 521: 517: 503: 502: 501: 494: 490: 476: 469: 465: 452: 446: 444:Quote box color 432: 431: 430: 423: 405:is notable and 365: 359: 357: 350: 345: 344: 320: 319: 318: 311: 287: 281: 276: 273: 257: 251: 246: 243: 224: 223: 222: 215: 198: 192: 187: 184: 165: 164: 163: 156: 139: 133: 128: 125: 105: 96: 95: 94: 84: 70: 69: 68: 61: 34: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2402: 2400: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2287: 2265: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2207: 2198: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2184: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2152:Not a glitch, 2130: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2077: 2074: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2022: 2019: 1992:featured lists 1984: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1888: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1663: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1567:First of all, 1526: 1525: 1524: 1485: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1443: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1398: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1332: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1280: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1240: 1218: 1217:Covert Affairs 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1100: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1050: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1031: 1030: 1029: 992: 989: 962: 951: 935: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 914: 913: 912: 901: 900: 899: 898: 868: 867: 855: 854: 853: 814: 811: 810: 809: 797: 796: 795: 773: 770: 769: 768: 756: 755: 754: 719: 716: 715: 714: 702: 701: 700: 669: 666: 665: 664: 652: 651: 650: 599:Nathan Fillion 594: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 573: 572: 571: 546: 538: 519: 499: 498: 497: 467: 445: 442: 441: 440: 428: 427: 426: 415: 381:one final time 354: 349: 346: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 316: 315: 314: 303: 266: 220: 219: 218: 161: 160: 159: 106: 97: 88: 87: 86: 85: 83: 80: 79: 78: 66: 65: 64: 33: 30: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2401: 2389: 2374: 2370: 2368: 2356: 2349:which states 2348: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2332:Fleet Command 2328: 2327: 2326: 2322: 2320: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2297:Fleet Command 2294: 2288: 2285: 2284: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2276: 2270: 2266: 2264: 2260: 2258: 2246: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2230:Fleet Command 2226: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2205: 2193: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2169: 2156: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2128: 2120: 2116: 2114: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2078: 2075: 2072: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2062: 2060: 2048: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2028: 2020: 2018: 2017: 2012: 2007: 2006: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1983: 1980: 1968: 1964: 1962: 1949: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1924: 1922: 1908: 1907:edit conflict 1903: 1902: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1869: 1867: 1855: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1830: 1829: 1826: 1822: 1810: 1806: 1804: 1790: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1749: 1739: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1728: 1726: 1714: 1708: 1707:edit conflict 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1691: 1681: 1677: 1671: 1661: 1649: 1645: 1643: 1630: 1629: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1597: 1595: 1583: 1579: 1578:Falling Skies 1574: 1570: 1566: 1565: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1533: 1531: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1491: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1473: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1431: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1386: 1374: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1338: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1320: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1291: 1286: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1268: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1247: 1239: 1237: 1232: 1224: 1216: 1208: 1204: 1202: 1190: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1154: 1152: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1118:". Thanks! 1117: 1115: 1109: 1108: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1088: 1076: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1056: 1055:Cripple Fight 1049: 1048:Cripple Fight 1046: 1042: 1038: 1036: 1021: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1008: 1001: 1000: 997: 987: 979: 971: 970: 967: 959: 955: 949: 947: 942: 933: 925: 921: 919: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 895: 891: 887: 883: 879: 872: 871: 870: 869: 866: 862: 860: 848: 844: 843: 842: 839: 835: 831: 827: 823: 812: 808: 804: 802: 790: 789: 788: 787: 783: 779: 767: 763: 761: 749: 745: 744: 743: 742: 738: 735: 729: 717: 713: 709: 707: 696:not removed. 693: 687: 686: 685: 683: 679: 675: 667: 663: 659: 657: 644: 638: 633: 632: 631: 630: 626: 622: 615: 608: 604: 600: 593:pronunciation 592: 584: 580: 578: 566: 565: 564: 561: 558: 552: 550: 542: 539: 537: 534: 531: 525: 523: 515: 512: 511: 510: 506: 504: 488: 487: 486: 485: 482: 479: 473: 471: 462: 458: 451: 443: 439: 435: 433: 420: 416: 413: 408: 404: 403:Body of Proof 400: 399: 398:Body of Proof 394: 393:Body of Proof 390: 386: 382: 378: 377: 376: 375: 371: 368: 362: 347: 342: 327: 323: 321: 309: 304: 301: 297: 296: 295: 290: 284: 279: 271: 270:inappropriate 267: 265: 260: 254: 249: 241: 237: 233: 232: 231: 227: 225: 212: 208: 207: 206: 201: 195: 190: 182: 178: 174: 173: 172: 168: 166: 154: 150: 149: 148: 147: 142: 136: 131: 123: 119: 115: 111: 104: 92: 81: 77: 73: 71: 59: 58: 57: 56: 53: 50: 49: 43: 39: 31: 29: 28: 19: 2387: 2360: 2312: 2290:is going on. 2250: 2227: 2215:Edit warring 2208: 2199: 2161: 2132: 2106: 2099: 2095: 2052: 2024: 2002: 1986: 1954: 1914: 1859: 1831: 1817: 1796: 1766: 1762: 1737: 1718: 1679: 1675: 1665: 1662:Mass tagging 1635: 1607:— Preceding 1587: 1543:— Preceding 1523: 1495:— Preceding 1487: 1465: 1445: 1423: 1400: 1378: 1372: 1342:— Preceding 1334: 1312: 1309:No problem. 1288: 1282: 1260: 1226: 1220: 1194: 1175:Kevinbrogers 1170: 1144: 1134: 1120:Kevinbrogers 1114:White Collar 1113: 1105: 1102: 1099:New articles 1080: 1074: 1052: 1028: 1002: 985: 972: 957: 953: 950:num_episodes 937: 911: 876:— Preceding 852: 820:— Preceding 816: 794: 775: 753: 746:Irrelevant: 721: 699: 671: 649: 602: 596: 570: 567:Better yes. 556: 545: 529: 518: 496: 477: 466: 460: 456: 449: 447: 425: 418: 411: 406: 402: 396: 392: 388: 384: 380: 351: 340: 313: 300:WP:NOTBROKEN 217: 211:WP:NOTBROKEN 176: 158: 153:WP:NOTBROKEN 122:WP:NOTBROKEN 117: 110:WP:NOTBROKEN 107: 98: 63: 47: 35: 25: 2139:a_man_alone 2021:Some advice 1932:go away. - 1171:Burn Notice 1139:peer review 941:your revert 772:I'm curious 214:redirects. 140:assemblyman 40:has been a 2273:Kiranerys- 1998:. Cheers! 1934:Denimadept 1892:Denimadept 1878:Denimadept 1838:Denimadept 1789:notability 1779:WP:POKEMON 1670:notability 1488:When will 1075:South Park 938:Regarding 419:Smallville 2182:QuickTime 2135:this edit 1951:notable. 1632:article? 1279:Thank you 984:actually 727:delirious 692:Dead link 674:MusoForde 614:needs IPA 417:Yes, the 360:delirious 240:this edit 82:Reverting 2369:eworlebi 2321:eworlebi 2259:eworlebi 2223:WP:UNDUE 2170:eworlebi 2115:eworlebi 2061:eworlebi 1963:eworlebi 1923:eworlebi 1868:eworlebi 1825:TEHodson 1805:eworlebi 1727:eworlebi 1644:eworlebi 1621:contribs 1609:unsigned 1596:eworlebi 1557:contribs 1545:unsigned 1532:eworlebi 1509:contribs 1497:unsigned 1474:eworlebi 1462:better. 1432:eworlebi 1420:future. 1387:eworlebi 1356:contribs 1344:unsigned 1321:eworlebi 1269:eworlebi 1203:eworlebi 1165:article 1153:eworlebi 1089:eworlebi 1037:eworlebi 1006:Amalthea 995:Amalthea 965:Amalthea 920:eworlebi 890:contribs 878:unsigned 861:eworlebi 834:contribs 822:unsigned 803:eworlebi 762:eworlebi 708:eworlebi 658:eworlebi 603:required 579:eworlebi 557:comment! 541:Or this? 530:comment! 505:eworlebi 478:comment! 434:eworlebi 322:eworlebi 277:Treasury 247:Treasury 226:eworlebi 188:Treasury 167:eworlebi 129:Treasury 72:eworlebi 1448:Jayy008 1112:Pilot ( 847:archive 778:Boycool 607:WP:PRON 549:uby2010 522:uby2010 514:Better? 491:#bfdfff 470:uby2010 422:based. 288:cabinet 199:senator 48:Matthew 2211:WP:BRD 2103:else. 2082:Danger 2047:WP:EAR 2032:Danger 2027:WP:EAR 1854:WP:GNG 1783:WP:GNG 1771:WP:GNG 1442:Nikita 1406:Tuniof 1230:maucho 1060:Safiel 730:& 634:What? 450:Fringe 407:should 389:add it 363:& 181:WP:VPP 2355:essay 2100:Buffy 2004:Chzz 1785:with 1767:Angel 1763:Buffy 1680:Angel 1676:Buffy 1235:eagle 1110:and " 961:that. 958:aired 621:kwami 242:did? 16:< 2336:talk 2301:talk 2275:talk 2269:here 2234:talk 2143:talk 2086:talk 2036:talk 1938:talk 1896:talk 1882:talk 1842:talk 1836:. - 1777:and 1765:and 1753:talk 1748:anaɢ 1695:talk 1690:anaɢ 1678:and 1617:talk 1553:talk 1505:talk 1452:talk 1410:talk 1352:talk 1295:talk 1290:Cirt 1223:here 1179:talk 1167:here 1124:talk 1064:talk 954:only 886:talk 830:talk 782:talk 733:lost 678:talk 640:and 625:talk 459:and 457:Glee 366:lost 36:Hi, 1738:all 1373:not 463:). 282:Tag 252:Tag 193:Tag 134:Tag 2357:. 2338:) 2303:) 2236:) 2158:. 2145:) 2088:) 2080:-- 2038:) 2010:► 1940:) 1898:) 1884:) 1844:) 1823:-- 1791:}} 1787:{{ 1755:) 1697:) 1672:}} 1668:{{ 1623:) 1619:• 1584:. 1559:) 1555:• 1511:) 1507:• 1454:) 1412:) 1358:) 1354:• 1297:) 1225:. 1181:) 1126:) 1066:) 1023:}} 1017:{{ 981:}} 975:{{ 892:) 888:• 836:) 832:• 784:) 736:☯ 694:}} 690:{{ 684:. 680:) 627:) 617:}} 611:{{ 369:☯ 291:─╢ 274:╟─ 272:. 261:─╢ 244:╟─ 202:─╢ 185:╟─ 183:. 155:. 143:─╢ 126:╟─ 52:RD 2364:X 2334:( 2316:X 2299:( 2254:X 2232:( 2194:. 2165:X 2141:( 2110:X 2084:( 2056:X 2034:( 1958:X 1936:( 1918:X 1909:) 1905:( 1894:( 1880:( 1863:X 1840:( 1800:X 1751:( 1746:ʨ 1744:r 1722:X 1709:) 1705:( 1693:( 1688:ʨ 1686:r 1639:X 1615:( 1591:X 1551:( 1527:X 1503:( 1469:X 1450:( 1427:X 1408:( 1382:X 1350:( 1316:X 1293:( 1264:X 1248:) 1245:c 1242:( 1198:X 1177:( 1148:X 1122:( 1116:) 1084:X 1062:( 1032:X 986:7 915:X 884:( 856:X 828:( 798:X 780:( 757:X 703:X 676:( 653:X 623:( 574:X 547:R 520:R 500:X 468:R 453:' 429:X 414:. 317:X 285:► 255:► 221:X 196:► 162:X 137:► 67:X

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index