FANDOM

I have decided after careful consideration to end my participation here, as I no longer watch Law and Order or its related shows, and spend more time elsewhere. I do not wish to be contacted about any routine matters here. I will answer questions from users with admin powers about actions that I took; you may use this page to do so.


See here for past discussions. If I contacted you on your talk page, please respond there to keep the discussion in one location.

Jdogno7

Jdogno7 seems to have a problem with the usage of the term "antisemitism" and says it is inaccurate, as apparently Muslims are included in the Semite group. As a result, he believes the term should be "anti-Jew", which I highly disagree with. Whatever the facts are, "antisemitism" is being popularly defined as "extreme hatred or opposition of Jewish people". I have never seen any sources disputing the term and saying that it should be "anti-Jew". Jdogno7 has also said that he is Jewish, which leads me to believe there is a conflict of interest with his recent edits. I urge you to address this matter ASAP. Thank you. UnSub-Zero (talk) 08:24, January 16, 2017 (UTC)

And Jdogno7 continues to have a problem with the terminology despite your input, and is littering my talk page with useless messages. Please do something about this. Thank you. :) UnSub-Zero (talk) 05:05, January 25, 2017 (UTC)

To "31dot"

Sorry if this is the wrong place to place this but only because the above was placed here, so I am answering it here.

Jdogno7 (talk) 10:41, January 25, 2017 (UTC)

To UnSub-Zero

"I have never seen any sources disputing the term and saying that it should be 'anti-Jew".": See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism. Read the first two paragraphs of the etymology section. "Jdogno7 has also said that he is Jewish, which leads me to believe there is a conflict of interest with his recent edits.": I was trying to make a point of that someone who the subject of a term would know better whether such a term is being used accurately to describe themselves. But for the record I am Jewish. Considering that the association of the term with extreme hatred or opposition of Jews exclusively was promoted by someone who was neither Jewish nor accepting of Jews, does undermine its credibility to be used in such a context.

Jdogno7 (talk) 10:41, January 25, 2017 (UTC)

As I've indicated, the term is being used as most people understand it. If you feel that society should use the term differently, you will need to take it up with society and not just this little corner of the internet. Until it is generally understood differently, the term should not be removed. 31dot (talk) 14:31, January 25, 2017 (UTC)

Why not? If a term is used in an inaccurate manner even by the majority of the human populace, then those who are aware of the correct usage should try to encourage others to use it more accurately. Does not LAO SVU encourage the idea of overcoming ignorance? Jdogno7 (talk) 09:18, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but a Wikia like this one isn't the best place to start this kind of campaign. UnSub-Zero (talk) 05:15, January 28, 2017 (UTC)

Now Jdogno7 is edit-warring on Charles Patton and Sam Reynolds by needlessly rewriting every "Rollins" into "Amanda". He has been giving very poor reasoning, saying it's more "precise" if we use her first name over her last name. But I don't see how, especially given she's more commonly referred to as Rollins and it would be more understandable to readers if Rollins is used. UnSub-Zero (talk) 07:09, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

"Now Jdogno7 is edit-warring on Charles Patton and Sam Reynolds by needlessly rewriting every 'Rollins' into 'Amanda'.": I am not edit-warring. I am merely presenting my points for my position on the matter. "He has been giving very poor reasoning, saying it's more 'precise' if we use her first name over her last name.": How is that poor reasoning? It is at times more precise to refer to her by her first name and not her last name. For one thing when talking about other members of the Rollins family. "But I don't see how, especially given she's more commonly referred to as Rollins and it would be more understandable to readers if Rollins is used.": As I said when talking about other members of the Rollins family would be more understandable. Amanda and Kim are both Rollins so they have to be distinguished by first name.

Jdogno7 (talk) 09:11, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

Now you're claiming a grammar issue in your edit summaries as reasoning, yet I do not see how the surnames affect grammar. Clearly what I mean when I say poor reasoning. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:02, January 27, 2017 (UTC)
I explained it was adding an s to the end of Amanda'. That was all. Jdogno7 (talk) 11:30, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

I am really starting to get ticked off by this guy. Please respond ASAP. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:26, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

Why? Because I still won't agree with you? Jdogno7 (talk) 11:32, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

I highly urge you to restrict Jdogno7's access to his talk page while he's blocked. I was merely posting my opinion about if you should lift the block on him and he is constantly trying to suppress it by undoing my messages. He has also accused me of being a bully, even though I have a right to pitch my opinion in talk page discussions, which he denies exists. I am really sick of his behavior, and I would urge you to extend his block if I could as well. UnSub-Zero (talk) 07:08, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

Now he is being contradictory. He claims I'm bullying him, yet he keeps removing my messages on his talk page when I haven't removed any of his messages on his talk page or mine AT ALL. I find this guy so unbearable at this point. UnSub-Zero (talk) 07:29, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

I'm of a mind to be like Wikipedia, where a user is permitted to remove content from their own user talk page- though it is considered an indication that they read it. 31dot (talk) 10:36, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
I would also recommend that you take a break from interacting with each other. Please don't carry on any disputes or disputed edits until such a break is over and you can do so constructively. 31dot (talk) 10:46, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid that might not be possible. It is in my understanding that he will edit the dispute I've been having with him at the Charles Patton [1], Sam Reynolds ([2]), and Reese Taymor articles ([3]). I don't feel obliged to ignore that. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:03, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
I have also warned them against carrying on the dispute and if they do I will take action. 31dot (talk) 11:06, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
And guess what? He just undid my edits at Charles Patton and Reese Taymor. UnSub-Zero (talk) 05:54, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the changes I made, let us discuss them. Jdogno7 (talk) 06:17, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
I don't care. Look at 31dot's post above. You were warned against carrying on the dispute I mentioned. UnSub-Zero (talk) 06:18, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
"I don't care.": That sounds about right. "Look at 31dot's post above. You were warned against carrying on the dispute I mentioned.": No it was about the dispute over whether you had a right to post something on my talk page that I found to be harassing. Jdogno7 (talk) 06:28, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
"I would also recommend that you both take a break from interacting with each other(even after this block is over) until you are able to constructively. Please don't carry on any disputes or disputed edits until that point." 31dot (talk) 10:48, January 29, 2017 (UTC)
Tell me, what does that sound like to you? UnSub-Zero (talk) 06:31, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
Well I suppose I thought we could try again to discuss the difference of opinion in a civilized manner, I was wrong. Jdogno7 (talk) 06:34, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
Well, too flipping bad. UnSub-Zero (talk) 06:37, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
Why so? Jdogno7 (talk) 06:39, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
You just disregarded an admin's order and now you could get blocked again for it. If so, happy trails. :) UnSub-Zero (talk) 06:41, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
"You just disregarded an admin's order and now you could get blocked again for it.": How did I disregard an admin's order? It is not my fault that you do not want to discuss this peacefully. Jdogno7 (talk) 06:47, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

God, I can't believe you. What I just highlighted, THAT was the admin's order. What's going on at Charles Patton, Sam Reynolds, and Reese Taymor, that counts as a dispute because we clearly disagree on it. UnSub-Zero (talk) 07:02, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

"What's going on at Charles Patton, Sam Reynolds, and Reese Taymor, that counts as a dispute because we clearly disagree on it.": Well let us try to resolve the dispute then. Jdogno7 (talk) 07:41, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
I refuse. After everything you put me through, I have no intent on discussing matters with you. If there's one thing I hate, it's people trying to act like social justice warriors in an inappropriate place. Good luck not getting blocked. UnSub-Zero (talk) 07:51, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

"I refuse.": Why? "After everything you put me through, I have no intent on discussing matters with you.": What have I put you through? "If there's one thing I hate, it's people trying to act like social justice warriors in an inappropriate place.": How am I acting like a social justice warrior?

Jdogno7 (talk) 08:04, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

I would further suggest that you tone down your attitude; there is no need to get so heated over a lightly used Wiki like this. The matter was only exacerbated with your hostile comments("this guy is ticking me off", "screw you") etc. 31dot (talk) 11:11, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

UnSub-Zero

I have been trying to resolve the disputes between myself and UnSub-Zero but the user has become completely unreasonable and unwilling to discuss things. Can I have some help please? Jdogno7 (talk) 08:28, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

Oh, ho ho ho, I'm the unreasonable one? You're the one who disregarded the admin's order first. UnSub-Zero (talk) 08:33, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

The order in question was"

"I would also recommend that you take a break from interacting with each other. Please don't carry on any disputes or disputed edits until such a break is over and you can do so constructively.": "I would also recommend that you take a break from interacting with each other.": That was a suggestion that I did take. "Please don't carry on any disputes or disputed edits until such a break is over and you can do so constructively.": You are focusing on the first part of the sentence. The part to focus on is "...until such a break is over and you can do so constructively.", it is not my fault that you can not do so constructively. Jdogno7 (talk) 10:56, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

Even so, the first part of the sentence is still applicable. You are not allowed to do that. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:45, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
You are using that part out of context of the entire sentence so that you don't have to argue your point further or admit your logic is faulty in any way. Jdogno7 (talk) 12:47, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to block the both of you for being disruptive. If you two cannot discuss things with each other constructively, you should not interact with each other. I would very much like you each to do so voluntarily, but I will take action if needed. I have already resolved the issues brought up on this page and they should not be brought up again. 31dot (talk) 13:06, February 5, 2017 (UTC)
Then by all means, please block both of us. Because I'm not going to stop unless he stops. UnSub-Zero (talk) 20:29, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

"*I'm tempted to block the both of you for being disruptive. If you two cannot discuss things with each other constructively, you should not interact with each other. I would very much like you each to do so voluntarily, but I will take action if needed. I have already resolved the issues brought up on this page and they should not be brought up again. 31dot (talk) 13:06, February 5, 2017 (UTC)":

Is that to do with this section of discussion because it was posted in the other one concerning UnSub-Zero?

Jdogno7 (talk) 00:13, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

This page is such a mess now I'm not even sure. 31dot (talk) 02:23, February 6, 2017 (UTC)
It was referring to the general behavior here by both of you. I have already blocked UnSub-Zero because they indicated that they will continue to be disruptive. As long as you are not disruptive, it will not be necessary to block you. 31dot (talk) 02:26, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

I have set up a discussion for the articles concerning Reese Taymor, Sam Reynolds and Charles Patton on their respective talk pages. Now what?

Jdogno7 (talk) 08:04, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

I would like a word with you...

UnSubZero and I are having an argument over whether those who commit attempted murder falls under the category "attempted murderers" or "assailants".

He states that attempted murder is a crime in itself, but I state that attempted murder nothing more than is a more violent form assault (with intent to commit murder), seeing as the victim survives either way.

Those who commit manslaughter are still considered murderers, those who commit attempted rape are still considered sexual assailants. Why should those who commit attempted murder not be considered assailants?

By the way, in Volunteers, Harold Morrissey was charged with second-degree murder when he attacked Roland Kirk but convicted of a lesser-included charge of second-degree assault. Just giving an example.

I request to hear your opinions on the matter.

TrainLubber (talk) 04:33, January 28, 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the stance that anything "attempted" should fall under a category of "assault". Now, I don't know the proper term for someone who commits manslaughter, so until someone can find it or create it, I have no problem with classifying anyone who commits manslaughter a "murderer" because I don't believe there's anything better that we can use to label him or her.
But for the problem about "assault" versus "attempted murder", it is in my understanding that people can be charged with attempted murder over assault if it's clear that the defendant had every intent to commit murder in the first place (which I applied to any articles that I felt qualified for it). For example, Tom Cole was clearly intent on ambushing and killing Carisi, yet I feel assault doesn't cover it because, well, a gunshot to the head is clearly something that can threaten a life. The same goes for attempted rape, now that I think about it, but I'm not going to try just yet.
Also, I didn't see Volunteers, so I wouldn't know anything about that. UnSub-Zero (talk) 04:39, January 28, 2017 (UTC)
Some assailants can be charged with both attempted murder and assault on the same victim, like Harold Morrissey was. True, the defendant can either be convicted of only one of those offenses under those circumstances or acquitted on both offenses, but regardless of whether it was assault or attempted murder, the victim survives.
Furthermore, intent to commit murder is the only difference between assault and attempted murder. Sometimes the offense could be referred to as "assault with intent to commit murder" in other jurisdictions. TrainLubber (talk) 04:44, January 28, 2017 (UTC)
Which is why I apply it to articles like Tom Cole, because this difference seems pretty clear-cut. "Assault" doesn't sound like an appropriate description for a premeditated act that clearly endangered the life of someone. There was clearly a distinction seen between assault and attempted murder, because I'm seeing separate definitions for both crimes. And does New York have this "assault with intent to commit murder" charge in its jurisdiction? UnSub-Zero (talk) 04:50, January 28, 2017 (UTC)
No, but not all Law & Order cases take place in New York. Some cases even took place outside the United States. And a number of jurisdictions refer to "attempted murder" as "assault with intent to commit murder". TrainLubber (talk) 16:55, January 28, 2017 (UTC)
Mind telling me which ones? UnSub-Zero (talk) 23:02, January 28, 2017 (UTC)
I would also like to bring up courtroom shooter Christopher Rawlings as another golden example of an attempted murderer. He was working in tandem with Kyle Ackerman, who too was trying to kill and was successful in three cases. UnSub-Zero (talk) 05:02, January 28, 2017 (UTC)
It was my understanding that we only classified people based on what they were convicted of, or in some cases what was clearly seen(mostly CI episodes). 31dot (talk) 09:16, January 28, 2017 (UTC)
I would also request that this be discussed on an article talk page further, so I don't have twenty emails about this discussion. :) 31dot (talk) 09:32, January 28, 2017 (UTC)
Does this help? TrainLubber (talk) 19:16, January 29, 2017 (UTC)

UnSub-Zero

Can you please do something about UnSub-Zero? He keeps flagging pages like The Kira Stanger page and other pages for deletion. Thanks in advance 174.24.8.84 23:23, February 3, 2017 (UTC)

This is because these characters are not notable. They are just murder victims. UnSub-Zero (talk) 23:25, February 3, 2017 (UTC)
 You were already given a warning by the admin to stop. And if you are going to flag a page for deletion, don't leave the reason blank, that's just lazy. 174.24.8.84 23:36, February 3, 2017 (UTC)
Stop with what? I was given no warning against tagging articles for deletion. UnSub-Zero (talk) 23:40, February 3, 2017 (UTC)
UnSub-Zero can certainly, in good faith, tag pages they feel merit deletion as such(it would be helpful if a reason was given, though it would come out later anyway). Any other user is free to disagree and explain their reason on the article talk page- and I as an admin(or any admin) is free to evaluate the relevant discussion and make a determination. There really isn't any problem here. And by the way, if "S." wants to sign their posts with a username, they need to register one, if they haven't already. 31dot (talk) 00:03, February 4, 2017 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm thinking this IP user might be mocking me or something. First off, he/she undid my edit on Kira Stanger for no reason other than trying to erase the deletion tag so the article could be kept. Then, he/she tagged Kazy Tauginas (an article I created no less than an hour ago) for deletion, saying that the actor isn't notable because the character he played in Nationwide Manhunt isn't notable, even though I don't see how it counts because it's a proxy article. UnSub-Zero (talk) 04:14, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

Again

During this discussion on my talk page with Jdogno7 and another user, things got a little off-topic, but it led me to do a serious investigation about Jdogno7's history on Wikias, and I found something interesting: his accounts on the Harry Potter Wikia and the Digimon Wikia have been banned indefinitely, his account on the Legendary Journeys Wikia is still banned for a year, and he's been blocked at least once before on the Smallville Wikia. It seems he is edit-warring here and there, and to be more specific, he has been banned on the Harry Potter and Legendary Journeys Wikias for being picky about the selection of nouns. Just like how he was picky over saying "anti-Jew" in place of "antisemitic".

I'm not recommending any specific action just yet, but I do want to make it clear, in writing, that there should be some more scrutiny on Jdogno7 and his edits, just in case something comes up in the future. Because TrainLubber and WarGrowlmon18 are both also at the end of their wits with this guy because of his most recent edits. UnSub-Zero (talk) 08:04, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

Well neither TrainLubber, WarGrowlmon18 or UnSub-Zero have given a conclusive explanation for what I am supposed to have done wrong in terms of the edits I have made. Jdogno7 (talk) 09:45, February 16, 2017 (UTC)
I just said the reason why in my previous message. You're pretty much doing what you were warned not to do in other Wikias: switching nouns around to suit your needs. UnSub-Zero (talk) 21:11, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

Now Jdogno7 is beginning to edit-war with TrainLubber about how to name Kim Garnet and tagging Kim for deletion. UnSub-Zero (talk) 08:18, February 17, 2017 (UTC)

If I was edit warring on Kim Garnet, it was not my intention. I will leave her article be from now until this is resolved. With the Kim disambiguation page, the tagging for deletion seems to be out of anger concerning this disagreement. Jdogno7 (talk) 09:42, February 17, 2017 (UTC)
You were advised to go to the talk pages if you have any sort of disagreement. You didn't. This applies to any and all articles on here. UnSub-Zero (talk) 10:44, February 17, 2017 (UTC)

Svufan23

Hey. I have persistently tried to contact Svufan23 about the quality of the character articles he's creating, but every time, he has not responded back and continues to create articles the same way he always does. I have gotten very tired and annoying at having to do much of the dirty work for him (i.e. creating the character templates and DEFAULTSORT tags). Can you do something about it, please? Thank you. UnSub-Zero (talk) 02:32, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

Possible sock

I have a feeling MikeyMunkvold might actually be a sockpuppet account of Mikemunk82, and not just based on the names alone. Not only did Mikemunk82 stop editing suspiciously, both users create Character templates through a bunch of unnecessary code, not by selecting the option and filling out all the necessary fields. UnSub-Zero (talk) 21:58, March 7, 2017 (UTC)

Given the gap in between when Mikemunk82 stopped editing (October 3, 2016) and when MikeyMunvold started (February 13, 2017) it seems more likely to me that they either forgot their login password and registered a new name, or otherwise just decided to use a new name. There doesn't seem to be malicious intent and they aren't using both names at the same time. 31dot (talk) 22:13, March 7, 2017 (UTC)
Guess it wouldn't hurt to ask. UnSub-Zero (talk) 22:13, March 7, 2017 (UTC)
I just approached MikeyMunkvold about it. He claims that he just did not know he was socking, but I call shenanigans on that. I also saw his profile; he was clearly trying to pose as a new account. UnSub-Zero (talk) 03:43, March 9, 2017 (UTC)
I see that now. Blocked and posted on their page. 31dot (talk) 09:42, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

Johnsonjack50 at it again

Johnsonjack50 has once again done general nuisance editing at Sally Maxwell. He is also inserting gibberish into my talk page. Clearly he hasn't learned anything from his absence. UnSub-Zero (talk) 03:36, March 8, 2017 (UTC)

We need your final word on the matter

Neither me nor UnSub-Zero can agree on whether those that commit attempted murder should be referred to as assailants or so-called "attempted murderers". We request your aid. But please consider the following:

If those that commit manslaughter are referred to as "murderers", then those that commit attempted murder should be referred to as "assailants". Assault and attempted murder (which does not always require intent, mind you) are indeed different crimes, but the only difference is that the victim nearly dies or the assailant is armed and comes close to killing them.
Perhaps this article will be of some help. And this is only one of those I have found.
I am not saying assault and attempted murder are exactly the same. TrainLubber (talk) 00:00, March 15, 2017 (UTC)
I would be perfectly happy to negotiate a better term that could be applied for manslaughter cases on this wiki. I never had any great ideas about that one, which is why I just ignored it. But under no circumstances will I find any sense in applying a lesser term for cases in which the suspects are clearly charged with (or have clearly demonstrated onscreen) attempted murder. UnSub-Zero (talk) 00:04, March 15, 2017 (UTC)
There is no better term (not for a murderer who committed manslaughter, and certainly not for an assailant who committed attempted murder). The perpetrator charged with manslaughter still killed the victim. The only difference: No malice aforethought. The perpetrator charged with attempted murder still attacked the victim. The only difference: The victim nearly died, or the perpetrator was armed and attempted to use their weapon(s) to kill. TrainLubber (talk) 00:15, March 15, 2017 (UTC)
Well then, even if there's no term to distinguish murder from manslaughter, we DO have a term to distinguish assault from attempted murder. And this Wikia should certainly make sure its readers can tell the difference. I can't see why you simply dislike the term "attempted murderer". UnSub-Zero (talk) 00:20, March 15, 2017 (UTC)
I am certain they can tell the difference by reading what the defendant was charged with and/or what they did to their victim(s) rather than a pathology.
But enough of the details. Only the administrator has the final say. 31dot, what is your verdict? TrainLubber (talk) 00:24, March 15, 2017 (UTC)
Then what's the point of the entire pathology field of the character infobox if people can just read the main body of the article? UnSub-Zero (talk) 00:26, March 15, 2017 (UTC)
You left out the categories.
But seriously, we are clearly turning this talk page into a forum here. We should just stop until we get a verdict. TrainLubber (talk) 00:28, March 15, 2017 (UTC)
Then you shouldn't have tried to take it over here in the first place and let 31dot decide on his/her natural course. It was natural I was going to try and voice my own opinion on this too in response. UnSub-Zero (talk) 00:29, March 15, 2017 (UTC)

I just want to say, I completely support UnSub on this matter.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 01:30, March 15, 2017 (UTC)

I wished to acknowledge these messages, but I don't have time for a further reply at the moment- maybe later today or tomorrow. 31dot (talk) 07:11, March 15, 2017 (UTC)

I want to note that Sergeant Tom Cole did not physically harm Carisi and just merely pointed a gun at his head. It would definitely be highly inaccurate to classify that case and similar others as assault when no violent physical contact did occur, but a definite intent to kill was still there. UnSub-Zero (talk) 14:50, March 15, 2017 (UTC)

Also, I actually did manage to find the term "manslaughterer" on the online Oxford Dictionary, Wiktionary, and Your Dictionary. There are even synonyms registered for that word in Thesaurus.com (which are pretty odd choices, but still). So we do have a term we could use for people who commit manslaughter. UnSub-Zero (talk) 14:54, March 15, 2017 (UTC)

"Attempted murderer" seems awkward to me. That's also a term I haven't heard used in the shows. My inkling would be to avoid using it for that reason alone. 31dot (talk) 19:51, March 15, 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but how does that seem awkward to you? Attempted murder is a real crime. Do you really think assault covers a crime in which someone nearly died? UnSub-Zero (talk) 01:16, March 16, 2017 (UTC)
Can you cite an example of that term being used in an episode? 31dot (talk) 01:18, March 16, 2017 (UTC)
Um...we have seen suspects being charged with attempted murder... UnSub-Zero (talk) 01:47, March 16, 2017 (UTC)
But have those persons been described with the term "attempted murderer"? 31dot (talk) 10:09, March 16, 2017 (UTC)
All of them have either been referred to as assailants or attackers, or not at all. Not one mention of "attempted murderer" in the franchise. TrainLubber (talk) 17:22, March 16, 2017 (UTC)
But how does assault cover it? They were not charged with assault. UnSub-Zero (talk) 18:19, March 16, 2017 (UTC)
They do not have to be. They still attacked the victim. The only difference: The victim nearly died. TrainLubber (talk) 19:02, March 16, 2017 (UTC)
Assault is still not accurate, though. If the victim nearly died, that's attempted murder, not assault. We should reflect what was seen on the show, not what appropriate terms exist. UnSub-Zero (talk) 19:40, March 16, 2017 (UTC)
The crime of assault may be inaccurate, but the term "assailant" for those that attack a victim (whether or not the victim is near death) is perfectly accurate, and far less awkward. TrainLubber (talk) 00:44, March 17, 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. "Assailant" is always defined, across the spectrum of sources, as someone who physically attacks another person. Not one source has clarified that attempted murder can be constituted as an assault. Google the definition of "assailant" if you don't believe me. UnSub-Zero (talk) 01:23, March 17, 2017 (UTC)
  • My opinion was solicited, and I have given it- I don't see much to be gained by further discussion as it seems like points are being reiterated. 31dot (talk) 02:34, March 17, 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry, but I highly disagree with that opinion. UnSub-Zero (talk) 02:36, March 17, 2017 (UTC)
That's certainly your right. I'm happy to reconsider if "attempted murderer" is used in the show. 31dot (talk) 02:47, March 17, 2017 (UTC)
It IS being used! Attempted murder is a completely separate charge from assault! Therefore attempted murderer is necessary! UnSub-Zero (talk) 02:53, March 17, 2017 (UTC)
He meant the term, and it never was, despite assailants committing (and often being charged with) attempted murder. Not one episode has a character (major or minor) referring to one that attacked one and left him/her to die (with or without intent) as an "attempted murderer" even once (and certainly no more than an assailant). Again, the term "attempted murderer" is still awkward (it makes it sound like it meant it was almost born a murderer, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever). And those that commit and/or are charged with attempted murder (and none of their victims died) are more often than not referred to as assailants in numerous articles. Just because assault and attempted murder are separate assaults does not mean they are not committed by the same type of perpetrator. Furthermore, I have stated time and time again, that numerous jurisdictions have referred to "attempted murder" as "assault with intent to commit murder" (and please do not bring up "L&O does not take place outside of New York", because where it takes place is meaningless, considering some episodes of the franchise have taken place outside of New York (sometimes even outside the United States)). TrainLubber (talk) 00:52, March 18, 2017 (UTC)
"Assailant" is always defined, across the spectrum of sources, as someone who physically attacks another person. Not one source has clarified that attempted murder can be constituted as an assault. Google the definition of "assailant" if you don't believe me. UnSub-Zero (talk) 01:25, March 18, 2017 (UTC)
Once again, you repeat what you have already stated. I have looked it up, but a simple dictionary definition does not help. One who physically attacks another person-- Some of those victims nearly wind up dead. That is the only thing that differentiates attempted murder from assault. But an assailant can be one who attacks and nearly kills a person, as well. There is definitely no non-awkward term for one who commits attempted murder other than "assailant". But did all of your sources clarify that one who attacks and nearly kills a person (with or without intent) can be referred to as a so-called "attempted murderer"? Because the numerous articles I looked up, including this one, state otherwise. TrainLubber (talk) 02:53, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

What do you have against the term? UnSub-Zero (talk) 03:59, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

If that's a question for me, I have nothing to add to my views given above. There doesn't seem to be much more to add to this discussion in general; it is going in circles. 31dot (talk) 08:33, March 18, 2017 (UTC)
No, it wasn't; it was for TrainLubber. UnSub-Zero (talk) 08:38, March 18, 2017 (UTC)
Everything (as does User:Hito7187199, and he will vouch for me). And you have already read enough reasons why, so I need not remind you. I do believe we have presented enough evidence. TrainLubber (talk) 12:13, March 18, 2017 (UTC)
The bias is real. UnSub-Zero (talk) 22:03, March 18, 2017 (UTC)
But all the evidence I have provided proves otherwise. TrainLubber (talk) 01:36, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
But "assailant" is inaccurate. UnSub-Zero (talk) 01:37, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
That might be true (emphasis on "might"), but "attempted murderer" is incredibly awkward and even more inaccurate. Besides, "assailant" is the only logical term, considering the crime of attempted murder (the term of which is not used in every jurisdiction, mind you) is a more life-threatening form of an assault. TrainLubber (talk) 01:53, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
HOW IN THE WORLD IS IT INACCURATE AND AWKWARD?! Every life nearly taken is called ATTEMPTED MURDER, not assault, and this Wikia should reflect that through pathologies. To hell with nonexistent terms! Get your facts and priorities straight! UnSub-Zero (talk) 01:55, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
1. I am getting my facts straight. But you do not have the final say in this.
2. I have seen numerous episodes of the franchise, and none of them ever use the term "attempted murderer" for an assailant who nearly kills their victim(s). (example: Law & Order season 8: Stalker-- Quote: "So how did the assailant get out?" That particular assailant was charged with (and convicted) attempted murder.) TrainLubber (talk) 02:03, March 19, 2017 (UTC)

So what? Assailant is still inaccurate, attempted murderer is. UnSub-Zero (talk) 02:05, March 19, 2017 (UTC)

If it were inaccurate, the writers of the L&O franchise would use the term "attacker", an awkward term such as "attempted murderer", or no term at all. TrainLubber (talk) 02:07, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
So?... UnSub-Zero (talk) 02:08, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
So,... if the staff of the franchise consider "assailant" accurate, it is accurate here. TrainLubber (talk) 02:12, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
We have to look beyond what the staff thinks is accurate, and think about what was presented through the commission of the crime itself. UnSub-Zero (talk) 02:13, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
It appears you have forgotten about the articles I mentioned. Here is another link that explicitly refers to a criminal charged with attempted murder as an assailant. TrainLubber (talk) 02:22, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
It appears you have forgotten about what I said earlier: "Every life nearly taken is called ATTEMPTED MURDER, not assault, and this Wikia should reflect that through pathologies. To hell with nonexistent terms!" UnSub-Zero (talk) 02:25, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, this is being over thought and this discussion seems to have reached its end. The only thing that matters is if a character was referred to as an "attempted murderer" in the show. It doesn't seem that they were, even if "attempted murder" was used. It doesn't seem like there is much more to say about it- if there is actually more to say, I would suggest a break before any further comments are made. If not, let's move on from here. 31dot (talk) 10:41, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
Okay, how in the world is "if a character was referred to as an "attempted murderer" in the show" the only that matters? Shouldn't other factors be considered, like accuracy of the terms? UnSub-Zero (talk) 20:54, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
It appears that UnSub-Zero refuses to wait until your final ruling. The compromise is that the articles of those that commit attempted murder do not display "assailant" or "attempted murderer" as a pathology and/or category until you issue your final ruling. TrainLubber (talk) 01:37, May 23, 2017 (UTC)
It's honestly a no-brainer. UnSub-Zero (talk) 01:38, May 23, 2017 (UTC)
It is honestly not a no-brainer if those who commit attempted murder are not referred to as "attempted murderers" in-show. And based on the actual news articles I provided, there is no way around it. TrainLubber (talk) 01:41, May 23, 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, there are no "no-brainers" here until the administrator has issued his final ruling. TrainLubber (talk) 01:43, May 23, 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to disturb you again, sir, but it appears that UnSub-Zero is still refusing to wait until your final ruling on several pages. He wants articles of those who attempt to kill to include the category/pathology: "Attempted murderer", but he knows the only difference between assault and attempted murder is that a life is nearly taken. And based on all the articles I posted, and the fact that no one who committed attempted murder is referred to as an "attempted murderer" in-show, it should be a no-brainer that "assailant" (or "child abuser", in the case of those who attempt to kill a child) is the only appropriate category. TrainLubber (talk) 23:43, May 27, 2017 (UTC)
You're retarded. UnSub-Zero (talk) 00:07, May 28, 2017 (UTC)
  • I've already given my opinion on this matter. If the two of you cannot work this out between you, neither one of you might like my 'final ruling'. 31dot (talk) 00:29, May 28, 2017 (UTC)
It appears that he believes I do not accept "attempted murder" as a crime of its own. That is not possible. It is not the crime I am concerned about. It is the term for criminal who commits it. TrainLubber (talk) 01:26, May 28, 2017 (UTC)
That is going to be my solution to this whole debate. Nothing more, nothing less. If you say an assault can sometimes result in near-death (equivalent to attempted murder), then it is only absolute that we simplify everything down. Otherwise, I will be confused. UnSub-Zero (talk) 01:28, May 28, 2017 (UTC)
But what of those who were charged with attempted murder? This way makes it even more confusing. Plus, as far as I am concerned, the only solution is to refer to those who commit attempted murder as assailants, because that was the best the series itself would call them (and the series itself (and probably several others like it) never (have or will) actually use(d) the term "attempted murderer"). There is no other logical solution. We go by what the series gives us. Besides, Wikias are not perfect.
I recommend we return it to the way it was before this whole debate ever began. TrainLubber (talk) 01:33, May 28, 2017 (UTC)
Then my opinion will count for nothing. That would be discrimination! UnSub-Zero (talk) 01:36, May 28, 2017 (UTC)
"Besides, Wikias are not perfect." Well, we must strive to make this Wikia perfect. Perfection is key. Perfection is what makes the world grand. Perfection will help readers understand, and imperfection is unexcusable. Improvements, that's what I'm here for. UnSub-Zero (talk) 01:37, May 28, 2017 (UTC)
Referring to an attempted murder as an assault (and removing the important details of the attack out (regardless of whether or not it resulted in near-death), to boot) is incredibly egregious and the wrong solution to this issue. Based on the articles I've given and the fact that no criminal who committed attempted murder in the franchise has ever been referred to as an "attempted murderer" in the show itself, the only fair solution is to go back to the way it was before this whole debate started. TrainLubber (talk) 20:20, June 2, 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, I do not consider "attempted murder" nonexistent. I consider "attempted murderER" nonexistent. The crimes are different, but the ones who commit them are considered the same. TrainLubber (talk) 18:26, June 7, 2017 (UTC)
In light of UnSub-Zero's recent Wikia-blocking, I move to dismiss this proceeding. Now that the only other debating party is no longer with us, there is no reason to continue this dispute. TrainLubber (talk) 23:38, January 28, 2018 (UTC)

Moving Shattered (SVU)

Do you think you could move Shattered (SVU) to Shattered? There is no need for the "(SVU)" part since there aren't any other episodes on other Law & Order shows by the name of "Shattered". I wish I could, but I am unable to because my moves keep getting blocked off. Thank you. UnSub-Zero (talk) 02:07, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

Troublesome IP user

This IP user is starting to make troll-edits on the Brett Morton article. I'm beginning to suspect he is a sock account of Johnsonjack50 based on the IP user's latest edit summary. I would like it if you looked into this. Thank you. :D UnSub-Zero (talk) 03:14, April 30, 2017 (UTC)

The trouble continues on both Brett Morton and Jake O'Hara. Different IP addresses with each and every edit but I'm sure it's the same guy. I think you should protect both articles from unregistered users. UnSub-Zero (talk) 23:18, May 4, 2017 (UTC)

And the trouble strikes again on Hooked. If it's possible, could you also block the user's IP range? The IP addresses may look different but they're all starting with 166. UnSub-Zero (talk) 18:02, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

I intend to but it will be awhile before I can get to an actual computer to do it on a phone currently.31dot (talk) 19:48, May 6, 2017 (UTC)
Alright, gotcha. UnSub-Zero (talk) 20:46, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello, there has been edit warring in recent days between this user and myself. He chose to arbitrarily remove a piece of trivia from the page with no explanation other than it's "trivial"... I'm not sure what kind of content he expects from a trivia section. I reverted his edits and asked him to explain himself, and now he has escalated and simply removed the trivia section altogether arbitrarily. I'm not sure how you do things on this Wikia, but most Wikia sites I've been an editor on have been a collaboration between content writers, not just one user running amok and editing whatever he wants according to his own whims, with no explanation given. Would you be able to clarify whether or not this user's actions are acceptable on this Wikia? Thank you.--YamiWheeler (talk) 07:03, May 15, 2017 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the trivia section. While some of the things there aren't totally necessary, bordering on pure speculation or useless fact, I don't see why the entire section must be removed either. For starters, Jack McCoy has a trivia section of his own, which has been undisputed as far as I know. God knows how many other main characters have trivia sections that have not been removed for one reason or another. I don't know why 31dot is doing this, but it seems like he's acting out of a I-don't-like-it temperament and is being disruptive and non-collaborative. I do think he needs to be put in line a little. UnSub-Zero (talk) 07:50, May 15, 2017 (UTC)
You use my name but I don't think you mean to? I'm not sure what I've done.
Regarding the behavior, one reversion might be acceptable, but once there is a dispute or back and forth reverting, the issue should be discussed among the editors involved. I have reverted the removal myself with an edit summary encouraging discussion, if the edit warring continues by anyone I will protect the page. Regarding the disputed content itself, to me it seems some of it could stay(and what could stay would be better off to be worked into the article as prose) and some of it not (the speculation about her conviction rate, ancestry, information about her father, etc.) 31dot (talk) 08:55, May 15, 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for stepping in and clarifying. Hopefully this can be resolved with communication now rather than warring.--YamiWheeler (talk) 08:59, May 15, 2017 (UTC)
My bad. I meant TrainLubber. It was a slow day for my brain at the time. UnSub-Zero (talk) 14:43, May 15, 2017 (UTC)
No problem. That's what I suspected.(about what happened, not your brain ;) ) 31dot (talk) 07:17, May 16, 2017 (UTC)
As I expected, he hasn't stopped, nor has he made any effort to engage with me on the talk page. I agree with UnSub-Zero's summation that he is a disruptive, non-collaborative user acting out of a I-don't-like-it temperament.--YamiWheeler (talk) 18:52, May 17, 2017 (UTC)
I did not act out of an "I-do-not-like-it temperament". Bias was not a factor in that edit. It was an irrelevant (and inevitably soon to be false) statement that was stated by little to no other (E)ADA or Bureau Chief in the franchise.
I will admit, removing the entire trivia section rather than simply the unneeded statement was a stretch, and I apologize as such.
As stated on the talk page of that article, that unneeded statement would fit more if it were reworded as: "Novak's success rate in cases she prosecutes is 71%, whereas the average for prosecutors is 44%.", and seeing as no other prosecutor has ever revealed their success rate, we cannot determine who has the highest. TrainLubber (talk) 22:00, May 17, 2017 (UTC)
You have removed the content in question multiple times, often with no explanation and ignoring arguments against removing it, and you've even reverted an edit by an admin after he explicitly told you to stop. All for the sake of removing 1 insignificant line of trivia, on a page full of what could also be seen as "irrelevant" trivia. So you'll forgive me for not believing you when you say there's no bias involved. I suspect the only reason we're even having this discussion now is because the page is locked and you literally have no other alternative, so I don't have a lot of faith that your apology is sincere either.
In regards to the trivia page, it would be best to take it to the Casey Novak talk page where a discussion platform has already been set up for us.--YamiWheeler (talk) 22:55, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

Another troublesome IP user

As if the assailant/"attempted murderer" dispute was not bad enough, we have another Johnsonjack50 IP in the making. It adds egregious speculation to the article: Ricki Austin, thinking she "violated a judge's order" by performing in a sold-out concert (but we all know naught of it). I request that this user be blocked immediately. TrainLubber (talk) 23:51, May 27, 2017 (UTC)

He's back using a slightly different IP address. UnSub-Zero (talk) 03:04, May 28, 2017 (UTC)

He's at it again on Terry Davies. UnSub-Zero (talk) 22:01, June 4, 2017 (UTC)

You're going to have to protect the Terry Davies article, because he's dodging his block again. UnSub-Zero (talk) 04:06, June 5, 2017 (UTC)

Yet another troublesome IP user

Not related to the Johnsonjack50 sockpuppets, but it's pretty clear this user and that user are the same person if they're undoing the deletion tag for the Tensley Evans article, all the while rabidly fanboying about the character. At the very least, please protect that article from IP users, because they're getting annoying and are not contributing at all to the process. UnSub-Zero (talk) 06:55, July 19, 2017 (UTC)

While they are using a floating IP, it's hard to say if they are being sockpuppets. Since the page was tagged for deletion I deleted it and will see what happens next. 31dot (talk) 07:41, July 19, 2017 (UTC)

Hooked page

I request that this page be locked to unregistered users. We've got one who is committing vandalism using the fact that he's an unregistered user to get away with it so that we can't block him. Can you help me do that???--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 18:11, September 2, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks man. This is what the guy said quoted the last time he vandalized the page: "I decide wat To say I say So that Stabler made sure that a father did not commit a murder this time. My rules wat R you Going to Do about It since Im using Celular Data in Diferent locations to Edit?" With horrible grammar and spelling too.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 20:37, September 2, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. As I said on that talk page, if they persist on other pages, I will protect them, and if that does not halt the behavior, I believe I can block all anonymous edits- forcing people to make accounts that can be individually blocked and doing so can also block them from creating accounts. 31dot (talk) 20:52, September 2, 2017 (UTC)
Good. From one Admin to another, thanks.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 23:59, September 2, 2017 (UTC)

Hello

I left a message on Renegade54's talk page that you may want to look at-it's merely a friendly heads up. I think you're already dealing with the guy based on one of the contribs from one IP user CelticDragon0 (talk) 09:27, September 9, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. 31dot (talk) 10:00, September 9, 2017 (UTC)
      Most welcome! CelticDragon0 (talk) 10:43, September 9, 2017 (UTC)

Favor

Can you please protect my page from anon posters? I'm not going to go through this again with the guy in question CelticDragon0 (talk) 08:46, September 12, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks so much Dot! (Also had a feeling that page would get reverted) CelticDragon0 (talk) 11:20, September 12, 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure it was a consistent block evader that we've had. I don't want to halt all IP edits even temporarily but I'm considering it. 31dot (talk) 11:36, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
He's already screwed over one wiki with this crap. I was going to have the admin of that one bring it up, but that may be the only way. Sunny Fire (the admin in question) did, however, take my advice and post an announcement: 'Due to excessive vandalism, anonymous edits will no longer be allowed. We are sorry and apologize for any inconvenience'. It was my idea for that so people understood. I know of another wiki admin (or moderator-not sure which the guy is) who has just started locking pages from all edits, which screws over people that see things that need to be fixed. (I will not mention what site it is for obvious reasons). As for me, I'm here to help if you need it. CelticDragon0 (talk) 11:42, September 12, 2017 (UTC)

Hey

I think it's time to lock Jared Black's page. The edit that keeps getting made by the troll is covered in the Trivia section but the dude's apparently too stupid to read the page before editing to see it CelticDragon0 (talk) 18:26, September 13, 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to try disabling anon editing for (hopefully) a little bit and at least give us a break. 31dot (talk) 18:39, September 13, 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome to use the same announcement line I gave Sunny and that is posted above if you wish CelticDragon0 (talk) 18:41, September 13, 2017 (UTC)

Affiliates

Hello, 31dot!

I'm a bureacrat over at the Criminal Minds Wiki, and I was hoping if we could add your Law and Order Wiki to our list of affiliates (in other words, our "wiki friends"). Here's the link: http://criminalminds.wikia.com/wiki/Template%3AAffiliates

Also, I've noticed your the only active admin since your other admins have become inactive for months. Have you thought about adopting this wiki to become a bureacrat? Echo Spy (talk) 20:05, September 17, 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what being an affiliate means but I don't mind you posting on that wiki that this one is "friends" with yours.
With regards to being a bureaucrat, in all honesty I am not as interested in Law and Order as I used to be since it has mostly gone off the air(except for SVU) and I am spending more time on Memory Alpha and Wikipedia. I have kept trying to maintain order here but if there was someone else worthy of this being handed off to who would be more invested in this I would do so. I haven't seen anyone like that yet, so I have remained. As such I have little interest in being a bureaucrat here. 31dot (talk) 20:14, September 17, 2017 (UTC)

Discussions

Hello!

I noticed that your community was not yet using Discussions, our Forum feature replacement we developed for our communities last year. We realize your community does not currently use Special:Forums but please consider allowing us to enable Discussions anyway, as it provides more benefits to your community than it's predecessor. We have already switched all new communities to Discussions and are manually enabling it on established communities who are interested in having the feature available for their users.

Discussions is a feature that users can use to post questions, thoughts, images, links and even videos. They can upvote posts and even share them on social media. Users can edit their posts for the first 24 hours, but Admins and Moderators can edit posts anytime. Users can report posts they feel do not comply with our guidelines, or that of the community. Admins and Moderators can remove them. We give you the tools you need to monitor reported posts and users that report them. Since the introduction of Discussions, we have seen a pretty big increase in community interaction. You can find more information on Discussions here.

Let me know if your community would like to have Discussions enabled on the community. I would be happy to take care of it for you. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.

Thanks! Pinkachu @fandom (talk) 20:46, September 20, 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I had thought that it was being rolled out to every fandom wiki eventually so feel free to activate it for this wiki. I think it could be helpful in maybe getting some other bodies participating here.
I would be interested to know why this wiki is being given the option to have Discussions but over at Memory Alpha (where I am also an administrator) we were told that we were getting it regardless of our wishes.[4] Personally I am willing to see how it goes on Memory Alpha(I think it will keep article talk pages free of irrelevant discussion) but the community in general is skeptical and wishes they had been given the chance to decide. I also am aware that the German Memory Alpha editors are very unhappy as well. I do understand that the Star Trek world is a bigger ball of wax, so to speak so maybe that's why.
Anyway, as I said, feel free to activate it here. Thank you. 31dot (talk) 21:01, September 20, 2017 (UTC)
I remember another user once mentioning the Memory Alpha issue to me but I'm pretty sure that was quite a while ago. I wasn't on the team that handled that, so I don't know all the details. Regardless, I have turned on Discussions and created the first post. As I am going around different communities and talking to them about Discussions, I am also checking their Mobile Main Page content as the editor often gets missed by Admins. I noticed your community's Mobile Main Page editor only has a Wiki Description so I will fill out what I can in the Category and Featured sections for you today. Thanks! Pinkachu @fandom (talk) 21:30, September 22, 2017 (UTC)

Menendez Murders

Hello! Has there been any conversation about building out the content for Law & Order True Crime and adding it to the main page, etc? I might take a crack at it after I watch the first episode this weekend. (Maybe not, if I think it's horrible, lol.) But wanted to check in first in case you or someone else had talked about how to approach this.

Also, should Forum:Index be removed from the navigation menu? Someone added a link to the SVU wiki three years ago and that's all that is there on that page, aside from a fun little image. -BertH @fandom (help forum | blog) 20:16, September 29, 2017 (UTC)

Actually I see that User:Dean Orbong is doing some work! -BertH @fandom (help forum | blog) 20:22, September 29, 2017 (UTC)

Hudson

Would you mind if I redirected Hudson Medical School to Hudson University? Lady Aleena (talk) 07:07, November 2, 2017 (UTC)

Are we certain that these are not two different entities? 31dot (talk) 08:26, November 2, 2017 (UTC)
It is a little leap, but it could be assumed that the two entities are connected. For the sake of simplicity, I would make that assumption. Lady Aleena (talk) 08:39, November 2, 2017 (UTC)
If you are asking my opinion, I think they should be kept separate; however, feel free to discuss it with others, either before or after moving it. I will not prevent you from changing it. 31dot (talk) 08:42, November 2, 2017 (UTC)
Where would you suggest I start the discussion? The forums are not set up and discussions look lightly used. I would use the talk page of Hudson Medical School, however, I don't know how many people look for talk page changes. Do you have some sort of notice board? Lady Aleena (talk) 08:07, November 3, 2017 (UTC)
Since this wiki is somewhat lightly used we don't really have a well developed forum area. From what I can tell the contributors that do come here regularly seem to monitor the Recent Changes/Wiki Activity pages pretty well so they might see a post on the talk page(esp. if you indicate what it is in the edit history) but I would also suggest simply approaching another user as you did with me. 31dot (talk) 08:25, November 3, 2017 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Talk:Hudson University. Most other editors of the articles haven't been around for a while, so the article talk page seemed best. Lady Aleena (talk) 07:25, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

Canon policy

I was wondering what your canon policy is. So far I have come across two red links for it. Is there a canon policy? 8) Lady Aleena (talk) 03:58, November 10, 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe we have a formal canon policy written down at least. I have always approached it the same way as we do at Memory Alpha, the Star Trek wiki(where I am also an admin), in that anything that appears on screen is fair game for an article. Law and Order has less non-TV content(though it does exist) so it hasn't been as much of an issue here. I know there is some computer games and maybe some books. 31dot (talk) 09:20, November 10, 2017 (UTC)
I was just asking since you have 3 redlinks to it. Lady Aleena (talk) 13:47, November 11, 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I just copied some of those pages from Memory Alpha. 31dot (talk) 23:54, November 11, 2017 (UTC)

Quick question...

Why was UnSub-Zero blocked? Something go wrong? TrainLubber (talk) 19:35, January 28, 2018 (UTC)

It appears that he was blocked across all FANDOM sites. I'm not sure why. 31dot (talk) 21:21, January 28, 2018 (UTC)
I can't find any information about it on Community Central which is where I would expect a FANDOM-wide block to be discussed. I'm not sure where else to look. 31dot (talk) 21:30, January 28, 2018 (UTC)
Just did some research. I heard that he'd been in multiple disputes in the Criminal Minds Wiki. Especially with one Profiler10, who is now the new admin of the Criminal Minds Wiki. But I'm surprised that he was blocked everywhere. TrainLubber (talk) 23:38, January 28, 2018 (UTC)

Ashley96Nicole

Ashley96Nicole keeps vandalizing articles. Please do something.

Paralie Marquena's talk page

This person keeps removing all the talk page messages and I don't know why. You're not allowed to do that, right?

This person's insisting on blanking out their talk page. Please respond to this.

This is pretty urgent. I can't keep undoing their reversions. Demand an explanation from them ASAP, because I'm pretty sure blanking out talk pages is not allowed.

It is preferred to keep and/or archive user talk pages, but generally users can remove posts from their own talk page. Doing so is considered an acknowledgement that the user read the content. Unless you can point me to a specific rule stating this is not permitted, I see no issue. 31dot (talk) 08:24, April 8, 2018 (UTC)

serial killer animal care control irish descent

Hi. I am looking for an episode of Law and Order SVU where there was a serial killer that worked in Animal Care and Control, or whatever that is known as in NYC. The perpetrator worked with domestic animals in NYC, and called a cat by pshb pshb pshb which is exclusive to Irish and Irish American people. I would love to have this clip to demonstrate Irish America in the media and to play as part of my trivia in a presentation I have to do on my family who is from Sligo. I cannot locate it. Can you or any of your followers find the episode for me. I would be greatly appreciate it.

Thanks Nicole

Prodigy (03x13) is definitely what you're looking for. Season Fourteen (talk) 02:30, April 21, 2018 (UTC)
Nicole, I have removed your email and phone number for safety reasons-a forum where anyone can see is never a good place to post that stuff CelticDragon0 (talk) 03:13, April 21, 2018 (UTC)

Ryan's accounts

User:Ryan.fellowsfitts and User:Ryanfellowsfitts23 are definitely the same account.

Halpenoal's edits

They're clearly vandal edits. All he's doing is adding fan-made episode titles to SVU Season 20 and then removing them just as quickly. He's done this twice already.

Now he's using an obvious sockpuppet, Madbarnes.

Problem with user Season Fourteen 

Hi. I'm resorting to you to report a situation that to me, and (i'm pretty, pretty sure) also to other users has become unsustainable.

I registered my account on this wiki because i'm a fan of Law & Order and i like being able to contribute to this portal. I did not know it was to became a some sort of "dictatorship" due to the presence of Season Fourteen. He thinks to be the only one capable of editing and interpreting the episode's plots. Now, i'm perfectly aware that this is a free wiki, and that anyone can (within the limits of reasonableness) edit as he prefers. I think Season Fourteen has passed those limits. He treats this wiki as his personal "fiefdom". And i think he has to give up all this. He also has an evident short-temper, and if he is contradicted he will assault you with words like "shut up". Also i have evidence that he, at least a couple of times, has edited wrong facts related to the episodes.

Please do something if you can. Season Fourteen's presence on this wiki makes me want to delete my own account!!!

Thanks

I WATCHED THE EPISODE, AND THERE WAS A WOUND ON HIS HEAD! HOW'D IT GET THERE, HUH?!
I will block both of you if you cannot work out your disagreement without disrupting the wiki with your edit warring. 31dot (talk) 23:31, July 27, 2018 (UTC)


I would like to just edit pages without Season Fourteen around the corner waiting for undoing all my work!!! That's all i would like. Then, if he edits wrong facts i cannot stop myself from undoing them. The warring is the direct result of his senseless edits! But then, if the only solution to the problem is to have both of us blocked. Ok, that's not what we want. So let the things remain like this. With Season Fourteen playing the king of the castle. I will no more question HIS authority.

I suggest you find a way to resolve these issues. You have AFAIK not even attempted to discuss this on a talk page. 31dot (talk) 23:45, July 27, 2018 (UTC)


Actually, this isn't the first time i found myself in this situation with Season Fourteen. We have met each other on our respective talk pages. Evidently, Season Fourteen isn't going to change his mind. I'm not claiming my edits are perfect or something, i'm really trying to make quality edits (you can check by yourself if you don't believe me) but he HAS to undone them. Every time. Every time he HAS to adequate them to HIS standards. Like HIS standards are the best ones. 


But then i repeat. If the one and only solution you can find is to block us both, i will no more contradict Season Fourteen. I'll let him do whatever he wants, every time. I just don't think this wiki should allow him to do like that. 




Anyway, i'm not the first user who blames Season Fourteen's methods, which had been defined (i'm citing) "aggressive".

Still wondering WHEN my situation will be given an importance of some kind. My rights as a user have been violated in every way. Season Fourteen is practically preventing me to edit Pages, and still you won't do anything. I thought the admins where here to help us, not to ignore our problems with a user violating rules. PLEASE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

You keep revising the information on D-Girl, Turnaround, and Showtime too much. I expect every new piece of information on an article on any Wikia to be accurate and decided beforehand. If you can't decide what kind of information you want to share on those articles, then the articles should just cut the losses. Don't blame me. Season Fourteen (talk) 09:41, November 21, 2018 (UTC)

Dejahnnaw

I'm pretty sure this user is copying-and-pasting his episode plot summaries from an outside source. He was able to write 10,000-20,000+ word summaries for three episodes in under five minutes, and is still at it without showing signs of slowing down. I find this to be really dirty plagiarism and I'd appreciate it if you put a stop to this. Season Fourteen (talk) 22:50, September 13, 2018 (UTC)

Deleting redirect

Can you please delete Hell’s Kitchen? It's a pointless redirect created accidentally in the process of creating Hell's Kitchen (SVU). There's already a Hell's Kitchen article (distinguished by the different apostrophe), so there'll definitely be confusion during linkage. Season Fourteen (talk) 06:15, October 13, 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Laser Beam and "illegitimate"

Mr. Laser Beam keeps removing the word "illegitimate" from the lede of the Jesse Rollins article, saying it is "unnecessary and prejudiced" and that it "is completely irrelevant to the character". However, I believe the word is being used correctly, in that it's describing the circumstances of Jesse's conception and birth: Rollins' pregnancy was unplanned and out of wedlock, therefore making Jesse an illegitimate child. I feel like Mr. Laser Beam has grossly misunderstood the wording of the lede and is overreacting. What do you think? Season Fourteen (talk) 01:52, October 17, 2018 (UTC)

Also, Mr. Laser Beam stubbornly refuses to stop edit-warring over the lede, even though I told him he should take his concerns to the talk page now since he's so concerned about it. Season Fourteen (talk) 01:57, October 17, 2018 (UTC)
Please respond as soon as you can. Mr. Laser Beam is freaking out and edit-warring like no other, thinking I'm insulting all children born into single-parent households. Season Fourteen (talk) 02:54, October 17, 2018 (UTC)

Biagio guadagno

This user is completely disregarding my warnings about this not being an Italian wiki and rewriting articles in Italian. He also keeps putting in grammatical errors on the Lloyd Wilkes article and presumably others despite my insistence in the edit summaries that these are errors. Please do something about this. Season Fourteen (talk) 22:16, November 10, 2018 (UTC)

Sadly I think the only thing that could be done is for this Wiki to go the way of the CSI one and to not allow anonymous edits then block the guy Fourteen-but that is my opinion. CelticDragon0 (talk) 22:55, November 10, 2018 (UTC)

Tuxedo Hill (development) page

I suggest to rename the page "Tuxedo Hill Group". It is not a land development but a special purpose partnership fabricated by Mattawin executives to fraud investors. The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThomasBisaschi (talk • contribs).

I no longer participate at this wiki; you may do as you wish. 31dot (talk) 10:08, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I submitted a detailed edit to the Execution page for SVU. It seems it's been removed? It was accurate to the episode, and I'd like to know why it was removed. ~~ARKH1997~~

As noted at the top of this page, I no longer participate here, so I am not aware of what is going on here or why. 31dot (talk) 07:51, March 28, 2019 (UTC)

hi, in your opinion, how many seasons will there still be? --Hizzie Mikaelson1993 (talk) 08:23, August 5, 2020 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.