Talk:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit season 6

message: *The summaries for most (if not all) of these episodes appear to have been stolen from TV.com. Anthony Rupert 23:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:     "Stolen" is not strictly applicable even for blatant copyright violation, but many would use it with varying degrees of looseness even for uses within the fair use exceptions and for works that are legally original works but nevertheless derive all their factual content from a single copyright-protected work. So that complaint is too vague to require further comment.   I note that e.g. for ep. 6,  TV.com gives a one-sent, 36-word summary, and 5 longer comments, from readers, that also include plot info. It would not be at all surprising for a summary relying entirely on one such page for its facts about a show to be acceptable for WP, bcz copyright does not protect "information" but rather a specific way of expressing information (and -- tho you should not trust my wording -- only to the degree that there are other ways to adequately express it). WP:COPYVIO is an important matter at WP, but a complaint such as that does not help address it.--Jerzy•t 06:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Summaries

message: Reason= A birthday-party-full of 13 y.o.s who all say "is psychotic" would be presumed to be repeating the views of an adult who coached them. They probably all described *behavior* that *adults* associate with psychosis, even if some said "psycho".    If that's really what the script said, provide a ref; if you think the script implied that, you need to explain why you think so, at least on this talk page if not in the accompanying article.--Jerzy•t 04:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "unanimously describe him as psychotic"  

message: Reason= I just can't believe he claimed to be numb, deaf, and blind during the killing. C'mon, what did he really say?    Hmm. Could his character have said those words? I suppose a pro scriptwriter could make that phrase work in context, as "I wanted to tear my teeth out" did, but even if that was the case here, it is nonsense ripped out and stuck into the summary.--Jerzy•t 04:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "his despair overrode his senses" 

message: Best i recall, my attention was drawn by the many by-name references to characters, mostly or wholly the two successive defendants, added in a recent edit. While the comprehension-impeding prose that resulted heightened the sense of a reader on a crusade to ensure that the child defendant (Jake) was respectfully treated by our article (4 occurrences of variations on "the boy" or "the killer" converted to the previously only-once mentioned full or given name - for a total of 3 full name and 2 given-only mentions of him).   I hasten to mention that this did slightly alleviate the truly horrible previous revision, which had referred to Jake's child victim only via versions of "[Morton's] son" (twice) and "the boy" (once), before introducing "a 13-year-old, Jake" (O' Hara): the initial impression my first reading left me with -- of all the references to "boy" referring to one child (the shrink's son), whose name went unmentioned until the audience later learns it is "Jake" -- is still hard for me to shake free of!   The creator of the horrible version put it back (stripping the tags) w/o comment. After a tiny bit of research, i'm correcting the incoherence and filling in or replacing missing info based on "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit - Conscience -- Transcript --  USA  --  Aired on Monday, Nov 22, 2010 (11/22/2010) at 03:00 AM", which i will not present as a reliable source nor thus as a reference on the article. It is here as evidence some specific info, that i have added as a step towards readability and hopefully accuracy, is more plausible than other info, amateur opinions, or guesses that i've tagged.[belated sig, w/ contrib time per ed hist:]--Jerzy•t 08:52, 8 September 2012‎
:   I've reverted a contrib, a new-this-week, one-pg, IP-contributor's first one that includes an edit summary. (It's always good to see newcomers starting to learn.)   It comprised:
:# Several removals, contrary to policy, of  and  tags
:# A few characters of c/e changes, which became irrelevant in my own later fix of awkward grammatical structures.
:--Jerzy•t 08:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ep 6 - "Conscience" (Other) 

message: It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.
To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.
To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.
Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour contrast problems 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 6). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060620205351/http://www.nbc.com/nbc/Law_%26_Order%3A_Special_Victims_Unit/interviewp1.shtml to http://www.nbc.com/nbc/Law_%26_Order%3A_Special_Victims_Unit/interviewp1.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306041611/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=092904_04 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=092904_04
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601194225/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=101904_12 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=101904_12
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141010224559/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=111604_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=111604_05
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081221204028/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=121404_08 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=121404_08
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090516042311/http://www.abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052405_04 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052405_04
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified