User talk:Jack Merridew/Archive 1

[edit] Notability of Senang Hati Foundation

A tag has been placed on Senang Hati Foundation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Username User:Senang Hati

You should change your username at Wikipedia:Changing username. Usernames that promote or imply a company are not allowed as usernames and eventually the account will be disabled. see Inappropriate usernames.--Hu12 14:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I just read it and it says "well-known company or group" - which The Senang Hati Foundation is not; ironic since at the same time people are trying to delete the foundation's article as non-notable. "Senang Hati" means "Happy Heart" in Bahasa Indonesia. I will consider changing my user name if others object. FYI, I just commented on your WP:COI tagging on Talk:Senang Hati Foundation (and just saw your second comment there). --Senang Hati Jack Merridew 14:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Senang Hati Foundation

A tag has been placed on Senang Hati Foundation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Sr13 (T|C) 06:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hi, welcome aboard and thanks for joining Wikiproject Indonesia. Feel free to contribute to our collaboration, discuss about our project or anything to improve the project and most importantly Indonesia-related articles. See you there. — Indon (reply) — 14:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Allison Sudradjat

An editor has nominated Allison Sudradjat, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Sudradjat and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you so much!

Thank you for all that you have done! How much love resides therein! All one's gifts are never gone: Not seen, perhaps, but stored within. Kindness is an inner sun. Your unspent heart a message sends Of grace and sacrifice hard-won Upon which happiness depends! Thank you so much, dear Jack! Love, Phaedriel 07:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jack, I'm sorry it took me almost a week to get back to you, but I couldn't possibly leave your beautiful words, your kind approach to me and your warm wishes unreplied. We will talk a lot more in the future, I'm sure, and nothing would make me happier, but for now, just a word of heartfelt gratitude, and my enthusiastic approval of your adaptation of my design to your userpage will suffice ;) I'll be most happy to help you with it as you add more content to it, but for now, it looks great to me. Once again, dear Jack, thank you - and visit my talk page whenever you wish, I'll be waiting! Love, Phaedriel - 07:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome! And thanks for the lovely painting - it reminds me of a friend of mine and her daughter.--Jack Merridew 13:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Enemy Within the Gates

Please do not re-add the {{unreferenced episode}} to this article, as it is no longer a notability template per multiple discussions on TFD and DRV. Tim! 09:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The template I restored was {{Dated episode notability}} and how about you comment on the notability of this (or any of the other tv episode) article? I would appreciate it if you would refer me to any more appropriate templates and the discussions you refer to above. --Jack Merridew 09:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Try clicking on the link {{Dated episode notability}}, you'll see it was redirected to {{unreferenced episode}} per TFD and DRV discussion. Tim! 09:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw that it was a redirect after I posted - sorry about that - and thanks for the links.

What I'm interested in is the correct procedure for challenging the existence of the endless articles on tv episodes. I found the The Enemy Within the Gates article in the contribs of User:TTN whom I just dropped a note to about this; I know nothing about this show except what the article says and my main reaction is SO? A tv episode from almost 40 years ago? As I see it, this is a slippery slope that leads to a million articles on non-notable dross. --Jack Merridew 09:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not very interested in what you consider "dross". Tim! 09:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please consider my views on non-notability. --Jack Merridew 10:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The basic consensus is to remove the episodes by going with WP:EPISODE, and even by going with higher ones like WP:N and WP:V. You just have certain people like Tim that try to avoid it by doing things like wikilawyering over one point or asserting that one of our main policies is somehow wrong. Being unreferenced is the same as not asserting notability, and that is the general point of the template. TTN 10:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind either of them. They're in the "certain people" grouping. Yeah, the pure number of junk articles (thousands upon thousands for sure) is the reason for this. It has to be brought down to a manageable level. TTN 10:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Being watched by 8.1million people is notability. Please also observe WP:3RR. Matthew 10:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

How many times have I directed you to WP:N and WP:V at this point? Please stop asserting that your view is somehow the accepted one. TTN 10:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, every advert would rate an article, too! --Jack Merridew 10:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability v. Importance

I just thought I'd mention that the meaning of notability is distinct from that of importance, as many of your comments seem to suggest that you think otherwise. See Wikipedia:Notability. Tim! 10:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I do understand the two words — much that is notable is still unimportant. I am spending time reading the various policies. Part of why I am involving myself in these discussions is to increase my familiarity with policies and procedures. Terima kasih. --Jack Merridew 10:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, just remember that we don't delete things for being unimportant :). Tim! 10:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If we did, at least half would go! --Jack Merridew 11:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi again! :)

Hi, dear Jack! :) Sorry for taking these hours to reply; I apologize, I currently have little spare time for all the things I'd like to do on Wiki, trust me! :) Anyway, regarding your message to me, I've reviewed the article, and the discussion surrounding it. Not only that, I did a small online research, and I came to the same conclusion that those who analyzed it before: the subject has sufficient notability to deserve an article, so I untagged it, like others did the last time. I can talk to Matthew if needed to defuse this situation, and to comment with him on such notability if necessary; I'm sure he'll understand it, if he wishes such explanation. Happy editing, and have a beautiful day! Love, Phaedriel - 09:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC):)

[edit] My RfA

Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! -- But|seriously|folks  08:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Best wishes! I had not seen that it had closed. Going to go read it now... --Jack Merridew 09:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion welcome at deletion review for Plot of Les Mis

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables closed as a deletion, I'm challenging the way the closing administrator acted as in violation of Wikipedia rules. Your participation is welcome at that discussion, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. Please keep in mind that only arguments related to either new information or to how Wikipedia rules were violated or not violated in closing the discussion will be considered. It isn't a replay of the original AfD. I'm familiar with WP:CANVASSING and I am alerting everyone who participated in that discussion to the deletion review. I won't contact anyone again on this topic, and I apologize if you consider this note distracting. Noroton 04:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Jack

Dear Jack, I've just returned a day ago after a short break for personal reasons, so I didn't have the chance to look deeply into the Les Miserables discussion until now. It's unfortunate indeed; and the debate at Deletion review gives me hope. I'll weigh in there - I fully concur with your assessment in the matter. I hope you're doing fine :) Love, Phaedriel - 12:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sharon! I hope your break was refreshing and the personal concerns you're referring to sorted themselves well. I've not followed the deletion review — too disheartening (from your comment, things may be taking a turn for the better — I'll look in a bit). Best, --Jack Merridew 12:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on episode guides

Hi, Jack. I wanted to let you know that I've responded indirectly here to something you wrote at Talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes. Since the discussion is about the general subject of television episode articles (and the process of determining which of them are notable) rather than Hannah Montana specifically, I figured the Hannah Montana page wasn't the best place for the discussion. I wanted to give you a heads-up so you could respond, since I wasn't sure whether you'd have that page on your watchlist. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Annoying banners

Why yes, I could, and probably will when I stop procrastinating and sort through my episodes to find those things. Regardless, making a blinking boiler template isn't going to make things go any faster. Furthermore, it draws attention away from the article even more than the boiler template already does, which is just unacceptable. I understand your concerns, but there are better, and less pointy, ways to address the problem. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Sorry it took so long to respond, I got distraced. I would archive it under "T", yes. I  ^{(said) (did)} 07:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

responding on your page... --Jack Merridew 09:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring comments

I noticed, specifically on the HM page, that you were refactoring some minor grammatical errors in others' comments. I'd like to point out that this isn't necessary, and is somewhat frowned upon. I personally do not care, (they were mostly my edits :p), but I thought I'd let you know. i ^{(said) (did)} 09:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? I don't believe I've done anything more than fix a few typos and add apostrophes, but I will watch it. I do not want to annoy people needlessly. I have not even bothered noting whose comments they were; mostly I was just being careful not to make any change that would in any way change meaning. --Jack Merridew 09:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's what I'm saying. Doing such minor edits is not needed, and apparently is discouraged. When you say noting whose comments they were, do you mean adding {{unsigned}}? If so, that is perfectly acceptable, and helpful. Again, I personally don't mind, but I thought I'd let you know. I've checked and checked, and I'm almost positive no errors :) i ^{(said) (did)} 09:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I can see how people could be annoyed by someone correcting typos (I also think someone getting annoyed by something like this needs to lighten up). I wasn't referring to the cases where I added an {{unsigned}} (and thanks for showing me {{tlx}}); I meant that I was not targeting any particular user's typos. I've only done those I saw in the editbox; I have no interest in copy-editing whole talk pages! --Jack Merridew 10:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. They probably should, but eah. We try not to provoke. And it's okay, I just noticed I make more errors than I thought I did. As a side note; you can also use {{tl}}. I didn't know what the difference was before, but I just noticed that tlx is a wider space between the {{ }}. i ^{(said) (did)} 10:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you! :)

With you I shall ever be; Over land and sea My thoughts will companion you; With yours shall my laughter chime, And my step keep time In the dusk and dew With yours in blithesome rhyme; In all of your joy shall I rejoice, On my lips your sorrow shall find a voice, And when your tears in bitterness fall Mine shall mingle with them all; With you in waking and dream I shall be, In the place of shadow and memory, Under young springtime moons, And on harvest noons, And when the stars are withdrawn From the white pathway of the dawn. Mary Darby Robinson

I have no words to tell you the happiness that your beautiful, marvelous gift brought me, dear friend :) May you have a wonderful weekend! Love, Phaedriel - 10:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure; it yours to use and appreciate as you please. Your message arrived at a fine time and has reminded me that I have better things to do than keep trivial articles from overrunning this site — at least on the weekend! And thank you, too, for the lovely painting and poem, and for a link to go and read. —Jack 11:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friends

good work on the Cory Episode redirects. Thoughts as to what should be brought up next for review? I would like to tackle the Friends episodes at some point. At any event, good work and let's hope we get Ned Scott back from RfC for his further participation. Eusebeus 09:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I had mentioned The Simple Life and a few others on one of the talk pages. The 20 to 1 shite should get done tomorrow. I'll look for a few good candidates and tag them for review. We should not have none going! I think Friends would be a fine block to tackle. I have not looked, but expect that some episodes will have sources for notability; show was popular and must have been well commented on. This would be an opportunity for to sort out just which episodes are which. I must say I've had just about enough of the kid shows for a while. I find that whole crowd Ned's involved with bizarre; endless refactoring of their sigs, *other* peoples' sigs — with the net result (goal) of disruption. --Jack Merridew 09:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I checked a huge batch and only one came even close to WP:EPISODE, which I rewrote to demonstrate an example of episode notability. (Linked at the Friends talk page). I redirected a bunch to the LOE, then reverted and tagged (I think), so they should be ready to tackle. Anyway, let's do Simple Life next, then Friends. The value of a popular series like Friends is wider input hopefully. The sig thing, - well just baffling really. Eusebeus 11:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just been tagging The Simple Life with {{notability}} w/the episode arg and note that they all fail. I'll look at the Friends stuff a bit after I'm done for the day w/Paris. --Jack Merridew 11:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

this is the Friends episode I rewrote to conform to the episode guideline The One After the Superbowl. I see someone has gone in and added a trivia section. Why are people addicted to trivia? Anyway, let me know when you have Paris and Nicole despatched and we can take a look. Cheers! Eusebeus 11:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've finished with the initial tagging and await initial reaction. Tomorrow or so I will add the articles to the review page and tag the talk pages, etc. I've been looking at The One with the Butt, The One with the East German Laundry Detergent, and The One with the Boobies (no pic). I'll pop-in on the one you've linked; thanks. --Jack Merridew 12:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Jack, glad to see you've got my back ;). I suggest bringing the Friends episodes up season by season. Let's do season one over the next day or two. I have had them tagged for a couple of weeks, and nothing has happened. Since these are mostly fan-driven episode summaries, I suspect the VAST majority will be redirects, but we can start the process off. Btw, I posted a vandalism notice on the userpage of the charming individual below (who promptly erased it). You may want to have him blocked for vandalism. Eusebeus 13:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me; I'll pop in on 'em and offer opinion and assistance. Fellow below has been up to more mischief which I'll attend to in a moment... --Jack Merridew 09:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'll review & tag season 2 as necessary. Let me know when you have posted the list for review. Tx! Eusebeus 10:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

just did it - off to post notices on talk pages and the review page. --Jack Merridew 11:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have helped you out :-) Season 2 done - let's review and tag season 3 & 4 as well, while we are at it. That way, the review can proceed next week. Can you post a notice of the review on the main Friends talk page? (You will see my initial posting there and note that the only episode that has been improved is the one I actually brought up to the Episode standard). Eusebeus 11:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC) (btw, the individual season articles are entirely redundant - they contain nothing more than the season synopses offered on the main page + a replication of the LOE). We should merge and redirect those too.)

I just added that one. I expect a lot of attention on this one. I'm hoping you'll take the lead in the discussions as you've been on these pages more. I'll go tag season 4 and leave season 3 for you and will work onwards as time permits. I don't think we really want to do all 200++ at once. I'll have a look at the season articles, too. --Jack Merridew 11:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent - I agree and am happy to participate actively, although I expect Bignole and Ned will have thoughts as well. I have rewritten The One with the Lesbian Wedding to conform to the Episode guideline. Eusebeus 11:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent example of the sort episode that does warrant an article. I'm sure from the source you found that there will bee others; what did Fred Phelps have to say? --Jack Merridew 12:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As a suggestion for the next series to review, I see that the 80s sitcom Golden Girls has an incomprehensibly large number of episode articles, every one of which that I looked at fails to measure up to the Episode guideline. There must be hundreds of them. Eusebeus 12:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw those earlier; seems TTN may just redirect them. I'll keep an eye on them. FYI, The Degrassi Universe is full of copyvios. --Jack Merridew 13:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on what we've reviewed so far, I bet tons of these articles are copyvios. There is a whole raft of editors who seem to believe that a copy/paste with minor modifications to the writing is not plagiarism. When are you bringing Degrassi up for review? Eusebeus 18:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been through all of the episodes now and will list them soon; today or tomorrow. The probability of a plot summary being a copyvio is a fair argument against merging them. --Jack Merridew 09:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Jack, have you been following the fiction notability debate (Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction))? Lots to weigh through, but many serious issues in the balance and your views would be welcome. Eusebeus 13:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection of Chris Conley

I noticed some time ago that this page had been redirected without discussion. As the article had been in place for nearly 12 months and edited by a significant number of experienced editors who believed the subject was notable, I reverted back to the bio article as the community had deemed it notable, whilst one user User:Eusebeus did not. If anyone questions the notability, take it to AfD and let the community vote, don't just perform a vigilant redirect. R:128.40.76.3 09:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want that article to survive vigilant editors, you will need to establish the notability of the subject, sorry. --Jack Merridew 09:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, [1]. Pete.Hurd 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack Merridew 11:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jack, our friend is back at the Conley page, undeterred by his block, and now is acting up to get me sanctioned! LOL. Anyway, please check out my comment on the talk page when you have a chance and weigh in on the argument if you wish so we can explain the importance of adhering to policy.

I See you have taken on the tagging of more Friends episodes. I added an "upcoming" section to the review page, so I'll add in the additional seasons you've tagged. Eusebeus 12:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw his attempt to get you blocked. I suggest you go slow and let others deal with him. He's taking it personally, so change the people. Take it to AfD if you like to see this sorted once and for all.

re Friends, I finished off season 4 and hit a few in 5 and am assuming you did season 3... --Jack Merridew 12:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it now. There are vast quantities of these TV articles, so there will be no shortage of candidates for review. As for the recco above, fair enough. Who knows, maybe material can be added that satisfies the notability criteria. Eusebeus 13:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed with the Friends episodes I've looked at so far; a few, but most are just plot and trivia.Did you see that Friends (season one) and 2 & 3 got tagged for speedy delete as copyvios? --Jack Merridew 13:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, actually, I hadn't. Safe to say, this is mostly fancruft that people steal from other places on the internet and replicate here. I have now tagged Season 3 and I have also listed the A-team (tagged since June by TTN) for review. Eusebeus 15:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Friends

I'll take a look at it this evening when I get off of work.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!!

Thanks for fixing the episodes....they were an eyesore! =) Chick No.16 16:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome. --Jack Merridew 11:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Jack!

Dear Jack, I wanted you to know that I've intervened in the case you brought to my attention, and hopefully there won't be any more trouble in the future. He has acknowledged his faults, and let's hope that, in the future, any potential disputes can be solved with a little dialog. As your friend, please allow me to repeat what I told Eusebeus: I perfectly understand that frustration can sometimes get the best of us, and lead us to engage in edit disputes; is has happened to me in the past. Try not to get overly stressed and dragged into this kind of frustrating controversies, my friend. If you ever feel like an edit dispute is getting out of hand, promise to drop by my talk page and let me know, and I promise to do my best to try and mediate for a solution and a compromise. Have a beautiful day, dear Jack! :) Love, Phaedriel - 03:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sharon, for both your help and advice; I do so promise. I'll reply further on your talk page where most of the discussion is. --Jack Merridew 10:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CANVAS

Per WP:CANVAS, posting this message on selected talk pages in unwelcome. "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view." The JPS^{talk to me} 09:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

hey, I also notified User:Peregrine Fisher who I know has a point of view that I do not share. --Jack Merridew 11:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration report typo

Thank you for catching and fixing a typo in this week's arbitration report that I wrote for the "Signpost." If nothing else, I appreciate the confirmation that at least one person read the page attentively. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome — that's what edit links are for. --Jack Merridew 12:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: color-leaks in sigs

The red color leak was from Spebi's message, not my signature. My signature has an unclosed tag, which makes the timestamp purple, however it does not mess up the rest of the page. I've closed the tags on Spebi's message so it's fine now. Cheers, Lights 14:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

complained to AN/I, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:R:128.40.76.3 FWIW. Pete.Hurd 17:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• A full-out ban might be appropriate at this point, given the evidence adduced above and the edits you have noted passim. Eusebeus 13:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

He will find his way there soon enough. --Jack Merridew 13:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the heads-up

Ah, didn't know that. Thanks for telling me. Kusonaga 12:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome. --Jack Merridew 12:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've did what you said on the season 2 list in line with the Monk list. I'm not too sure about those zeros either, but they were already in there originally, so I figured I'd keep them. I'm currently thinking about whether we should keep around Dishpan Man, but it can be redirected for now. What do you think of the work so far on "Mexican Slayride"? Kusonaga 10:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The episode numbering for the first two seasons look right now; you just changed it, right? I was looking at a version from about a half hour ago. I don't see anything notable about the Dishpan Man episode; not a source on it. As for the Mexican Slayride I would think there's a chance of your finding something on it as it's the pilot and figured it was fine to give you some time. As it is, the article is still not citing any 3rd party reliable source — which it needs to. The references to the box set and other wiki articles are fine as useful links, but do not address the notability issue. --Jack Merridew 10:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I still think you should drop the leading zeros. --Jack Merridew 10:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd added them shortly before you posted on my talk page. You're right about Dishpan Man, although it does carry some relevance for the A-Team series, nothing that could be sourced though, I'm afraid.

And I take it a third party reliable source would pretty much only be some kind of pop culture/television expert right? Interviews (shown on television) with cast members don't count as reliable sources? (Addition on 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC): Yeah, of course cast members aren't a third party. Kusonaga) The only thing I've found in my searches so far that could be put under that moniker would be Robert J. Thompson's book about Cannell's television shows (see Talk:The A-Team), but I don't personally own it, so that's a problem. I do think it would be a shame to delete the article just because we can't find that source right now (and I can rightly say, that might take a while). Thoughts? Kusonaga 13:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, uhm, thanks. Kind of already knew that though. Kusonaga 09:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That's coo', I understand. I'll stay out of your way on that. Kusonaga 10:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. I don't see a problem in deleting the production code column. Maybe check with the TV Project on whether they are necessary. They can go as far as I'm concerned though. Kusonaga 12:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:List of The A-Team episodes

Hi Jack, I think adding more episodes[2] to the review list on this page after the review is closed is inappropriate. While I'm confident you mean well and that these new articles are no better than those reviewed I feel that adding them to a closed discussion at this point gives the appearance that we are trying to sneak them in under someone's nose. My main concern is that any comments made are not specifically addressing those episodes and that if one is notable then those involved in the discussion will appear to be simply ignoring them in favor of some deletionist agenda. I'm just saying, as unpopular as this review already is in some circles I think it best we avoid any hint of impropriety. Also since the closed discussion box does say "Please do not modify it."... Stardust8212 13:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I think that in the future we will be referring to the main LOE and will add some boilerplate about all episodes being covered. The problem is that these swarms of articles are ill-maintained and coming up with an accurate list is difficult. I found those two while closing-out the discussion. Mebbe I shouldn't stick the closed tags on the discussion until until last... --Jack Merridew 13:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Even then if one were added to the discussion late it should probably be noted like added to list 14:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC), comments before this date may not include this item or something. For series like the A-team where all the episodes haven't really got anything going it isn't a big deal but as we get into series that do get worked on, even if not very effectively, it's going to become more important to do this right. Stardust8212 14:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's probably best just to assume all of the episodes are bad in the first place. Then, as discussion happens, people list ones that have some sort of significance or whatever under a main header. TTN 14:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There were a couple added late during the Psych discussion (they were created during the discussion) and that's about what I did. Next one I do - tomorrow - will try-out a new format; nom-all and we'll make a keeper-list as the discussion goes. --Jack Merridew 14:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I just don't want to make this any more difficult by creating even more ill-will. Stardust8212 14:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

What's going on with the Timesplitters articles?--Clyde (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that a number of redirects of non-notable articles were reverted and I restored them; I agree that they are not worthy of articles in their own right. --Jack Merridew 10:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Kindly do not revert war with me. TTN is not a god, his word is most certainly not law. —Xezbeth 19:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What revert war? — seems others (below) agree with me and TTN and have also reverted you. I only undid your edits once; hardly a revert war. Kindly don't exaggerate. --Jack Merridew 10:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hey Jack, I reviewed and mostly reverted Xezbeth, noted above. Needless to say they were all based on fan-driven enthusiasm that willfully ignores WP notability, MoS and content guidelines.

As a consequence of this, I noticed that there is an agglomeration non-notable stuff around the series Scrubs, including articles for a host of secondary characters. If you feel up to it, let's consider a clean-up. Gd work on the above stuff, btw. Eusebeus 10:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And I'll try and pop in on the Scrubs pages, but have less time this week. --Jack Merridew 10:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, fuck it. To hell with all of it. Enjoy ruining this site even further. —Xezbeth 12:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: List of Oh My Goddess episodes

Okay, Jack. I will wait while we merge our edits. Thanks for the warning. :D Regards Greg Jones II 14:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dad's Army

Am I correct in assuming that you are threatening the first ever episode of Dad's Army with deletion without giving a reason on the discussions page or even signing the tag? And have you tagged other episodes of the series thus? Maikel 18:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not threatening 'deletion' but I did tag the episode you're referring to — and others — as not establishing their notability; such tags are not supposed to be signed. This was nearly two months ago; time to revisit them. Episode articles not establishing their notability are subject to redirection to an article such as a list of episodes. See WP:EPISODE. --Jack Merridew 11:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's just me but I always sign and substantiate my tags out of respect to my fellow Wikipedeans. The tag you are using explicitly threatens deletion. And to doubt the notability of the first episode of Dad's Army to me means that you are just not competent in this matter.

What's more, those are fine, informative articles, and I think you are just being disrespectful towards their authors and readers. Please reconsider your tags. Maikel 12:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There are thousands of episode articles that fail to establish their notability and have no hope of doing so because the reliable third party sources simply do not exist. Have a read of the guidelines and policies I just linked to on the episode talk page; see also WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF. While such articles may be deleted, a better approach is to redirect them until such time as some editor with (new?) citations in hand and a determination to meet the various guidelines chooses to resurrect the article. In the mean time, there is no deadline.

Have a look at WP:TV-REVIEW and visit some of the current discussions to learn how this process goes. --Jack Merridew 12:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line, the first episode of Dad's Army is relevant, and it's a fine, informative article to boot. You coming up with a barrage of WP-articles which you think go your way does not change the fact that you simply haven't bothered to argue your point.

If an article is lacking and I am competent I will contribute, if I'm not I will maybe leave a note on the discussions page and move on. But I won't seek to disparage or even delete other people's work. You should try that too, but you seem to get a much greater kick out of fighting a quixotic war against those thousands of unnotable articles. Maikel 13:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I expect we'll meet again during an episode article review of the Dad's Army episode articles. In the meantime, I find your posts to my talk page rather uncivil, so please stay off it until you have something polite to say. --Jack Merridew 13:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Degrassi: The Next Generation

Hi. I've noticed you added {{Notability|episode|date=August 2007}} and {{Cleanup|date=August 2007}} tags to the episode articles of Degrassi: The Next Generation. At Weddings, Parties, Anything (D:TNG episode), I've rewritten the entire page, and removed the tags. Please let me know, however, if more needs doing. If the page is fine, I am going to rewrite the episode articles of all the D:TNG episodes. -- Matthew Edwards 07:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

replying on your page. --Jack Merridew 12:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your continued help with the subject. Simply so to keep conversation centralized, I have posted a reply to your reply on my talk page. -- Matthew Edwards 04:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other side of the world

Thanks for calling in...sorry I missed the discussion. I'm still catching up on what's happened since I've been away...feels a lifetime, but it's only a few weeks (that's what loss of Wikipedia does to you). Yes, it is nice on the other side of the world, but that comes as no surprise to me as I used to live here. And, eventually, it even came with an internet connection! Probably not the same 'other side of the world' you're on, though... :) Gwinva 00:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

welcome home, then. best, Jack Merridew 10:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect of Dub is A Weapon

too bad; it's good. --Jack Merridew 10:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesia collaboration = Jakarta

Hello there Jack Merridew/Archive 1, this fortnight's Indonesia project collaboration is > > > Jakarta < < <. Please contribute. The most important thing is to find reliable references for all existing information, and for any new info added.

Also, please help nominate an article for the next collaboration at the collab nomination page. An underdeveloped or stub article is preferred over a long and developed article. Please nominate up to two articles. any questions, please let me know. Kind regards and happy editing. --Merbabu 11:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Jack

Dear Jack, you caught just about to leave; but I just wished to drop by and leave you a quick note regarding the issue you just informed me of. It's always sad to come to this, but with the self admitted sockpuppetry for disruptive purposes, I've had no choice but to indef block that account. On a more pleasant note, it's beautiful to see you again; let's hope the future holds in store things as beautiful as this, instead of more stress and worries. Love, Phaedriel - 13:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you made the right choice re our friend; he will learn something from it — including some of the right things, even though he might not admit it. And he will grow-up some, someday. What ever nonsense he has managed to insert will be found and removed by someone and what ever good edits he made may well end up kept. The was an article in National Geographic recently about Swarm theory (which someone should write)→Swarm intelligence and it mentioned wikipedia; worth a read. Maybe Collective intelligence? --Jack Merridew 13:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episodes

I haven't been feeling too ambitious lately, but if you feel like it, there are a good number of episodes ready to be redirected. You can find them linked from my user page. TTN 14:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look. I'm concerned about the apparent flaunting of guidelines on the Farscape and Oh My Goddess pages. I believe both should be closed and the episode articles redirected; the objections are merely fanish and no one is citing squat in the articles. --Jack Merridew 14:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Farscape is going to be a hassle (it may just be worth leaving it alone until Fisher gets bored of it), and White Cat has a long history of doing stuff like that (just one example is like twelve AN/I reports about changing his old sigs to match his new username). TTN 14:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

On the Farscape episodes, I expect that sources do exist. One was given and others may well exist on BBC. On the Oh My Goddess pages, I don't believe that sources exist - I looked, and found fan sites. My primary concern is that the "defending" editors are flaunting guidelines. They appear to have little interest in actually adding sources and moving the articles away from the plot summary and trivia format. If I close these now, I expect I'll get an edit war in spite of the actual arguments made in the discussions and the applicable guidelines. I looked at the list on your user page and find the prospect of tackling the Drew Carey ones daunting - there are no summaries on the list and it's not even in template format. And there were over two hundred! --Jack Merridew 14:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Like with a lot of other shows (Futurama, Scrubs), I assume that it probably has a decent chunk that can actually make it, but its worthless to think about with the "all or nothing" and "I'm just going to defend these, just cuz" mentalities going. The best thing to do in that situation is to redirect and build up from scratch. With the Drew Carey Show in that kind of state, its probably better to just either redirect them, and leave it for someone interested, or just do that, but work on it every once and a while. There's no need to have it feel like a large load. TTN 16:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome

Always feels good to revert vandalism. Zamphuor 12:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Man and the Hour

As I've said many times, it gets notablity by being the first ever episode of a very popular British sitcom. But, frankly I can't be bothered to argue. It is a great, great shame that instead of contributing to Wikipedia and building and improving articles, you go round destroying other people's work, because of a blantant POV attitude towards television. To be honest, Wikipedia would be better without people like you, because then we could build and improve articles not get rid of them because you don't like them. It's a shame, but as I said I can't be bothered to argue, I want to improve Wikipedia. --UpDown 13:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You should read a few policies and guidelines. The Man and the Hour is not automatically notable because is is the first episode of Dad's Army. As to my POV, I don't believe that an encyclopaedia should include non-notable, unverified articles. Many editors don't believe this and my suggestion to them is to go find a fan site — this isn't one. --Jack Merridew 13:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is your POV that is not-notable, as with unverified, that is no reason to delete/redirect on that grounds. Frankly, what harm to they do - none whatsoever. The harm is caused by the disruption caused by the editors wishing to destroy the hard and well-meaning work of others. Anyway, I said I wouldn't waste my time (or indeed yours) by arguing, we shall agree to disagree.--UpDown 18:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A non-notable POV? See WP:N and WP:EPISODE. --Jack Merridew 08:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh My Goddess! episodes

FYI, I have closed the discussion and redirected all of the episodes, but not the "movie". Please accept this outcome. If you do find reasonable sources to establish notability of specific episodes you are of course free to resurrect those articles and add the sources. If you do so, please also work towards a less plot-summary, in-universe format. Thank you. --Jack Merridew 09:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Another victory! I hope this makes you very very happy because it certainly does not make me happy. -- Cat ^chi? 13:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh and about the "not personal" thing, please do not insult my intelligence. I have no reason to believe your presence at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ned Scott or on this very issue was a mere coincidence. Your (plural) attempt to get even is disruptive and I will leave it at that. -- Cat ^chi? 14:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by White Cat (talk • contribs)

Oh please — note that I didn't even endorse Ned on that RFC. --Jack Merridew 06:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, please do not delete my comments as you did on the List of Oh My Goddess episodes talk page. --Jack Merridew 06:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

100% behind Jack Merridew on this one, Cat. The facts and the facts alone have caused the chain of events which have now come to their logical end. Those articles were nothing more than fansite material and contained next to nothing worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. They'd been like that for 18 months. Aside from being mildly pathetic, reams and reams of plot summery is not what Wiki is for, and their loss is helping Wiki get more and more like a proper encyclopdia and less like a manga fans site.ShizuokaSensei 16:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well put. Couldn't agree more. Eusebeus 16:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

All, please conduct this discussion on Talk:List of Oh My Goddess episodes --Jack Merridew 06:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

and thanks for the support... --Jack Merridew 07:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you! :)

Thanks for the kind suggestion, dear Jack! :) Don't worry, my friend, that's just a draft, based upon other user's design that I posted there to study the code, and maybe work on an enhanced version in the future, that's all ;) Still, thank you so much for staying vigilant and butting in; I expect you to do the same any time you wish :) I hope you had a beautiful weekend! Love, Phaedriel - 19:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Anytime — I saw the 'darkorange' in an edit summary in your contrib list and tossed-off a quick comment. Best wishes --Jack Merridew 07:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi again! :)

Hi, dear Jack! :) I'm afraid I'm very busy today, and I won't have any time to edit until tomorrow; but I'll definitely look into this issue. As far as my opinion on these subjects is concerned, well, you might wish to read my closure of this AfD for further insight. I'll get back to you tomorrow or Saturday at most, k? Love, Phaedriel - 18:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, a very eloquent closing statement. I have been reluctant to take the AfD route because it is near-final. Articles that are redirected as not notable and/or mere plot summary can always be resurrected by anyone should sources be found. I believe the Farscape episodes fall into this category. i.e. they have a strong chance of being able to grow into encyclopaedic articles if only someone cares enough to do the work. For most shows, however, I believe there is little reason to believe that the sources exist to do much beyond a rehash of the plot. The down-side of the redirect approach is that it is open to abuse. Thanks, and focus on the important things in your life first —Jack Merridew 08:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hahahaha, thanks for removing the vandalism on my page, returning the favour! That vandalism DID make me laugh though. — jacĸrм (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and, look at this. It's pathetic. — jacĸrм (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I was about to comment there and ended up posting to the talk page. Best, --Jack Merridew 16:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent mass redirecting

Here you have redirected many articles into one list article "per consensus at Talk:List of Oh My Goddess episodes#Episode notability. The thing is that:

1. In doing so, List of Oh My Goddess episodes no longer mmets WP:FL? (1ai)
2. Furtherore, the consensus seems to be to merge (if at all) but not redirect.

I am interested to hear your opinions. GDonato (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The individual episode articles were redirected after a discussion where most editors commenting believed that the articles failed to establish their notability and comprised little more than in-universe plot summary. Please see WP:EPISODE and the guidelines that it is derived from. I was unaware of the featured list criteria you're referring to, but feel that as the articles are non-notable and mere plot summary that the redirects were appropriate. There was only one editor vocally advocating the retention of the articles who did not edit the articles at all to attempt to add new sources. If this results in the list losing the FL star, it is merely an artifact of the state of the articles before the redirection. Please see User talk:Phaedriel#a 3rd party request again where I've already ask for an opinion on this whole matter. Also, I'll be traveling for most of this week — I'll check on this when I can. --Jack Merridew 13:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jack, dear, I've looked into the issue briefly, and read the discussion at the talk page (albeit it's so incredibly long, that I might I have missed big part of it). I must tell you I'm a little worried about the measures that have been taken lately, because I'm not 100% sure there's consensus enough for this; but as I said, I might be mistaking. Seeing that here's quiet a large number of participants at the debate, maybe it'd be better to make a clear proposal on the measures to be taken before redirecting. My 2 cents of course, but reading the discussion, I fear this might lead to further reversions and sterss. If I'm wrong about the arguments and any decissions agreed upon, please feel free to point me to any specific sections I could have missed; I'll re-read it thoroughly later today. Have a beautiful week! Love, Phaedriel - 09:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The discussion there seemed to be going nowhere but in circles, and the individual articles were not being edited to address the notability issue. Have a look at a few and see if you think they establish their notability and amount to anything more than fanish plot summary. See: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] (random picks, but check some others). Nothing seems to be happening on Talk:List of Oh My Goddess episodes and I think I'll leave it alone for now. I have little time for this now.

The discussion of the larger issue seems to have moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) — which I haven't read yet. See you there, maybe. Best wishes, Jack Merridew 10:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Per the consensus policy, When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies.

Thus, if editors disagree with the principles being adduced for establishing fictional character notability, this [the talk page] is not the place to raise those issues. Instead, I urge interested editors to make their point at the WP:FICT and WP:WAF guideline. The merge and redirect is a matter of applying community wide consensus to this particular series. If you disagree, you need to change that community wide consensus, not simply indicate your opposition here, since - and this is the point that some editors are apparently unaware of - the consensus to redirect already exists per that community-wide guideline. Eusebeus 11:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jack..Merridew

Is this user you? If so, would you post in this account to that effect? Othwerwise, you should take him to WP:UAA. — i ^said 22:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not me. This would seem to indicate that it's one of the tag-removing vandals I've reverted. Thanks for the heads-up - and advice on where to sort this. --Jack Merridew 09:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Hi Jack, can you check the conley page? Alansohn, a highly problematic editor who was recently the subject of an RfC which I brought forward and who has since been wikistalking me, has determined this no name is notable. I have reverted but would appreciate your view. I find nothing that passes the standard at WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus 04:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi — and thanks for watching my page! I just posted at User talk:Newyorkbrad#Punkguy182 about '128' and believe Chris Conley needs to meet wp:AfD. --Jack Merridew 15:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The troll was back pretending to be a newbie and vandalising our pages. Idiot. Thanks for posting the AfD, although I doubt it can succeed; many conflate band notability to that of members, albums, etc.... Essentially, much the same issue we are dealing with in the Fict debates where fandrool impedes reason and why the RD is an important compromise since it allows for someone to return to the issue in instances where WP:N criteria can be reasonably adduced as could fairly be consiered the case with CC. Worse in this instance, Alan Sohn (see above) now has this on his watchlist; he has a long, long history of combining fanatical tenacity, extreme self-righteousness and a seasoned ability to game the system, garnished with obnoxiousness and wikilawyering (see his comment in the AfD). He is incredibly tedious (but luckily only concerns himself with crap from New Jersey); guaranteed, any further intervention on our part in this article to assert WP:N or fight the WP:COI will be met with his ignorant crusading. So I suggest we are on better ground with other ventures - speaking of which, there are a slew of pages that are soon prime to be redirected since I note that no-one has actually bothered to make ANY effort to improve the articles we listed. Eusebeus 23:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punkguy182

Hey there. Just a heads up: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Incivility.2C_Trolling_and_accusations_by_Jack_Merridew. There's something suspicious about that user.

Seraphim ^Whipp 18:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks. He is a troll. I'll post something there (and I'll reiterated here that this is a reincarnation of User:R:128.40.76.3). --Jack Merridew 13:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I keep an eye on the admin boards and I noticed your name. Having encountered you before on the tv review project ages ago, I know you to be an editor in good-standing. I don't know about the other user as I know none of the history, although I do know what it's like to deal with a sockfarm...

Seraphim ^Whipp 14:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, also, for sorting Image:ChrisC.jpg — a pending bit of junk I wasn't sure what to do about. --Jack Merridew 10:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farscape

I redirected the farscape episodes but was reverted. Can you take a quick peek and see if I have missed something. Otherwise we should turn these back to redirects. Eusebeus 15:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I saw that the other day — I'll pop over and comment. --Jack Merridew 12:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Hi. I see we share opinions on the trivia sections. Could you briefly check the Final Destination 3 article that is full of unnec. info and people won't stop adding? I would like to have a second opinion on the topic. Thanks. --Tone 14:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is a problem that needs a bot solution. I'll pop-in if I can - later, as I gotta meet someone soon. --Jack Merridew 14:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:User:Knitsua

The account only made one edit today, and has not vandalized/moved page since warned, so a block is not warranted. No worries, your anti-vandalism is appreciated, just please be more careful when making AIV reports in the future. Regards, PeaceNT 14:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Will-do. Thanks again. --Jack Merridew 14:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents notification

I have posted the matter concerning you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FBelldandy. -- Cat ^chi? 13:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

noted. Jack Merridew 13:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't include copyrighted images outside of articles - see WP:FAIR for Wikipedia's policy on use of such images, especially #9 under "Policy". There is no need to add the images to AfD discussion - people can view the images by looking at the articles it is proposed by deleted. WjBscribe 13:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I already saw your comment on the noticeboard. --Jack Merridew 13:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daria

Added a comment about notability issues & the need to redirect here. What shall we do about Farscape? Eusebeus 19:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll look. I'll look at Farscape, too. I haven't redirected any of them yet... guess I'm due. --Jack Merridew 10:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jack, we should figure out a remedy here. The protection is not an endorsement of one or another solution - it is simply to eliminate edit warring and will have to decided one way or the other. I am having the same issues with another misguided but committed editor at the Friends page - someone who's fandom simply impedes their ability to recognise what does and does not constitute notability. This is not going to be resolved on talk pages, especially given how much some people care about (especially) Farscape, but other series too (and in that vein Charmed is upcoming). There is going to remain a refusal to accept global consensus and instead insist upon the local consensus of a few committed enthusiasts. Hence, I recommend an RFC, perhaps framed globally (perhaps drawn from Whitecat's forum-shopping mission against TTN @ AN/I) followed almost certainly by arbitration. At least we can get a mandate one way or the other. What do you think? K, I'm off to traipse around the woods now. Eusebeus 15:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see that is was just an accident of timing that locked the pages as redirects. See what the regulars say on the Farscape talk page. And have a talk with User:Diceman there.

We were recommended to use the formal dispute resolution process — which I would need to read-up on. Sounds messy. You saw that White Cat had a whole separate issue with disruption about deleting categories? — further down on the AN/I page. To file an RFC, I would think we need someone experience with the process. I'll look at the help pages on this tomorrow, or so. --Jack Merridew 15:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your comment

Diff So very true. This is one of the things we want to address with the WP:WAF rewrite. Keep your eyes open, some interesting changes will be coming this way. WP:FICT may be addressing the symptoms, but I believe the problem lies much deeper: sub-articles are created from scratch, instead of developing as part of the mother article, and then being split off properly — sources and all. Regards, G.A.S 17:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've noticed that there has been much discussion about rewriting those, but I have not had time to keep up with all the talk. I'll try and show up there more. --Jack Merridew 10:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Currently we are still drafting the next part on my talk page, but once we are happy with it, we will present it on WT:WAF again (WT:WAF will be rather silent until then), I will let you know at that time. G.A.S 11:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sebaceans

Please bring back the page I just spent several hours working on that your redirect has just erased from existence. Misterandersen 17:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is gone per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebacean — I just made it a redirect for convenience. --Jack Merridew 17:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That was the OLD article that was slated for deletion. I'd created a new one that you obviously didn't even bother to check Misterandersen 17:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything, I created a redirect from a redlink. See:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sebacean
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sebacean&diff=prev&oldid=165433162

--Jack Merridew 08:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I have restored Misterandersen's version of the article as User:Misterandersen/Sebacean, so he can work on bringing it up to standards. —C.Fred (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Interestingly, I opened the page — with the intent of watchlisting it — and found that it already was marked as watched. My best guess as to why is that the bit from the original Sebacean article was carried over to the userfied version. And thanks again, for keeping an eye on my user page. --Jack Merridew 07:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Thanks, but it depends who you ask! I took a look and agree they are suspicious, especially as at least one of these images is also found elsewhere on the Internet. I left a note on his talk page asking for other images from the same show in higher resolution. I would think from all of the rhetoric he'd be happy to prove you wrong. -- But|seriously|folks  20:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; replying on your talk page. --Jack Merridew 08:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Btw, that other comment had nothing to do with you. It was a response to a gentle chastising I gave to an IP vandal. -- But|seriously|folks  08:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

re that other edit — at first I thought it was from you-to-me saying you'd look into the images; I just wanted to move it away from our thread once I saw that it wasn't from you. --Jack Merridew 08:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On page protection

You're right about the user page. If that's targeted again, I'm all for reprotecting it. That will divert some of the problems here, though, and I really don't like to protect talk pages. (That's why the talk protection was so much shorter duration than the user page.) If they come back, put in a request for page protection, and feel free to mention this comment. I'm also adding your user and talk pages to my watch list, so if I see anything out of the ordinary while I'm editing, I can help keep it cleaned up.

I'm sorry you've had to endure this, but thank you for helping to "fight the good fight" on Wikipedia! —C.Fred (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. See [9] and my reply (newer edit works) for a bit of insight on where this is coming from. I undid more D&D article tag removals and tagged some images that were missing rationales (so they'll be back). As to enduring this… ??? other's are dealing with it! — I drop thank you notes. FYI, I tweaked my userpage after this - now they have an extra positioned box to tweak the text of. If they hit again, I'll do a R4PP; I'll trust others in the meantime. I'm about to log-off; thanks again! (think I'll archive…) --Jack Merridew 12:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The usual. Contact me if you want an extension or a dismissal. You might also be interested in one of those fancy vandalism counters, or that might just make things worse. --Kizor 07:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cookie

Thanks for your treat. That was kind. I'm always glad to help, and always on the lookout. Happy editing! Carter | Talk to me 09:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for the cookie. You did exactly the same for me! [10] Do you have any idea how and why there was a mass attack on your page? — jacĸrм (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See my comment to C.Fred two-above. I was mentioned on whatever 4chan is (I only glossed over it yesterday). Seems that folks don't like their unencyclopeadic articles looked at too closely. They must think that any site with a 'save' button should be an indiscriminate collection of information. --Jack Merridew 14:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the cookie

Yum yum. *munches* SlightlyMad^{wanna si-ign?} 15:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be enjoying your cookie! (did you see the other one?) --Jack Merridew 15:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging non-free images

Hi, thanks for keeping an eye on image use here! Procedurally, I think you're looking for {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} as the next step. Good luck and let me know if you have any more questions. -- But|seriously|folks  16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I dropped it into the image pages I mentioned. --Jack Merridew 09:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I don't see how you can be so heartless!

When you contributed to the articles for deletion discussion under The Things We Do for Mud/How Much Wood Can a Wood Pecker Peck?, you could have been gentler when you said "Delete: Not notable". You could have said "Not notable - unfortunately)". And why must it be deleted? Isn't redirecting it - which is what's been done - enough?

Nobody seems to care that I am upset by all this. Those episode articles - this one and Iggy Vs. the Volcano/A Dip in the Pole - were my children articles; I've finally redirected them myself, and everyone else is dancing on their toes! None of you who contributed to that discussion even notice me running off, crying. You really should be thinking of others. In fact, you should be thinking of me. I am always thinking of myself, and I expect everyone else to do the same. It is called selflessness. It is a wonderful virtue, and I strive to attain it in every way. October 28th, 2007 (UTC).

I consider it fortunate that the articles are not notable. If they were notable, then there would be a chance that the articles would survive. If the articles are not deleted, then there is a chance that someone might undo the redirect without establishing the notability of the articles. That you redirected them yourself amounts to subversion of the Afd process. If you ever resurrect them, I will immediately take them to Afd again.

Those 'articles' were not your 'children'. See the notice at the bottom of every page you're editing where it says:

• If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.

See also: WP:OWN. Those were not your children that were impaled on a pike and cast over a wall to bleed-out in their mother's arms, they are content that you lost all rights to as soon as you hit the save button. Watch for a much needed essay at WP:HISTRIONICS. --Jack Merridew 07:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conley

It always takes Commons a while to delete copyvios. I have semi-protected the Conley page so at least the anon garbage will stop. Why don't you set up a sock report or ask for a checkuser on the guy. Add the IP in for good measure. -- But|seriously|folks  07:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I already tried tagging his page as a suspected sockpuppet — he removed it (however, I suspect you're referring to something a bit more formal here). I know where WP:RFCU, but don't have much time for this sort of nonsense at the moment — I'm travelling. --Jack Merridew 07:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I just saw that you nominated it for deletion on commons — thanks. --Jack Merridew 07:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi Jack, you around at all? Eusebeus 15:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ya, just not so much lately. I've been busy with other things, that's all. FYI, User:Punkguy182 is appearing as User:Runningman01 — Conley's "manager" --Jack Merridew 12:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure you had seen this. As for Conley, I am sure that the encyclopedia is being gamed for self promo reasons. Eusebeus 12:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, had not seen that. Off to read it now... --Jack Merridew 12:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Very well put. Eusebeus 13:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EBot2 edit

Hehe, I laughed myself. Thanks for letting me know :D — E ^talk_BAG 08:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New "feature"

If you really dislike the talkpage link that's being automatically added to your signature, you can stop it from being added. Go into "my preferences" at the top right of your screen. In the signature box, write out you sig as you would like it (presumably [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]]) then check the "raw signature box" and click the save button at the bottom left. WjBscribe 12:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I already did almost that; I just put "Jack Merridew" in the editbox and left the checkbox unchecked - seems to work-out to the same thing. I'm going to look at the options further and may set-up a small talk-link. I don't think something like this should have just "appeared" (I didn't notice right away!) - I see that it was discussed, but only after the fact (*I* only saw it after the fact). --Jack Merridew 12:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems my version didn't work - tho I thought it did at the time. Taking your suggestion now! Thanks, again! Jack Merridew 10:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friends episodes

Time to sort through the remainder as Sgeureka is suggesting. Eusebeus (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I see it happening - and support it - but do not have a whole lot of time lately. best, Jack Merridew 10:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hugo

They do occasionally give Hugos to TV shows. I specifically put that in as an example for some wiggle room ... if an episode receives a major science fiction or other outside award, it's still notable, even if the award didn't come from an award organization that focuses on TV.Kww 12:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I think we shouldn't clutter up the arbcom discussion further, would you consider Annie Awards to be assertion of notability? What distinction are we making between Award nominations and Award wins? While I still don't think CSD is the right option I think a better definition of what episode notability is would be beneficial. Stardust8212 12:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably is better off here, unless it pisses Jack off. Certainly an Annie would count. I would like to get a phrasing that recognizes that awards are awards ... if the NAACP gives a show an award for highlighting a social issue, or similar things, it's a notable episode. There are probably some anime specific awards from Japan that would count. But, if the "Wikipedians that Like South Park" give an award for "most cute lines by Butters in a single episode", that doesn't count. I think it has to be a CSD category. If not, the effort involved in killing the article rises too high again. But, because it's a CSD category, it has to cut a little high, so I think a nomination is sufficient. Kww 13:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(Jack, if this is a problem feel free to move it to my talk page) My concern with CSD is that they should be the most basic of the basic to delete, almost no thought required to know that the content is not suitable for an encyclopedia. I think we'd have trouble pushing this into a CSD category because it's too narrow a range and too subject to interpretation. I also suspect it could easily backlog CSD and divert resources away from deleting the really bad stuff like copy-vios and attack pages. I just don't see it working so I think we may be better off thinking of another idea. A centralized discussion area for controversial merges/redirects seems like the best idea to me, it has the added benefit of being used for other areas of the encyclopedia that may also have trouble with local consensus being against merge/redirect. I think 7 day discussions similar to AfD (much shorter than the current discussions) where a large number of articles could be discussed all at once would be sufficient to deal with the problem. I also think that once we get rid of most of the current poorly thought out articles new editors won't get the idea that there needs to be an article on every episode of their favorite show just because there's an article about every episode of show X and the creation rate will go down. Of course I'm an optimist. Also, I fully agree with your views on awards, spot on. Stardust8212 14:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is a fuzzy CSD at all: "Article summarizes an episode, and does not assert that the episode is a premiere, a finale, or was nominated for an award" is a fine CSD category. Whether the award is a legitimate award may have to be pushed off to AFD or some discussion project, but if the article doesn't even make the claim, there is no reason to let it get past CSD.Kww 14:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Then what about articles like this one which establishes notability through the conventional method of significant coverage in secondary sources rather than by virtue of being a premiere, finale or award winner? It falls into none of those three categories but is currently a GA. Admittedly I'm biased on that article but I think it is still a good example of my point. Current CSD criteria only allow deletion of articles with no claim of notabiility, even a false claim or an insufficient claim eliminates it from {{db-nn}}, I think many people will balk at making stronger requirements for a distinct subset of articles. In my mind I just can't imagine a version that would be both effective and acceptable to the community at large (feel freee to prove me wrong though). I think many of the policy ideas at the arbcom discussion that fall outside of what they are likely to rule about (CSD, Merge for discussion, applications of policy) need to be brought to a wider comunity discussion without the stigma of "so-and-so deleted my favorite TV show" that has been present at previous discussions. Perhaps all of that should wait until ArbCom has ruled though. Stardust8212 15:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A nicely written article, very suitable for another wiki project. I see no reason for it to have a Wikipedia article for that episode(which, by the way, I greatly enjoyed, because I really like Futurama). It's possible to write a very good article for something that shouldn't have an article at all.Kww 16:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point then. I don't see any reason why an article on a TV episode fundamentally shouldn't exist if it is possible to establish notability and cover it encyclopedically. Don't get me wrong, I'm still all for removing articles that are nothing but plot summary but I think there is a place in Wikipedia for some articles that may not have been premieres, finales or award winners (I'm not a Simpsons fan really but this statement would also apply to You Only Move Twice and Homer's Enemy, two FAs) and that in the grand scheme of things their notability to the real world is more significant than what order they aired in, premieres and finales just happen to get more press. Anyway, I don't really want to get into that now, my theory is to find a way to deal with the articles which obviously shouldn't exist first and then move onto the tougher decisions, I'd put those in the second category. Stardust8212 16:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict. Amplifying a bit on this point. The article, and its sourcing are weak. References 1, 3, and 4 are from DVD commentary. This is a compensated source, so it doesn't meet WP:RS. Even if they did, the statements supported are that the audio was recorded late, the Beastie Boys didn't perform a song, and that the producers liked the writers. Not very important statements, and certainly not establishing any importance for the topic. References 10 supports the concept that the producer liked the episode. References 11, 12, 13 and 14 are used solely to support that fact that the episode came out on DVD. Most of the rest are used to document "cultural references", which is "excessive plot summary" in cunning disguise. This really shouldn't be a GA ... it shows how an article can be written to look impressive, but not really be impressive. I've looked over You Only Move Twice before, and came to a similar conclusion.Kww 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not get into the details of the sourcing here, though I'd welcome a discussion of them at the current peer review or on the article's talk page. I'm more interested here in the general idea for all episodes and was using that as a convenient example. I'm still not convinced this will ever fly as a CSD criteria or that articles with at least that much sourcing are inherently non-notable but as I said, I think we can agree to disagree on that point since I doubt either of us would be easily convinced. Stardust8212 18:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with this being talked about here. I will leave this unarchived for the duration of the case. I feel that winning a major award is a sure-fire establishment of notability. If it's just a nomination and/or the award is not-so-major, things get less clear-cut. I also see the limitations of a CSD criteria for episodes — things have to be be clear to the admin processing the CSD request. In all probability, this is something that can only handle a portion of the episode (and character) articles that, reasonable, should go away. For such articles that are farther 'along' but still don't really cut ti, there's redirection with the possibility of trans-wiki-ing out-here.

One thing I want to state quite clearly is that I feel that the burden of trans-wiki-ing stuff needs to fall on those editors who wish to get involved with whatever external site. I have no interest. This is another reason to redirect instead of delete; interested editors can always go searching for their missing article.

FYI, I won't be around for a few days. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belldandy paragraph

The first paragraph is indeed sourced, but could probably use some context rather than just a single quote out of the piece. Regardless, though, I wouldn't object or remove it again if it were put back. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sheldon

I don't know if you follow the web-comic "Sheldon", but just in case you don't, here is today's strip.Kww (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have never even heard of "Sheldon" — but I laughed heartily. Do pass that link around a bit. --Jack Merridew 12:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Sad really that it's so bloody true! Eusebeus (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hurray

I applaud this edit. I could not muster the courage myself to do it, but you did. Therefore, this message is appropriate. User:Krator (t c) 11:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is precedent for this. Sigs that are annoying or or attention-seeking are a form of trolling. Refactoring them is easy in an external text editor, just search and replace (and mine remembers recent pairs). If it was up to me, sigs would not be customizable at all. --Jack Merridew 11:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ah! My Goddess!

Noticed that you never got an answer as to how the Japanese Wikipedia deals with it. It has one article on the complete series ... OVAs, TV series, etc. The article on ヴェルザンディ (Belldandy) is more or less on the Norse goddess, and the anime persona is referenced there. Episodes are listed by title only ... no plot summaries are given.

FWIW, I'm reasonably Japanese literate. Can't read quickly, but I can read.Kww (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't read Japanese at all. I'm not surprised to hear your summary; most of the en.articles seem to have been written by one fan. There is an open merge proposal on the characters. Feel free to get the ball rolling again. --Jack Merridew 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well Done

		The Original Barnstar
		For general yeomanship and for judicious use of the word meretricious. Eusebeus (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we’ve got. --Jack Merridew 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop changing my signature

You are unwilling changing others signature, please stop. I am doing this in WP:GF, and would like you to stop. FangzofBlood 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Then you change your sig to something reasonable. That would be something that is not so obviously attention-seeking and actually refers to your username. You should review WP:USERNAME and WP:SIG and consider, honestly, what you're doing here. If you persist this will go against you. Really. --Jack Merridew 20:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, I am sorry about earlier, I have a strong ego. FangzofBlood 22:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom edits

See response here — Rlevse • Talk • 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just reading it. --Jack Merridew 21:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He is ok with my current Signature

I am not really going to changed the text because I have had similar wordings in my previous signs as well, I am just happy it fits the requirements to his needs. FangzofBlood 23:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. FangzofBlood 00:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why thank you

For the revert! I appreciate it. I (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's what watchlists are for! (I have 2,000 pages on mine) --Jack Merridew 02:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I reward you the Socratic Barnstar!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I reward this barnstar for your reasonable arguments to defend justice and order Fangz of Blood 03:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and thank you for adjusting the link-text of your sig.

and excuse my misreading of it a moment ago, I'm tired --Jack Merridew 03:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] signature

this isn't a request...i'm TELLING you to change your signature now. stop harassing my friends, and change the signature. thanks. RingtailedFox 17:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

your post doesn't even make any sense. you're telling me to change my sig to - what? - some annoying thang such as you're using? welcome to the top of my to-do list. --Jack Merridew 07:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to hell, my friend. You won't get anywhere by telliung me to change my signature to something else (which you also never said, either). as well. i'm not going to change no matter how much you whine about it. get a life. RingtailedFox 12:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you seem to understand that I've suggested you change your sig by posting here. Secondly, see this message I posted to your talk page. You should also watch the personal attacks. I am not going to "whine" about it. I will, however, work on it. Trust me. --Jack Merridew 13:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E-Mail

You do not have one set. I think you should change that. Having an email set is useful. I (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Second that. Also FYI: [11]. Eusebeus (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  I've enabled this. I am, however, wary of this and may well ignore messages (this concern is not directed at you two). --Jack Merridew 08:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  I've sent you one. However, I don't think it worked. I (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  Received and answered. --Jack Merridew 18:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dragons of Wiki....

hey i may not like you at all but... this is a diffrent matter and i happen to give people a fiar chance on each topic. you are Very bold and you would make a great dragon. so if you would like to join you can check my subpage that is still under construction but you should be able to find it among the clutter.. oh and i think it has been vandlised so..could you help me? i can't get onto the page..(my user page)well if you don't help with the page its ok but we are editors and are diffrences should be set aside when dealing with vandles. anyway please join the dragons who are The Few, The Bold, The Dragons ANOMALY-117 (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting ambiguous-voice you write in. I assume you're referring to Wikipedia:WikiDragon linked on your user page — which says it should not be taken seriously, so I won't. Regards, Jack Merridew 07:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gettin' siggy with it

thank you for being specific! now i know what's in violation, and i can change it accordingly. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 13:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it; looking forward to seeing it. --Jack Merridew 13:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I take it the box outline's not up to par, right? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 13:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ya, it's the prominent box that is over-the-top. Looks much better, thanks. --Jack Merridew 13:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I responded to to your comment in the AfD

I look forward to your response. Odessaukrain (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the correction.[12]

Odessaukrain (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I was already replying there... now saved. --Jack Merridew 14:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denied prod for American Chillers

Hello, I have denied the prod for this article because I did not find it was a clear-cut case of spam. I am not saying that the article should not ultimately be deleted, I am just saying that prod's are reserved for non-controversial and easy deletions where the article in question clearly meets the deletion criteria specified. I would rather see this article undergo a discussion at AfD. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. In your edit summary you said it "does not steer readers to a place of purchase" yet the page offers a link to americanchillers.com which in turn offers "Click here to order American Chillers books, shirts, hats, and more". However, I do see how you can still view this as not clear-cut. I'll think on it and AfD it, or not, tomorrow. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the path to purchase that you describe, but it was "3 clicks" away, which puts it in a gray area, in my mind. Thanks. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of D&D (and other) related prods

I am again removing some of the tags you added en masse. Please cease this disruptive behavior. Have you honestly read the references provided? Do you realize that many of them are secondary sources? Rather than getting into an edit war (and wasting endless time) I would like you to explain what's wrong with these articles. Ideally each one. I only removed the prods on the ones I felt had enough documentation. It seems you are putting them on every D&D deity and module. Hobit (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You really should use the correct terms for things. I did not remove any prods from articles, I restored clean-up tags that you removed. I have not (yet) looked at most of what you've actually done. For the most part, I am not the one who added the tags in the first place. Regards, Jack Merridew 12:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring on this issue and discuss things. Thanks --Pak21 (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You really should use the correct terms for things. I did not remove any prods from articles, I restored clean-up tags that you removed. I have not (yet) looked at most of what you've actually done. For the most part, I am not the one who added the tags in the first place. Regards, Jack Merridew 12:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly which edits of mine are you referring to? --Pak21 (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an edit conflict; my reply was to Hobit — I'm not edit-warring and I'm not sure what you want to discuss. Hobit is removing clean-up tags that seem warranted. The proper outcome here is one of: the concern is address or the articles will end up redirected or deleted. --Jack Merridew 12:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Further to all this, Hobit is at least starting to discuss these issues, for example at Talk:Dwellers of the Forbidden City. You simply reverted his change again; can you please explain why you did that, rather than joining the discussion? Dungeon is an interesting issue as it was not published by TSR/WotC in 2004. --Pak21 (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have comment on this at that talk page. Regards, Jack Merridew 12:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Target of a Vandal

Just wanted to let you know you are one of the targets of vandal who seems to have issues with editors tagging certain articles. He left a comment on this page with a link in it. When I clicked on the link my browser started loading quicktime and then crashed. He is using ip 71.108.51.138, he has been blocked but I have a feeling he will be causing more problems in the future. Ridernyc (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It happens a lot; see the history of my user page for many examples. --Jack Merridew 11:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impersonator

It just occurred to me that you might prefer an explanatory note on your former user page rather than a straight up redirect? — Coren ^(talk) 06:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Answered on your page. --Jack Merridew 07:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Turns out there was such a template already, I didn't know about it until I looked it up. :-) Happy editing. — Coren ^(talk) 07:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. --Jack Merridew 07:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you need to worry about the contributions— if someone ever gets confused, point them to the diff of your rename which shows the appropriate time frames (check on your former user name's page for a link that's a bit more precise than the one you posted to AN/I). — Coren ^(talk) 07:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Time to stop feeding this fellow anyway. Best wishes, Jack Merridew 07:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC) (and bye-bye to the blocked fellow reading this)

I see Coren's already taken care of those AfDs. Cheers, east.718 at 07:49, December 20, 2007

[edit] RE: your note to NYBrad

Hi, my watchlist just showed me that you seem to have inadvertently posted to his user page instead of his talk page... --Jack Merridew 11:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

oops, thanks, fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your talk page s-protected

I noted that this talk page has been a vandalism target. I've s-protected it for a short time. If you would like the protection lifted, give me a shout on my talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like AuburnPilot took care of protecting your user page on 14 Dec. — ERcheck (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah... I didn't realize it was still in effect. Thanks. Jack Merridew 12:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Wikipedia:Television article review process

The process described there has been rejected. The ideals behind it haven't been, but the actual process whereby articles would be reviewed has been. A discussin can be revisted, but as of now it has been rejected. I (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remove the 'rejected' tag and start a discussion about possible refinements to the process - probably after the ArbCom case is finished. The case has brought a lot of attention to this issue and future reviews would likely garner far more participation. --Jack Merridew 06:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

addendum: I just realized that you tagged Wikipedia:Television article review process and Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review; my concern applies to both. --Jack Merridew 06:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Email. I (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek: Enterprise

You do Star Trek, right? How about you try and figure out what User:Howa0082 has been up to in Star Trek: Enterprise. --Jack Merridew 15:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in no hurry. Until the rfar concludes, Until then I will make little or preferably no edit to fiction related topics. I'll abide by the decision there. I do not want to make a futile attempt to improve articles in the meanwhile if all those articles will end up getting deleted w/o discussion. -- Cat ^chi? 20:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

nb: I would object to the the deletion of this article, although individual episodes are another matter. I thought you might want to look at the recent version of the article. Regards, Jack Merridew 07:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Holidays

Thanks for the heads up on that very thoughtful close - the kind we need to see more of and the importance of having clear policy instead of the accumulated cruft that coalesces behind ILIKEIT. I am happy the arbcom case concluded as it has - effectively a vindication of our efforts as I see it. Meanwhile, Happy Holidays to you! Eusebeus (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in the philosophical issues and the state of arguments on what I think you're talking about, so can I ask which case? --Kizor _{is in a constant state of flux} 20:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters. --Jack Merridew 07:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was afraid of. --Kizor _{is in a constant state of flux} 07:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ye Art Cordially Invited to the Annex

Hello, My good Fellow, listen and I shalt telleth Ye a Tale of a Wiki that well comes All Manner of Articles relating to Fiction. What is This wonderful Place of Fantasy, You ask? It is the Annex, Haven to All fiction-related Refugee Articles from Wikipedia.

Before nominating or proposing a fiction-related Article for Deletion, It is My sincerest Hope that Ye import It to the Annex. Why do This, You wonder? Individuals have dedicated an enormous Amount of Time to writing These Articles, and ’twould be a Pity for the Information to Vanish unto the Oblivion where only Administrators could see Them.

Here is a Step-by-Step Process of how to Bringeth Articles into the Annex:

1. Ye shall need at least three Browser Tabs or Windows open. For the first Tab or Window, go to Special:Export. For the second, go here. (If Ye have not an Account at Wikia, then create One.) Do whatever Ye want for the third.
2. Next, open the Program known as Notepad. If Ye haveth It not, then open WordPad. Go to “Save as,” and for “Encoding,” select either “Unicode” or “UTF-8.” For “Save as type,” select “All Files.” For “File name,” input “export.xml” and save It. Leave the Window open.
3. Next, go to the Special:Export Window at Wikipedia, and un-check the two small Boxes near the “Export” Button. Input the Name of the Wikipedia Article which Ye wish to import to the Annex into the large Field, and click “Export.”
4. Right-click on the Page full of Code which appears, and clicketh on “View Source” or “View Page Source” or any Option with similar Wording. A new Notepad Window called “index[1]” or Something similar should appear. Press Ctrl+A to highlight All the Text then Ctrl+C to copy It. Close yon “index[1]” Window, and go to the Notepad “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+V to pasteth the Text There, and then save It by pressing Ctrl+S.
5. Now go to the Special:Import Window over at the Annex. Clicketh on “Browse…” and select the “export.xml” File. At last, click on “Upload file,” and Thou art done, My Friend! However, if It says 100 Revisions be imported, Ye be not quite finished just yet. Go back to Wikipedia’s Special:Export, and leave only the “Include only the current revision, not the full history” Box checked. Export That, copy the Page Source, close the “index[1]” Window, and go to the “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+A to highlight the Code all ready There, press “backspace” to erase It, and press Ctrl+V to pasteth the new Code There. Press Ctrl+S to save It, then upload once more to the Annex. Paste {{Wikipedia|{{PAGENAME}}}} at the Bottom of the imported Article at the Annex, and Ye art now finally done! Keepeth the “export.xml” File for future Use.

Thank Ye for using the Annex, My Friend — the Annex Hath Spoken 05:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikia is a for-profit site for monetizing traffic and I do not care to support commercial enterprises in which I have no stake. If you care to drink that Kool-Aid, fine. I, however, view the onus for rescuing such "Refugees" as being on those who consider such content to actually have any value. Regards, Jack Merridew 07:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Very well, don’t take Responsibility for thine Actions. — the Annex Hath Spoken 00:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Absurd. It is editors who have 'created' unencyclopaedic content here who are trying to harness others to the task of off-loading their shite to fan-sites. FYI, I believe I have only once nominated an article for deletion (not deleted, not fiction-related). Ditto, {{Prod}}. --Jack Merridew 08:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rv on afd

It would have helped if your first revert had been accompanied by a more detailed edit summary, I wouldnt have reverted back to the close. Also I had noticed a lot the reverts and I would have stepped in sooner. Gnangarra 15:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree and will try and do things in proper sequence if something like this occurs again; i.e. better edit summary with link to anything. Thanks, again. --Jack Merridew 15:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiable sources

Re your comment on that page. How do you get around the fact that many if not most PhDs are either self-published or remain unpublished but in National Libraries for consultation. Presuming the individual gained his PhD and his thesis is not libellous, why can't it be referred to? Regards, David Lauder (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean this edit? I removed an underscore from a link; i.e. corrected the format. Your question would be better asked at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. --Jack Merridew 13:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sincere apologies. I did not look at what you had done carefully and assumed the whole block comment was by you. I have mentioned this subject on WP:Verifiability's Talk Page. Thanks. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability templates

Many thanks for your help and support with the appropriate use of cleanup templates (notability, in universe, no footnotes etc.) used on Project Greyhawk articles. I think there will be a long running dispute over their use, and I am grateful for your persistence in this matter.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome. As I see it, there are many areas of Wikipedia where users are not focused on writing in an encyclopaedic manner; they are here out of fanish-interest and need education about what this site actually is. One of the complaints I see made all over the place is that "we" should add information, not delete it. This is really quite funny as deletion is one of the primary services that editors provide to writers. --Jack Merridew 07:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Is imitation is the highest form of flattery? I note you have a doppleganger attempting to revert your edits. That is pretty cool - you are on your way to becoming a celebrity!.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

this one, too. --Jack Merridew 09:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is really quite entertaining it certainly keeps me interested. Admins just have to watch for who's reverting me to find those needing blocks and reverts. Did your see this? best way in the world to endorse an AIV request. --Jack Merridew 09:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

With regard to Amarillo Design Bureau, note that I don't think you can restore the Proposed deletion template once it has been removed, no matter whether its removal was justified or not.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I know, but I figured it a necessary step. I hadn't gotten to notifying the anon who wrote the article... I've been looking at the prior AfD which seems to have gone amok over issues with Texas. I suggest you try again at some point. --Jack Merridew 13:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Again out of interest, do we have an idea of what this site actually is? If there's an agreed clear definition, would you mind linking to it? It'd be a very interesting read. --Kizor 13:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Take your pick. Opinion is a bit divergent. Or try here --Jack Merridew 14:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks yet again for restoring instances of unwarranted removal of the notability templates. I note that single purpose IPs are now being set up to remove templates on an article by article basis in order to avoid detection by admins; note also that the number of IP accounts have also been created to disguise these edits.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of it is, I expect, people directed to here from some off-wiki forum such as 4chan, while a lot of it is one or a very few irate D&D fan/wiki-editors thinking way outside the box.

I've been meaning to ask you your thoughts on removing dubious reviews, such on Red Hand of Doom… --Jack Merridew 13:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been having (onsided) discussions regarding poor sourcing and dubious references in relation to this and other articles (Blackmoor, Lendore Isles Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal, Beholder and Death knight - see also the AfD), and I have had just about every puerile arguement put to me about notability you can think of, mainly along the lines that if a citation is not taken direct from the publishers of D&D, then it "must" comply with WP:RS. My advice to you is don't even bother arguing or getting into an edit war: go straight to RFC. Take the about turn that occured in a recent RFC debate. Once you subject POV pushing to wider review, the bullies fade away very quickly. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey jack...

...can you create a doppleganger account called User:Jack Merridou? I'll be using that account to create a checkuser log for him and his IPs, so we can have its other IPs blocked. —BoL 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have gotten there first. I'm all for hobbling this character, but I don't see how my creating a new account will help. email me and he'll not have a chance to snag whatever name gets used. Thanks. --Jack Merridew 06:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created User:Jack Merridew (doppelganger) and endorsed that it is me from this account. All should be clear enough from the user/talk pages and their histories. What's next? --Jack Merridew 06:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I responded to you on my talk page

I wasn't sure if you had looked back there or not. Not that it matters much. Happy editing. Ursasapien (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Vandalism

Hi!

It looks like your talk page is undergoing a lot of multiple IP vandalism. I think you might want to request page protection from anon users for a brief period. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

looks like its already been done... StephenBuxton (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It happens a lot; thanks for helping to deal with it. --Jack Merridew 07:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

np :-) StephenBuxton (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] City of Bones

I have to say that you all should be careful pushing this one. You put it up for AFD, they responded by improving the article. Is it likely to be trouble later? Sure it is. Is it deletable right now? Probably not. You would build more brownie points for good faith by recognizing the improvements and withdrawing the nomination. If it immediately falls to hell, renominate, and you can point at the collapse as justification.Kww (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought about your suggestion and after reviewing the article and discussion, agree. I have withdrawn it and will wait and see. Thanks. --Jack Merridew 15:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not meaning to be your PR manager or anything, but I would put a message on its talk page explaining the withdrawal and your reasoning, not just on the AFD.Kww (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts?

• List of characters in Oh My Goddess!
• List of Oh My Goddess episodes

Why are you reverting me? -- Cat ^chi? 10:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Because you are being disruptive. --Jack Merridew 10:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Take it to an/i. --Jack Merridew 10:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thefiercedeity

Who's the sockmaster for the purpose of blocking? It'll have probably been blocked by the time of this posting, but anyway. Best regards, Rudget. 12:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

take your pick: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Senang Hati (impersonator). --Jack Merridew 12:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. I suppose it was quite apparent. Thank you. Rudget. 12:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There have been many anons using this edit summary and they've all been blocked for vandalism or at least reverted.

All I know is that I'm on a quest to find the reason a giant tree isn't giving off heat like it's support to.

--Jack Merridew 12:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bells

Hi, thanks for letting me know - have sorted it now. Bob talk 15:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Non-article D&D pages

What do you think is the best course of action for these? « ₣M₣ » 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Off-hand, I would say it's a good place to start finding unencyclopaedic, ah, "pages". I'm going to see what's putting stuff here; some template, I expect. --Jack Merridew 11:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It is being added along with clean-up tags by User:Gavin.collins; see: [13] for an example. I expect he has copy-paste text snippets at hand and this is a system for him to keep track of what he has tagged. I've copied tagging-text a few times, so I may have added a few of these myself (yup, [14]). The name of the cat would appear to reflect the view that such shite is unencyclopaedic. These pages need to either be clean-up or put-down. --Jack Merridew 11:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Gavin didn't start this, though; see: history. --Jack Merridew 11:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [15]. --Maniwar (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] signatures

I was thinking on updating my signature to something like this:

Would that be too "colourful"? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 16:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not the color that is the issue, it is the box. Signatures should not attempt to stand-out above others on a page. This is attention-seeking. If you want your post to stand-out, put the effort into writing something profound. I would suggest that you skip the box and border. You really don't need the talk or contribs links either, but I have no objection to them. --Jack Merridew 07:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Central discussion of objective criteria

Your feedback is welcome at Proposed Objective Criteria for TV Episode Notability.Kww (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Sarrukh

Hi Jack,

My in-line experiment was an attempt at mimicking the e-mail convention. It seems it was not a great idea, so I’ll do as you ask and will revert to normal replying.

This work I did, I did several months (if not years) ago. I created a Wikiproject for this back in the days too. All of this seems to have fallen into disuse and I do not contribute this anymore (I have to say there is no new information that I know of, by the way). So, no chance I would contribute more on this. I just wanted to justify the existing articles.

Have a nice day.
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 17:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people do not appreciate that convention in email either. re the Forgotten articles: if they are going to have their (continued) existence justified, they're going to need much better sourcing and a fair amount of rewrite. --Jack Merridew 08:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Objective criteria for episode notability

I've attempted to synthesize the discussion. Again, feedback welcome.Kww (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: bad fair use justifications?

A couple of those images have bad fair use justifications for their uses and I've removed them. I'm not so sure about Image:Greyhawk Supplement 1975.jpg, since there's historical commentary there. If you need anything else, just ask! east.718 at 18:55, January 21, 2008

Be bold! Anyway, I removed the useless FUR for one image; the other one will get picked up as an orphan as part of the bot sweeps and will be deleted in a week, probably by me. I'm still on the fence about the book cover too, why don't you raise that question at WT:F? east.718 at 05:55, January 22, 2008

Thanks; for the link, too; I've bookmarked it and will look into it. And I think I'll just fix-up the other one. --Jack Merridew 05:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestbot has some tasks for you

• Jack (tree) - expand
• Jacks - wikify
• Jack the Ripper - duck for cover, there's been an edit war but then maybe an extra opinion would be good...or maybe not.
• Jack (playing card) - needs references
• William-Adolphe Bouguereau - the guy who did the nice painting on your page, expand lead, some refs....zzzzzzz

Suggestbot can't figure out anything more......cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But you missed Jackfruit! --Jack Merridew 10:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The other big reason for removing the lightgreen colour is that vandals invariably change it for fun. If it isn't there, they are less likely to play with it. When you do alot of biology articles you'd be surprised how often this happens (or maybe not). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of that on actor infoboxes. Maybe something along the same lines could be used for those (domains like good actor, bad actor, actress good on the couch). --Jack Merridew 06:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Thanks.

And not just me, it looks like, but several that I've done, yes. That's got me curious though – maybe I'll ask around and see what these templates/special categories are about. Actually, I think I have seen a redirect category on at least the Wikiproject: comics page now that I think about it, so maybe I'll just investigate. Not sure what the adding of stubs is about though? :) BOZ (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll look and see what's happened since I last looked. --Jack Merridew 07:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

If you want to educate people, this is not the way to do it. It's unhelpful, doesn't help solve the issue, comes across as confrontational and can constitute biting. Far better to outline what the issue is, and suggest a number of solutions, remembering the person at the other computer screen is a person. Have a look at our civility page, that might offer some ways of avoiding short comments which may be misinterpreted. I apologise for the header and opening statement, I admit I am being a dick to prove a point, but I think it is a point worth making. Anyway, all that said, all the best, Hiding T 16:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Please note that I did follow-up with the anon and offer advice on what I thought was a better approach. I also asked an editor whose redirect were being tagged with stub-templates and cats to get involved. My initial comment was terse, I know. I will seek to not be so terse/confrontational in the future. --Jack Merridew 07:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate all the other efforts that went into resolving the issue, and I apologise for not mentioning that. I also appreciate it is hard to avoid being terse, I've been known to do it myself on occasion and am not claiming to be an angel. Good luck with the deep breaths. ;) Hiding T 20:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I just saw your comment re Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects which I've bookmarked and will read-over. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a new one on me too, but I think the section on subtopic categorization, specifically that Some subtopics of articles have well-known names and, over time, may expand to become separate articles. Many articles cover several topics that have been combined. This can happen following a merge of several related articles. Often there are redirects pointing to these subtopics. These redirects can be categorized. In some cases the categories for the redirects that point to the subtopics will be different than the categories for the entire article. may indicate that the anon's edits are acceptable. Hiding T 11:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episodes and characters 2

I'm unfamiliar with the arbcom system, and I suspect that little will come of Episodes and characters 2, but I wonder if there is somewhere there that I should point out that secondary and tertiary sources do exist for the most popular TV shows. I've found a few lately, and have actually put them in articles. (Glenn Quagmire, List of The Fairly OddParents characters, List of characters in The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy.) Will it affect the outcome of the arbcom if I point out that sources exist, and that these sources tend to be on the most popular shows, and that is how we ascertain whether or not a subject is notable? If I was to point that out, how/where should I do it? Thanks, AnteaterZot (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block

OK, it's done Jimfbleak (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and please block these on sight - the obvious ones. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Dove Falconhand and Alustriel Silverhand

I wasn't really inclined against a merge for the first article -- deleting it from the parent list is an editorial decision which doesn't require admin involvement. Have you asked Mr.Z-man regarding the other article? east.718 at 16:41, February 2, 2008

Thanks. Replying on your page. --Jack Merridew 07:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI thread that concerns you

Dear Jack, I started this thread regarding a threat that I saw was made against you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied there. This is regular background noise and such shite happens all the time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think people should be able to disagree without taking the discussion out of bounds and it is really distressing to see these disagreements devolve in such a manner. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The naughty one does a whole lot of way outside the box thinking. There are at least a hundred sockpuppets and hundreds of throw-away IPs. Poor boy really needs to find someone to get off with in real-life. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is about the IPs threatening you, they're actually looking like a botnet. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I think this is all the same issue. I expect that there are a number of bad actors involved. I've stepped on a few toes out there. The IPs from all over the world certainly would indicate that whomever has a toolbox full of sharp tools that he then misuses. If it turns out that my userpage address has been code into some piece of malware that's gotten around, then I've a case for personal notability once it gets written up somewhere. <groans>I can't wait.</groans> Thanks for all you done re Grawp and the like. --Jack Merridew 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not done yet - I'm awaiting contact from Nwwaew; one of the IPs that attacked you turned up as a compromised computer on WP:OP running open router software and I asked him to provide evidence that will help me in the abuse report I filed against the most recent IPs. Sometimes I think these guys are pointy-headed. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 10:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I just saw this; I hope the FBI doesn't come knocking on my door. Makes me glad I picked an alias Jack Merridew. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Bahamut (Dungeons & Dragons)#Notability

Personally, I agree that the article does not prove notability and the sources do not meet the requirements of reliable, third-party references. However, as you can see on Hobit's talk, I'm currently in sort of a general (somewhat related) dispute with him as well, so I decided not to re-add the tags myself. I noticed you just did, so I wanted to notify you that I filed for a third opinion. User:Dorftrottel 08:17, February 3, 2008

I'll look for what you're referring to on his talk page. He has been quite persistent about removing tags without understanding that the 'references' on most D&D articles abjectly fail WP:RS and most of the other relevant WP: links, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As a note, I've removed less than 1% of the tags added by you and Gavin total in the last month. So I'm being very selective on my removal. Also, thanks again to Dorftrottel on your actions here. Hobit (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware that you are focused on a relativle few articles. Please note that mostly it is Gavin adding the tags and I choose to defend against their removal without reasonable steps having been taken to address the concerns. --Jack Merridew 15:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging

Hello Jack,

Rather than having discussions over the 4 or so articles we are arguing over, I thought this would be a good place to discuss common things.

Issues as I see them:

1. Do staff reviews at enworld and related sites count as WP:RS? I'd say yes, as they have the backing of the site.
2. Do reviews in general counts toward WP:N? Again, I'd say yes.
3. Does Dragon magazine, while run by Piazo count as independent? That's more tricky. I'm told WoTC had veto rights on content, but couldn't dictate content. This is a pretty common thing to have happen. As it was Piazo's staff picking what to write on, not WoTC, I think coverage of material here is fine. Reviews of WotC material are more questionable however.

Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to give a brief reply now as I have to go. Overall, I believe notability requires much more solid sources than most of those on offer in the D&D articles I've looked at. I expect the reason that those are what's on offer is that they are all there is, and so they're offered-up in the hope that they'll be enough. I see the reasoning as backwards as editors such as yourself believe the articles should be here and that by finding what sources exist you've done your bit and sourced the article. My view is that if whatever sources exist are not seriously reliable and in depth, etc, then notability just isn't there and the article needs to go. If you want me to leave an article untagged for a concern for such as notability, then find a solid source. The New York Times, for example; something solid and not just a fan-zine or some guy's lamo-tripod site. To specifically address your three points:

1. enworld does not impress me as a reliable site; staff review, or mere user post
2. Of course reviews count; it is a question of who is speaking.
3. Dragon Magazine/Piazo/WoTC are all far too incestuous with the genre to count much. And thank for your frank comment re veto rights.

I would ask you to look at tagged articles as actually needing work and not to view the tag as the problem but to see the issue it is pointing out as the problem.

My basic position on some hundreds of thousands of articles on this site is that they are unencyclopaedic and need to go. This stuff belongs elsewhere; Wikia, or something like it. I see this sort of content as leaching on the good graces of largely uninterested editors who happen along and fix some spelling or apply a template. Thus one of the fundamental reasons that many editors prefer articles here vs over on some wikia subdomain is that here there are lots of people who help out. And I view this as unfair to these editors. --Jack Merridew 15:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(butting in) - as a volunteer site I tend to think most folks only edit things they want to or don't feel too put upon to edit. I certainly don't push myself to edit things I am not interested in. I have used White Dwarf (produced by Games Workshop), which was/is an independent magazine (WRT D&D) with an international reputation and circulation, to place reviews for D&D material, though I wouldn't use its reviews for Warhammer as they are produced by the same company. The 80s was a time when D&D had a much higher profile and if I trawled through newspaper and magazine archives at the time I am sure I could find stuff to add. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hobit seems to have not edited much since he posted his query. Your post would mostly seem to be about my closing comments and I agree that editors mostly edit what they feel like; there is no real obligation to click any edit link. This is part of why I've vigorously opposed anything in the TV 2 AC case that amount to requiring (i.e. strongly encouraging) editors to participate in transwiki process; it's up to the interested editors.

I suppose what I was getting at above was that many editors here end up doing stuff to move the many unencyclopaedic articles along. By 'along' I don't necessarily mean actions that address any fundamental encyclopaedic question; I'm referring primarily to things such as reverting vandalism, fixing typos and spelling issues (an area in which the D&D articles are quite challenged), and techie edits such as fixing wiki-syntax. If, when the day is done, some article is deleted or buried in a redirect grave, then along with the edits that added whatever unencyclopaedic content, all the good faith edits by others are gone and I view that as a greater lose that of the effort of the fans. This is a key reason that I believe dealing with such issues is best done sooner than later; sooner means there is less time for passersby to stumble upon an unencyclopaedic article and waste their time on it.

I think all sources such as fan magazines are on the light side. Such things are largely self-promoting (not of a specific company, but of whatever genre or hobby). No, I don't think the NYT is the be-all and end-all of sources, but if somebody serious who is out-of-universe comments on a D&D band of dwarves (example), then you've got something interesting. A lot of the rest is just guff (or worse, a cite of a tripod site). Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Splinter in Mind's Eye

If you agree that Image:Splinter of the Minds Eye.jpg is valid for Splinter of the Mind's Eye but not Star Wars Expanded Universe, why not just delete it from the EU page? Or talk about it on the Expanded Universe talk page? (I can actually see both sides to it on the Expanded Universe page… It is obviously not the article on the book, but the book is acknowledged as the first EU novel (retroactively.)--VikÞor | Talk 04:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If I were to just remove the image from Star Wars Expanded Universe, someone could just add it back citing the rationale given on the image page. I could just remove the rational per Bold, but, again, someone could dispute/revert that. By tagging the rationale as disputed, someone may review the rationale and, if they call it as bad then the issue may be definitively sorted. Thing is due to be sorted sometime after today, so we'll see… The whole concept of an Expanded Universe is a rather dubious one, to me. nb: EU refers to European Union. --Jack Merridew 09:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] align="bottom"

Thanks for your note, Jack. I don't know a thing about HTML or CSS, so designing the user page was a trial and error process. I had no idea that some of the code was meaningless or broken! --JayHenry (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take another look at your pages when I have a moment. Should be quite straightforward. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the clean-up, Jack! The problem with user:JayHenry/hippos was an old trick that got fixed in a recent update to the MediaWiki software. You used to be able to hide a <ref> inbetween <includeonly> tags or inbetween <span style="display:none"></span>. If you did that, the reference would still show up in the {{reflist}} template, but wouldn't show up anywhere else. Useless in articles, though it made for a nice way of storing references on my /hippos and /rhinos pages. Thanks again for cleaning up the code! --JayHenry (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Double PRODs

Heya, As the rules for PRODs are quite clear that the same article cannot be PRODded more than once, restoring the redirect was the right thing to do. Just mentioning for future reference, and thanks! BOZ (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the undoing of the redirect as skipping the restore of the prod. Redirecting an article with a prod on it would seem to be an endorsement of the concern (but not of the prod itself) and if the redirect is later undone, the prod should return, too. As I said, I'm fine with it being redirected and am glad the Catchpole suggested it. --Jack Merridew 13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Valentine's Day!

User:Wilhelmina Will has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] King Dedede

Perhaps full protection should be requested on WP:RPP. Just a thought, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bamford

For someone who has -repeatedly- said they are leaving and want nothing to do with Wikipedia, he sure does blather on endlessly about the 'injustice' inflicted on him by those attempting to get him to follow our rules. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He has been hammering away at his talk page for something like four hours. I was considering suggesting a courtesy blanking, but he'd have to stop and I don't see that happening until he's exhausted. --Jack Merridew 13:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi - Protected

Hey Jack — I've semi protected your usertalk page for the next six hours due to vandalism and threats. If you would like it removed, just ask. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; it happens a lot and I'm fine with it being semi protected for long stretches as needed. This is a botnet attack; there's a post above about it. I'll add the IPs to the report on it and drop you a not with a link to it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] need help

I am contacting you because you worked on the SFU template. Someone is trying to delete Federation Commander, by questioning its notability. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks.---Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

At first glance that article does not appear to have established much notability. The site links look like fans sites or primary sources. Maybe The New York Times or some other reliable source has commented on this, ah, tactical starship combat game system. FWIW, notability establishing sources do not have to be in the form of praise; if someone has done a high profile lampooning of this, it might help your case. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's my impression that board games which are published by reputable companies have by and large been given articles here. The board game category is full of examples of this. i do appreciate your suggestion though, just not sure if it is the main issue here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks again for assistance on RPG articles

I note that you have been working hard at reverting vandals, sockpuppets and POV pushers who have been removing cleanup templates, and I would like to thank you for your assistance. In my view, the templates are starting to have a beneficial effect as these issues are not being addressed, sources are being added (some of them are non-trivial) and discussion about poor quality articles have started. I hope the benefits of your work will continue to increase. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As I see it Grawp and the others tagging-along with his style of editing have made this personal, so I redouble efforts. I, too, have seen real progress made on some articles that have been tagged. When I see serious efforts made, I generally move on; I may even tick the article off my watchlist. FYI, I'm currently using that Broadway Tower image as my wallpaper. Thanks & Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:KaraTur Box Set Cover.jpg

There is a rationale on the page, please check it yourself. If you have any objection, I suggest you figure out what it is, and articulate it, and if possible either fix it yourself, or seek help from somebody who is qualified to help. I'm trying to stay retired from Wikipedia, and I'd like to stay that way, and I simply can't help you when you're posting inaccurate boilerplate messages without explanation. In the hopes of staying out of this further, I'm posting a question about this image to Wikipedia talk:Fair use. You may wish to address your concerns there. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no rationale when I tagged it. I've commented on the non-free content talk page, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. A rationale has been on the page since it was uploaded. Please see [16] and even [17]. These date from 2007. Thus your complaint that there was no rationale, added in 2008 is clearly in error. Please do folks the favor of reading more carefully before adding tags, I'm sure it will be much appreciated. In any case, if your only problem was the wording of the rationale, your warning message on my talk page was clearly inappropriate. You could have easily made that fix yourself without involving me. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not. See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The onus in not on others such as myself to provide adequate rationales. Jack Merridew 09:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you know it says "Please consider, as an alternative to deletion, fixing the description page, if possible." Was it not possible to fix it yourself? Or are you not realizing that it was your mistaken claim of no rationale that was the problem? I suggest that you either read more carefully in the future, or speak more carefully. If you'd simply said what you'd specifically like fixed about the rationale, I'd have been much more pleased to do that, instead of being met by a discourteous claim that there was no rationale at all. I sincerely hope you start considering such in the future. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've added a rationale for the use of the image at Vampire (Dungeons & Dragons). Please let me know if you consider it adequate. If not, please identify what concerns you do have on the appropriate talk pages. Sorry for claiming there was a rationale on the page, I should have been more careful myself. But I've added one anyway. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And I don't understand the problem you have with the rationale for Image:SJR6GreyspaceCover.jpg so I'm asking about it on the Fair Use rationale page. Perhaps you might share your reasoning there? FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've disputed the FU claim on Image:I10 House on Gryphon Hill.jpg for Vampire (Dungeons & Dragons); but not for use on Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill. FYI, the {{deletable image-caption}} is on both articles to alert passersby of the issue; if there is a more appropriate tag for cases where one of multiple FUR is disputed, I am unaware of it.

Was this you? I reverted that; some uninvolved admin will review the issue. If you want to understand the reasons for these taggings, read the tags and the links they offer, read my edit summaries, and read WP:RAT. Again, it not on me to provide rationales for all the endless missing and bogus claims out there. If you want the images kept and/or used on specific pages, do the work yourself. --Jack Merridew 08:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is a burden on you to actually consider your actions, and see if there's a better way to work with your fellow wikipedians. Given that you have explicitly missed one rationale that I've seen, I'm inclined to say that you may wish to try using {{fairusereview}} instead of a deletion template. If that's not acceptable, then try WP:IFD. Choosing to use a template that declares it will be deleted because you dispute it? Not good, and not friendly when you haven't even asked others about it. Try working better with folks in the future. Seriously, I see your declaration of "do the work yourself" as quite unfriendly, and it didn't help that you started off with me in error yourself. An error which you've still failed to admit. Try talking more with folks. Try less drastic action. I've put them both on fairusereview. Perhaps you can bring up your concerns there. You certainly haven't convinced me that deletion is right or necessary. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've not admitted my error because I've not made one. I did not miss any valid rationales. I've tagged image without rationales and disputed ones where I see a bogus claim being made. It's as simple as that. Up to you to provide valid rationales if you want. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re uncited InQuest

OK, you are then right. I will self-revert the articles. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; however, I was quicker! Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scarecrow

Jack: Hello... sorry to do this, but I've restored one item to the "Trivia" section at Scarecrow. The comic book characters are quite notable, especially the DC Comics one. That character has been around for almost seventy years, appearing in the 'books, television shows, and even a movie. (I feel bad about restoring it, as there seems to be a bit of a tussle going on there, but the character could probably be incorporated into the article.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

They may be notable, and if so, cover them in whatever articles. I'll look at what you've done in a sec. I would suggest that you incorporated them into the main prose if you want them to remain mentioned in the article. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hand phone

Hi, Jack Merridew. Here's my suggestion for the hand phone issue on HP (disambiguation). The dab does not list everything that simply has the initials HP, which is why Arcayne deleted it. If you have any citations for the use of "HP" for "hand phone", you could restore that mention on the Cellular phone page with the reference. Once it is (back) there, you could add it to HP (disambiguation). Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll look for something. This seems a silly thing to have to cite; Does mobile phone cite the use of the term cell? — nope. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you -- which is why I added HP there without a citation. But since another editor has objected to its uncited inclusion, well, here we are. Best, -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Added three cites; we'll see what tomorrow holds. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dead End

Might I suggest you do something to improve the article rather than just tag them? I mean, anyone can just tag them, but, Wikipedia is more about contribution than detriment. Besides, what you're doing could be considered as vandalism as well, given that you've changed several subsection headings and deleted appropriate references. Kyle C Haight (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

First off, I have in no way vandalized that article (or any other). I've just finished restoring link-format improvements that you reverted. As to improving the article, I am. Were it not for the current injunction, I would 'improve' it all the way to being a redirect to the list of episodes. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because that makes it better. There's just no pleasing your type. Kyle C Haight (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Price is right articles

Personally, I would've stayed away from any notability tagging on articles related to television, whether or not they are under the letter of the injunction. I think you're probably fine with those, but I would refrain from tagging any more until the injunction is lifted. seresin | wasn't he just...? 14:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Omega

[edit] AfD nomination of Omega (1987 computer game)

Thanks, I have commented there. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] D&D Project/Abberation creature page

First, let me apologize for borderline edit warring with you. My apologies.

Now then. I explained my opinion that the Abberation page should not be deleted on its talk page. A quick synopsis - it was rated mid-priority and served as a useful list to many different articles. (However, I highly anticipate a counter argument of "but most of those articles are non-notable, will be deleted, and then the list won't be of any use).

I did actually search the D&D project pages for a discussion on pruning and merging the creature type pages into each other, but I didn't find one. If I simply didn't find it, it'd be cool if you could direct me to it. If there isn't one, there probably should be. McJeff (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, although I personally believe the article should be recreated, I won't do so again as of yet. McJeff (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I see this as having been merged; undoing one side of a merge forks content in large blocks. See here and here where the article was merged. The prior merge notice indicated discussion, scant, at Talk:Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons) which I see you commented at.

Yes, I feel that most of the leaf-nodes are utterly non-notable; this is what lists are for (and those lists should largely consist of unlinked critters). The D&D 'verse has a near-endless number of named denizens and linking every one of them to a stub is absurd.

The Aberration (Dungeons & Dragons) page has not been deleted; rather than simply undoing the merge, you are free to review the old versions of the page in order to mine them for bits you wish to add to the Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons) page. It would be nice if you cited sources establishing notability for anything you wish to resurrect. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Here's an ideal side-project you may enjoy - important life-changing articles on politics and health

I just thought, I noticed you are quite good at wikifying things and very conscientious in layout and formatting, so I figured that something like this below may be of worth. I am a real slob with layout so thought you'd be way better at this than me:

• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Health

• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Political science

I figured that folks could be potentially harmed or WP embarrassed by incorrect info on these type of pages rather than esoteric gaming material, even just some ^{[citation needed]} tags on more dubious info may be useful.

Also gives the gamers some time to hunt around for sources...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Off to the cardboard boxes of old magazines in the garage? I fixed a few bits of redink to deleted pages — I guess they got some attention. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The other page is this one - Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify - layout and judicious (rather than effusive) bluelinking...Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Spring Clean

What have you started? [18]. User:J Milburn has nominated more articles for deletion in a week than I have in my entire time editing WP. Well at least I won't get the blame for this; I can redirect all the complaints to you ;) --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at what was put up for nomination though Gavin. Virtually all of those AFDs have been nominated from a much more informed position. They're not poor nominations, but rather they're things that truthfully aren't important to the topic, and don't need their own article. I wouldn't say the same about a large number of your own nominations, if past consensus and discussion by other editors are any indication. Shemeska (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shemeska. Almost all of what he, shadzar, and BOZ have nominated are Pokémon-esque articles, stuffed with cruft, game guide, and general detritus. None of them are even borderline. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L7 Kacheek Defier)} 02:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(Clarifying: I don't believe I've ever nominated anything on here for deletion - it's not my style.) BOZ (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I commented after he nominated most of the current crop of low-fruit. I made about the same comment on maybe half a dozen AfDs and was a wee bit concerned that I'd take some flak for it. That I've not indicates, to me, that folks are generally in agreement that there are too many non-notable stubby articles in D&D-land. There are a huge number of entities in D&D (which is a core concept in the design of any fantasy setting; see Tolkien). I see their future as being in lists; this is where non-notable stuff belongs. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking help on WP:AN

I left a note as I couldn't find anything in WP space that fit the bill. I'm intrigued as I'd like to learn if it's possible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I've commented there and expect someone will take it up. Please don't think me pointy, but let me ask again; who owns this burden of work? In this case, ownership is limited to the admin-caste. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can move a page, but only admins can delete a page. The rather convoluted process described on the thread thus far could only be done by an admin and looks rather more work than what its worth. That's why I just put the largest page and the redirect. figuring that was all the information that was required. As it stands, both pages contain what they should, just that the history of one is a little, erm, truncated. When I get a period of uninterrupted time I'll have a go, just been a little busy of-keyboard.

As far as burden,...well, it's no-one's really as it is a volunteer project. Folks just try and do what they do. I, for instance, do this for relaxation and enjoyment, if I don't get a good feeling, I lose interest fairly quickly, and hence why I don't participate in AfD too much. I am also a slob and get bored trying to format stuff if it gets too finicky. Anyway, there's nothing stopping you from running for adminship. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the delete and selective restore process as being for admins-only. I agree that such burdens are only voluntarily assumed; many in the tv-bickering case advocated that such burdens were the responsibility of the deletion-minded. As to your last suggestion, I've no interest and certainly no expectation of the hoards I've crossed not scuttling such a bid. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Senang Hati Foundation

I have nominated Senang Hati Foundation, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senang Hati Foundation. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Pixelface (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad-faith Harassment, Pixel.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senang Hati Foundation (2nd nomination)

—Jack Merridew 06:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it a bad faith nomination? That seems like a pretty knee-jerk claim... Yes that first nomination appears to have been by some sock-puppet of someone you cheesed off for whatever reason, but does that make any subsequent question of its notability out of line? If the topic is notable it'll survive (at first glance it seems way too obscure, but I'm not voting because I don't know the topic enough to feel justified in weighing in).Shemeska (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is bad faith because Pixel is targeting it because I created it. Ask Wayan Sukarmen if it's obscure. I have no doubt that it will survive; it's already had an infobox and logo added. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use of Lady of Pain image

Jack, I don't really see your reason disputing the fair use of that particular image, but let me explain my reasoning here, and some additional info.

As one reason for the dispute you claim the image is a crop from the magazine the image appeared in print in, except it's not. That version of that image by R.K. Post is the entire image as produced by the original artist, and has been available in that form for public download from paizo publishing's website. The image as it appeared on the magazine cover of Dragon #339 is available in full w/ accompanying text and headers here: http://paizo.com/image/product/catalog/TSR/TSR82339_500.jpeg for public download. However that version is more representative of the magazine rather than the Lazy of Pain, the subject of the wiki article.

Further, the image you dispute fair use of is one of only four full images of the fictional character in question, and to my knowledge the only one that has been available for download as a whole image without overlayed or adjacent book text or magazine cover headers. If there's going to be an image, that's the one truly viable candidate.

I'll be updating the fair use template this evening with the additional information, sourcing details, and rationale. That should remove any reasonable objections to its fair use within the article in question. Shemeska (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The image you linked to above would be an appropriate one for the rationale currently on Image:LadyofPain.jpg if Lady of Pain were an article about the magazine issue rather than about the character depicted. I see that the image I've disputed the rational on is not a cropping; magazines covers rarely have nothing but the art. I have no idea what the original uploader meant by I posed for this. I'll strike the bit about being cropped. I would suggest a rational that has nothing to do with the magazine; they, presumably, got permission from the artist; indeed, they may have commissioned it. nb: just because there may be few good images extant does not mean WP is entitled to claim fair use on one of them. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The original uploader apparently meant just what she said, she posed as a model for R.K. Post when he painted the original image. I don't see any particular reason to doubt them, though having spoken to Mr. Post in the past, he's easy enough to get a hold of to ask if you wanted to fact check on the OP's statement. Assuming good faith, and the content of the OP's modeling website, I don't doubt the claim. And yes, Paizo publishing did in fact commission R.K. to draw that image specifically. Shemeska (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I just tweaked my comments on the image page including adding a link to the model's site. She probably has no right to post the image. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to help me understand your continuing concerns for the image, what would constitute fair use to you? The only other images suited for the article appear either on the cover of 'In the Cage: A Guide to Sigil', copyright TSR and unavailable AFAIK except for a full scan of the cover image including overlayed text and title; an image in the background (overlayed with text) of 'Expedition to the Demonweb Pits' copyright Wizards of the Coast; or an image present on a page in the Planescape Campaign Setting by Tony DiTerlizzi (a scan of which has been present in past versions of the artist's website). The R.K. Post image is the only one which to my knowledge has been released by the original commissioner (Paizo publishing) in its original form without accompanying title or text overlay. The image was available for public download.

If you were so inclined you could ask user:iquander since he's the publisher for Paizo, or ask someone else through Paizo's contact page http://paizo.com/paizo/about/contact, or ask Mr. Post himself. Shemeska (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what those other images are or what their FU status might be. See WP:FUR for guidance on fair use rationales. I have no interest is chasing down artists and publishers; the onus is on editors who wish to include content to source it properly. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've accurately reflected the source of the image in the FUR. Between Shemeska's edits and my own, I believe the FUR covers all conserns raised so far, so I have removed the di template for now. -- RoninBK _{T C} 08:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your Campaign to mark a large number of Fantasy-related articles with the Notability tag

Having read your User page, I now understand that you are a zealous follower of Deletionism, and therefore, since I do not share that view, we are going to have persistent disagreements about what is and isn't worthy of inclusion. However, I do think that we have a great deal of common ground which we can agree on, especially in the area of marking up articles to denote them as needing better sources. I hope that you will work with me towards this common goal, instead of persistently combating me on the points which we disagree on. In the Talk:Paladine (Dragonlance) discussion, you seemed to imply that you are willing to engage in edit warring to advance your campaign, and I hope that does not mean you are so zealous that you are unwilling to pursue meaningful compromise on these issues. Thank you for your time. Dalamori (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Campaign? Zealous? And an assertion that we're going to have persistent disagreements? Hardly an auspicious way to start a dialogue. Excuse me, but I'm having a little trouble with the assume good faith thing here; please help me out. You show up on pages in the last few days after a 23 month hiatus from editing, with that account, and speak knowledgeably about current notability and policy issues?

I do feel many articles need various clean-up and tag them as such; notability concerns are one form this takes; so are tags such as refimprove. I did not say I would edit war, I said I would maintain such tags against their removal without the issues being addressed. This rather more akin to reverting vandalism than edit warring. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:LadyofPain.jpg

I have left a response on my talk page -- RoninBK _{T C} 07:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geek Love

It's an opinion piece, but maybe you will find it insightful? Or just something to get a laugh out of - or both. :) [19] BOZ (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a PageRank boost for Wikia

You may be interested in this thread;

• User talk:Luna Santin#a PageRank boost for Wikia.

--Jack Merridew 14:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are unwelcome on my talk page. All future comments will be promptly ignored. -- Cat ^chi? 14:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Visions

Indeed - reverted. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Disputed Notability

I have seen all sorts of POV pushing on RPG from vandalism by sockpuppets to deliberate disregard for WP guidelines, but this takes the biscuit. Instead of removing the Template:notability, I see Dalamori has decided to replace it with a template of his own. What is the procedure for having this template deleted? Disputed Notability is basically POV pushing via the backdoor. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It can probably be speedy-deleted per Wikipedia:CSD#Templates (point 3). Absent that, it should go to WP:TFD. I figured I'd leave it for a day or so in case he wants to copy some of the verbiage to a proposal at say Template talk:Notability as I suggested. This is a sockpuppet; I mean seriously, 148 edits and he's forking templates? See this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on now. Calling someone who disagrees with you a sockpuppet without any evidence such as a similar IP or location to someone else is just out of line. Heck, there are people who think that one of you is a sockpuppet of the other given how you tag-team (unintended irony there), but that doesn't mean it's true just because you share an editing viewpoint. Not everyone who has a different perspective on editing is part of some nefarious cabal out to get you and incite nerd-rage over the fine and sacred points of wikipedia rules.Shemeska (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Redacted; we'll see. He never replied to the concern I expressed above. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] environmental concerns

I noted your environmental concerns, in which case, pages like these should probably have some more sobering balanced information....I did plan to do more on Australian environmental weeds at some point, especially ones still used in gardens. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Smile Foundation of Bali

Dear Jack, I am happy and encouraged to see that in consideration of our past disagreements we were nevertehless able to work civily and constructively to improve that article. Hopefully it will be the first such successful collaboration. All the best! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion comments

• Please cite some policy or guideline in support of your editing of my good faith discussion comments. Indentation is a normal way of interleaving comments in a long discussion point and its use is a matter of style. Interfering with another's editing talk/discussion comments seems generally unwise because it disrupts our ability to discuss matters in a civil and sensible way.

• While I write, I took exception to a comment of yours in the Xena AFD which seems to be pure heckling, I think he likes the saw-toothed look of the indenting. This again takes the matter to a secondary level which gets in the way of the primary discussion points. I forbore to respond in kind because this would add to the problem.

Colonel Warden (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Right; you cut-in on another's comments and complain when I fix it? Go see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Threaded discussion. And do not insert your comments into the middle of those by others.
• On that Xena AfD, you've been badgering every editor that does not agree with you, giving the talk page a saw toothed look; I commented — and not even to you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I review the talk page guidelines to which you link above and then used the Interruption template which it recommends for such a context. You have amended this again - please explain your impertinence. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Bollocks; didn't your mother teach you not to interrupt; it's rude. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More environmental issues

Was walking today and someone had been spraying Silly String everywhere - what a complete and pointless waste of CFC..the sort of article which needs more highlighting of the environmental issues maybe...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kind of into the AfD thing at the moment... have you read about some the shite the US Navy gets up to with Haylons? They like to practice refueling jets on aircraft carriers as fast as possible. They release huge clouds in order to cool the hot engines. Each time they probably release more Earth-killing shite than all the Silly String ever. Extinction is inevitable; we could live just long enough to experience it. Cheers, (The basis of optimism is sheer terror) Jack Merridew 13:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That is too depressing to think about. And with that I must sleep. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Qilin

Okay. That doesn't change the fact that the section in question is *not* a trivia section. Wikipedia:Trivia sections refers to things like the "Trivia" sections that used to be plastered all over film articles: random facts about the film which have no connection to each other or to the rest of the article.

A section on contemporary media references is legitimate, especially with regard to the Qilin, a mythical animal that has found new popularity in the West primarily through its usage in anime/games/comics. Sad but true. As you can probably see, that entire section is (1) internally consistent and (2) logically flows in the overall scheme of the article. It is not a random collection of disjoint facts. For some other examples of "media portrayals" being a section in diverse articles, see, for example, Forbidden City, FBI, Napoleon (films section). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I do see your position. I was really hoping that you would wade in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons). My concern is that a merge has been proposed and editors interested in the target article are unaware of the debate and there's a possibility that they may find themselves on the receiving end of a merge they don't want. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As I've already explained, this is not a trivia section. The mentions of the Qilin in, for example, the Pet Shop of Horrors, is definitely encyclopaedic and probably even important. The other items are, to me, less important, but it is conceivable that they would be regarded as encyclopaedic by others.

As I've pointed out above, a "trivia" section is a section of disjointed random facts. This section is both internally consistent and relevant to the rest of the article.

Feel free to weed out those items that are trivial. But a "trivia section" tag is not appropriate here. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration request

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jack Merridew. Thanks. -- Cat ^chi? 19:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That again? I've seen all that before; everyone has. --Jack Merridew 11:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank-you

Hi Jack Merridew! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1). I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being an admin to the high standard that the community deserves. Seraphim♥ Whipp 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ruminating

OK, if one plays in the sandpit, then one gets dirty...

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is by nature a place where relations are strained and it is very easy to become aggravated. I find that I can be alot more collaborative with people if I don't go there as it really brings into sharp focus some of the less savoury viewpoints etc. of others with different views here.

I still don't know why there is a preoccupation with crufty material - it doesn't hurt anyone nor is it self-aggrandising nor will anyone find it who is not looking for it. Yes I am very frustrated precious few people are putting in references, but I am familiar with the depth of third party material and am not too worried. I try to correct the sloppy prose and layout where I can, though a Sword of Damocles of AfD is a pretty good disincentive.

You've pointed out others..god I keep finding more such as Cestrum nocturnum, which is a noxious weed here in Oz.

The whole thing I had a problem with was, hypothetically, if one were a vandal whose aim was to remove as much material from wikipedia as possible, whether as a spy from rival company, say, born-again chrisitan with an antithetical viewpoint to alot of it, or someone with a really big axe to grind, there would be no better way than what has been achieved by TTN in the past year. Start with the sloppy stuff which there is some opposition to anyway, attract a few impressionable editors and away you go. I am glad I am wrong about a few people who since all this has started have begun editing and doing things more constructively, really I am.

I'd hazard a guess and say that if you're an anglo-saxon person living in Bali you may have a somewhat different world view on what's important than a large number of editors here- better to emphasise the positives with collaboraitve work rather than differences with trench warfare at AfD. I don't know. Anyway...plenty of environmental weeds need tagging...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I certainly see that time spent advocating deletion, redirection, or even just trimming of crufty stuff garners a lot of ill-will. For the most part, I shrug that off. I really feel that there are some hundreds of thousands of articles that don't belong here for a variety of reasons; they are non-notable, fail a bunch of policies and guidelines and are created out of obsessive fandom and not because there is anything encyclopaedic to say about them. You will never find me proposing the deletion of a real plant, or animal species, or the Mona Lisa or anything else with real merit. Such articles are what this site is for. On the other hand, Bloop ball should only be covered at www.BloopBall.com, but not here.

The Pumpkin guy seems to take great exception to this, which may be a factor in your born-again comment. I told him that is so-not me (religious fanaticism). Your comment brings to mind the gay Teletubby#Tinky Winky controversies. FWIW, I think such controversies are highly appropriate for coverage here. I'll also note that Tinky Winky had an article but it's long-redirected. Good-on.

I noticed TTN last year and this brought the whole realm of crufty stuff to my attention. Wow; something to clean-up. You may have noticed I often use the edit summary tidy for assorted clean-up. I am not much of a writer — prose — but I'm quite experienced at things like memos where you have to make clear and succinct arguments that hold up to challenge. Thus I edit a lot of talk and other discussion pages. I'm also good at editing, in the copy-paste and text-manipulation sense; any substantive tweaking of article text I do in an external editor. Incidentally, I have engaged in no off-wiki email communications with any of the usual editors about planning coordinated activities. It's all on talk pages or a result of noting what they were working on.

I came across WP:NOHARM today. Beyond what that says, there is the namespace issue I brought up with you before. Inappropriate articles underfoot is of concern for many reasons. I'm sure when wikipedia was smaller, the view was more enthusiastic re new articles; great, that makes 101,000 articles. We're in the millions and scalability issues surface when things move into big numbers. The fans who create such articles largely don't do the maintenance on those articles. Sure, the larger fandoms have a few editors who will create navigation templates and such (even if just by copying something), but a whole lot of stubby articles are created by short-term redlink accounts or anons and are then just left for others to deal with. Some of those others clean things up, others seek to take out the trash. Consider Bloop ball; some spammer created this and a bunch of others have to spend time discussing the merits of the damned thing (gotta watch those religion-derived intensifiers)? Shite like that should be speedy deleted without bothering so many people.

I seek to address these concerns in an expeditious manner because the first thing to do with a recognized problem is to stop digging the hole deeper.

A new issue of The Yak came out today (theme: The lighter and darker sides of Bali, Asia's fashionable playground). You, living in Sydney, probably have a better concept of what Bali is like than do most of the American and European editors. I think White Cat's view of the place is more like Gilligan's Island and that we only have internet access here when Gilligan peddles the bamboo bike. Part of my world-view, from here, is a lot different than that of folks in the trenches of the western rat race. That is what Bali is about.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather amusing mag that...I haven't been to Bali (though been to many places around it I suppose) nor have I left Oz for a few years but did travel a bit before that. As far as Bloop ball, can you imagine the authors (if not allowed to write on this wonderful game) turning around and contributing to, say, Postmodernism (hey, oh gosh there's a nice tag on that one too - bet this article's had some interesting vandalism). The article name is probably the biggest problem you've highlighted so far but not a biggy really. Anyway, off to sleep again. (sound of head hitting keyboard) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzCheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: But seriously, it's your call. If it is more important to you for whatever reason to keep in the trenches so be it. I can see another way as outlined above. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Mostly The Yak is about shallow fashion stuff. It does have a lot of interesting bits in it, though. I suppose an argument could be made to allow the cruft-focused editors their shite in order to keep them away from encyclopaedic articles. I believe that's what Wikia is for; it's certainly not about serious stuff — and ask me about my COI concerns re links to Wikia (related to the transwiki concerns I voiced in tv2's workshop). While I expect you really mean the other tag, the one that caught my eye was {{globalize}} and its link to WP:BIAS, which I've looked at before, but not in-depth. It has occurred to me that they may need a few more cleanup templates; namely one that says something along the lines of;

This article or section deals primarily with a trivial leisure activity of cosseted members of affluent hegemonic societies and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] deleted contributions

OK, it wouldn't let me go past June 07 for some reason that way. You may want to stick some nowiki tags around it. If you need anything else to resurrect or improve let me know. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; but yikes! Will try and clean this up a bit. Templates and categories seem to be making a mess. Being in the cats will attract attention… pity about the oldest ones, they were what I was most interested in; any chance this is just as far back as the deleted edits go? Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

NB User:Jack Merridew/deleted edits is showing up at C:CSD. I suggest you do something to it before a trigger-happy admin nukes it. --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

working on it now... Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, can I have a similar page made indicating my deleted contribs? Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I am more than happy if it helps the future creation of quality articles :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] absurd sockpuppetry allegation

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davenbelle for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. -- Cat ^chi? 17:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack you still dealing with this crap? Man. Some people have WAAAY too much time on their hands. Eusebeus (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to comment over there; I've not bothered looking yet. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grawp joining the party

Hi, I was doing RC patrol when I came across this diff, claiming that you are a Single Purpose sockpuppet user. While clearly you are not an SPA account (in fact, the user account Bestpower (talk · contribs) asserting that you are a SPA, in fact, seems to be a SPA itself), I don't know if I should revert the changes or not. I haven't dealt with sock puppetry cases, and I don't want to get into this war. Just dropping you a line so that you know what's going; also if an admin sees this, maybe they can advise me on what is proper procedure? Thanks Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 21:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a User:Grawp sock, one of many; seems to be making hay with White Cat's malicious defamation. I've undone those edits; he'll have created several other accounts in the last 24 hours, also. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wouldroads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Delaybrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Rangestudy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Doorsscale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Tubesbeen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Trulyhits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 71.107.165.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Bestpower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Getstalking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Leftalso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Honorverse Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Royal Mandicoran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

nb: if anyone sees new accounts make the same edits as the above, I'd appreciate a hand undoing them and expeditious button use.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gotta ask...

How does a User vandalize their own Talk page, when all s/he's done is change a font? --LeyteWolfer (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

look at the version undone; ick! see also the n-dash discussion section at the bottom of the page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This more conversational than a challenge, but while I don't...appreciate...the style....s/he chose (and don't think it formats well), I'd still debate the use of the word 'vandalize' in this case. Can I assume you and s/he are friends and you're playing (and that you're not biting another editor)? --LeyteWolfer (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem - just ongoing banter. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Grawp

It would be a pleasure to help fight against him, he is currently using Ip's to attempt to remove the ANI thread regarding him. AndreNatas (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen him remove posts about himself at WP:AIV, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You know this kind of Vandal often has a long term abuse report containing all the data/ips/history of what they have done on wikipedia to make things easier. I don't think Grawp has one, but he could do with one couldn't he? see WP:LONG. AndreNatas (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have had ANI protected from Grawp socks [20] after posting a request on WP:RFPP that should get rid of him for a while. AndreNatas (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I just left a note for User:Thatcher, a checkuser looking at this case; the other checkuser is User:Alison and you should see

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grawp

Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already seen it thanks, I've been adding Grawp Ips to the list as they come. AndreNatas (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

New Grawp Ips are reverting on that non-notable article again, see 70.217.243.230 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) AndreNatas (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jacen Solo

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Jacen Solo, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion at WP:AN

Just a note to let you know that I've started a discussion concerning your editing patterns at WP:AN - your input and insights would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Nick (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion at WT:FICT

Have you been following the discussion at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)? Am I going mad or what? There seems to be a move to water down WP:FICT to allow "Aggregate" and "Spin Off" articles in which synthesis and plot summaries are permissible. Once the flood gates are open, I believe there will be no end to the creation of articles about non-notable fictional characters. What a disaster! --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

ya, but have not been over there in a few weeks; a Camel's nose, for sure. The operative word in the argument is that this is necessary… and I question it; necessary for what? other than obsessive fandom. My view is that not enough people understand scalability issues. Look at the D&D stuff; some there wiki-link every noun with the full intent of an article for them all. Wikipedia has become fantastically popular with too many people that fit the current box at the top of my user page. Got $20? Go get yourself a copy of Amused to Death and give it an attentive listen. Pick up Radio K.A.O.S., too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to post this on the talk page mentioned above, but figured it would be more appropriate here (and more off topic there). If you haven't read it already, try to locate a copy of Harlan Ellison's The Glass Teat and/or The Other Glass Teat for similar commentary. (And, yes, obviously that article has it's own issues too. :) Ciao --Craw-daddy | T | 14:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Might be tough to find for me; I take a 737 to get to the book store. I have read Ellison. You might also read The Assault on Reason which lays a lot of blame on television. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Senang Hati Foundation

Nice picture - it really helps the article. :) I don't subscribe to the "obligatory picture" argument, but they can certainly help. - Bilby (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Davenbelle et al

For the record, I'll now admit that I was user User:Davenbelle, User:Moby Dick, User:Diyarbakir and User:Note to Cool Cat. I have informed the WP:AC and several others of this. I sincerely apologize to friends for having concealed this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] going to block me?

To anyone here to block me, I would like to state that I will be very, very good if you do not. I would like to be able to participate in discussions. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jack, but I've blocked your account. There's not much else to really discuss with this as you're a banned editor who isn't allowed to edit with any account. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense, this is expected. There are discussions afoot and I would like to participate. FYI, only one arb commented to the effect that I'm banned [21], not a formal ruling. Immaterial, I know. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the terms of your block, please contact the Arbitration Committee in private. Thanks. Nick (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted them, really. Specifically User:Newyorkbrad. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC):: I have contacted them, really. Specifically User:Newyorkbrad. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock}} I would like to be allowed to participate in discussions and to edit my userspace; specifically User:Jack Merridew/Allison Sudradjat. If anyone is willing to unblock me, I will agree to whatever editing limitations are set. It's 1:am here, so I won't be looking to edit for better than 12 hours anyway. Please discuss on your side of the world. and let me know. I'll also answer emails. Per Nick's comment, this unblock request, is really to any AC member. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed}} I see no pressing reason for you to be able to edit project or user space at this time. You're blocked; ArbCom is the only avenue for you to appeal at this time. — krimpet✽ 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just answered my various emails. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jack Merridew/Allison Sudradjat

To User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles re this; blocked or not, all pages are open for all to edit (well, not me, at the moment). For what it's worth, you have my permission to work on that and move it to article space. You would, of course, be responsible for it, but that, too, is always the case. See this

Scholarships support emerging leaders in Indonesia and PNG - The Hon Stephen Smith MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs. www.foreignminister.gov.au. Retrieved on 2008-03-19.

which should help with the notability concern. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5

Oh, this was me, too; it's a GUID. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC) (whose real name is David; Jack's a character from the Lord of the Flies)

[edit] WP:DYK

Did you know that you can edit your watchlist while blocked? Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you know... that continuing to boast on your talk page while blocked tends to get it protected? -_- krimpet✽ 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Thomas Jerome Newton

For the record; User:Thomas Jerome Newton was me, too. I tried to login but must have gotten the password wrong. When I requested that the password be emailed to me, I got the following;

Your IP address is blocked from editing, and so is not allowed to use the password recovery function to prevent abuse.

Prior to attempting to access the account, I noted that it was mine here: m:User:Jack Merridew/Matrix.

Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 13:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know David. Interesting choice of name. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See; [22] then [23] then [24] and then [25]. The Man Who Fell to Earth (novel), too.

I feel so trusted now; you're blocking accounts on my say-so;

<joke>For the record; User:White Cat is me, too.</joke>

Jack Merridew is a character from Lord of the Flies and I picked this name for a much more interesting reason; read the article; whomever was behind User:Samneric did (also a character from LotF; well, twin boys who went by that name). Note also how heavily LotF has been vandalized recently; wonder who…

Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hi David, it's too bad that you chose to edit in the manner that you did because you have invalidated what I think was a largely defensible editing record. Say what you will about White Cat - and I do - at least he edits under his own account and takes his lumps for the positions he espouses. We all need to do this, obviously; sockpuppetry is tawdry. Nonetheless, I hope that we may see you back sometime with a renewed commitment to edit honestly and openly - I thought you were a net positive to the project. Eusebeus (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)