Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jack Merridew: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:39, 16 September 2007 editUpDown (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers13,350 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 08:23, 17 September 2007 edit undoJack Merridew (talk | contribs)34,837 edits →The Man and the HourNext edit →
Line 24: Line 24:
Always feels good to revert vandalism. ] 12:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Always feels good to revert vandalism. ] 12:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


==The Man and the Hour== == 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 Misplaced Pages and building and improving articles, you go round destroying other people's work, because of a blantant POV attitude towards television. To be honest, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. --] 13:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 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 Misplaced Pages and building and improving articles, you go round destroying other people's work, because of a blantant POV attitude towards television. To be honest, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. --] 13:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


: You should read a few policies and guidelines. ] is not automatically notable because is is the first episode of ]. 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. --] 13:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC) : You should read a few policies and guidelines. ] is not automatically notable because is is the first episode of ]. 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. --] 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.--] 18:39, 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.--] 18:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

::: A non-notable POV? See ] and ]. --] 08:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:23, 17 September 2007

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)

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)

You're welcome

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

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 Misplaced Pages and building and improving articles, you go round destroying other people's work, because of a blantant POV attitude towards television. To be honest, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. --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)