User talk:Jack Merridew: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:13, 19 October 2007 editJack Merridew (talk \| contribs)34,837 edits →Sebaceans ← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:33, 19 October 2007 edit undoJack Merridew (talk \| contribs)34,837 edits →Images Next edit →
Line 35:		Line 35:
	==Images==		==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. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]\|]\|] </span>''' 20:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)		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. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]\|]\|] </span>''' 20:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Revision as of 08:33, 19 October 2007

Archive 1

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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:

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

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)