User talk:Jack Merridew: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 11:42, 25 September 2007 editEusebeus (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,666 edits comment on consensus← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:43, 25 September 2007 edit undoEusebeus (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,666 edits →Recent mass redirecting: fmtNext edit →
Line 86:		Line 86:
	::: The discussion of the larger issue seems to have moved to ] — which I haven't read yet. See you there, maybe. Best wishes, ] 10:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)		::: The discussion of the larger issue seems to have moved to ] — which I haven't read yet. See you there, maybe. Best wishes, ] 10:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

	*Jack and Phaedriel, I posted this note originally ], but the point may be relevant: ''Per the consensus policy, When consensus is referred to in Misplaced Pages 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.		Jack and Phaedriel, I posted this note originally ], but the point may be relevant: <p>''Per the consensus policy, When consensus is referred to in Misplaced Pages 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.<p>

	Thus, if editors disagree with the principles being adduced for establishing fictional character notability, this 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.'' ] 11:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)		''Thus, if editors disagree with the principles being adduced for establishing fictional character notability, this 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.'' ] 11:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==		== ] ==

Revision as of 11:43, 25 September 2007

Archive 1

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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

In doing so, List of Oh My Goddess episodes no longer mmets WP:FL? (1ai)
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: (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 Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction) — which I haven't read yet. See you there, maybe. Best wishes, Jack Merridew 10:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Jack and Phaedriel, I posted this note originally elsewhere, but the point may be relevant:

Per the consensus policy, When consensus is referred to in Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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 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)