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.
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And when the stars are withdrawn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.
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. —Jack11:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
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. Eusebeus09:39, 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 Merridew09:54, 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. Eusebeus11:35, 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! Eusebeus11:58, 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. Eusebeus13:14, 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 Merridew09:16, 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). Eusebeus11:18, 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 Merridew11:25, 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 Merridew12:01, 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. Eusebeus12:57, 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? Eusebeus18:20, 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 Merridew09:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
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:128.40.76.309:26, 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 Merridew09:42, 6 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. Eusebeus12:42, 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.
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. Eusebeus13:05, 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 Merridew13:12, 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. Eusebeus15:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
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 Merridew10:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
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 JPS09:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
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, Newyorkbrad12:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
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,Lights14:01, 13 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. Eusebeus13:10, 17 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"? Kusonaga10:24, 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 partyreliable 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 Merridew10:38, 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? Kusonaga13:20, 17 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. Kusonaga12:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jack, I think adding more episodes 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."... Stardust821213:44, 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 Merridew13:53, 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. Stardust821214:03, 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. TTN14:06, 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 Merridew14:12, 18 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 Merridew10:57, 22 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 Merridew10:57, 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. Eusebeus10:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
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? Maikel18:08, 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 Merridew11:58, 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. Maikel12:17, 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.
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. Maikel13:43, 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 Merridew13:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 Edwards07:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages 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... :) Gwinva00:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Dub is A Weapon, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Dub is A Weapon is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Dub is A Weapon, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.CSDWarnBot09:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello there Jack Merridew, 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. --Merbabu11:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
