• Archive 1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 How do you get around the fact that many if not most PhDs are either self-published or remain unpublished but in National Libraries for consultation.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

It is being added along with clean-up tags by User:Gavin.collins; see: [1] 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, [2]). 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)[reply]

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

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 [3]. --Maniwar (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

This is why I hate wikipedia now. Rulejockeys like you are out to "sanitize" it, making it less of a peoples encyclopedia, instead everything we put in is so heavily moderated for verifyability and fair use that the concept is ruined. You approach people, remove their work and say "HEY, this is not good enough, because we said so". Get real.--Ifrit (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]