: If you want that article to survive vigilant editors, you will need to establish the notability of the subject, sorry. --[[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 09:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
: If you want that article to survive vigilant editors, you will need to establish the notability of the subject, sorry. --[[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 09:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
|style="font-size: large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Meatstar for being a complete Tool'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I herewith award you the meatstar for being a complete Tool for your bad faith edits and nomination for speedy deletion of the article [[Chris Conley]]. Your arrogance and lack of community awareness demonstrates true wiki courage! Note this is not a barnstar A$$HAT! – [[Tim Allen|Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor]] -
Sorry it took so long to respond, I got distraced. I would archive it under "T", yes. I(said) (did) 07:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
responding on your page... --Jack Merridew 09:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refactoring comments
I noticed, specifically on the HM page, that you were refactoring some minor grammatical errors in others' comments. I'd like to point out that this isn't necessary, and is somewhat frowned upon. I personally do not care, (they were mostly my edits :p), but I thought I'd let you know. i(said) (did) 09:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I don't believe I've done anything more than fix a few typos and add apostrophes, but I will watch it. I do not want to annoy people needlessly. I have not even bothered noting whose comments they were; mostly I was just being careful not to make any change that would in any way change meaning. --Jack Merridew 09:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what I'm saying. Doing such minor edits is not needed, and apparently is discouraged. When you say noting whose comments they were, do you mean adding {{unsigned}}? If so, that is perfectly acceptable, and helpful. Again, I personally don't mind, but I thought I'd let you know. I've checked and checked, and I'm almost positive no errors :) i(said) (did) 09:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I can see how people could be annoyed by someone correcting typos (I also think someone getting annoyed by something like this needs to lighten up). I wasn't referring to the cases where I added an {{unsigned}} (and thanks for showing me {{tlx}}); I meant that I was not targeting any particular user's typos. I've only done those I saw in the editbox; I have no interest in copy-editing whole talk pages! --Jack Merridew 10:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. They probably should, but eah. We try not to provoke. And it's okay, I just noticed I make more errors than I thought I did. As a side note; you can also use {{tl}}. I didn't know what the difference was before, but I just noticed that tlx is a wider space between the {{ }}. i(said) (did) 10:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :)
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)
[reply]
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. —Jack 11:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects
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. Eusebeus 09:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 thnik 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 Merridew 09:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 rediected 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. Eusebeus 11:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been tagging The Simple Life with {{notability}} w/the episode arg and note that they all fail. I'll look at the Friends stuff a bit after I'm done for the day w/Paris. --Jack Merridew 11:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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! Eusebeus 11:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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:128.40.76.3 09:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want that article to survive vigilant editors, you will need to establish the notability of the subject, sorry. --Jack Merridew 09:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Meatstar for being a complete Tool
I herewith award you the meatstar for being a complete Tool for your bad faith edits and nomination for speedy deletion of the article Chris Conley. Your arrogance and lack of community awareness demonstrates true wiki courage! Note this is not a barnstar A$$HAT! – Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor -