Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:40, 14 May 2010

User talk:Jack Merridew/Notice

Flight Time

You did what to the article ? Mlpearc (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I *edited* the article, twice. It's a wiki, people are *supposed* to edit things. I left edit summaries, too. Jack Merridew 00:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification of proposed topic/interaction ban on Tbsdy

See here for the proposal. Based on some recent interaction you may have had with the user(s) I thought you might want to know. Thanks. Equazcion 23:55, 14 Feb 2010 (UTC)

groans ;) I had hoped this would sort-out. off to look. Jack Merridew 00:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"one of the usual trolls. Many focus on me due to my history." Ok, calling me a troll is one thing, but focus on you? All I did was lift some code from you. I have no clue who you are, or what your history is. I had no interaction with you whatsoever until you commented on my request to undelete my userpage. Big head much? User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier 07:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• WP:DUCK. Jack Merridew 08:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously there's a communications issue between us. I'm not upset about the troll comment. "Many focus on me". Thats the part that bugs me. You've barely heard a peep out of me, and you're assuming the noise I make is a quack, so I must be a duck. {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 08:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ORLY? See this version of my talk page. Jack Merridew 23:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not me dude. I was sleeping. Same shit happened to mine. Sorry I brought all this trouble down on you. {{SUBST:User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier/Sig}} 23:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Jack, saw your comment at ANI. Want to file CU? If this really is John254, I warned him once before to get off your back. Durova 00:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

also: my user page of the day: bluefish ;) I landed two, today. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It'll get run by someone, I'm sure. I recall the warning (note my use of the word 'crab'). I'm just great flypaper to have about ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like a CU. I'm not John, nor Grawp, and I'd like that crap cleared up so I can go on my way. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

ask away. Jack Merridew 00:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Done Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets try to keep our personal chatter off ANI. Yes, we are acquainted. You seemed (as in it appeared to me. I'm not saying thats what happened) to follow my past accounts every move, opposing me at every turn. On the other hand, I admired you, and tried several times to strike up a friendly conversation. Thats how I knew about you, and knew where to look for the nifty code. Perhaps this time around we can have a more friendly relationship. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not personal chatter. You've just acknowledged *multiple* past accounts. You're also directly contradicting your initial comment at the top of this section. If I opposed you in the past, it's because I felt you were doing something wrong. If you're not who I think, prove it. You may get a clearance from the CUs (I expect Brad to consult with others). If you want to get along with me, you need to do the transparency thing. I will not out you on wiki; however, if you're not clean, I'd report you to the proper authorities privately. Frankly, you would be best served by openly acknowledging whatever your past is. This has gotten attention and if you're to move on from this, you need to calm the communal waters. Jack Merridew 01:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

When have I acknowledged "multiple" accounts? When I said "You seemed to follow my past accounts every move" you seem to have taken "accounts" out of context. There's only the one. And I've said before, and I'll say it again. I'll reveal the name of the past account via email to any interested admin. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you just said "past accounts" — and my understanding of the concept of plural leads me to believe that it meant, like, more than one. WP:DUCK. Jack Merridew 01:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I said "my past accounts every move". Its possessive. Not plural. I don't know how to make that any clearer. Jack "Red Hood" Napier (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

See: apostrophe. WP:DUCK. Jack Merridew 02:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Attribution

There are seven images in use in your userpage image shuffler which are licensed under a Creative Commons or GFDL license. These licenses require attribution (which is provided at the image description page); however, your coding has made these images unclickable. Could you look into this and provide some obvious way of accessing the image description page? Thanks, –xeno 23:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the positioned text fields is used to offer a caption and I included a link to the file; the link text is the full file name. The dog displayed at the moment is my own picture and is PD. Did I miss doing this on some images that should have it? I'll look, but specifics would help, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Xeno,
asleep on the job

My apologies- I didn't notice the code further down the page and you correctly pointed out that today's image didn't clue me into that you had properly done so on the non-PD images. –xeno 23:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No prob; as the ec-text below says, I'll fix any that need to be. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Check back in 40 minutes ('tomorrow', UTC) and the image will rotate to File:Trolling for bluefish2.jpg and the page will be offering a link right in the middle. You may need to poke it. That's a featured picture by Durova; a clean-up of a PD/LOC Currier & Ives lith. I'll certainly add links to those that needed it, if I've missed any. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I already cluebatted myself by previewing it after changing all the "mod 13" to "mod 11". Sorry for the intrusion – I'll go back to sleep now! –xeno 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. I've previewed it a lot; *I* change the majikword to a constant for that ;) It's my plan to swap images and quotes often, so many images may only run once. The nods to other users' who've adapted earlier code for their own use may go around a few time. Mebbe I'll use the scars quote for a few days. That cycle needs adjustment as it's poorly aligned with 24h in a day. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Another way would be to use a quasi-random algorithm like used in {{ubxrand}} so that users don't have to wait so long for a new version, they can just purge to their heart's content. –xeno 23:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I'll go look. Part of my intent was to encourage return visitors by requiring them to wait; most are not up to the s/r and preview technique. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment by an admin who is NOT inclined to start gently swinging the banhammer

Could you just, you know, sort of, be a little more mellow in your use of adjectives – especially those which appear in edit summaries? It might make Misplaced Pages just that little more.... coool? Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe I know which one you're referring to. Sure, I'll mellow. The larger picture here is that at least three groups of very naughty users have been tag-teaming me for the last few days. You've commented on Drew before; chip-in. The anon I flamed is just a lurker stirring things. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am presently being mellowed by generous inward application of brandy. I am uncertain that my involvement in ongoing discussions may be beneficial... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy; this is currently at SPI and two indefs should result. I'm gonna pour me one, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy the brandy, dear fellows. A word of advice? Most trolls have the attention span of a four-year-old whose Ritalin prescription expired. If they're particularly inane, turn the tables. The /b/tards who are watching this page today will glean far better lulz from this essay on Grawp. Warm regards, _Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark 00:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; need to go get that snifter... I'm sure this will all sort soon enough, as will a few other dramas afoot. Your ever-handy troll-flypaper sockpuppet, Jack Merridew 00:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. At the risk of violating WP:SOCK by posting to the same discussion under two identities no, wait, this is a disclosure so it's OK, check out this thread. Do we even need a CU here? Looks like he's admitting he created the new account to violate the avoiding scrutiny clause of the socking policy. My first impulse is to try to talk to him, but the clue-putty won't adhere to the clue-wall and he's trying to throw the outing policy at me. What's your opinion here? Wait for the SPI formalities and hope he gets it in time? Durova 01:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just reading that. He's toast; he's admitted to being Drew there and falsifying sources again ices it. Someone will ding him, soon enough. I suggest posting that link to SPI and and I'll update my thread on Larry's talk page. Then I'm off; thanks for your help here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Heading out the door to the pharmacist. He's saying he'll find sources for the text, but doesn't appear to understand that the source is Citizendium. He needs to attribute his coauthors there. Also his paintball image uploads are somebody else's photographs (even if he's the subject they're hosted on somebody else's site and someone else is credited as photographer; they're the photographer's intellectual property and there's no OTRS submission). Haven't looked into what else has happened since the ban proposal, but this worries me. This fellow's contributions may need more double checking and cleanup than they're worth. Durova 01:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw and just posted there and at SPI. Drew's a net negative by a wide margin and that will determine his fate. There *is* other shite from the Drew account since the prior discussion. I'd have to go dig it up. Good luck with Samantha. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Still around? Have a look at my user talk, please, if you are. Substantial number of copyvio image uploads, and he's declaring an intent to ditch the current account in order to avoid scrutiny again. Seems to treat this as a game. Shall we go ahead with a ban proposal? Is there any viable alternative? Durova 04:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Slightly off. I'm ditching WP in general. Most likely not coming back. Definitely not in the foreseeable future. Adíos. – Drew, Larry Sangers Revenge, and The Joker. 04:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Drew, I happened upon you because you were disruptive; further, you were disruptive in ways you knew would catch my attention; start with a user name beginning with "Jack" — and the rest, as they sang about The Professor and Mary Ann. Your intentions are not good; "Larry Sanger's Revenge"? The Joker? Who the fook do you think you're fooling? You're trolling. Grow the fook up. See'ya next username. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that clarifies any urgency. If this concludes a siteban or indefinite block, please bear in mind that you would need to request that it be lifted before restarting under a new account. See Misplaced Pages:Standard offer for a basic outline; in your case I would want to see an experienced editor take responsibility for overseeing your edits to ensure proper sourcing and licensing. If you wait the appropriate time and find someone who's willing to do that, email me and I'll initiate the review request. It's all about the project, not about personal feelings. Durova 04:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I expect there needs to be a formal discussion and then he gets indef'd. From all you've found, it seems quite straightforward. Thanks for helping with this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No matter what else happens, at least this has inspired a new troll sockpuppet. :) Durova 03:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you made that with steel fishing line, it would make a pretty good clue stick. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it does have steel in it. The prop is made from bead stringing wire: multiple steel fibers coated in a thin layer of plastic. Durova 16:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, upon closer inspection. It would flay nicely. I could always upgrade to a piece of aircraft cable. The wire through the palm is a nice touch. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The wire through the palm is a structural necessity because the puppet's thumb doesn't actually flex. There's a second pin concealed behind the button reel. Durova 23:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to implement an opposable thumb when you produce a wanker-troll sockpuppet. I expected that another attachment point would be necessary. It should have a real fish hook, too, for use on others than fish. The trout meme is just not working sufficiently. This could be a more effective means of letting teh inner-troll out of some littluns. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hiya, Grawp. Still trying to stretch the truth? Durova 00:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

See? Lacking a proper thumb, he's, uh, illequipped, in multiple ways. It's really quite pathetic. ;) Jack Merridew 00:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Request

Please do not contact me in any manner or post anything on my user or talk pages. Please do not send me any email. Should you find yourself on a general encyclopedic Misplaced Pages page where I have posted, please not post anything to me or about me. You know from my post on the Administrative Board what I have to say about posting there. -- User:Drew Peacock, Esquire 15:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll likely ignore you once you're bagged and tagged ;) Jack Merridew 17:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize how difficult it could be to get the matter properly in hand? Under the circumstances the admins may have to soft block him... Durova 01:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks straightforward to me. Whatever is really going on here, folks should focus on learning the techniques used and on improving the methods for dealing with it. I suspect I am missing something here, since it's dragging on. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing very hard about the situation. Unfortunately for Drew he isn't an M.D.--fellow might never get cured... Durova 01:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Got me ;) They do have a lot of such docs in LA, but they charge an awful lot. Mebbe Mistress Reno can help, or some trailing at the new SF Armory. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There's something irrepressibly lame about using that moniker as one's own nick. Durova 02:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Help!

Jack is it possible (in other words — can you?) to make the areas I have numbered here numbered plan into places on this (much clearer, but in need of a crop) unnumbered plan – so that when the mouse hovers over a room a little thing flashes up to tell what the room is — thus negating the need for text and a key — do you see what I mean? Thanks.  Giano  13:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I get the gist of what you're after. I'm looking at {{Winter Palace}} and expect that's what you're after. I'll need the words for the labels that go with the number; the room names — I'd just use placeholders in the meantime ("fourteen"). We'll have to sort the desired cropping before I get the coordinates. I can do this, too, if you like. I'm thinking centered with fairly small margins. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Blenheim Palace overhead1

See {{Blenheim Palace overhead1}} where I've defined rooms 1 and b. Once we settle on a final image/cropping, I'll add the other rooms. These coordinates are all specific to the image used, so best to sort that first. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You're a star Jack — the cropping is great. I hope there are not to many rooms, yep something like Winter Palace is exactly what I am after — it's not too much work for you is it? Do you want the names of the rooms, or can I just change them from numbers as I write the page? The grey areas are courtyards by the way, not rooms.  Giano  23:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I can work through the rooms fairly quickly; and the courtyards can be labeled, too. The imagemap fundamentally uses links, so you're going to have to point them each as something; a section header, in most cases. The names can be dropped in at anytime. Since you are happy with the image a crop, I'll do some more. Just know that all the coordinates will need redoing if you regenerate or re-crop the image. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done — until you label some more rooms. Let me know if you want courtyard 'a' to include more towards the top… Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fantastic Jack, thanks so much for this. I'm sure it really helps people to have a clear image of the place. Having now spent hours on the "dolls' house" I suppose I had better start now on the page.  Giano  08:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy, and let me know what tweaks you'd like. I'll look-in on the article and draft tomorrow. I am thinking that courtyard 'a' should be larger; I did it early and I made the others extend to the bottom l/r corners. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to make it display on the page and it won't, what am I doing wrong?  Giano  08:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry – sorted.  Giano  08:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose I could prevail further on your good nature – could I file:Blenheimstate.jpg, it would save the need for long an involved captions and explanations. Don't worry if you're busy.  Giano  18:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya, I'll do that one, too. I'm thinking it needs a bit of the top cropped-off. It won't be for some hours, as I'm busy. I'm going to expand expand the polygon on courtyard 'a', on the other one. Also, you need to be linking those to some target, like a section of the article. As-is, you're linking to things like Red Drawing Room (and I don't think you mean to spin things out into 18 or so articles). Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Profuse thanks! No hurry at all, we have the rest of our lives. I will be linking, but as yet, I'm not quite sure how in depth I'm going to be regarding individual rooms, I ususally let the page write itself and then hack it to bits when I've finished.  Giano  21:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for fixing the formatting on my user page! I never could work out how to do it properly. :) JN466 15:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Enjoy. Jack Merridew 19:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Watershed (k.d. lang album)

My reply is at User talk:Jerzy#Watershed (k.d. lang album).
--Jerzy•t 01:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank's, I've opined on the alternate proposal (in opposition), and will review the seemingly reasonable compromise above it. I'd rather been put-off following the whole RfC due to all the disruption and mischaracterization that was occurring; one party was even take to arbitration over it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Housecleaning

I keep messing up the tables, when you get a chance, can you take a look at Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients and make sure everything appears to be in order? JBsupreme (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally edit someone else's talk post ...

... but just did yours @ J Wales' talk page. People are confused enough about Flagged Revisions without the prospect of naked editing with a Donna Summer soundtrack.   pablo_hablo. 00:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's the article I meant to link to. Imagine the prospect of a bunch of big-dicked sysops getting them right out there in the faces of all the littluns and not sighting their vandalism and other less than impressive edits. Time to get encyclopaedia up to feature article status. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Now there's a mental image I could have done without while I'm drinking my breakfast cup of tea!   pablo_hablo. 06:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on User:Jimbo Wales

Please stop doing that. If it's out of place someone else will remove it. --TS 18:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hardly edit-waring, Tony. It's a misplaced talk-post. It's still off, so all's fine. Jack Merridew 18:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Font size

I noticed that when you edited filmography tables during the discussion, you adjusted font sizes in them. I was wondering if you could sidestep this kind of adjustment for the duration of the RfC? It can be perceived as rocking the boat during the discussion. I'd like such tables to be 100% in font size, but let's see the discussion to its conclusion and make changes depending on the outcome. Erik (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask you to be more civil in the discussion? You can still get your points across without that tone. It would make the discussion more conducive. I'll try to share my thoughts later today, but I have no taste for vitriol. Erik (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've bitten my tongue sufficiently that WHL's talking to me. However, most of the discussion there has gone circular, so I think it's time to wrap it up. I see things as about 3:1 against their current practices. and expect things to settle on bulleted lists and/or plain 100%/wikitable depending on circumstances. Good luck, Jack Merridew 00:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mary-Louise Parker

You are being decidedly pointy. An actor's body of work contained in a table falls under the general heading of filmography tables. What next? You'll go around removing table headings for television work? Anything that an actor does in his or her line of work falls under this general, if misleading title. Your removal of the table heading is inappropriate when your rationale is "this is a play, not a film". You are well aware of the distinction of work categories and works that an actor appears in falls under this rationale. You are being pointy and are wrong in your logic. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I just posted to your talk page. Pick one. Jack Merridew 23:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've got news for you, it doesn't matter if 100% of my edits are reverts, when one looks at articles on one's watchlist and there is a whole lot of vandalism, one reverts it. Tell me, which of these three edits would you have left intact? You have no grounds to criticize the reverts I make, they are valid. And it is quite obvious that any work an actor does falls under the general heading of "actors". You, on the other hand, are forging ahead and making pointy edits like the Parker one when a discussion is on-going, removing and editing the tables outside the discussion. You persist in following my edits, which is wikistalking and inappropriate conduct. Please desist from following me around. Your assertions are bogus regarding my intent and you have persistently attacked me on the discussion page, which more than one editor has commented on. Please stop disparaging me with every post you make to me and rediscover civility. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If those links are to vandalism, I'd revert them. The revert you made of my edit *was* inappropriate, as I explained in my edit summaries and in my post on your talk page. You have continued to place gratuitous and invalid code into articles — stuff beyond what's under discussion in that RFC — even after the issues have been explained to you and you've acknowledged that much of the code is inappropriate (no one is disputing your issues with "border="2" cellpadding="4" background: #f9f9f9;" and "|- align="center"). Yet that's what you just restored. I am concerned with your editing because you are demonstrably making poor edits. I have softened my approach with you and spent an inordinate amount of time discussing rather obvious issues with you. Regards, Jack Merridew 00:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're talking about regarding edits beyond what is under discussion at WT:ACTOR. And yet, in a couple of cases where I removed the code you noted above, I was chastised for doing that. I don't dare touch any tables, even on pages that are currently high profile and are crying for improvement because of this. Damned if I remove it, damned if I return it, damned if I protest a pointy edit that contends that stage work is not part of an actor's body of work, damned if I revert obvious vandalism through commentary on my frequency of reverting vandalism. I appreciated your dialing back animosity in your posts to me, but your commentary on my contribution history is unwarranted. Do you go about commenting on the frequency of reverts to other editors who do vandal patrol? Not cool. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Damn, may I cuss, too? I'm really good at it (but not as good as I am with code). The edits I was referring to are those no longer in contention in that RFC; the cellpadding quote, I gave above; the stuff you tried to restore after agreeing with my view that they are poor form.

Proposal: neither of us edits any table of any sort on actor bios until that RFC finds it's way to a stable state? Don't fret that your articles need you; it's fundamental to the wiki-process that things take time and you should trust that others will cover in your absence.

Also, have you had a chance to look at:

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#table headings via templates

yet? It is attempt to separate the hard-coded markup issue from the question of the presentation of the content. You've asked for examples, and I've offered them, yet you dismissed the earlier one and seem to be ignoring this one.

Regards, Jack Merridew 00:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I wasn't actually cussing, though I'm pretty good at it too. "Damned" was more in the condemnation venue that the intensifier venue. I'm mostly referring to the article on Corey Haim, whose filmography needs more content, such as roles, etc. I accept your proposal. That will save you looking at my edits and save me from looking at what you're doing when your name pops up. I had not seen that section, I apparently didn't check my watchlist during that hour, or just didn't see it, though I would look if I saw it, but I will. Although, and not dismissing your post, just looking, we wouldn't normally include co-stars or broadcast channels in the filmographies, we do try to stab for consistency in content and leave that extraneous stuff for the article about the film, though I acknowledge you said it was hypothetical. All that extraneous stuff is what we are trying to rid from filmographies. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We'll see how it goes, then. Please take a few moments to review the sample code I've posted and comment. It address your concern re flexibility and mine concerning embedded markup, and would allow a single point of control of the styling of the header-cells. Again, I'm not supporting this, just offering it to clarify the role of templates. Building an encyclopaedia is about content, structure, and navigation. Ephemera such as color is pretty far down on the priority list. Regards, Jack Merridew 01:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, please...

As far as I know – you and I have never interacted. Why you would "wish a plague" on my "house" (let alone think that is anywhere near a civil sort of thing to say) to someone you know nothing about is puzzling. For all you know, I could end up being one of the finest people you have ever encountered in Misplaced Pages. Stranger things have happened, after all... :-) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

re: this post

I've replied in that thread. While I don't believe we've interacted much, please don't assume that I know nothing about you and your dispute with Wildhartlivie. Both of your contribs are public and your disputes regularity kick-up shite on my watchlists. And please don't tweak what I said; I referred to both your houses.

I've been on these projects far longer than most users and have seen a lot of strange things. While I've seen a lot of misunderstandings cleared up, I've yet to see a leopard change his spots.

For what it's worth, I expect you're right about the photo.

Regards, Jack Merridew 01:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. For the record, I wasn't trying to "tweak" what you said, it's just that because of the ban, my "house" is the only one I am able to comment on. I hope you understand. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's also a quote (which also does not include the word 'wish'). That said, I had not considered that you were seeking to abide by the ban and can see your splitting of the phrase as having that intent. Regards, Jack Merridew 01:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the line, "...a pox upon thee!" ? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mercutio says, "A plague o' both your houses!" twice in Act III, Scene I – still misquoted by all of us, however ;> Doc9871 (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My original usage was more an allusion than a quote, and I didn't use quotation marks ;) Anyway, I did it from memory. And yes, it is often cast as a pox on both your houses. Jack Merridew 05:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Miley Cyrus

Please don't restore personal attacks as you did here and here. There's no need for them, and it's perfectly acceptable for other users to "police" those. I realize that they were directed towards you, but that doesn't give the IP the right to attack you or others and their comments will not be tolerated. Jauerback/_dude. 02:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The personal attack I restored was directed at myself and I did so in order to reply to it. The user I referred to as 'policing' the page was also removing my reply. I believe my approach was entirely appropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

more; I now see that you changed your post while I was replying to the first version. I still believe that the project is better served by transparency here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Restored... for the most part. Jauerback/_dude. 03:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The hat box works for me; thanks. See here where all the back-and-forth muddied this to the point where someone reviewing my editing thought I was making the attacks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

3RR complaint about your edits

You are aware of WP:AN3#User:Jack Merridew reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result: ), since you've already responded there. The report claims that you're continuing to make changes without waiting for the result of the RfC. If this is correct, are you willing to stop? Note that, if there is a dispute about the result of the RfC, you can make a request at WP:AN for an uninvolved admin to close it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I requested an uninvolved admin at WP:AN#Stuck RfC re actor pages and their hard-coded formatting more than a day ago. The RFC has been 'stuck' for about a week due to WHL no longer participating. My view is that there certainly is no consensus for all the hard-coded markup they've pasted into tens of thousands of articles and most participants in the RFC support change. Yet WHL resists all change and spins things every which way but forward. I'm certainly not intent on edit waring and welcome the input of others to suggest a forward direction or to officially close that RfC. I would be fine with you closing it, as I recall the meticulous job you did some months back re Merging during AfDs. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. I looked at the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:ACTOR#Filmography and am considering whether to make the effort to close it. I might do so if my participation enjoys both your support and that of Wildhartlivie. You may be aware that, while the opinions expressed in that RfC lean in one direction, they don't do so by a large margin. It is not clear to me just what is at stake in the RfC. Can you give me the names of some articles where this dispute has come up before? Have any reports been made on noticeboards about it? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I believe that all the issues and possible directions have been discussed and explored there, and that the discussion has run its course. The opinions on offer are skewed towards that project membership's view because the venue was chosen for its favorable audience. From my perspective, this began at Anna Kendrick, but that's just one page I happened to notice. There is the substantial prior discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 9#Header color in wikitables, where the core issues were hashed-out last year and a consensus on how to handle this was evaded by WHL (discussed in the current thread and documented by User:David Levy). I was not involved in last year's thread. Besides the postings by me to WP:AN requesting admin review, I don't know of any noticeboard threads about this; I've not looked.

The core issue is that unwarranted presentational information is being pasted into tens of thousands of articles in order to avoid having any central point of control of the details of that presentation (i.e. a template or common.css). The prior thread proposed a template and it's usage was undone by WHL when others insisted it implement a standard look (i.e. class="wikitable"). The hard-coded markup has to be cleaned-up and any customization of the look and feel managed from a single point of control. That project's goal of forcing a table implementation onto every actor article is also very wrong-headed. The norm has long been to use bulleted lists for filmographies and all the table markup is a major impediment to ordinary editors editing the article. There are countless examples of these table needing to be fixed by editors more adept at markup.

The intent and effect of all the hard-coded markup is to present the wiki with a fait accompli. The objections to closure are all about dodging the issues others have been concerned with for most of a year. Taking an even wider view, the notion of wikiprojects as governing bodies could be looked at, as this one has major ownership issues. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 16:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not worth my trying to close this unless there is an agreed-upon boundary. (i.e., what is the set of opinions am I trying to summarize). If you also want me to resolve the question of WikiProjects as governing bodies the case may be hopeless. There's also a concern about what the people in the RfC believed they were commenting on. Many of them thought they were giving an aesthetic or functional preference for 90% versus 100%, and not opining on the role of WikiProjects as governing bodies. After the RfC gives a result (whatever it is) you may need to seek consensus elsewhere about the broader questions that interest you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see that the governance issue as beyond the scope of this RfC; I'm just pointing out that it's part of the divergence of views, here. That's an issue for another discussion. WHL started this whole thread as an attempt to ratify their prior local consensus, not explore other options or revisit the common.css thread. We need a determination of what we're going ask Xeno to have his bot do to the extant tables out there. At a minimum, they need to be recast to work via a template. The major open question to WHL is that if things are changed to a template, and if there is then a consensus to not use her color in that template, will she then orphan the template in favor of hard-coded markup, as she did before. That was profoundly disruptive and antithetical to notion of consensus seeking. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 17:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide links or diffs to where this happened before? It looks to me that, at a minimum, there will need to be a further RfC about the color, even if it turns out that the editors in the current RfC favor the use of a template. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The prior evading of consensus? That's documented by David Levy in the current thread:

I don't understand your claim regarding the template. While the discussion was underway, you responded to template edits that you opposed by unilaterally declaring that the template would not be used and requesting its deletion. You then replaced it in articles with hard code (thereby switching the tables back to your preferred style), without even supplying a class enabling custom tweaks (including those intended to increase accessibility) . All of this occurred on 28 May and is covered in the discussion that you didn't remember (but hopefully have read).
— from his post of 00:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The section I started re: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#table headings via templates is about separating the two issues. If this route if followed, it would address the hard-coded markup issue and allow central control of things such as the color per some subsequently formed consensus. The sticking point, as last year, was what happens should a consensus emerge to not use the color? Last year WHL undid everything and went with the cement-everything-into-individual-articles approach.

Could you run a quick test? Try reflinks: here. Paste "Anna Paquin" in and select "Plain links" (you'll get more fixes) and be sure the default "Apply common fixes" is enabled. You should get it to offer seven citation templates and some automated clean-up, including an adjustment of the filmography heading. (I'm assuming this version of Anna Paquin) What is current practice is viewed, correctly, by this tool as in need of fixing. In this case, it's is ripping most of the hard coded markup out. I'm seeking a consensus to perform a better form of this clean-up. The underlying issue here is poor coding decisions being made by people with no understanding of code. See Misplaced Pages:Randy in Boise. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

more; I see you ask on WHL's talk page where I agreed to not edit the table headings. I did agree to not fix these while the RfC is open after notes from User:David Levy and User:Erik; there's also my comment to you at the top of this thread. This is an interim thing and seems a lot of why they would like the RfC to remain open indefinitely. I also proposed that WHL and I not edit any of these table at all and she agreed, but has not abided by it. See #Mary-Louise Parker on this page and User talk:Wildhartlivie/Archive 11#editing tables on actor bios. That archive also has WHL's and my first discussion of this at: User talk:Wildhartlivie/Archive 11#Anna Kendrick. There are also some completely deleted threads, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've posted {{Filmography table headings}} and an invocation at Anna Kendrick#Filmography. I've not cut the 90% font-size, although it should go; even WHL has acknowledged that there's little support for the 90%, so that should be sorted. It This template is named per an intended use on filmography tables, however, note their practice of doing all the same sort of hard-coded-markup on any table on an actor page without the wikiproject even stating that as a project norm. I've also seen this leak onto other pages, such as Elizabeth Barrett Browning, who is not even an actor. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Tables

The following discussion 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.

Jack why are you continuing this? Didn't you agree with Wildhartive not to change the tables while the RfC was taken place? I remember you suggesting to me not to convert filmorgaphies to tables because it would be "disruptive, discourteous, and antithetical to the notion of consensus seeking", but yet you get to "tidy" up? Double standard is double, Jack. Just because it has stalled, doesn't mean it's in anyone's favor. —MikeAllen 20:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Continuing what? That edit is a perfectly legitimate clean-up of a table, and the changes involve none of the issue discussed in that RfC. Seems to me you folks want to keep that RfC open indefinitely and run me off all of your articles. Regards, Jack Merridew 21:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because editors like a certain class of articles doesn't mean they own them (they are released under CC-BY-SA 3.0, no one "owns" them). However, someone has to keep them up; which is where "Projects" come in. Projects are the community's way of keeping a class of articles organized, up-to-date, clean (table coding is a matter of dispute, obviously) and keep unwanted crap out. The RfC is still wide open because it's inconclusive, not because of any kind of conspiracy. Don't get it twisted, Jack. —MikeAllen 23:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The policy is quite clear on ownership issues, but that does not mean certain classes of editors don't behave as if they had ownership. And as I've noted, some have a rather inflated view of the role of wikiprojects in the wiki-process. Your project has no authority. If you want something to have guideline or policy status, you have to get a consensus for it from the full community. Seems odd that the objectors to closing that RfC have nothing much more to say there. Don't you want to sort this all out?

An Official Decree from WikiProject:WikiTidy,
Jack Merridew, Wiki-Legal sockpuppet and code-cop ;) 23:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not my Project. "Don't you want to sort this all out" I've already said my piece. It's a non-issue to me so why devote more time? Whatever happens, happens. Doesn't look like anything is going to happen, but whatever the outcome is, that's what I'll use. I just have a problem with you sneaking around doing your "tidy" edits, transparently undressing the filmographies tables to suit your distorted worldview on how Misplaced Pages must look. If these minor things mean that much to you, become a Misplaced Pages developer and don't use the RfC venue as your personal army. —MikeAllen 00:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Jack's edit looked fine to me. Per WP:MOSDASH, you shouldn't have spaces around an — (—). Cheers. Plastikspork _―Œ 01:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about him editing filmogrpahy tables (this isn't the only article) while the RfC is in place, and to remind him of his double standard since he once suggested that I not edit the table codes while the RfC was in place (and I haven't). I didn't even mention when he scolded Wildhartive for simply separating a table into a "Television" and "Film" section. When he makes a point, he makes it very noticeable. —MikeAllen 02:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

When you're disruptive, Mike, you don't even have a point. The edit that you tried to revert is unrelated to the snotting-up of the wiki your wikiproject is intent on, so this amounts to your trying to exclude me from your wikiproject's entire <sarcasm>realm of governance</sarcasm>. Bzzt. Regards, Jack Merridew 07:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

RFA

Hi, I saw your note, and if no-one else takes the bait I will review your contributions over the weekend. Would you mind if I also discussed matters with your former mentors? Ϣere SpielChequers 11:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Terima kasih. By all means have a chat with those folks; others, too, including myself. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

OK have a read of User:WereSpielChequers/RFA criteria and tell me how you think you compare to the nomination criteria there, also how would you answer q1-4? (4 being the inevitable what did you learn from your rocky start/ how can we be confident you won't regress). Ϣere SpielChequers 17:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Many of the issues in your RFA criteria are non-issues re myself. I've obviously been here long enough, for example; near 5 and a half years. My indef was for 8 months and ended 16 months ago, which seems a good ratio. I was blocked once since, but that was simply a mistake.

Good Judgement

I believe I have good judgement; always have. This is one of the important thing sought in an admin. I would not consider running if I did not think that the project would benefit from my judgement.

Tolerance

This is key and I struggle with it. The world is a diverse place and I've seen more of it than most. The projects target and attract people of all sorts from everywhere. This means that every one of humanities' disputes is here. I don't edit most of the subjects I have really strong views on. Of course, I still run into people I disagree with, and do strive to deal with them reasonably. See my comments below re q3&4 (I wrote that section first). The appropriate action when dealing with someone you are feeling intolerant of is to involve others in the discussion (and demonstrate tolerance, of course).

Civility

I've been called uncivil, but for the most part it's overstated. I am not known for swearing at people. I am known for being critical of inappropriate behaviour and of content, and I am well aware that admins need to speak softly. If I were to seek adminship, I would certainly be intent on not losing it for the satisfaction of a rash venting at someone.

Communication

Getting unbanned entails considerable communications. It was an extended process of honest dialogue. I have always been skilled at written communication, and have learned patience.

Skill

I know much of the policy on this site, but also know that I would need to bone-up on any specifics concerning areas I was considering being active with tools. I would be cautious as a new admin. Really.

WP:CLUE

I believe in cluocracy, as subjective as it is. But we all see clue in others, and it's the core of respect.

Humour

I believe humour has an important role in effective communications, but am aware that other will not always find it amusing or appropriate. Humour in an RFA would typically be unwise, and I would treat an RfA concerning myself seriously, as I do those of others.

I've actually not ever prepared answers to those questions. Call this a draft, as I'd expand on it:

Q1: What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I see myself editing a lot of protected templates and pages like MediaWiki:Common.css. I'm sure there are other pages in the MediaWiki namespace that I could do interesting things to. Other area I could help in are CSD backlogs; I've tagged a lot that fill those queues would clear stuff other have added.

Q2: What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: I'm a software developer and take a site-wide perspective on most things. This project is an encyclopeadia, but it is also a website and it needs management from that perspective. I have worked on a lot the other language projects, and find their implementations accessible at the code-level. I have done a lot of work on navigation and formatting and try to move things in the direction of well-understood best practices. I'm rather a wiki-gnome and a huge proportion of my best edits are all the tweaks to improperly formed pages. Building the project is not just about content, it is also about structure. I guess I'm a structurist, as Dave Shea once said.

Q3: Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes. I have a history. I ended up a sockpuppet after scuttling my original account out of frustration. The key thing I have learned is that problems need collaborative solutions and that the best route to dispute resolution is to involve more people in whatever issue; if one is right, others out there will see it and a solution found. I've also learned patience, as wikis are by their nature wasteful of the the primary thing people give to the project: their time.

Q4: What did you learn from your rocky start/how can we be confident you won't regress?

A: Early-on, I did not engage with others in the broader community. I was focused on editing, not socializing. When issues arose, I was an unknown to most people. These days, I'm pretty well known and am much more involved in the wider community, which has progressed considerably itself. I have made personal promises that I won't ever sock again (and haven't;).

Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Support all lost causes. While I'd love it if you were an admin, you don't rank ahead of me enough in qualities required by people who require meaningless qualities to pass. I look forward to supporting you, however! Hipocrite (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not a poll. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a mentor, this is a tricky one really. Undoubtedly JM's skills at tinkering with code and formatting would be a hands-down clear-cut benefit to the 'pedia. No doubt about it. Also very intelligent and clearly dedicated to the 'pedia, even if his and my definitions of notability and inclusion criteria diverge rather significantly. However the big issue is the whole arbitration and socking history and whether the general community feels comfortable with the checks and balances we do have in case Jack lets his temper get the better of him in some future dust-up with another editor. Familiar as I am with the arbitration process, I feel they are more than capable of dealing with problematic admin behaviour as long as someone makes a request. However, I was not terribly happy with how conduct in the one-year review was handled and did feel that the concerns of some editors who are marginalised because of their views and interactions with others (namely Ikip and A Nobody) were almost dismissed out of hand rather than material addressed as such. i.e. if JM as admin resulted in a significant chilling effect then it'd be a bad thing, but if this were to occur I figure we'll see this in an RfA. I think someone like Kww might be a better person to offer an impartial view. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am confident that Jack Merridew as sysop will use the tools appropriately, and would tackle CSD queues and clear-cut AFDs in an exemplary manner. My main concern is wrt to borderline AFDs; I see lots of trouble in the future if he jumps in and start closing them. As with Everyking, I think it will help to clearly state your intentions in this regard, otherwise it will become a topic of debate at the RFA, drawing discussion and attention away from your strengths. e.g. I'd be content in knowing that you were going to steer clear of them for a year; that will give you time to settle into the role; after that, come what may. There will inevitably be dust-ups, but if they are too frequent and poorly handled, Arbcom will need to do their thing. Regarding tolerance, maybe add some examples of where you have compromised when the other party has been reasonable and/or where you have backed away when the other party has been unreasonable - both approaches are needed at times in order to avoid ripping someones hair out. Also, it would be good to document where your best content contributions lie, etc. in response to Q2. Even if your best content work has been gnoming, it will help to mention themes in your gnoming that have made a positive difference to the project. I know you have written articles which you have reason to be proud of; even thought they are not FAs, the community will see the significance if you explain the background. John Vandenberg 18:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Jack's technical skills are top-notch, but it is near impossible for an ex-bannee to gain adminship. I don't think an RfA will pass, but Jack will have my support anyway. AGK 14:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Masters of the Universe mass merger

Hi I really appreciated your assistance in cleaning up the C.O.P.S. articles I am trying a similar thing with the Masters of the Universe if you are interested one I need help improving is List of Masters of the Universe characters. Your help would be most appreciated there are a few others if you are interested hit contact me whenever. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I'll take a look at that family of “articles”. I'm not much familiar with them as I never watched such shows. I had more wholesome after school activities, like playing with gasoline, and Edmund Scientific weather balloons filled from a cylinder of hydrogen and equipped with a fuse (this, of course, was well after school). Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

also Suharto is being peer reviewed..Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... a franchise that rotted the minds of millions of bulé... or a man who murdered mebbe a million non-... One needs transwiki'ing and the other needs encyclopaedic coverage ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cookie!

PhilKnight has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 22:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The meatpuppet is user:Gyppedagain

This user, user:Gyppedagain started the vandalism that is persisting today. I tagged all the sockpuppets too. Morenooso (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw the tags. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Cookie recipient

Thanks Jack! My first. Eudemis (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Pure Cookie-envy. <chomp> <chomp> Eudemis (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jack..

Just to let you know two things.. 1) the page where you posted is for clerks/arbs only, hope you don't mind that I undid your edit (if anywhere, that should've been the talk page). As for the other part, I GENERALLY have no problem with it, although I would generally prefer it if you asked a clerk to do it.. that way avoids people misconstruing your actions. SirFozzie (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I meant to post it on the Clerks' noticeboard; I must have gotten the shortcut wrong and not looked at the actual page I was clicking '+' on. As for the tweak itself, I'll run any suggestions by the clerks next time, amusing, there is one. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile …

back at the Wikisource ranch, I have got a job for you at your user talk. Thanks. billinghurst sDrewth 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC at Tannhauser Gate

A discussion requesting the input of this project is occurring at Talk:Tannhauser Gate#Keep or merge and redirect. For reference, see the previous AfD. Thanks. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

iPad's infobox's release dates section

Hi,

I've got a problem:

I want to change the release date section in the infobox, because I don't find it explicit:

I want to write:

“Wi-Fi Model (US): April 3, 2010 (2010-04-03)
Wi-Fi + 3G Model (US): April 2010 (2010-04)
Both Models (International): May 2010 (2010-05)” in this more logical and clearer order.

But when I edit, the page loses more than 10KB to be 32KB... I tried 3 times but always the same problem appear.

I ask, now, to you, please, to add my texte above into the article.

Thanks.

→ Kind Regards, Lppa 19:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done maybe next time bring it up on the article talk page so its more likely to be seen :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I will do that next time. ;)

→ Kind Regards, Lppa 09:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A decision on Filmographies at WP:ACTOR?

Hello there. You previously corrected me for "fixing" the filmography of Jayma Mays here as per the standard listed at WP:ACTOR due to an ongoing discussion.. I see that the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers has been closed and I was curious as to the consensus, if any. It doesn't seem to me that there was one. Are we allowed to alter filmography headings at all again? The reason I ask is because there is an editor who spends most of his/her time "fixing" filmographies, and not to what I understood was "the standard". (Which you have previously mentioned doesn't actually exist.) I just reverted one of these here as per an old discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers. But then I remembered your note. What to do? --Logical Fuzz (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That train wreck is not formally closed, as a few continue to resist the tide. Most of the back and forth I see going on in Emily VanCamp is about yet other issues than discussed at WT:ACTOR#Filmographies. Your guy seems intent on combining film and tv into one table and doing two colors.

I think it's time to get this damn mess sorted and will dip an oar in to that page next. The poor ideas emanating from WP:ACTOR in no-way amount to a "standard"—shit, none of that even amounts to a guideline. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

space in self-closing tags

It's my personal preference,

<references />, <hr />, <br /> etc.

but I've been asked a question on my talk page about why. You're better equipped to give a full answer, if you'd care to drop by.   pablo_hablo. 12:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

first warning: be fair

This is the first warning for User:Jack Merridew

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash here "The result was merge to 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash."

• here it is documented, that 6 hours after the decision you simply redirected (in opposition to the decision) the page in question instead of merging (according the decision).

• this is the 85 kB information, what you simply hided behind the redirection.

• International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash#International this resulting 3 sentences is several magnitudes less, than the original 85 kB, hence can not be accepted, as a "merge" operation.

• Special:Contributions/Jack Merridew this proves that you were active both in editing of other parts of the same topic and other articles. Therefore you can not have any excuse that say you had no time to make initian efforts of merging.

• Anyways, if you have no time, or no wish to follow the decision of the wiki community, then better not to make anything against the common discussion and final decision.

In fact, what you did is aginst the common discussion and final decision.

prohlep (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. If you feel he excluded any information that should have been merged, then just merge the information over. Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope; I've already fixedit. Look for a DRV, soon. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

@Prohlep; Too funny. This is kinda not the first time someone has tried to warn me about something. Anywho.

I redirected that after someone else had merged the whole steaming pile, and yet someone else added the few paragraphs, which is about the right degree of coverage.

You may not realize it, but the "community" gets things wrong. A *lot*.

Jack Merridew 21:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI

As you don't seem to have been informed, your name has been mentioned at ANI here.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank; I've seen it, now, and have comment at the DRV, which is prolly the best place to focus on this , uh, silliness. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

† / ‡ in {{Aviation accidents and incidents}}

I have started a discussion at Aviation accidents and incidents that you might want to participate in. –Fred Bradstadt (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Warning, you appear to be edit warring on Cloris Leachman

You and Josette need to work out your differences on the talk page, rather than edit warring. While you haven't exceeded WP:3RR it is a bright line, not an entitlement. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 10:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't have any differences, he's right and I agree and he knows it. Where's your sense of humor? :P - Josette (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) She'll be reverting herself when she's done pointing at the awful table she's talking about on WT:ACTOR. She seems to misunderstand the role of oldids. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What's to understand? Oldids were not exactly the best form of good communication in this case, but whatever. - Josette (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi I've emailed. Dr. Blofeld 19:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. That looks great! Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:FLAGCRUFT#Flags

Not really concerned about your edits related to this (it gives me an excuse not to draw things) but I wonder what part of this little MOS guideline talks about the overuse of flag icons? User:Zscout370 06:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to recast that section as a list as I did the sections below it, and flags aren't in my plan. The over use of flags was talked about on the talk page and/or the AfD and seems very much a part of the intent to condense this thing. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with it really, so I don't care about the flag usage or not. I removed some earlier not due to this policy but due to fair use policy (with regards to the NATO flag). I also gave you that one cite you asked for that Faore Islands. User:Zscout370 06:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw the cite added; the old one was to a wiki article. And I saw some of the flags cut before but had not recalled that it was you. List next. ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP IMDB refimprove tag, vs. BLP unreferenced

Hi i noticed you tagged Sondra Locke with {{BLP unreferenced}} when in fact the article has a source, the IMDB source as an external link, which is probably in fact a valid source for much info in the article. Could you please consider using {{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} or {{BLP IMDB refimprove}} for articles that have IMDB only or IMDB included among other sources, and which appear to need improvement. Or, add {{nofootnotes}} or {{morefootnotes}} to call for inline citations.

But, BLP unreferenced is for cases where there are no sources. And IMDB is a source, whether many regard it as unreliable or not. So it is confusing and incorrect to readers/editors for it to be stated that there are no sources. And there are other alternative tags. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, imdb is not a source, at all. I see these new ones are very new, and will keep an eye out for their TfDs. Jack Merridew 03:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I went for it. Jack Merridew 03:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That's rude, in my view. I open a discussion with you about some templates that you happen not to know about, and within 2 seconds you have nominated them for deletion. I replied in the TFD discussion. You can follow link from there to find discussion among editors leading to these templates, if you care. --doncram (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't my intent. As I see it, an article such as Sondra Locke—which has no references and imdb in the extern section—is still *unsourced*. The goal here is reliable sources, and it seems you and some others may be trying to water down the view that such articles are unsourced, as they're 'sourced' to imdb. See this edit where I specifically cut the use of imdb as a reference, because it isn't one. I will go read the linked discussion, tomorrow. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jack here. IMDB is not an adequate source. That Locke starred in whatever film is essentially sourced by the film itself, and not a link to IMDB. There is actually little on IMDB that can be considered reliable since much of its content is from user contributions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is NOT a reliable source. Quite right. Dr. Blofeld 09:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am familiar with many past discussions, including a failed proposal, about IMDB. Anyone is free, from my point of view, to tag as unreliably sourced any individual fact attributed to IMDB or any article which mentions it, i don't care. However, where i am coming from is that i am working, along with others, on the big, public problem for Misplaced Pages that as of January 50,000 articles were identified as being completely unsourced. But it is just not true, it is FALSE, to say that if some user creates a brand new article, say about a more obscure actor than Sandra Locke, that if a user creates this from IMDB information that the article has no source. It has a source, the source that the user puts into the article. To say the source that they used is not the source that they used is to confuse matters. Many experienced editors do accept/recommend use of IMDB for some basics, about film credits and so on, even though they decry its use for other types of information and/or call for additional sources to be used to further corroborate basic facts. Others wish to repeat "IMDB is not a source" when what they probably mean is that IMDB is not reliable as a source. I don't care. I am adding value for the IMDB-haters by identifying many articles that are sourced only to IMDB, which can be arrayed in one category and attacked if they like. I am, however, removing the "unsourced" tag which is inflating public perceptions of Misplaced Pages's problem of completely unsourced articles, which these are not. There's a June 1 deadline for the wikipedia community to get the total down to 30,000 or below, and doing this relabelling is turning out to be a crucial part of that effort. If you are willing to help in the effort, please consider joining wp:URBLP. --doncram (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, actually I've referenced several hundred BLPs and am already contributing to the cause... Why you didn't think to use the sources from the Clint Eastwood article I've been writing to add to the Locke article and then remove the tag beats me. The tag was valid and still needs further citations. An unreferenced unreliable article is still a problem, tagged or untagged, we shouldn't hide this just because we have a deadline to whittle down that big category.. Dr. Blofeld 12:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are helping, didn't mean to imply otherwise. And, Dr. Blofeld, your previous wording was that "IMDB is not a reliable source", to which i do not object. I have done the harder work of adding specifically relevant references to some articles, as part of this BLP unsourced drive, but others like yourself, i guess, are doing far more that way. That is the better way, of course, for any specific article. And i agree we should not hide anything, so any newly discovered articles which are in fact completely unsourced should be added to the BLP unreferenced problem, deadline notwithstanding. And I agree that relabelling IMDB-sourced ones from the "BLP unsourced" category to the "BLP refimprovements needed" category is, in effect, shifting the problem for these ones. But i think it is part of the solution for them too, to identify how many are just sourced from IMDB, and hopefully to get WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers editors, or others, interested in improving them more permanently. --doncram (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Currently we have a messy situation where some IMDB sourced articles get tagged as unreferenced and some as refimprove. Creating a separate tag should enable us to be a bit more consistent and hopefully give a more meaningful message to the editors who use IMDB. I suspect there will be enough of them that it will be worth getting a bot to message them. I think this approach is more likely to get these articles improved than continuing to confuse Newbies by slapping unsourced tags on articles they have sourced from IMDB. ϢereSpielChequers 15:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still torn on all this. My core objection to what's going on is the re-labeling from 'unsourced' to 'ref improvement needed' and the moving of the goalposts re the deadline. Obviously the TfDs are not going to <del> them, so I guess that could be withdrawn. My other current thinking is that it is entirely unwarranted to assume that a page sporting only an imdb extern was, in fact, produced with an eye on that site, as I've seen plenty of cases where the imdb link was added after-the-fact. Anyway, I'm uncomfortable with the view that a reference to an unreliable source amounts to "sourced—albeit poorly". A better take is that a reference to an unreliable source amounts to at-best nothing, and in a few cases, outright fraudulent referencing (not re imdb; a general comment re unreliable sources). The presence of imdb links is as a courtesy to readers and is akin to local links offered in ==See also== sections. I don't think imdb appropriate for use in ==References== sections and absent 'references', an article is 'unreferenced', which I equate with 'unsourced'. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Jack, re your work on this article, feel free to use either of the two workpages I created (linked from the talk page) to further improve the article. Of course, you don't have to use either of them, but take a look anyway if you haven't already done so. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I had briefly looked at those and wanted to skip the whole ordering issue. The flags and tables needed to go and It seems to have stuck. Will check the current state of those. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

AIV

Thanks for your report, I blocked that pesky vandal- do you want rollback to help you in future? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you blocked the ip; and have a mop, congrats. Isn't there a lolcat about rollback? I had it on my page once. Anyway, I rollback fine with the usual tools, but they may do more with that bit, so sure. Thanks. Jack Merridew 18:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That cat is the funniest thing I've seen all day! That's what you get for dealing with vandals, I suppose! Anyway, you now have rollback. I'm sure you know the rules- only for vandalism, no special status, taken away if you misuse it and so on and so forth? The full details are at WP:RBK and you're welcome to ask me if you have any questions. I'll use my new magical powers admin abilities to answer them! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; ya I know the drill and have teh tools elsewhere. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Kindly don't make them, especially in edit summaries. This is deliberate provocation. If the editor is disruptive, then take it further to the proper venue. Ty 00:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie *is* disruptive; that's the core issue, here. It's all ownership and reverting to her. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you have taken this opportunity to repeat the attack. Take this as a final warning. Ty 01:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Come on, have you seen the attacks she routinely throws about? Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Diffs from the last week? Ty 02:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How about from today. And see more on your talk page, where I'll reply tomorrow. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't. You made a blatant personal attack. I have warned you not to do this, so please don't repeat it. Ty 11:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not impressed. Jack Merridew 16:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity...

Were you thinking of opening an RFC/U on Wildhartlivie? Somebody probably should...—Chowbok ☠ 21:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It may come to that. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Need help with image in infobox

Hi. How do I display File:Gary Webb In His Own Words 623.jpg at 320x173px or smaller in {{Infobox journalist}} on Gary Webb? Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You just want to set a specific width? 200–250px. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I tried that several minutes before and it didn't work. I must have caching problems. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)