User talk:sgeureka/Archive04

Welcome!

Hello, Sgeureka, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Tone 11:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

List of The Outer Limits episodes‎

Explain, please, what are you doing? Why did you removed all articles of TOL episodes, and links to these articles? Krasss (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As explained in the edit summaries, #redirect List of The Outer Limits episodes {{R from merge}} - plot-only article (WP:NOT#PLOT), no apparent WP:NOTABILITY". If an article was merged that was not plot-only but which had apparent notability, then feel free to revert. If you disagree with my assessment, we can discuss it over at WP:AFD, where I doubt that we'll get any other result than a merger (at best). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that all of these articles (from Category:The Outer Limits episodes) had an apparent notability. If you are right, show me, please, the concrete discussion (at WP:AFD) about deletion TOL episodes articles. Krasss (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I meant I'll be doing AfD if you think that these articles weren't plot-only and had apparent notability. But I'd be greatly surprised if the AfDs would end in anything but a merge and redirect, so why waste everyone's time with bureaucracy. (But if that is what you want, we can certainly do that.) – sgeureka ^t•c 07:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think, we must discuss your idea about further destiny of these pages at WP:AFD. Krasss (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

See you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Galaxy Being. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, the result of discussion is different than you supposed before. Now I had returned most part of links to episodes to List of TOL episodes, - but the original pages are still redirected to this list. I think, you must help in removing of these redirections. Krasss (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC).

I am going to restore the articles and will initiate a proper merge discussion. Give me few days. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing banners via AWB

Have you seen User:Nifboy/AWB, my handy how-to guide? To get it to not follow redirects automatically, there's a checkbox in the options menu at the top called "follow redirects"; make sure it's off. Nifboy (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD on date articles

Just wanted to touch base with you on the fact that 'merge' is considered to be a variant of 'keep'. I understand there may be a reluctance to permanently delete information, but merge is only suitable for certain specific cases. In most other instances, it is usually best to go wholeheartedly for either 'merge' or 'delete' to avoid the no consensus keeps that we see far too often. In any event, a "merge then delete" would be preferable to a "merge or delete", Ohconfucius (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I can leave with either deletion or a merger (deletion is, as noted, my first option though), and I'll go with the majority as long as the "articles" don't exist anymore after the AfD. That's not the way AfD was designed, but I wish it was. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruption

I find it rather odd that you think episodes of Stargate are of upmost notability yet episodes from a British ITC production, yes one of the most notable television producers of the 1960s and 1970s are somehow not. I've put in a great deal of work improving coverage and I have had to sort out these images on many occasions. Then to top it off you come along thinking you are somehow a god of television because you are a project member and place pointless tags on articles to trod on it and then have the cheek to lecture me about "disruption". Try doping something useful with your time and improve existing articles rather than degrading them. You have removed the images which had much value than the ones in the box. If we must have only ONE image I would rather we switched them. Count Blofeld 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you came up with any of these conclusions. I treat all fiction articles the same, and the Stargate articles were in fact the first I got rid off in masses for lack of demonstrated notability. What makes you think that cleanup-tagging articles that violate policies and guidelines doesn't improve wikipedia? – sgeureka ^t•c 20:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

They are not clean up tags. You can place {{expand}} or {{refimprove}} if the articles needs improvement and I wouldn't argue with you. ITC productions such as The Avengers , The Saint and Randall and Hopkirk are genuinely notable in British television. Its not my fault that being from the 1960s there ae not an abundance of sources as there are for episodes of Stargate in the 2000s. By placing notability tags on them it maximises the possibility that they will be deleted and I've spent a lot of time on them which deeply annoys me.

Trust me I often groan at most of the articles we have on Family guy and dreadful episodes of manga and cartoons. Many editors disagree on what wikipedia is and what should be included. I do however find it odd the selection for inclusion at times for some episodes of series which to me would seem quite prominent being deleted and then we have articles on series often little known outside the United States having hundreds of articles on its episodes. Either we acceot articles on TV episodes or we don't. No tradiational encyclopedia would have articles on episodes but wikipedia differs in this respect. By rmeoving the images also it means I am going to be drilled another round of orphaned images. You nmust see from another persective how this is frustrating. Count Blofeld 20:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please believe me when I say that I am fully aware of American bias against non-American fiction; my favorite 1980s TV dramas of my country don't even have main articles on en.wiki. But the reasonable way to deal with plotty non-notability-establishing episode articles is to merge them into episode/season lists (unless someone is able to remove those deficiencies). I started to cleanup Category:Television episodes by series several weeks ago, but the time to AfD or bold-merge is nearly over. The next best alternative after bold-merging is initiating merge proposals; the last alternative is to tag for notability as a cleanup measure and wait for improvement before initiating merge proposals after a few months (if still necessary). With old shows such as Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased), you never know what's notable and if there are still interested editors around, so I chose the last alternative as the safest way. If you can establish notability, great. If not, then rest assured that your show will not be treated any differently than American shows (i.e. merger). Sorry about my using the word "disruptive", but IPs constantly removing notability tags are/were getting to me. I am also sorry about the images; no-one has ever made a peep when I removed unnecessary screenshots from film articles, so I didn't think anyone would care here either (I am still sure though that experienced editors at NFC agree that the non-inofbox screenshots in the R&H(D) articles should be removed.) – sgeureka ^t•c 21:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

They wouldn't care no. Its just images of the actual episode are practically the only thing we have to identify it and help put any information in the article in place. I am one of the most experienced editors of English wikipedia and have had more than my fair share of tiffs over image use and know that as sad as it is two images are not likely to be considered accpetable, such is the fixation with copyright law. I've tried doing some work on German TV series starting some articles like SOKO 5113 but nobody seems interested in expanding them, or the ones that are work on German wikipedia. I'm surprised you aren't more active editing articles on German television series, it is one of the areas that needs the most work I think by the sheer anount missing. I fyou look at it from a world view, I think its probably best that we concentrate on actual TV series and trying to even up world coverage of it. I also find it very concerning that we can have 300 articles on cartoon episodes from the states and have 95% of notable TV programmes missing from countries like Germany and well just about anywhere else non english speaking. Count Blofeld 22:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised you aren't more active editing articles on German television series - I haven't watched a single German TV series in ten years for various reasons, and I tend to buy and watch TV series on DVD nowadays (more expensive, but faster than waiting for the first German broadcast, no commercial breaks and OMG non-dubbed), so my familiarity with many new modern national and international TV series is limited. That doesn't stop me from contributing to the odd TV show main article though when I find a good old/new TV show to get obsessed about, as happens about once or twice a year. Maybe a German TV show will be next... – sgeureka ^t•c 23:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe interesting

Hi. Since you did the big merge of the Stargate episodes, you may want to check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elementary School Musical and leave comments. Cheers. --Tone 13:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

August 1, 2003

I was stunned to see the discussion on this closed as "no consensus, default to keep", since very few people suggested an outright keep, and most would have been satisfied with a merge. I honestly don't think the closing administrator paid attention to any of the comments. Regardless of how you felt on this issue-- delete, merge, keep -- I think that everyone's comments showed that a lot of people care about this issue, and "no consensus" was similar to a snub. I've asked for a review, and invite everyone to give their two cents worth at [1]. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Danke

Thanks for the comment. I should have asked your assistance in the first place. Nächste mal. Eusebeus (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Meine hochgeehrte Freundin! Ich habe ein kleines überstezungsproblem. Könntest Du mir hilfe? Eusebeus (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Gerne. Wo? – sgeureka ^t•c 15:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I've put it on my talk page here. Thanks! Eusebeus (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episodes

Hi. I am completely fine with the redirects. I just checked season 6. On episode really its worth to stay as an article. The one with the Emmy award. All the rest can be redirected. I was just worried because the consensus for one of the worst quality episodes was "merge" and not delete or redirect and I am afraid that redirects will start to get reverted in the "don't redirect unless you fit the information in the list of episodes" logic. I can withdraw if you start a discussion in the talk page of each season and I can support redirect. Right now I was about to go to sleep. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I am not sending more for AfD. I am waiting for your conversions. Have a nice day/evening! Magioladitis (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens RfA

Jclemens' RfA Thankspam

		JClemens' RfA Thanks
		Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hey, would you mind copyediting Meet Kevin Johnson for its FAC? Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a look tomorrow night. I was just heading for bed and am not at home tomorrow. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best wishes for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good luck; wish I'd known about it sooner! In fact, if it weren't for this comment, I wouldn't have even known! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope you make it! Eusebeus (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Garfield & Friends

Hello, I have noticed that you have put all the season one episodes up for deletion. I agree that each one by itself may not be notable. However, couldn't they all be trimmed and merged into one article about season one of Garfield and Friends? That seems like the more reasonable idea, as there is useful information here that shouldn't be deleted. Lorty2 (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Rouge

It makes sense to have Rouge (film journal) listed at this dab, except I'm unsure which of these two would be more appropriate. What are your thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are not sure which writer to choose for the one bluelink? This is an IAR case, and I don't see a problem with mentioning both or none. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Got it ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats.

Congratulations on passing at your RfA! Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. seresin ( ¡? )  02:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ausgezeichnet! Eusebeus (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sgeureka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) My admin log

Congratulations!
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has closed successfully and you are now an administrator! Useful Links: • Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide • • Administrator's Noticeboard • Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents • Administrator's Noticeboard for 3RR • Your admin logs: • blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads •

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool and thank you for the trust. I've got a bunch to read up and a bunch to try out [in userspace], so I think it'll take a week or two before you actually see me using the tools. – sgeureka ^t•c 04:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, indeed! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

+1 for the Encyclopaedia. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming an administrator and have a wonderful winter holiday! –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you! – sgeureka ^t•c 10:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Genuinely surprised

A late congrats on passing your RfA. Liked the cool head in the face of this ridiculous nonsense. Best of luck with the tools. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 11:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I expected your RFA to go down in flames like mine, for much the same reasons. I'm glad it didn't. Maybe I should give Pixelface advance notice of my next pass so that he can write a similar glowing endorsement for me.—Kww(talk) 04:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I was prepared for it to go down in flames as well, but I am glad I stuck to Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism and Wikipedia:Ignore all dramas (probably the only way to make it through all the guaranteed bad faith). Besides, any minute that someone spends in obsessing in a (my) RfA instead of planning the next coup to get rid of long-standing [insert fiction policy/guideline X], is a minute well-spent, regardless of the RfA result. – sgeureka ^t•c 05:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

...And I am aware what's going on at WAF, but they don't seem to need my input just yet to shoot down the new proposal. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

it's not just for show!

Mind if I ask for your first mop-related favour? I extracted the pertinent law-related information from {{PD-textlogo}} but removed the wording stipulating "logos", as they're not exceptional for imagery failing the threshold of originality (see WP:PD#Fonts). Would you mind identically protecting {{PD-text}} as {{PD-textlogo}} already is? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

But you know that it's cruel to use officialese ("pertinent", "stipulating") around non-native speakers, right? :-) User:MBisanz protected the old template as a "high use template" (which isn't the case for the new one yet), and I have no clue yet where page protection should be applied when trolling IPs aren't involved. Please give me a week or two to develop a feeling of confidence in swinging the mop, or I'll risk second-guessing myself so much that I can't sleep tonight. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okie-dokie, that makes sense then. Don't worry man, I dig.  :^) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Garfield and Friends Season 1

Seeing as almost all of the S1 eps have been blasted out, wanna help me prod the rest of the series' eps as well? There're 6 more seasons to go. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Lorty2 approached me last week and asked about possibilities to save the articles, see #Garfield & Friends. I have no strong opinion about merging, redirecting, prodding or AfDing them, as long as the individual ep articles are gone afterwards. I was going to give Lorty2 some time to deal with the articles himself, and only prod or redirect them in January as I see fit. This would also work nicely with my current being a little merge/redirect/deletion-bonked, but feel free to take any action alone until I have recovered. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 21:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think prod is the best way to go. If they're redirected they seem like they'd be very easily undone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Rough Diamond (album)

Albums/songs by redlink artists usually fall under criterion A9. Given that the band had members of notable bands, it might be notable, but I'm finding nothing on this short-lived band which quite clearly fails WP:MUSIC. I'm just going to go ahead and tag it for A9. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• You can just delete it (and the image) yourself. Don't you have the mop now? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think I'll remember that when I get addminship. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song

Hey, man, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I've been a bit busy with other projects. I checked on your notes and did some work on the article. Have a look. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

laud

I just wanted to let you know that you're doing a fandamntastic job at Stargate Universe; it's an excellent read with lots of good, pertinent, reliable information. Keep up the great work. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 10:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I intend on doing that as time allows. Thanks. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 10:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

SG-1

So you're the guy who deleted all the SG-1 pages? ( ;-) ) ... I was looking for episodes, and thought I'd start some stubs, til I dug a little deeper and found someone had done that already in some 'history' (not sure if that makes it harder or easier). Anyway, what I thought would be a quick 1 hour per episode thing turned into a 5 hour chore. Long story short: I pulled out my SG-1 DVD set, popped in a disk, and after 1x3 played through for the 4th or 5th time, I had what I wanted to post. I tried to maintain as much of the original as I could, but I've had enough of "Emancipation" for one night, and I removed your redirect and reposted. Anyway ... it's here: Stargate SG-1 (season 1) if you want to have a look. If I'm headed in the right direction, I'll continue to do what I can - if it's just going to get deleted then I'll stick to being a wicki-gnome for a while longer. I've only been at this editing stuff for a short time, still struggle with the cite and ref formatting and all - but I've been around html and other computer languages long enough that I'll get it down eventually. By the way, I have two friends over there in Germany (Angie and Jurgeon) ... if you see them tell them Ched said hi .... lol. Well, from one gater to another - have a happy holiday season there buddy Ched Davis (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

oops ... wrong link - think this is right: Emancipation (Stargate SG-1) Ched Davis (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I am sorry to say that you're heading in the wrong direction. Episode articles on wikipedia are supposed to focus on the real-world importance of episodes, i.e. they should consist of a sourced production section, a sourced reception section, and a concise plot summary to support the real-world information. WP:MOSTV gives more advise. You can find hundreds of good article examples at WP:GA (scroll down to "Television episodes"). Good Stargate examples are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate#Articles with Good Article Status. I'd say it's nearly impossible to write a stand-alone article about any episode of the first three seasons of SG-1 (and "Emancipation" is no exception) because there are neither audio commentaries nor reviews by highly regarded sources. There are, however, SG fan wikis like wikia:Stargate and http://www.stargate-sg1-solutions.com/wiki/Main_Page , that have other standards and generally put more emphasis on WP:INUNIVERSE information and observations that would fall under WP:No original research on wikipedia. Maybe that's what you're looking for? – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

OK ... well, thanks for your input, and especially for not being short about it. Thought I'd take a shot with something that had out of universe topics like sexism and a particular culture involved. Especially with the ISBN numbers here and so many boxed season sets, thought it was worth a try. I'll keep and eye open, and if there's anything I feel I can do to improve it, I surely will. Let me know if you want me to try to do a revert on that. Ched Davis (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with discussing episode-specific themes is that you need non-primary sources per WP:SYNTH, e.g. you can't (usually) take the episodes themselves. If you don't have any actual Stargate books like companion guides or analysis books for the first few seasons, you sometimes get lucky with this book, which has parts openly accessible via google books (the accessible parts change from time to time, so it's worth checking out every other month). The non-DeLuise audio commentaries are also excellent for the later SG-1 episodes. If you revert "Emancipation" to a redirect (there isn't any sourced real-world info to merge), you'd certainly make it easier for me (I'd have waited a few weeks to see what others come up with before redirecting it myself again). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

OK ... I put it back. I appreciate you allowing me the opportunity to try editing without assuming I was trying to be disruptive. My reasoning for working on the article was simply that I thought that a show/episode that actually existed and played in the real world was of more notability and importance than say a fictional character (like Jack or Sam etc. - perhaps you are already considering removing them in favor of the actual actors. I don't know. I didn't see anything in the discussion tab, but I didn't really dig through history either). I chose an episode that addressed real world issues, and gave it my best shot. While I regret that there are few episode articles in mainspace, I appreciate your community's stand on this, and the many hours you have invested in this project. Anyway ... I did put the redirect back, so the article is safely tucked away in the history archives. Thank you again for allowing me my efforts here, and I wish you and yours the very best.  Done Ched (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for assuming good faith on my part. I have no right to demand anything, but it's nice to know that someone uninvolved understands why episode articles aren't worth having around at all costs. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

<- NP ... Actually I won't stay 'uninvolved', I really enjoy the series, and hope to see the whole project grow over time. Just haven't seen a whole lot of typos or anything yet ... a very well organized project. I hope to chip in my 2-cents where I can, and help where I can. It's not really the "plot" that I look for as things that went on during the series run. Trivia to an extent (which I find enjoyable at IMDB, and know it doesn't really have a place here) - but so and so was sick during an episode and thus their part was reduced, and actor x was given more lines to compensate. Things that explain why a show or season was presented to the viewing audience as it was. Was it a bottle show because of the costs for episode y ... things like that. I agree that there is little information out there compared to so many other shows, or at least it's a lot harder to find. Have ended up joining several local libraries and online libraries just to research stuff since I started editing at wiki. Also appreciate you assuming good faith too. .. actually, I think most folks here are wanting to help, but then again I don't troll for vandals and such. Anyway .. it was good meeting you, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Have a great holiday season Ched (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

.... oh ... just saw the admin thing ... congrats!!! (remember I'm one of the good guys .. lol)Ched (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

List of VeggieTales episodes rename

Dear Sgeureka,

Good Job on the List of VeggieTales episodes, and leave the rest to me, but I want you (if you don't mind) please rename the article to "List of VeggieTales Media". 68.34.4.143 (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do anything you want. I admit that I don't really see the point of renaming the list into List of VeggieTales media when all media are episodes on DVD, so could you explain this to me? You can also rename the list yourself by creating a wikipedia account (and maybe wait for four few days) and then using the "move" tab at the top of the article. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sgeureka,

I'll give you one good reason, take List of Peanuts media for exaple, also theres more then episodes, theres Feature-length films, compilations, Re-releases, Music CDs etc. so I once again ask if you can change the name to "List of VeggieTales media". 68.34.4.143 (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

But VeggieTales#Media already does the job of List of Peanuts media, and VeggieTales is not long enough to spinout the media list just yet (compare with amount of prose in Peanuts). Plus, List of Peanuts media does not have any episode plot summaries, and even if List of VeggieTales episodes was moved to the Media name, the plot summaries would likely need to be removed for page size and be moved to another page (i.e. we're back to square one). If these arguments against a renaming don't convince you, I can open a renaming proposal at Wikipedia:Requested moves to get more outside input, and I will bow down to whatever consensus is there. What do you think? – sgeureka ^t•c 10:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can't rename the article, why can't you just create an article and name it "List of VeggieTales Media" so you stop making up excuses to not rename your page? 68.34.4.143 (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I think it's a bad idea, and (I am sorry to say) it is not my responsibility to create articles for people who feel otherwise. – sgeureka ^t•c 02:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Fröliche Weinachten

Pixelface (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You are being discussed on ANI.

here. Thought you should know. // roux   23:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I want to finish my GA review before going to bed and will reply to the accusations tomorrow. I am not aware of any improper behavior on my part. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning: stop your vandalism

The work that you are doing is work for robots, not for editors, and even more so for newdowned administrators. Unfortunately, you are too stupid to understand that the creation of articles is much more important work than all that you have done in wiki.

You already have been warned at least several times [2] [3] [4] about your crazy ideas of merging The Outer Limits episodes. But it seems that you cannot to agree with the any consensus, so as you are not ready to assess and to respect the work of those who had created these pages.

I am warning you, that if you will not delete all your tags from these episodes before the New Year, I will initiate a new discussion about your blocking and about undoing of your misadminship. Krasss (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want me to read your (full) reply, please read WP:VANDALISM ("stop your vandalism") and WP:NPA ("you are too stupid") first. I haven't touched the TOL articles in two weeks, and if it's the notability-tagging that upsets you, please take it to WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SPINOUT, because that's where the current inclusion criteria are written down for all wikipedia articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You did not touched the TOL articles for a 2 weeks? You are lying again, as always. This misleading edit [5] (and other such edits) has been done by you 4 days ago, not 2 weeks ago. This simple example proves, that lie and misleading of opponents seems to be usual thing for you, and I do not need to read WP:NPA, so as it is fact, not personal attack. You have only 24+++ hours to revert your edits. Krasss (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I restored a cleanup template in ~10 articles that had been removed on December 25 without clear justification and in ignorance of my note that I had left at WP:FICT/N on December 17 (i.e. two weeks ago). In other words, I reverted those parts of an edit that I considered unconstructive, but otherwise did not touch the article itself. I left a clear edit summary, so what do you consider misleading about my edit? I am not going to remove notability templates in articles that don't demonstrate notability, and neither should you, as it would disruptive to the cleanup process. As said before, if it's the notability tag itself that upsets you, take it up with WP:NOTABILITY and/or WP:SPINOUT. I am just the messenger. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You are just gaming the system. As always. Beware, you have less that 24 hours to remove your misleading tags and edits. Krasss (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

He's hardly gaming the system when all of those episode articles clearly fail WP:NOTE, which you should go read. You haven't offered a single reason here why his tags are inappropriate aside from the fact he's doing it. And your 24 hour ultimatum is empty really, as you have nothing to enforce it with. Ironically, your actions here are more reminiscent of the personal attacks you are accusing him of. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Krasss, this is not the way to go about improving things--the effect of turning it into a battle of wills tends to be counterproductive. Discuss the merges in the appropriate place. It is much more practical in general for episodes to try to have the merged content sufficiently complete and informative than to try to maintain individual articles. (an alternative approach is to try seriously sourcing the individual episodes, which have possibly been reviewed individually in reliable non fanblog sources. But if you can;t find these, merging is usually the better course, if its a good merge, and just a one or two line teaser. the point here is to have good content, and not worry too much about whether its in separate articles or not. DGG (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U

Can I ask you to give this RFC/U complaint draft a lookthrough? I'd like to make sure we're addressing as many points as necessary in it. If you can provide link evidence, that would be great as well, but I plan to do that myself anyway when I get the chance. --MASEM 15:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it. Give me an hour max. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict and didn't transport the edit summary over. I just added a few quick refs (feel free to remove them) and tweaked a little here and there, but it seems mostly fine and as neutral as can be. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill White Redirect

Bill White the mayor is easily much better known than all other bill whites. He is much better known than the sports figures. In comparision most other mayor of cities smaller are redirected. Houston is the 4th Largest city in america. Houstontowers (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Top Secret (disambiguation)

I'd like to shorten the primary topic definition, but have no idea what to shorten it to. Have you any suggestions? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This was my solution two months ago, followed by some no-consensus discussions at WP:D or WP:MOSDAB. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying the redirect should be ignored altogether, like at Barack (disambiguation) and Obama (disambiguation)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I was unsure myself and hence brought it up in the dab project. I have no clear preference and think it would work either way. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

How's this sound:

Top Secret generally refers to the highest acknowledged level of classified information.

I'm kinda using what you had before. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not? If I haven't said it before, you are probably the editor I know who puts the most thoughts into the layout of dab pages. ;-) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Image Replacement

This commet is from File talk:HesABullyCharlieBrown.jpg.

This Image needs to be replaced with a screenshot of the title, is there anybody who is able to accept my request? 68.34.4.143 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help. Although I read the comic strip for about a year, I think I have never watched a single Peanuts film/episode and hence couldn't and can't take screenshots. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Stargate Star

		The Stargate Star
		This user has been awarded with the WikiProject Stargate's Stargate Award, in recognition of his or her valued and exceptional contributions to Wikipedia's articles on Stargate. --Paul Roberton (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

SGEUREKA

For

Your sustained work on Stargate articles,

Helping to create a real sense of community and purpose amongst the Stargate fans/editors on Wikipedia

Aspiring to make faithful, precise and wiki-worthy Stargate articles

You are presented with the Stargate Star

Paul Roberton (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Undoing of Draw disambig page

Hello, I see you have reverted my changes to the Draw disambiguation page. Could you possibly provide some more feedback? I've read the MOSDAB now (didn't know it existed) but I'd still like to hear your specific comments, then maybe I'll take another crack at it. Thanks. Dhollm (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There should be no bolding, only one bluelink per line, and linked words should generally be the first word in each entry. Bullet points should generally not be indented. The version to which I reverted is not perfect either, but it only violates two issues (bolding, no comma after linked word). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I just spotted you became an admin. Congratulations! By the way, since the SGA is coming to an end, would you be interested in getting List of Stargate Atlantis episodes to a feature list status? I had this one in mind for a while and now may be a good time. Cheers. --Tone 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I haven't really kept up with Atlantis since late season 2 (although I still technically watch it) and thus am useless at recognizing all the in-universe connections or importance. If someone else can expand the episode summaries beyond the current teaser summary though (a must-be for a successful FLC nowadays), I will gladly offer my skills as a nitpicky copyeditor. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 23:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Hey dude... thanks for copy-editing my Michael Tritter article, I think it will really help with the FAc. Thank you very much. --Music26/11 16:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not finished with the second half yet though. I hope to get it done over the next few days. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Constructing Wikipedia to Illustrate a point

Whack

How encyclopaedic of you ;)

While I'm here, let me get this off my chest;

• {{Loeg}}

I noticed it at the bottom of Ishmael (Moby-Dick), which, thankfully, makes no significant mention of this comic. The template has been pasted on to some dozens of articles and I don't think it appropriate. I've not looked too closely yet, but it seems they've got their logic inverted. Thoughts? Oh, congrats on the mop ;) Jack Merridew 13:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess it could go two ways, but I try to give some food for thought. If you feel that Ishmael (Moby-Dick) is "only about the Moby-Dick character" (maybe because the clarifier-in-brackets in the article title indicates this), then the template shouldn't be used and a Ishmael (The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) should be created (or the TLoEG character should just be mentioned in List of characters in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, hatnote linking to the "real" character). However, if you feel that TLOEG just adds another dimension to a classic character without changing him, the template is justified. I am not really familar with Moby-Dick or TLoEG, but I guess the question is similar to Elliot Cowan's portrayal of Fitzwilliam Darcy (or Fitzwilliam Darcy (Pride and Prejudice) if there was a more famous FM in the world) in Lost in Austen - it's the same character with the same backstory and the arrogance, but LiA offers a completely different spin on the events of the (original) novel. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Moby-Dick ( User:Moby Dick ;)

Ishmael is Melville's voice in the novel. There will be lots of academic material on the character. I'm not familiar with TLoEG; it seems a comic book and film that hijacked a bunch of characters. My view is that the articles on the comic and film can mention their take on the characters and I now see they've a list of characters. But such derivative works have no claim on their source — that way is madness; Dracula with 200 navboxes at the bottom. See Mina Harker, from Dracula; two thirds of that article is about "In other media" with a huge chunk about "TLoEG" and that navbox again (and there's a TLoEG category, too). This is a lot of why I've little taste for a lot of pop-culture; it's parasitical of some prior work and the fans editing the 'real' articles are a pox on the 'pedia.

Sorry a bit brief; 1:00am here.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Your Dracula example convinced me that the template really shouldn't be used in such articles, unless the character is exclusive to the TLoEG universe (if there are any). – sgeureka ^t•c 18:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into this a bit further. I did cut it out of Ishmail last night. The template looks to be a mix of stuff and I expect a bunch are inappropriate. I just looked at Don Quixote (in the template) and note that it doesn't sport an instance or the category. I expect it was added and removed. I'm also thinking that some of the template entries should point at the List of chars which will in turn offer links to the 'real' articles. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The approach of your last sentence sounds reasonable. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done a fair number; there are original characters and some have there own articles ;( skipped over that dross. There have been others trimming this stuff back, so it's been easier. It's been fun reading about characters from classics I've not read in many years; Allan Quatermain, John Carter (character). Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bison (disambiguation)

I've been trying to re-format the newest entry yet can't seem to get it right. Any suggestions? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the question (page looks good, although I generally avoid two-entry sections), unless you mean this with the newest entry. In that case, I'd go with Indian bison instead of gaur, or I would scratch the whole entry (it's not really known just as "bison", is it?) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Tried the redirect approach. Always appreciate your help sgeureka ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Circle graphs/charts

Hey! Didn't at ArbCom, you make a pie chart or am I confused on this one? Anyway, as I also recall your RfA passed is there a way to to see which articles I created that still exist as articles, which mainspace articles I created either as redirects or that are redirects now, and which articles I created that are currently redlinked and somehow compile that into a pie chart? If not, no big deal, but I suppose I was just curious. I know I have a 100% success rate with articles I nominated at AfD (yes, I actually have nominated several and all were deleted), but I am curious about what I've created. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You have over 3500 deleted contribs (edits to deleted pages including userspace are counted, not the deleted pages), and I think I am allowed to give you the log if you want (an unlinked text copy which you'd have to link yourself). Redirects can be visualized by e.g. adding a.mw-redirect {color:#308050} to your monobook.css (i.e. User:A Nobody/monobook.css) - they'll show up as green. Page creation logs (maybe just of your current account) are accessible via http://toolserver.org/~sql/created.php . It is easy to make pie charts via Excel or Open Office. It's a lot of work, which I won't do for that reason (except for providing you with the deleted contribs log). You may also have luck and find an appropriate program at http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/tstoc . – sgeureka ^t•c 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, and please forgive my ignorance here, but what's a monobook? Do I already have one? Can someone create one for me? And yes, I am interested in the deleted contribs. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Monobooks basically allow you to modify how things get displayed on your computer screen in a non-standard wiki way. The whole thing is described at WP:MONOBOOK, and your monobooks are/would be located at User:A Nobody/monobook.js and User:A Nobody/monobook.css. You can have a look at mine at User:Sgeureka/monobook.js and User:Sgeureka/monobook.css, and most of my scripts make it easier to deal-with bot-like tasks (popups, twinkle,...), disambiguation, and things you have to pay attention to when writing Good and Featured content. There are tons of available scripts, but I snagged most of my scripts whenever I came across a good one at village pump. I'll mail you the log via email in the next few days. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Check your email. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Three-pronged test for Elements of Fiction

I have drafted a revsion to WP:FICT that may address some of your concerns. I would be grateful for your views at WT:FICT#Three-pronged test for Elements of Fiction. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested

Hi there,

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Bill#Continuing Discussions which I thought you might be interested in participating in. --Deadly∀ssassin 11:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Enemy at the Gate

Hello, I though I should let you know that "Enemy at the Gate" has been created, though there is still room for some more improvement which should be done in the near future. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why someone else must do this work?

Sgeureka, please, avoid such comments [6] in future. Why someone else must do your work? Also, note, that there are many pages like this, that still are redirected to List of TOL episodes, — and why someone else must relink them to original pages? In addition, about your last comment at my talk page [7]. There are too much your templates in other TOL pages, that I did not replaced yet. If you are so ready to do it, what do you waiting for? Are you again wait for my edits, to add then your "time stamps"? Or probably, you are too busy with much more important work in wiki, aren't you? Krasss (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am completely puzzled what was wrong with my comment there, and I can't avoid what I don't perceive as wrong. Per WP:BURDEN, it is not my job to establish notability, it's those who want to have an article, i.e. it's automatically their work and not mine. I restored Bodies of Evidence (The Outer Limits) on December 1. That the redirect still redirects there is a bot's doing, and I neither knew there was this redirect nor this bot. I will not replace cleanup tags if the article hasn't been cleaned up yet, but I won't be a dick if other editors believe that other cleanup tags are more appropriate. If you don't use time stamps, a bot will come and clean up after you anyway, so it may as well be me who adds the time stamps. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, these redirects are results of bot's work. But there are no bots, that are able to redirect such links back to original articles, — and, in any case, someone human editor will be forced to do it. So, what do you think, who must do it? Do you consider that this work must be done by someone else? Of course, I am able to do it by myself, and I will do it in any case. But I just want to hear your opinion. About time stamps, I do not see any problems with them. The question is not about time stamps, the question is that every times you are wait for my edits to add right after them your additional comments. Krasss (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Just like that work doesn't have to be done by you, it doesn't have to be done by me. As we're all unpaid editors, no-one can be forced to do work that he doesn't want to do, and no-one should be prevented from doing work that he wants to do, so it's kll good and this will be fixed eventually. If your last sentence implies some concerns that I am in any way wikistalking you, I'll point to Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Sgeureka/Episodes which I use to keep track of edits to bad episode articles. The TOL ep articles are just a fraction of articles that pops up. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Nemesis

Unfortunatly I sold my companion guides, but I can ask some of my friends if they have them. Million_Moments (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I borrow your skills...

Hi, I've heard you're quite a good copyeditor and I've seen you do some work and comment on a Lost FAC. I am preparing in the future to take the plunge and undertake my first FAC with Premiere (The O.C.). If you have time I was wondering if you could give it a copyedit and if possible make some suggestions at its peer review. I understand if you are to busy, but I thought if I didn't ask, I would never get. Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do, although probably not today. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I believe I have addressed your concerns. If you have any others please let me know. Regards, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I wasn't finished yet (although it may take a few days until I am... a little busy ATM). :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 21:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok great, I am also busy and wasn't planning on submitting this that soon, so there is no rush. Your help is much appreciated. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(←) Thanks for you copyedit and even more comments at peer review. I believe I have addressed all the issues raised. Is there any chance of you checking that my changes are okay, in case I have unintentially forgotten or misinterpreted your comments. Do you think it is almost up to scratch now, and is there anything else I should do? I cannot thank you enough for your help. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is technically acceptable (i.e. no obvious MOS or layout issues, at least for me), but since you intend to take the article to FAC, I should warn you that the FAC regulars have immensely strict standards for prose quality nowadays. I have only really read and copyedited the Plot section yesterday and I think the article still needs many prose tweaks to have a chance at FAC. I'd love to help out (I very well remember how much I appreciated the help I got for my first FAC), but I have to turn in my diploma thesis next week and still have to dot many i's there. I should be back to normal wiki editing levels by February 3, maybe a few days earlier, and will finish my peer review and copyedit then. If you want to spend the time with something useful but don't get more input at the peer review until then, I can only point to User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a, which was an eye opener for my FAC writing skills. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I must thank you finding the time to copyedit the production section mid diploma thesis. I hope it is coming along okay. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for taking the time to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Survivors (2008 TV series)/archive1 and also for weighing in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Bill. --Deadly∀ssassin 02:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Do something useful then...

re: Please don't edit my userspace. Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 02:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Any jackass that hasn't the common sense to leave good looking articles alone instead of blindly following unrealistic idealistic, not to mention very controversial and disputed guidelines, and further causes me to spend most of my free time since November trying to patch up the incompetent mess you made of that series has no room to bitch. What you did to that series constitutes rape and you really need to get a life. // FrankB 02:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure what part of "Please... Thank you" necessitated you to use the words "jackass", "incompetent mess", "bitch", "rape" and "get a life" in return. The status of WP:FICT notwithstanding in December 2007, there was consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I've Got You Under My Skin (Charmed episode) to redirect. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Harry Potter related topics

I just noticed that there is an external link on this page. Since this isn't technically a dab, is it ok there or do the guidelines still apply? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a set index (or per its category, a topical index), so MOS:DAB should only be applied in spirit (if at all). Personally, I don't see the point of the external link, and since it was an IP who added the EL, I think you're pretty save to remove it if it's an eyesore for you, too. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've decided to leave it alone (to avoid a possible dispute) and took it off my watclist. Thanks anyway, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:A big thank you

No problem. WP:FUCK is actually the best way to go about situations like that. Laugh it off, dissect their arguments (or lack thereof), and simply don't let it bother you. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

dab tool

Hey Sqeureka, How you doing my friend?... I saw somewhere (a peer review I think) you mention something about a dab tool. Is that something that only admins have?, or can regular folks use that as well? I looked at the monobook file, thought maybe it was the linkback line, but wasn't sure, and wondered about it. Well, not much more to add right now, hope life is treating you well. Ched (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC) added: I did read the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page, but didn't see anything about the tool you might have been talking about. Ched (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Nothing fancy for admins in the dab area. But you can use (1) http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dabfinder.py , which lists all links in need to be dabbed in an article, or (2) you add importScript('User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js'); to your Special:Mypage/monobook.js and add A.disambiguation { background-color:#88ff88; } to your Special:Mypage/monobook.css, which displays all undabbed links like this whenever you read an article. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

forgot my manners, ... Thank You. Ched (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your cool-headedness in cleaning up the results of my rather shameful hotheadedness. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

no rush

Would you be willing to do me a favour? Would you look at Law & Order: UK for me? I just rebuilt the article w/100% sourcing and some expansion, but I don't feel my actual writing/article construction are up to snuff; can you try and consolidate, tighten up, and/or clarify anywhere I wasn't? I'm also rubbish at writing ledes if you're feeling really, really benevolent.  :^) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ledes are also something that I still struggle with. :-) Anyway, I'll give it a look in a few days (too busy for serious copyediting at the moment). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your comment in the Frasier's Curse AfD

Although this AFD is now closed, I wanted to respond to a comment you made there:

So with that reasoning, no episode article that fails WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT can ever be brought to AfD (even though WP:DEL#REASON says that N and NOT can be reasons for an AFD), while no-one sees a problem with AfDing all other kinds of articles that fail WP:N and WP:NOT. I reject that notion. Instead of everyone !voting to speedy close this and claiming abuse of process, can someone show that this article passes WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT? That would be much more helpful to determine the future of this article. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The notion that you are rejecting is actually the logical conclusion of all the policies and guidelines you yourself cited in your comment. While WP:DEL#REASON says that N and NOT can be reasons for an AfD, it doesn't mean that these reasons are always apporpriate for an AfD; that list of reasons is explicitly "subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page", and the policy goes on to list preferable alternatives to deletion. Merging content which may be unsuitable for a standalone article into a relevant article on a notable topic is an improvement which can be performed without article deletion, and thus is always preferable to deleting an entire page. WP:N says "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort" and lists several alternatives, including merging, that are preferable to deletion. WP:NOT#PLOT says that "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work", thus trimming and merging a plot summary into broader article which covers the fictional work is preferable to deletion. Other guidelines which support this notion are WP:EPISODE#Dealing with non-notable articles ("consider merging or redirecting them into another article ... Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research."); and WP:PRESERVE ("Instead of removing, try to ... move text within an article or to another article ..."; there are explicit exceptions but they do not include non-notable information or plot summary). It is appropriate to bring articles which fail WP:N or WP:NOT to AfD when they solely contain content which are not encyclopedically relevant to any notable subject in the encyclopedia, such as an article about a non-notable local garage band or a list of some editors' favorite dry cleaners. But the simple fact is that episodes of a notable television series for which the title and at least some information about the episode are verifiable are always relevant to an article about that television series, and thus this information can always be merged into a more apporpriate article; thus, such articles should never be deleted, but at worst redirected. For this reason, yes, they should never be brought to AfD. DHowell (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Much of your reply is based on that this article should be merged (I agree), but I already stated in the AfD why this wasn't an option (for me). I also later commented in the AfD that merging is no longer necessary since I've come up with a plot summary of similar length, and the ep article doesn't need to stick around for GFDL reasons. Redirects and mergers are also a common result of AfDs, and I maintain that this article is WP:Nonnotable and WP:NOT encyclopedic and should not have an article. This AfD was a(nother) lesson for me, and I can put your mind at rest that once I have more time, I'll do a proper AfD for another nonnotable unencyclopedic Fraiser episode article (i.e. not keep) with a searchterm-unlikely article name (i.e. not redirect) for which I have created a plot summary of equal length in the season article with my own words (i.e. not merge). If that isn't enough hoop-jumping to finally get objective proof/consensus that the Fraiser ep articles shouldn't have standalone articles, I don't know what can be done. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fix the redirects

FIX THE DOUBLE REDIRECTS FROM THIS EXAMPLE OF WHAT A TOTAL SCREW UP YOU ARE. and stay out of Charmed pages... I've spent six weeks of my free time trying to pick up the mess you created when fucking up the merge of these pages. FYI, had you not screwed up our coverage here, I wouldn't have seen so much of the series, so in a way I owe you thanks. Nonetheless, Pray, Really Pray we never meet face to face, for you won't enjoy the common sense I pound into your sorry and foolish ass. In between, study IAR... you seem to have missed the lesson. And get some consideration for others time spent. Raping their GF efforts that took hundreds of man-months because you aren't mature enough to know when not to apply a rule or two really shows how unqualified you are to be editing here, much less be an admin. Fortunately, you can find most of them using {{R to Charmed}}. // FrankB 21:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You know... you're fucking crazier than I thought. Try ADDING SOME CONTENT, not judging others. What a frigging piker. GROW THE FUCK UP. // FrankB 21:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want me to read your comment(s) or if you're expecting a reply, please follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA first. Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)