User talk:Frickative/archive

Abra Kadabra

Thought you might like this:

This user owns goldfish.

AiselneDrossel 22:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Lord Byrne

Do you have a source that he is actually Lord Charles? The Holby City website does not refer to him as this and Joseph himself does not have prefixs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.38.248 (talk • contribs)

WikiProject Holby

Hiya Frickative! I've noticed your edits to various Casualty/Holby City/Blue articles, and wondered whether you'd like to set up with me a WikiProject to direct everyone's efforts - what say you? DBD 20:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Holby Edits

Awesome Edits, especially to the Minor Characters in Holby City! I would like to second the proposal of DBD: would you be interested to start a WikiProject?

Riatsila 20:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Even more awesome edits! Love them!

Riatsila 16:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject Holby

Well, to tell you the truth, me neither, but I will have a look at WikiProjects and how they work.

Riatsila 21:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Lord Byrne

Really, calling him Lord Charles Byrne is the sort of thing an American would do! He would only be styled thus if he were a younger son of a Marquess or a Duke (see, for instance, Lord Nicholas Hervey or Lord Nicholas Windsor. This is to be compared with holding a substantive title; in which case one is only ever known as Lord X, see, for instance, Merlin Hanbury-Tracy, 7th Baron Sudeley, in this case the substantive title isn't even the surname. Hope this clarifies your misunderstanding. --Counter-revolutionary 20:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of content

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Tiptoety 05:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit was a perfectly valid merging of a stub article into a character list, should not have been reverted and has been restored. Frickative 06:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

New Holby character articles

I say, sir, well done indeed! I'll be more hands on come October, when I'm back at uni (busy at work atm). Again, well done! DBD 23:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, and looking forward to having you back! Frickative 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The One with the Rumor

Thanks for your uber-speedy review of The One with the Rumor. Regarding the lack of images; I don't tend to add fair-use screencaps and such to articles unless they are absolutely necessary to further the understanding of the subject, and there is nothing in that particular episode that needs to be visually described in the article (though perhaps a free image of a hermaphrodite...?). Brad 01:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a free image of Brad Pitt anyway, just to add a splash of colour to the page! Brad 02:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

McFly (band)

Hi! I was wondering, if you have time, would you be able to look through the article and tell us what sorts of things seem to be referenced? Matt and I seem contradict each other. --Stacey _talk 22:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wistert

Did you quickfail for the stub tag or based on review of the articles? I ask because I am contemplating renominating both Al Wistert and Whitey Wistert.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 22:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

O.K. maybe just Al now that I rethink.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 22:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The quickfails were based solely on the stub tags - I didn't undertake a full review of any of the three articles simply because the GA criteria are quite explicit in stating that a stub article cannot qualify for GA status. However, if you think any of the articles have evolved beyond stubs, then by all means, do renominate! Frickative (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I am renominating Al Wistert.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Trinny Woodall

Thank you very much for your time to give an in depth review of the Trinny Woodall article, it is much appreciated. I think that I've dealt with the issues raised, hopefully enough for the prose section of the GA to be passed. If it is not enough or there are a few more issues outstanding, then hopefully you can alert me and I'll improve them a.s.a.p. Many thanks again. Eagle Owl (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I know it takes a lot of time to review and edit an article in such a way, so your work is much appreciated. Happy editing. Eagle Owl 15:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Jospeh Byrne GAN: On Hold

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jack Branning

Just wanted to say thanks for your work on Jack Branning, it's nice to see someone else getting involved, instead of the usual people from WP:EE :) ^anemone│_projectors 00:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I must confess to not really watching EastEnders as much as I used to, but it was nice to have a wealth of sources to work with for once, which there doesn't tend to be with the Holby City and Casualty articles I'm more used to editing :) Frickative (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Snezana Lalovic

I see you reverted this article which I created yesterday. It may come as a surprise to you if I tell you that I don't actually watch Casuality, in fact I can't even stand it (not just that, but Holby City, The Bill, Echo Beach, Rock Rivals, and all other TV dramas). I took an interest along the grounds that the actor and her character are from my part of the world (the former Yugoslavia/Balkans). Even so, I play a fair game on Wikipedia. Now it is my knowledge that paramedics are purely extras, peripheral to the whining, back-stabbing, and winging of the staff on the wards. But correct me if I am wrong, does the character once played by Will Thorpe (paramedic) not have an article on Wikipedia? I thought that as long as the information can be sourced, then it can be included here. On English Wikipedia, we have two-lined articles based on regions or objects heavily remove from the English speaking world, yet they stand. Note: I knew Thorpe from having attended the same secondary school as him, and his appearances on Casualty were told to me by someone else, I didn't actually "tune in". Evlekis (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The paramedic character Woody did indeed used to have an article, however it too was redirected to the character list, on the basis that the character had received no notable coverage in secondary sources - a key stipulation of WP:FICT. The character of Snezana is even less notable, given that at present, she has appeared in a single episode of the show - far from enough to attain significant, or in fact any coverage at all, aside from perhaps a handful of TV guides briefly noting the arrival of yet another new character. This lack of coverage in secondary sources means there are very few articles about Casualty characters than can stand alone on their own merit, even those that have been in the show for three to five years, let alone a single episode. One possible solution might be to create a fully fleshed out article detailing all of the current Casualty cast - an expansion from the simple list that exists at present, but stopping short of creating two dozen individual articles for each character. Obviously in this instance, there would be a stronger basis for including fuller information about the character of Snezana, as well as the high number of current cast members who also do not merit their own individual articles. It's certainly something I'll put some thought into. Frickative (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, a section on the Casualty article itself perhaps can give insights into each member of the current cast, with a main article for the more central characters. Sounds fair. You'd then be better to keep Lalovic redirected than to delete the page, so that you can recall the information which I submitted yesterday. But I'll leave that to you. In all honesty, I didn't realise that she has only appeared in one episode so far. Two Saturday episodes would have aired from February 16, so it is early days. But you're probably right, paramedics are at best, glorified extras, so do not require a dedicated article. Evlekis (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Maddy Young

You removed my information, I notice you kind of own those articles because you made them all.

I thought you would include that, well you know. We should include what happened last night, it was pretty much focused on Maddy again wasn't it. About her and Dan?

Great articles though, you've done well on them all. Raintheone (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you check the diffs in the article history between your edit and mine, you'll notice all the information you included is still there. I didn't remove it, just reworded it. The Manual of Style on fiction articles says plot summary should be written in present, not past tense, hence the change. We're all working towards the same end here - the improvement of articles on Wikipedia - so there's no need to throw around unfounded accusations of WP:OWN. Frickative (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You got it wrong. :( I think you have done a great job on them all! I was complimenting you seriously, sorry if I sound like I'm out of order or anything. It's a good article. Raintheone (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sincere apologies for coming across as touchy and thank you very much for the compliment. I think I definitely took your message the wrong way, and that's entirely my own fault for trying to use the internet on zero sleep! Happy editing :) Frickative (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Max Branning

Okay, fair revert I'd misunderstood the relevance of that part of the guideline. However I feel it now creates a problem. The article isn't very good in its current condition and ideally needs to be more like the Pauline Fowler article (which is actually used as a good example by the guideline) by adding real world perspective to the storylines. If the article is developed in this way, the tense will need to be changed back to make sense. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I'm disappointed that this is turning to an edit war though. The article really needs rewriting from the ground up to get it to the standard of the afore mentioned article about Pauline. Therefore it's just not worth falling out over. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Luke French

Hello

I really appreciate you not putting it up for deletion or anything like that, I just can stand it when people try to do that I would never support page deletion (except obvious vandalism or the like) because there is always room for improvement, are you tuning into tonights Holby Blue then? I know I am lol Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey,

I think in some cases deletion can be necessary, because there are some characters that are just so minor they'll never satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, but with Luke being a major character in a much publicized BBC drama, I totally agree there's room for improvement there. Irritatingly, I completely missed it earlier, but the BBC Press Office releases are so detailed for HolbyBlue, I always feel I know exactly what's going to happen anyway - oh, but Robert died tonight, didn't he? Hm, I might have to watch it on BBC iPlayer. Was it a good episode? Frickative (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it was well good, poor Robert got shot jumping in the way of it to save Lucy and all before he was going to see his son and Ann - Marie, I knew he was going outta it but I thought thats because they were gonna get back together. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 07:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC).

Thank you

For your rewrite of the Toshiko Sato episode. It's really fantatic, we can work towards a Good Article standard for it now.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for saying so! :) Frickative (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Hi. Sorry for putting that template on your page. I've looked back through the edit history of Holby and obviously I made a mistake and put the notice on the wrong user's page. I did look at the edit history originally but just clicked on the wrong 'talk' link when going to post the template. No hard feelings? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 09:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		To show appreciation for your excellent writing and condensing skills on fictional character pages :) Gungadin 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, you more than earned it. I'm loving your Holby articles as well as the EE ones, btw :) Gungadin 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Heather Peterson

Hi, I notice you edit Heather's page and I just wanted to thank you for the wonderful work you do editing it!

However, I was wondering if you by any chance had any pics of her and Minty on their wedding day. I am afraid I don't have any and I just feel that a pic of her would add some colour to the page.

Thanks for helping out Gossipking (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gossipking, and thanks! I almost certainly can add a wedding day pic to the article, although it'll be a couple of hours till I'm back at my own computer. I'll definitely try and get one up by the morning, though :) Frickative (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi and thanks again! The pic is wonderful and I really appreciate it! :) Gossipking (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ben Mitchell

Why do you keep putting the image back on? --Useless Grant (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

'I don't like it' is not a valid reason to repeatedly remove an image from an article whilst vandalising it constantly. Please stop. Frickative (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

But 9/10 people don't like his horrible face. --Useless Grant (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Coronation Street characters

Hi. Thanks for that. Next time I'm gonna get it right. Cheers, Magioladitis (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

GA

Hey Frickative, I noticed you have a lot of experience getting fiction articles to GA. I was wondering if you could have a glance at some of EE's B class articles (Category:B-Class EastEnders articles) and suggest which you think we might have a shot at upgrading to GA? Some are better than others, as i'm sure you'll notice, but it's a bit hard to be objective as I had a lot of input in many of them :) Gungadin 23:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry it's taken me a few days to get back to you! Going through the articles in turn...

• Ali Osman - I think at pushing 1600 words, the plot on this one could do with a bit of trimming before taking it to GA. The lead needs fleshing out a bit, and with just two references once you discount the trivia piece (which would need to be integrated into the body of the article or just discounted on the grounds of being a bit crufty) it wouldn't be my first suggestion to nominate as is.
• Angie Watts - Again, the plot could use a bit of trimming down before nominating, but I think the main thing a GA review of this article would pick up on would be the lack of a 'Reception' section. The end of the 'Development' section could certainly be split off into one, but I think unless that was expanded upon, a GA reviewer would probably question whether the article was sufficiently broad in scope.
• Arthur Fowler - As with Angie, needs a 'Reception' section. The T-shirt campaign stuff again reads like the beginning of one, but it'd probably need a bit of a copy edit as well - I noticed just skimming through the uncited sentence "Arthur became one of EastEnders best loved characters" so I'd definitely give it a double check for anything bordering on OR or peacocking.
• Barry Clark - Once more, I'd tighten the storylines section up a little bit - I think this is the shortest one so far, but it still weighs in at pushing 1500 words. I think this one lends itself quite neatly into splitting up to add a 'Reception' section using the stuff that's already there in 'Development', and with that done I'd say this would be my first GA nom suggestion thusfar.
• Bianca Jackson - This one's a really excellent article, I think. The lead - as is the case with a lot of these - just needs expanding a bit so as to summarise the whole article, but beyond that, all I'd say is, with the OOU development bits so long, the storylines section in some places is a little bit repetitive of what's already been said - though really that just makes it easier to trim down a touch. It's definitely the best referenced thusfar, and while a lack of references isn't necessarily that stands against GA noms, especially in the case of earlier characters for whom there are naturally less available, I'd say this one with a small bit of work would be an excellent nom.
• Bruno, Joe, Luisa and Rosa di Marco - What I'd say about these articles is, while all the OOU stuff about how unpopular the di Marco's were is well referenced (and interesting as well!) all four articles really tell the reader more about the di Marco family in general, rather than Bruno, Joe, Luisa and Rosa individually. I think a GA reviewer would probably pull each of them up as not quite being broad enough, for that reason. As an aside, it looks as though the 'Reception' section the others have has been missed off with Joe :)
• Carmel Jackson - I think this is an excellent example of an article being broad in scope and coverage despite a limited number of sources available. Maybe cut down the level of detail in the 'Domestic violence' subsection, and tighten up the prose a touch (for instance, in the lead: "After six months of suffering, she wisely left him." isn't the most encyclopedic way of expressing that) but all in all, I think this would be another good nom.

Oh my, I'm going to have to break there for a bit I'm afraid - I didn't realise quite how long it'd take to skim through when I started! I think that's about a quarter of the current B-class ones though, so hopefully it was somewhat helpful. I will have a look through the rest, but as forewarning my next access over the next week is going to be quite limited, so I can't promise exactly when I'll get to it. Of the articles mentioned so far though, as I think I said, Barry Clark, Bianca Jackson and Carmel Jackson would be the ones I'd consider taking to GA most strongly at the present time :) Frickative ^(talk) 23:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Thanks for this, i wasn't expecting you to give such a detailed account of every one, but it's great that you are, and will be very helpful. I agree with your comments, and yes some of them definitely arent very good, and looking at them now I can see a huge difference in my editing now to when I started writing OOU for EE in 2006 with pages like Arthur :) I think I will remove some of the ones that are clearly not B quality from the cat, so that you have less to evaluate. Thanks again, but please dont feel you have to give up all your editing time doing this, I realise how boring and time-consuming it can be having to evaluate articles like this :) Gungadin 11:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

First things first, let me apologise for how ridiculously long this has taken. I really wanted to go through the articles properly and not make a half-arsed job of it, but in the end I probably did that anyway, along with it taking the best part of a month. Agh. Sorry. I'm just going to copy & paste the notes I made in Word as I was going through the articles - they're much briefer on each page individually, but honestly, I just wanted to get through them all rather than keep you waiting until Christmas xD So here we go...

Colin Russell would be a really interesting one for the future, if any sources could be dug up discussing the cultural impact of the gay storyline, given that almost a decade has past in the interim. I tapped "EastEnders" into After Elton.com and it flashed back 676 results. I'm sure a lot of them were probably duplicates or message board posts, but there might be something usable there.

The Den Watts article has excellent OOU content, but the storylines section is far too long in current form.

With the Ethel Skinner article - I don't know if there are any more sources that could be dug up, & perhaps there aren't, but with it being such a controversial storyline, I don't know if a little more than the existing paragraph could be made of that?

Frank Butcher - another one with the stoylines section in need of quite dramatic condensing, plus with the article currently being fully protected, that might count against it in a GA review if the article is usually unstable due to excess vandalism.

Grant Mitchell - storylines, again :D Same with Ian Beale, & Mark Fowler

Joe Macer - Just from skimming it v briefly, I think some of the prose needs tightening up. I know it's not really all that funny, but I actually giggled at the irrelevence of the line: "The wedding guests were Dot, Lucy, Rebecca, Martin, Sonia, Megan, Jane, Ian, Peter, Jim, Rosie, Keith, Demi and Pauline's dog Betty."

Josie McFarlane's a really interesting one, especially in the context of Angela Wynter's recent comments about Yolande being axed. It's a good article - not one I'd nominate first amongst the candidates, but one of those really solid ones with fewer sources that would still stand up quite well, I think, after the more obvious front-runners than been put under scrutiny.

The creation and development stuff on Lou Beale is good, but ideally it needs a section on reception before being nominated. Same goes for Mehmet Osman (and what a great mustache he had...) Also Natalie Evans, another one with a great development section, though the creation here could probably use expanding a bit too. Ronnie Mitchell, again, absolutely fine in all other respects, but just needs some more on reception before being assessed. Sharon Rickman, same thing, though could do with storylines condensing a bit too. Steven Beale...reception, again. Sue Osman, same thing... storylines a big longish, could do with a few more citations if any exist. And Tony Carpenter. Needs a reception section, and I think is the only one of the whole B-class category which only has a single reference.

Michelle Fowler - I know a lack of references shouldn't necessarily stop an article becoming a GA, but with only 2 citations, I'd hold this one back a while. And nix the trivia section, though the first point is really interesting, if it can be sourced. Pete Beale I'd probably hold back on too, because while the sources are very good ones, again they're a touch too thin on the ground.

Mickey Miller's a very good one, if you can expand the lead and, more importantly, the reception section further.

Peggy Mitchell again is very good... the storylines seem a bit on the long side, and I know how bloody hard it must be to try and condense 17 years of plots into 1000ish words, but aside from that, definitely a strong article.

Yikes! On a similar note, the storylines section for Phil Mitchell is ginormous. I might possibly have a go at trimming that one down a bit myself, just for the challenge it presents... Ah, and this one, again, is protected, so another stability issue.

Roly is an interesting article - not so many sources again, but I did wonder while looking at it, if it might perhaps be better off, with the storylines cut down a bit, maybe merged into some sort of EastEnders pets article? What with the upcoming death of Wellard :( there'd probably be enough combined to result in one really strong article?

Overall, the ones I think would be easiest to get to GA with the minimal amount of work, as the articles stand at present, are Bianca Jackson and Clare Bates. After that, with a little bit of tweaking in some areas, I'd go for Peggy Mitchell, Mickey Miller and Steven Beale, followed by Ronnie Mitchell if the Reception section can be expanded a bit.

And now I just want to end this by saying that I genuinely think they're all good articles. I realised while going through them that the unfortunate side effect of nit picking parts out for improvement is probably making it sound as though I think they're all rubbish, which is really, really not something I wanted to put across. Seriously, the whole of the remit of the EastEnders WikiProject is so impressive, even just compared to say, the Coronation Street articles. So yes. Bloody good job all round, I think :) Frickative 20:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, this is excellent. Thanks so much and for the compliments, they are appreciated. Hope you wont mind, but i'm gonna add this to the project page, so we can discuss this there and hopefully work on getting some promoted. Some of the articles have been wrongly labelled Bs and I meant to eliminate them from the cat (this is easy now we have a C cat), but I forgot to do it, so i'm sorry you had to read all those, but your assessments will be really helpful on them all. I agree about that Joe line :) Before Pauline was even anywhere near GA, someone was obsessed with adding a list every single person who attended her hen party to the article (no matter how many times they were removed), as well as everyone who attended her wedding - seems like that's the same person who got their hands on Joe lol.GG^Moan 20:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Holby

Can you tell me where it was transmitted on the 23rd because all sources I can find including the bbc Holby website [1] are saying the 24th .Garda40 (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it first transmitted on BBC Scotland at 9pm on the 23rd :) It's rare that episodes are broadcast first on BBC Scotland, but due to scheduling conflicts with regional sporting events etc, it does happen maybe half a dozen times a year. Coincidentally, "Love You", two episodes before "New Lands, New Beginnings", also broadcast first in Scotland - I believe 5 days before it aired in the rest of the UK. Frickative 00:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That should be made a note of on the article or a link to talk page then because people are going to see the conflict between the BBC,other episode listing websites and wikipedia and think somebody just made a mistake here .Garda40 (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I've added an invisible comment in the body of the text to communicate this. Frickative 00:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr.Men/Little Miss

Hi, I was wondering when it was decided that the Mr. and Miss articles were to be merged. The reason I ask is that I just got a long list of orphaned image notices and I wanted to know if those were still going to be used or should I let them go ahead and be deleted(which takes about a week from the notice). Libro0 (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - apologies, I know how irritating it is to receive a huge amount of unexpected deletion notifications, sorry! Basically, I happened to stumble across the article Amusement Park (The Mr. Men Show episode), and based on the exceptionally minimal content, prodded it for deletion. That lead me to the other Mr. Men and Little Miss articles, and I noticed that while there were well over a hundred of them, they all failed WP:N by failing to demonstrate any inherent notability of their own merit; so while the parent Mr. Men and Little Miss series are certainly notable, individual articles, for instance Mr. Wrong, fail WP:N, WP:V and WP:FICT. Clearly a lot of work had been put into creating them all, however, so rather than send all 100+ articles to WP:AfD, I thought the best way to preserve content would be to merge them into List of... articles. The unfortunate downside of this is that WP:NFC requires minimal use of fair use images, so they can't all be kept in the list article. I think generally up to about 5 is okay if they're deemed necessary, so I'll have a check through and see if there are any important ones which should be reinstated. Beyond that, though, something I did notice is that most of the images are actually missing fair use rationales, meaning that had an editor noticed that, they would all have been queued for deletion anyway until one was provided. I know the images were uploaded a good couple of years ago when policy was less stringent on this sort of thing, but it might be a good idea to check through any older images you might have uploaded [2], just to make sure they don't have the same problem :) Frickative 11:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Very rude!

Also I saw all the Mr. Men book articles merged into that too. Now, I am mad that you created the articles List of Mr. Men and List of Little Miss]. I want those both deleted. Don't worry about undoing all those Mr. Men pages. I'm doing that. Thanks! User: Howdoyoudo08. —Preceding comment was added at 17:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have read my response above in full, and still believe that all 100+ Mr Men articles meet the necessary guidelines, then go ahead and revert them. However, please know that should you decide to restore each individual article, I will be nominating them for deletion. Frickative 17:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr Men articles

Hello. Can I ask whether you discussed the mass redirection of all of the articles anywhere? Many have been around for a long time, and some that have now been redirected (that I can see) were not marked with a "merge" tag or any tags requesting the addition of citations or notability. (Note: I am in no way associated with the above user nor do I endorse his comment, or actions, but neither am I sure that the right process has been carried through here, and can understand some of the frustration of that user!) Stephenb (Talk) 17:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was so clear that the articles failed every necessary guideline, that there would be no issue with simply being bold and merging them. It seemed unlikely that the articles were undergoing regular editing, as, as you say, they had been around a long time, and were still in a very poor state - indicating that discussion from interested editors was unlikely to be forthcoming. Per WP:BRD I don't think this is necessarily a problem, however now reversion has taken place, it is obviously necessary to engage in discussion to gain wider community consensus, which I am still confident will find in favour of a merge. Frickative 17:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're confident. Of course, it may be that editors thought the articles were reasonably fine and didn't need regular editing :) As a quick semi-aside, mass quoting of guidelines to reinforce a point of view can come across as somewhat overbearing to less experienced users. Stephenb (Talk) 17:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather of the opinion that explaining the relevant guidelines is infinitely more helpful (and civil) than replying 'sorry, but per Wikipedia standards, the articles are just not up to scratch', but will bear that in mind in future :) Frickative 17:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Stating Wiki policies over and over comes off as elitist and is in poor tase, in my opinion. Now that that is out of the way, my opinion on merging the articles. Normally I would support merges, but in this case I can't and won't. Merging that many articles together creates one VERY LONG article that very few people will want to go through if they just want information on one or two of the books. Wiki articles are not supposed to be that long in the first place. Next time, think before you carry out actions like this. beau99|talk 13:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

'Elitist'? 'Think before you carry out actions like this'? Seeing as you're clearly not prepared to be civil, I don't think your message warrants any response beside a reminder to read over WP:NPA. Frickative 14:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Charlotte

Loves you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlottiepants (talk • contribs)

• 
  The Special Star - For making me smile with my heart. And also being good at Wikipedia. Charlottiepants (Talk) 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

Yay, my first barnstar! Thank you ^_^ But I think really it's you who deserves praise for improving it, so...

		The Original Barnstar
		(to add to your long list of Barnstars yet to come). For your work on List of characters in Holby City and in general all your Holby based articles, making the articles as groovy as the programme itself is! steveking89 23:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you back Calie Toress thing back. It was good!!!--77.29.73.79 (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Coronation Street

You are making one hell of a mess. Some have sources, and have credibility. Why are you deleting at your own will? You've done some great work on many articles, just some were not just minor characters.Raintheone (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. First of all, WP:CIVIL exists for a reason. Your tone is not just discourteous, it's quite hurtful. Secondly, I haven't deleted a single thing. Content has been merged, which is quite different, and had previously been discussed on the talk page of List of past Coronation Street characters as a better alternative to straight redirection to a list article. Thirdly, please point to any merged articles that actually passed WP:FICT. The vast majority of everything merged was two lines long. I shan't revert you on Alex Neeson, because it does have some sources, though if you check the article history, you will notice it had previously been merged into List of past recurring and minor Coronation Street characters by another user for several weeks, with no complaint. Do you really believe it creates "one hell of a mess" to merge a multitude of articles of this caliber [3] into one larger article? Surely the greater mess is dozens and dozens of non-notable stub articles that are highly unlikely ever to be expanded or developed out of universe? Frickative 00:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Little Miss

I was going through some orphaned images correcting a mistake of mine and I noticed that you had taken out the covers from the Little Miss series because "NFCC requires minimal use of imgs." I was curious what you were refering to. (All I could find on NFCC was the National Foundation for Credit Counseling, North Florida Cruising Club, and the Pakistan National Football Challenge Cup.) It could be argued that the covers were beneficial to the article and were indeed minimal, but you made the call, and I'm interested in your line of thought.Cheeselouise (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, apologies, I probably should have linked it in the edit summary. I was referring to WP:NFCC - the non-free content criteria for image use. Point three covers minimal use - as I understand it, it's Wiki-policy not to use large amounts of non-free images in any one article. For example, the infobox image in Doctor (Doctor Who) is a composite of the various Doctors, which better meets minimal use requirements than ten different images of ten different Doctors. In the case of the List of Little Miss characters article, an image like, for example [4] this one, I think, would better satisfy policy than 50 different non-free images on the one page. Frickative 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool User

I really think most of your contributions are great!!!!!! I checked out your User page, its simply cool! -- King Sausauges (talk) (contributions)

User:King Sausauges

I do not appreciate you wrongly accusing me of sockpuppetry, i have never heard of "Dodgechris", i would appreciate it if you removed the sockpuppet tag off my user page, i got a new computer this morning, and Dodgechris may have been a sockpuppeteer of the previous owner of my IP adress -- King Sausauges (talk) (contributions)

Mr. men=

Shall we talk through a result in merging the Mr. Men to the list of Mr. Men, i'm sure we could work out something, i'm with you on merging them. Vintage-master 16:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dodgechris

I sincerely apoligise and regret to my actions against you, in future, hopefully we will discuss matters we don't agree about, and conclude happily --Dodgechris (talk), 13:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I accept your apology, though would suggest you also offer one to User:Charlottiepants. In future, could you please leave messages for me on my talk page rather than in my archives? It means I don't receive the new message notification this way. Thank you :) Frickative 18:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidash

Frickative, i'm not sure why you reverted all my changes on current characters from Coronation Street, the large wikidash is was shown on half of the current characters, and the other half were small wikidash, why not all of them be the same?

Did you read my edit summary? WP:DASH says we use en dashes (-) in this instance, not em dashes (—). Obviously consistency is important, but it's important that we're consistently right per the manual of style :) Frickative 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So what do we do with the characters who do have the large dash? -- Dodgechris (talk) (UTC)

It's not the most important thing in the world. If you notice an article using the em dash where it should be the en dash, just change it in the course of editing. There's no need to go through every single one in a mad dash (pardon the pun) to standardise them all. Frickative 11:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Roxy Mitchell/Slater

The article on Roxy Mitchell that you keep reverting should be changed to Roxy Slater. The character is married now and has taken that name so the article should be changed to show that. Just because people have known her as Mitchell for the past year doesn;t mean the article should remain as Mitchell. If that were the case, other articles i.e. Dot Branning, Stacey Branning, Honey Mitchell and Denise Wicks etc should all be changed to Dot Cotton, Stacey Slater, Honey Edwards and Denise Fox Ammera (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NAME? The very first section says:

Use the most easily recognized name

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is justified by the following principle:

The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

The character is known as Roxy Mitchell. A Google search for "Roxy Mitchell" yields 24,600 results [5]. A Google search for "Roxy Slater" yields 631 [6]. Wikipedia policy clearly dictates therefore that the article should remain under Roxy Mitchell. Frickative 20:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes i have read WP:NAME. But even so, if you look through the names of the EastEnders characters on Wikipedia, they are all named accordingly to the way they are addressed at present in the show. I.e Stacey is now a Branning and her page now says STACEY BRANNING. Now, Roxy is a Slater, and so her page should say ROXY SLATER.

Also,

QUOTE: :The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

Any member of the "general audience" who is a fan of EastEnders will know her name is now Roxy Slater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammera (talk • contribs) 20:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"General audience" refers to the Wikipedia accessing world as a whole. Any one of those readers who is actually a fan of EastEnders is rather more of a "specialist" by default. To most of the population, she's known as Roxy Mitchell. Just because other articles contravene policy doesn't mean this one should. Frickative 20:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And most of the population probably know Stacey as Slater not Branning but even so. I should say though that once the Mods who edit and revert the character pages of the EastEnders cast get onto the article, your edits won't mean anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammera (talk • contribs) 20:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's the level we've descended to, this discussion is clearly over. WP:CIVIL is two doors down on the right :) Frickative 20:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What level?? OK clearly your trying to get at something but take it from me, the type of posters that try to act all high and mighty as though they are above everyone doesn't wash with me so tred carefully. All i was saying is when the mods get round to cleaning up the articles, your edits will be reverted to Roxy Slater. Thats the way they have always acted. Take note for future reference when you come to edit anything to do with EastEnders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammera (talk • contribs) 22:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Frickative, could you please move it back to Roxy Slater? At WP:WPEE we've always used the most up to date name and always moved the article to the same name. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ammera, I don't appreciate your tone or threats such as "tred (sic) carefully" on my talk page. Our discussion is over. Trampikey - I'd rather not move the article back myself, because as I understand it (and I might be wrong! :D) it's generally acceptable to ignore Wiki guidelines at project level but not so much actual policies. That said, however, I won't revert again if you want to move it yourself. Bigger fish to fry and all that :) Frickative 22:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In-universe

When we discussed about the 'in-universe' situation you told me that you'd began recreating the Maria Connor article in your sandbox; i have begun to recreate Ken Barlow in mine, i am personally asking you to look through my sandbox and tell me how how i could improve it, now i have briefley started. Thanks --Dodgechris (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi :) I'd say the first thing you want to do is see if you can find any sources to quote where the actor talks about playing the character and everything that goes into it. A section describing Ken's personality would be good, as long as you can source it all reliably (for instance 'John Smith from The Guardian has described Ken as... however, Joe Bloggs from The Sun argues...') A Reception section would also be useful - for instance, I'm sure over the years the character must have won a few soap awards or similar. Any details you can find on how the producers originally envisaged the character when the series began, and how the actor came to be cast in the role would also be good. One thing to be aware of is that everything you reference needs to be from a reliable source. Generally this means that newspapers and similar are okay, but fansites and blogs like Corrie Blog aren't really. And something that might come in handy is WP:CIT, which should guide you through formatting references to include titles, authors, dates etc, instead of just a bare link. Ooh, one last thing is the summary of storylines looks to be on the long side. Anything over 1000 words is really pushing it in terms of excessive detail, so maybe see if there's anything on-vital in there that can be cut out or re-worded. Happy editing :) Frickative 17:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that Ken's page is improved, i replaced my sandbox with Emily Bishop's page and began to improve, looking through, it looks like the character hasn't won any awards, and it already tells you a lot about her personality, i am going to look on the internet for some ref's, if you thinks there's anything i could do to improve, please tell me. Thanks --Dodgechris (talk) 8:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Ken Barlow article, it seems that the only one of my suggestions you've actually followed up on is adding a Reception section. Changing every 'Ken' to 'the character of Ken' doesn't make the article out of universe. Aside from half a dozen or so lines, it still just recants the details of his storylines on the show. I think I suggested a fairly decent number of ways to improve the articles both here and on your own talk page, and all of those are as applicable to Emily as they are to Ken. I would suggest, when you have the time, you have a read of the guide to writing about fiction. Frickative 11:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Past Minor Corrie characters

You know on the Past Minor Corrie characters article that we discussed about the use of a compacttoc, i have recently seen on the talk page with a complaint about navigation on the current minor and past, we concluded on the TOC thing, but that leaves bare navigation to the page --Dodgechris (talk) 11:40, 6 Aaugust 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

I saw that you are big Grey's anatomy fan so i am asking you for a favor!!! You must have seen Grey's anatomy temlate. So i was wondering why everybody are changing the template title. I come from other wikipedia and there i made this template with very nice title like Grey's anatomy logo so i do the same here but other users all the time are making UNDO on my work!!! Please if there is a rule the template to don't have title like that just said that to me!!!--Sensational Max (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please!!!

Hey i know that you are there please i want to help for Grey's Anatomy i use that picture to make Izzie Stevens article better. Please i write a message to you yestrday here but you didn't said anything please i want just to talk!!! --Sensational Max (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about not replying to the message yesterday... First off I was busy with real-life stuff when I got it and secondly I didn't know the answer, so I'm afraid I just forgot about it. Sorry! As for the image in the Izzie article, it needs a fair use rationale before it can be used there. If you look at the image page, the only rationale at the moment is for use in the episode article. I think WP:SOAP give a pretty good explanation of how to write a rationale, so checking there would be a good start. Frickative 11:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok no problem!!! We are not going to use it then. But can i ask you a question??? Is Grey's Anatomy one of the most watched shows in USA or not. Please tell me i want to is it famous!!!--Sensational Max (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea, I'm afraid. I'm not from the US, but I would certainly imagine so... Frickative 12:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OK!!! Because i don't know almost any user on this wikipedia except you could meet me with users who are working on Grey's Anatomy articles and than i would be able to talk with them about how to improve this articles. Please!!! Sensational Max (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the best way to get in touch with other Grey's Anatomy editors would be to leave a message on the talkpage of the main Grey's Anatomy article, asking if any other editors are interested in starting a Grey's Anatomy WikiProject. That way, editors interested in improving Grey's articles will have one central page to hold discussions and share ideas, etc :) Frickative 15:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You are one great editor

I saw how you edited Maria Connor, I started it of using your style from looking at Joseph Bryne of Holby City, (Which is one of the best articles I've read IMO). It's great how you transformed that. I think that is how all the fictional character articles should end up looking like one day on here.Raintheone (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I saw the sources you added to the Maria article - the one from the Sunday Mirror especially is excellent, definitely very useful. The great thing about Coronation Street is how popular it is - the Holby City articles can be hard to improve because there just aren't as many sources out there, but with Corrie there's endless room for improvement. It would be great if some of the Coronation Street character articles could be improved to Good Article status ^_^ Frickative 15:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Jenny (Doctor Who)

You reverted my edit at Jenny (Doctor Who). Oops. Thanks. Klippa (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, happens to the best of us, no worries ^_^ Frickative 13:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Great!!!

I too find your contributions more than satifactory, i listed Maria Connor as a good article! Notdoppler's page, Notdoppler's talk, 13:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, but I've reverted the listing of Maria Connor as a good article. Articles have to be nominated for a review process to reach GA level, and only after a fairly extensive review by an uninvolved editor can they be listed. The Maria Connor article as it stands is still in need of expansion, and so would be failed if nominated. Frickative 17:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, maybe i got too carried away, there are a lot of sections that need expanding, oh and one more thing, i see you prefer to "improve" article's rather than "updating". Notdoppler's page, Notdoppler's talk, 21:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the inverted commas are implying, nor am I sure what the problem is with that. Soap opera character's articles don't need updating with every little detail of every last episode. A lot of it is frankly insignificant, and just creates more clean up work down the line. Frickative 20:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of date

Hello, Frickative, just asking why you are replacing "was" to "is" on some Corrie articles when the characters have left? Such as the Chloe (Coronation Street), nearly all of the other past character's articles say "was", after all, they are Past characters, i would appreciate it if you could just tell me why you did this. User:Notdoppler21:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I said in the edit summaries - they don't cease being fictional characters just because they're no longer in the show. For example, Mike Baldwin is and will always be a fictional character, regardless of his on screen death. Frickative 20:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean we'll have to place on all the past articles back to "is"?User:Notdoppler, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's how they should read, yes. Not really important enough to comb through them all at once and change though. Frickative 20:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Dodgechris/Notdoppler

Do you think it's a bit suspicious that user User:Notdoppler first started contributing the day after Dodgechris made his last contribution (after being banned), and User:Notdoppler edits articles specific to Coronation Street, and is also causing a mess with the recurring/past recurring article contents (by merging them, for example)? To me, the chances of this being 2 different people isn't too likely. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, but a checkuser request just after Dodgechris was blocked found the two accounts to be unrelated. Nevertheless, I think it's quite obvious they are one and the same, and left a message with User:Tiptoety - the admin responsible for blocking Dodgechris - yesterday, asking what the best step is to take from here :) Frickative 12:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was unaware you were also pursuing this. Maybe it's a good thing he will probably read this; you may be able to cheat the system, but you can't cheat common sense ;) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bill Webster

I nominated Bill Webster article for deletion due to lack of notability and references, but This is Drew told on the talk page he wanted to merge with recurring and minor, i stated i agreed, so i merged it, but you unmerged it, i would like to close AfD altogether and redirect to minor, what do you think, i know the character has been on the show for ages. User:Notdoppler 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong accuses

When someone suspected me of sock puppetry, it was ended with me being unrelated to some user, they were completely right, i am NOT a Sockpuppet of anyone and didn't even know what one was until i was suspected, so i read about it, and i highly do not appeciate this. User:Notdoppler 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what Dodgechris also said, but soon changed his mind and admitted lying.. No credability.. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Erica Hahn

Have you considered putting it on GAC? Sceptre ^(talk) 22:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I did consider it right after I re-wrote the article, but at the time I was concerned there were very few secondary sources, and little room for expansion of any section should the reviewer request it. However, I've no aversion to it being nominated if you think it stands a chance :) Frickative 00:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I had a FAC with only ten sources (it failed, but not because of verifiability). You'll be fine :) Sceptre ^(talk) 05:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement - I've added a couple of new sources, and put it up at GAN :) Frickative 00:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Past characters

I've noticed looking at your contributions, that many DIFFERENT IP adresses are reverting the redirects to past Non-notable Corrie characters, this is becoming a real problem, we have got to do something, on a daily basis various editors are reverting to a own article, i hope it dosen't buckle down to semi-protectiong the articles so only registered users like us can edit them. Friendly. User:Notdoppler 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, it's far less of a headache than your constant pointless AfDs. Frickative 21:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in Frickatice, but I just wanted to say that I agree. Those characters you just nominated, Notdoppler/DodgeChris (whatever...) for AFD are clearly notable! There are masses of sources out there and plenty of scope for improvement. And, for a member of the Coronation Street wikiproject, your behaviour is extremely destructive, Notdoppler. I question your motives, as I suspect you do it just to piss people off. You have seen that there is a lot of effort going into cleaning up these soap articles, but it all takes time. There is no rush, but it is a lot of work, so why are you making it even harder? GunGagdin^Moan 22:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Condensing

I saw you reverted my changed on the Emily Bishop article, in which i have no problem with, but could you give me an idea to know which of them need updating and which don't? Maybe i should leave the improving articles of Corrie to more experienced wikipedians like you. Notdoppler (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Emily article is one of many that need work (a fuller list is available via the Coronation Street WikiProject and can be found here) but - and I'm not trying to be at all rude here, just honest - please ask yourself if the following changes you made to the article really seem to be on an encyclopedic level:

• In 1969, with Miklos out of the picture, she became Engaged to Ernest Bishop, but the following year, Ernest was jailed inbut soon freed, and at this point they wed.
• They tshort termly adopted to assuage Emily's need to connect with children.
• In many respects, Emily re-married Arnold Swain, who was secretly a bigamist. And after she ended the marriage planned to murder her and commit suicide.
• Orientated with her religios personality, she fell in love and engaged with a vicar, Bernard.

All efforts to improve the articles are obviously much appreciated, but your sandbox is the place for making sure spelling and grammatical errors of this magnitude don't make their way into the mainspace. Frickative 19:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Notdoppler (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am really Dodgechris

Ha ha, you though right, na na na na na na, yes i am a sockpuppet of Dodgechris, you Frickative pratt! Who sucks cock. You and all those other users are lean mena mega machine, pure fucking itchy meanie butts! Oh, don't forget, I'LL BE BACK, somehow someday youre gonna pay, along with all those other fat wikipedians! Youre old enemy Notdoppler!

Oh good, finally an admission of what everybody knew from the moment you joined. now you can piss off and be blocked again. All your edits suck, plus you seem like you've had no education. You think you're extremely clever, but you dont realise how thick you must be to get causght out so easily.GunGagdin^Moan 19:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Vats because im a child you Gungadin peice of shit, ill be back at u too, as well as User:Bungle. phoooee! And youre a lesbian with her, as you like her so much. Leso, Leso na, na, na, na, na, ill be back after im blocked nominating articles with the higheest notability for deletion, ha ha. Your the thickest, im still in school, and i bet ill come out of school much better than either of you did, so your even thicker than a child. Leso.

Reported to AIV. Enjoy your block. The more you do this, the easier you make it for every new sock account you make to be blocked on sight. I suggest getting yourself a life, a hobby and a clue. Frickative 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This is Notdopplers sister who is saying she is really sorry about her brothers behavior and this is really his sister it is not notdoppler pretending. he is a complete and utter nutter for not listening to you im really really sorry. he has been totally obsessed in wikipedia and i hate the way he swares all the time.i apologise for the swaring, he is annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notdoppler (talk • contribs)

I wish I did my job at his school - it'd be so much fun.. *evil grin*..
Maybe next time (not "if"), the conclusion can be reached much more swifty, and the time after that, and that, and so forth (because lets face it, he may as well have described himself above).
..and sorry for adding spam to your talk page Frickative, although under the circumstances and the outcome I doubt it;ll bother you that much ;) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all :D Though I give it about a day until another sock pops up. Gr. Frickative 21:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't last long...

Special:Contributions/86.156.244.224.

• Edits started after the above discussion concluded (except one edit the day before)
• Genre of articles edited are based solely on this one show
• Time of day edits are being made are during evening/weekend times (and we know that weekday daytimes is when folk are in work, or more appropriately, school).
• page protection to prevent vandalism with reason: "blocked editor who worked on this page has threatened IP sockpuppetry"
  

I know there isn't anything you can do directly, but a second opinion? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For want of a more eloquent expression: LOL. I'm literally just in the middle of re-opening the Request for CheckUser against DodgeChris. Who does this kid seriously think he's going to fool? Hopefully he'll be blocked again a bit more quickly this time around :D Frickative 20:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I do find humourous his attempts at outdoing basic common sense, alas in vein. Without giving him too many clues for the future (with regret at having to expect there will be future occurances), one would have thought you would at least let the dust settle first? Still, makes it so much easier! :-) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again already :D do you know, I think he's really starting to like us! Frickative 11:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Just reported that idiot's page for protection. E Wing (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether it's worth directly contacting BT (now we have established the ISP) and seeing if some direct action can be taken, as it's quite evident this individual has no intention of letting it lie. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe after his 1-month long block, after he resumes his vandalism spree :-). E Wing (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's definitely worth considering. I don't know whether you noticed that yet another sock was nipped in the bud last night - Charlie Chorks (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). If it was just the constant sock puppetry alone I'd be more inclined to let it lie, but added to the abuse he spouts whenever he's caught out - well, as I say, it's definitely worth considering. Frickative 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Although, as per WP:AGF, I think we must give this user (yet) another chance, assuming that his statement on the unblock tag on his latest sock is true. E Wing (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

He's said the same thing many times before, and was even given a second chance and had his main account unblocked following his first indef block. However, he then went straight back to using socks, and was told that he will not be unblocked again, plus had his main talk page locked, after abusing the unblock tag on there. My willingness to assume good faith has, in this instance, unfortunately reached its limit. Frickative 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think this case has well past the point where WP:AGF could ever come back in to play. Judging by the recent comments on the new sock's talk page (and now verbal abuse towards Tiptoey), I have no doubt this individual has a one track mind to simply cause distruption, inconvenience (wasting time of those who have genuine intentions of improving what we're contributing to here) and more recently, the prominent occurences of rather harsh and intimidating verbal abuse towards an increasing number of individuals. I think once a matter like this starts to enter into personal attacks (away from simply disrupting the encyclopedia), then one should naturally consider engaging in correspondance with the provider whom is permitting this user's access for them to commit such actions. God only knows what he hopes to achieve from all of this... Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:86.155.182.115 Most likely him again. E Wing (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on 212.139.115.7 Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Groan. Half a minute perusing the contribution history and it's blatantly him. I'm heading off to work, but if you've got the time, the CheckUser case is here, and it should be a fairly straightforward confirm + block as far as I can see. Frickative 01:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Frickative, me, the real life person of User:Dodgechris has just created an account, this is him (see on the signiature for name), i'm just saying i'm sorry, you were persuing the Dodgechris incident, weren't you? I'm just like to say sorry to you, and please can you forgive me and please don't block this account, all i want is to edit constructively, i love wiki, but if you chose to block me, i'll be sad, but i won't use socks, i'll stay away, maybe i'll just add 1 unblock template, but that's all, if you let me keep this account, i'll edit constructively, and never, ever vandalise, i'll also be civil, avoid spamming and stick with the rules, and i'll say sorry properly to the others i harrassed , can you please send them my apologies. Gabazauls 20:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, you should be more than familiar enough by now with WP:SOCK to know that creating yet another sockpuppet account is not the way to go about being accepted as an editor again. An admin declining one of your unblock requests advised that you stay away from Wikipedia for at least a period of several months, because at this point, you've abused everyone's good faith so much that no one is prepared to extend it to you anymore. You could use that time constructively to write some stellar articles offline, as proof when you do return that you have good, positive contributions to offer Wikipedia, and help your case for appeal then. In the meantime, it's not up to me or any of the other users you first sent this mass message to not to block you - we don't have that power. Only an administrator can make the decision to block your account, and when that inevitably happens again, please consider actually taking on board this advice, because your current method will get you nowhere. Frickative 11:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Frickative, can you just give good faith in me one last chance, and i promise i won't make you look like an idiot, i promise, nor will i make Tiptoety, Bungle, Gungadin or E Wing look like idiots. Gabazauls 12:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

..but then totally go against advice and create another sock regardless (and even using your own name). I don't want to sound like the bad-cop in this whole fiasco, but I haven't really seen or witnessed anything to make me change my view (and sorry again Frikative for spamming your talk page, but it seems you have already engaged in discussion here on the matter) :p On another note, I don't think we have at all been made to look like "idiots", but rather insulted for merely giving advice and taking appropriate action. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Reported the newest sock to AIV. I'm officially beyond the point of being willing to engage in conversation with him any longer. This guy isn't really looking for advice, and I'm not going to keep on giving it when it's just continually ignored. From now on, every new sock is just going straight to AIV or CheckUser. More fool me for bothering. Frickative 20:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

DodgeChris, Your apologies have always been disingenuous, but I would be extremely happy for you to come here and edit constructively (not that I have any say in the matter anyway), and I even helped you get unblocked the first time round didnt I? when no one else was interested, but you paid me back by continuing to vandalise under new socks and then insulting me when I caught you out. All very disappointing for about 5 seconds, then I got over it and decided the project was far better off without you, because all you do is cause problem after problem. We've all heard your promises far too many times, so even if you are telling the truth, how can you expect anyone to believe it now? Your bridges have been burnt, and you only have yourself to blame for that. Go read The Boy Who Cried Wolf, you might learn something. Not that I expect you to care what I think anyway, because i'm fully aware that you're only crawling to us so that we can help you get reinstated here somehow.GunGagdin^Moan 21:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Pax Baldwin

It's all yours! Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! :) Frickative 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Erica Hahn

The article Erica Hahn you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Erica Hahn for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Cirt (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - both for the expansion/improvement of the image FUR, and also of course for your review! :) Frickative 01:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello (About Cleanup)

Hello as soon as I saw that user Leicestershire'Man I knew who it would be. Isn't there a way he wont be able to come back so we don't have to deal with him? lol

Anyway what I was wondering really is about 'WikiProject Coronation Street/Operation cleanup' page. When I edit a character page, for instance how I have edited Tina McIntyre. .. on the Operation Cleanup page, do I have to add ticks into the boxes. So for Tina's row, add a tick into Creation, Development, Reception? (Those are the sections that I have added to the Tina article.) Or is that not my job? I just got confused. Also Is what I add to these pages what we are looking for. I feel I'm learning a lot more as an editor on these character pages and adding these sections, I just don't want to mess up and create more work for us. Thankyou. Raintheone (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think at the moment the only way to deal with DodgeChris's million and one sockpuppets is just just to keep an eye out, and have them checked at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dodgechris as quickly as possible, unfortunately <_<.

I saw the edits you made to Tina McIntyre & was actually going to drop a note on your talk page last night saying what a tremendous improvement it was... except that it was 4am and I don't often make a great deal of sense by then :D Your edits are definitely the kind of thing we're aiming for, and yep, if you add in new sections, just replace the N with a Y on the cleanup page, maybe with a quick note in the end column just to say that you've added it & whether it still needs expanding on or not. Looking over it again now, it's fantastic just how many sources you've found for the Tina article, and from a wide range of different publications as well. The only suggestion I'd make would be, if you've not see it before, WP:CITE has a page of citation templates here, which can be a little tricky to get used to, but pretty easy once you've done it a few times, and just gives you neater references - so for instance instead of you get . Other than that, keep up the great work, and happy editing! :) Frickative 15:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Notdoppler etc..

Hi. Really thanks for the heads up. I didn't notice that I was agreeing with sockpuppets of Notdoppler. :( -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As I just said on the Bill Webster talk page - no worries :) I think he has over 30 socks now, so it's hard to keep them all straight - just a pain that he's still causing problems even after so many blocks! Frickative 13:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Holby City character

Template:Infobox Holby City character has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother contesting the TfD, mostly because somehow I wasn't actually aware the generic template could accommodate extra fields like that, so thanks really, for enlightening me to that. However, next time it arises, you might want to take a little more care over orphaning images in the process of conversion, because I spent a mighty frustrating 15 minutes trying to sort that out before giving up. Ho hum. Frickative 18:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, Frickative, but if foe is not willing to unblock me i'm just gonna have to keep doing this. HH124 16:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been told to take your case to Arbcom. Frickative 18:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Schmeichel (Coronation Street)

I recently created an article about the fictional dog of Schmeichel, but you redirected it to Chesney article, i thought i'd just talk this through instead of reverting you. Wellard from EastEnders has his article, why can't Schmeichel?Cedunited 16:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What the hell?

What's a sockpuppet?; whatever it is, i'm not one!, please can you briefley describe to me what a "sock-puppet" is. Cedunited 17:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you playing at Frickative, i am NOT who you say i am, and have never heard of Dodgechris until you said about it, and i DEFINATELY did not nominate it to cause disruption. Ced 14:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ced and Dodgechris

I am not convinced 100% that these two user accounts belong to the same person. I may be naive or something but I think Ced did some constructive edits. I've watching his edits the whole day to check if something is wrong. They were some mistakes but the general impression I receive is that he improved the articles. If they are the same person, is this a sign that he changed he approach? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I provided a link to the checkuser request which confirmed it, and the account has now been blocked. He continued to make a general nuisance of himself as ever he has done. Take a look at the edit history of List of Coronation Street characters. The last several hundred edits are all by him and his socks. He gets all over the place, making so many changes and merges, useless new pages and redirects etc that it's always an upward struggle to keep up and revert him on some of his nonsense. He's said in the past he will continue to create AfDs to cause disruption to the Coronation Street WikiProject, and even if you agree with his most recent nom, as a more experienced editor I'm sure you're well aware that the current proposal would have been much better discussed with the Coronation Street WikiProject first and foremost. Taking it straight to AfD (and opening the discussion on the Soap Opera WikiProject, so as to take it above the Coronation Street Project without mentioning anything there first) gives the impression that the opinions of the editors with the most vested interest in these articles isn't valued. I'm not saying that I disagree with you on the List of past recurring and minor... article, but the way it has been handled leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Frickative 15:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again for the answer. It seems it's the second time I am mistake with this guy. I wrote a message to the Coronation Street but I feel I have to apologise to you as well. When I checked the Talk page of these articles, I didn't find any sign of the Coronation Street Project and that's why I informed the Soap Opera project instead. I was not planning to get it for AfD that fast but since Ced / Dodgechris started it, I just expressed my opinion there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Dodgechris

No. 1; who is Dodgechris? No. 2; What's a sock puppet? Bet123 19:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

List of character deaths from Coronation Street

Hi. I think List of character deaths from Coronation Street has to be deleted exactly as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of births, marriages and deaths in Brookside. I prodded it for deletion just right now.

PS by the way, I reverted many edits for Dodgechris's new sockpuppet. I don't know how this thing is going to stop. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The prod is absolutely fine by me, I don't think I was even aware that article existed :) As for Dodgechris - ugh, thanks for dealing with the reverts. It's head meet keyboard frustrating at this point. Frickative 00:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha!

I gave them an option here, but they wouldn't unblock me, so i started an AfD here. I'm so sorry, but i will have to keep doing this unless i can be unblocked. Corrie'Fan08 (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Dodgechris with a question

Frickative, this is - well - i suppose this is kind of a sock of DodgeChris, i created this account to ask you a question; didn't you say before that i should take my unblocking case to Arbcom? Well, i am asking, when you go on the page, what do you do? Sock of Dodgechris (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha!

Have you seen what our favourite little sock tried to do? [7] [8]--GunGagdin^Moan 21:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Clearly the poor thing is being persecuted in his attempts to expose our rampant vandalism to the wider community. My heart goes out to him, really it does. Frickative 21:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How long are you 2 going to keep this up? 86.143.121.28 (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Until I've stopped laughing at your lame attempt to get us blocked. I'm still laughing btw.GunGagdin^Moan 21:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Laughing is a sure sign of "fun and games". 72 hour block for you :) Frickative 22:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL....oh there I go again with the laughing.GunGagdin^Moan 22:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh so you admit to playing fun&games...yet you're still doing it. 86.143.121.28 (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Hi there, If you don't like what I do on Wikipedia, there's no need to leave nonsence on my user page is there? Just leave a message on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks. Jackalhunter 16:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The All Around Amazing Barnstar
		Because i have read your articles on Holby and Grey's and they are amazing also you stayed calm during misunderstandings previously and you are an asset to wikipedia

(Tommyvilla47 (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Seriously you are an amazing wikipedian don't ever stop and sorry about before :) (Tommyvilla47 (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Maddy Young

I have just GA-reviewed Maddy Young, and placed it on hold. For more details, see the review page for more details. Thanks - weebiloobil (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've now passed the article. Well done! - weebiloobil (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Very rude that you didn't answer my question. Jackalhunter 20:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you think you stand to gain from being so antagonistic? Frankly I was attempting to take Gungadin's more laid-back approach and just let you get on with your rampant sockpuppetry, so long as you offered some constructive edits - but seeing as you evidently just don't know when to leave well enough alone, I'm going to take your last half dozen sock accounts to Checkuser now and see how long it takes for them all to be blocked. Frickative 20:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What? What are you talking about? Jackalhunter 20:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there were more than that, it's a pity there are so many I can't remember them all. Frickative 20:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem with DodgeChris is, he assumes we're all operating on the same intellectual level that he is. He can't see how we could possibly see through his 'complex' disguises, because he hasn't yet worked out that his disguises are about as complex as the 2 x table.--GunGagdin^Moan 20:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you are bringing me into something that dosen't have anything to do with me. Hm. And who is this DodgeChris you are talking about. Jackalhunter 20:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, just some tosser with a low IQ.GunGagdin^Moan 21:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, have you seen the Checkuser result? Not only did they confirm the obvious two, they found seventeen more. My personal favourite is User:Frickative hater. Frickative 21:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

lol, I'm loving that you are succeeding in annoying him so much :) GunGagdin^Moan 22:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not enough though, it would seem. I've pretty much taken a back seat myself as we all do have much better things to spend our time with, although this does provide a rather accurate insight into the life of this individual if he can afford to spend so much time pursuing his little vendetta. That said, i'm glad you haven't let it drop ;) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Windasses

Just one question. If They're going to be regulars (seen more than the current crop of recurrents); why merge them to the rest? Conquistador2k6 14 November 2008 20:54 (UTC)

Basically, they may become notable through their time on the show, but just becoming regular characters on Coronation Street doesn't make them inherently notable. To give them individual articles at the moment would go against WP:N and WP:FICT - the Morton family were in the same position when this AfD determined that community consensus was to merge the articles. That said, a decent argument could probably be made for merging the four of them into some separate Windass family article, because you're quite right, they're not really 'recurring' or 'minor' characters, just not notable enough to require individual articles at the present time. Frickative 21:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I notice you're not exactly quick to pull up articles for any of the other British soaps for doing the same. Anyhow, My Original point was; With these characters appearing on a regular basis, there would be more scope to add information to their profile.Conquistador2k6 14 November 2008 21:55 (UTC)

Beg pardon? I merged an article on the as yet unborn Amy Slater from EastEnders just yesterday, created the Characters of Casualty article in order to merge over a dozen stubby in-universe articles to one place, and recently created redirects for new Holby City characters Annalese Carson and Rachel Baptiste lest someone preemptively attempt to create articles for currently non-notable chartacters - not that my editing habits are at all germane to discussion on policy, so quite why you're trying to make this issue personal I don't know. My point stands that these characters are currently not notable according to WP:FICT standards, and previous deletion discussions have concluded that consensus is to merge characters of this nature until satisfactory notability can be asserted. Frickative 22:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't set out to attack you. I'm sorry if you saw it like that. I just thought that further time would be granted to establish notability once these characters rocked up and made a significant amount of appearances complete with past references and character traits so they could be added. Conquistador2k6 14 November 2008 22:13 (UTC)

The thing is, it probably will take quite a long time for the characters to become notable in the real world, with more than just plot details available to write about. With the Mortons, it was only actually as they were leaving the show that there was enough secondary information to warrant an individual article for Mel Morton, for example, and that was after about a year on screen. Obviously once there are significant secondary sources discussing the characters individually, unmerging them and restoring individual articles isn't a problem. That's why I suggested the possibility of creating a Windass family article as a sort of half-way measure between four individual articles or straight merging to the recurring and minor characters list - all limited media discussion of the characters at the moment focuses on the family as a whole rather than any individual character. Even that, I think, would be tenuous at best for a while yet, but would likely be a marginally more acceptable alternative. Frickative 22:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Preston Xavier Burke

Ok can you just tell me why the hell you earse everything i'll wirte on Preston Burke's page!? I am telling you that those information are correct. And with them the page looks like a normal Grey's anatomy character's page! With Overview and Background! Please do not earse that! Please! If you want some things to be changed just simply tell МЕ!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.13.39 (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The entire section was original research. You were making multiple assertions about the character based on your own interpretation, alongside completely unsupported statements such as the one about him inspiring thousands of medical students to study. There was a single source added to the entire section, which linked to a blog entry. Blogs are not considered reliable sources. Unfortunately, the content you added was simply unencyclopedic in nature. Frickative 21:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible victimisation

Why are you going through all of my redirects and finding problems with them? Why would you do this to me? --Bravo Plantation (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I happened to notice that you'd created a redirect I found completely bizarre, and a quick glance at your contribution history revealed several more. I'm not victimizing you as an editor, just questioning the plausibility of some of the redirects you've created. As it happens, I think the number of useful redirects you've created far outweigh the somewhat more eyebrow-raising ones, and I do think you make many valuable contributions to the encyclopedia in this area, so please don't feel as though I'm picking on you :) Frickative 00:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for explaining. :) --Bravo Plantation (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Hey, are you interested in becoming an admin? I think you'd make a brilliant one and you already do a lot of vandalism work and you are extremely well versed on all policies and guidelines here. I'd be happy to nominate you if you think you could use the extra buttons.GunGagdin^Moan 14:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thank you so much for the suggestion & for your kind words, but to be completely honest, I don't think I really do enough mop & bucket work to be considered a particularly viable candidate at the moment. I have been trying to take part in more Xfd discussions and so forth lately, but right now I'm finding the addition of Twinkle more than enough to keep on top of anti-vandalism stuff. Thank you again though, and I hope you don't mind if I keep this in mind should the situation be different a few months from now? :) Frickative 15:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just let me know and I'll come up with a glowing nomination for you :) GunGagdin^Moan 17:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Gene Hunt

You convince me and I have changed my 'vote' accordingly. Good effort. Springnuts (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I really have no vested interest in these articles - I've yet to watch a single episode of either Life on Mars or Ashes to Ashes. However the nomination seemed a bizarre one to me on the basis that both Sam Tyler and Gene Hunt are well-known household names, and so as someone that spends the majority of their time on Wikipedia editing fiction-related articles, it seemed important to demonstrate that notability really was not an issue in these cases - rather, these particular articles just need improvement. Frickative 14:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Coronation Street

Hey I made a big edit to Becky Granger's article, it took so long aswell added all the things required on the clean up project were all contributing too. Do you think the amount of images used is okay within the article. I've tried to help the Ken Barlow article, can't find any info over the casting though, any ideas? Raintheone (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, wow, I'm seriously impressed you managed to find that many refs for Becky! I know she's got quite a big storyline at the moment, but before that I always thought she was more of just a comic-relief type character... reading the casting bit is really interesting, I didn't know any of that :D I think having 3 images is fine - the one from 2006 just under the creation section is especially good because she actually looks really greasy, lol. As for Ken Barlow - because he's been in it since the very start, I think the only really useful sources for casting details will probably be the Coronation Street companion books. Which is a bit of a pain, but then I imagine it's the sort of thing that's probably available from Amazon marketplace for 1p. I think it says something about how badly I need to spend less time on Wiki that after editing the Betty Williams article this week, I'm seriously considering ordering Betty Driver's autobiography from Amazon for 30p for extra details, lol. I think there's a line that needs to be drawn... Anyway, good job improving the article though! Frickative 00:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the comments on that. In the meantime I created the article for Amber Kalirai as it was one that was next on my list. I just need to tidy the references up on it and it will be better, I was suprised how much I found only about two corrie blog links needed and only relied on the ITV part for the personality really, the rest I found on news sources.Raintheone (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, another huge improvement - I'd never have expected there to be so many sources about Amber! The only thing I'd suggest is taking out the bit about Facebook - it's not really a reliable source, and, seeing as it only has 8 members, it's not particularly notable either. Another great job, though! Frickative 14:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I wasn't sure about that but just threw it in anyway. I removed it now though.Thanks again Raintheone (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you recently edited Sophie Websters page. I've redone the article, (Storylines mostly the same) would you mind if I put it all in?Raintheone (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead! I was thinking when I edited it earlier that it needed a lot of work, but wasn't too keen on doing it myself. I look forward to seeing your additions :) Frickative 19:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for the barnstar you gave to me for the editing I've done it's much appreciated and I'll keep up the good work. :) Raintheone (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Amy Slater

Why have all my changes been reverted? I know that there was a vandalism protection thing in but I put in viable references saying that Jack is the father. Not having a go I would like to know why you changed it? Alex250P (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove any references saying Jack was the father... The only ref I took out was to the episode summary where crates fall on Billy, which I removed because it was excessive detail that didn't particularly move the plot forward... If there were refs in there confirming that Jack is the father, you might want to check further back in the revision history to see who actually took them out :) Frickative 00:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Carla Connor/Gordon

I already Summarised that her name has since been changed on the Corrie Credits, why did you revert it? I'm just asking. Conquistador2k6 17 December 2008 14:36 (UTC)

I explained in the edit summary, per WP:NAME. The very first section says the article should stay at the most easily recognisable name, and a change in the credits doesn't change the fact that the character is better known as Carla Connor - the name she has had for two years - over Carla Gordon - a name she's had for two weeks. Searching Google for both names, Carla Connor returns 16,100 hits [9] while Carla Gordon returns just 223 [10]. This is the same reason why, for instance, you can find the Desperate Housewives character at Bree Van de Kamp not Bree Hodge, and the Twilight series character at Bella Swan not Bella Cullen. Frickative 14:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Whitney Dean

Well done, I have listed the article as GA. Otto4711 (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thorough and helpful review! :) Frickative 23:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

wOO!! Just seen that you got this to GA. How fabulous! Well done, the EE project needed another GA, and you're a bit of a master at this now :) GunGagdin^Moan 22:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! I was really surprised there was only 1 other EastEnders GA, I thought there were more than that - here's to more to come! Frickative 17:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, would be great to collaborate on something at some stage, possibly work towards A FA? Either a Corrie or EE character page, perhaps. If you have any ideas let me know. I've been doing some work on Hilda Ogden. with a little more work I think that would be a good GA candidate. Shame I couldnt find a great deal on creation though, only that Betty Driver auditioned and was not successful, so if you have any ideas for improvement let me :) GunGagdin^Moan 13:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, definitely, I'd love to help get something to FA at some point. I was a bit scared off the whole process reading back on how much effort it took for the Pauline Fowler article to pass, but I was looking recently at some of the Lost character articles that are FAs, and none of them seem to have been subject to anywhere near as much endless poking and prodding before passing... I saw how much you'd added to the Hilda article, it's in great shape :D Definitely a good candidate for GA. All I can think of for creation stuff would be the Corrie companion books, but there seem to be quite a lot of them, and not all of them particularly cheap even second hand off Amazon =/ That's a bit of a pain, really, seeing as it's probably the more prominent older characters that would be the best candidates the improve to FA level, but they're all going to have the same lack of creation stuff easily available, grr. Frickative 19:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd almost forgotten how hideous the Pauline FA was. I do think that we were ridiculously unlucky with the reviewers, however. Like you said, some fiction articles pass FAC with few problems and it's difficult to know why that happens. With science fiction articles, i've found that there is a lot of dedicated contributers/readers, so when the articles go to FAC, fans are more likely to vote to promote. Soaps don't have that luxury, because most of the readers of these pages dont concern or know about things like FA; in fact they usually complain about the reduction of plot info that is always necessary when you take a fiction article to FAC. The main problem we had with Pauline was that we had separate storylines and then development for those same storylines, one written in-universe, the other OOU. Saying that, this was only a problem for a minority of reviewers; it just happened that those reviewers were extremely argumentative and weren't willing to accept any way other than their own way. Hopefully this wont be so much of an issue if storylines are kept to minimum detail. It's been a year since Pauline was promoted, so i'd be willing to try again when we're both ready, and I think it would be easier with two of us or more working on it - I pretty much did the majority of Pauline on my own and it was a little exhausting, and I dont have as much spare time now I work full-time... Those Corrie companion books sound like a good idea. There used to be an editor here who did a lot of work on the Coronation Street page, and he seemed to have loads of Corrie books. I might see if he's still editing and ask if he can help out. Betty Turpin is another one that looks brilliant now, largely thanks to you. Would love to get that promoted to at least GA, sadly there's very little in the way of storyline development to include, as she hasn't been a central character for so many years.GunGagdin^Moan 20:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I think you've definitely got a point with the science fiction/soap opera thing... I've got the fictional character AfD page watchlisted, and dozens and dozens of minor soap characters will go through with just a comment or two, but the second a minor Doctor Who character or similar comes up, dozens upon dozens of editors will chip in with pile-on 'keep' !votes... Ah well. I remember well reading through all the storyline vs. development stuff, what a headache! Can't imagine what a pain it must have been to have been the one to have to resolve all that. It really confused my editing for a while too, lol, because I was convinced that that structure must be the "right" way to edit, and subsequently wrote a couple of articles that read veeery strangley to me without any 'storyline' section at all. One of them did get to GA a couple of months ago, but I've long since gone back to including a few hundred word plot synopsis, because I just think otherwise there are too many other problems to contend with... all sorts of awkward tense issues, and over & under-emphasising certain stuff based on the sources that are available, ugh. But yes, should be an interesting challenge to aim for a FA anyway :) I am actually seriously considering grabbing Betty Turpin's autobiography off Amazon for 35p just for all the extra details for the Betty article, but I'm managing to just hold myself back at the moment... I think there's a line that has to be drawn somewhere and maybe I should order my dissertation books first, lmao. If only there was a degree in Wiki... Frickative 19:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Connor Family Template-Corrie

Hi, I was wondering, how do you edit the template '{{CSConnors}}' as I would like to add Ryan Connor as I have heavily edited the article and feel as though he should be on the template as he is a legal/adoptive member of the family and is quite a prominent character. Regards Alex250P (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, to edit the template, click the small 'e' in the top left. The 'v' is the view the template page, and the 'd' is the template's talk page. Hope that helps :) Frickative 23:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do it now Alex250P (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:HolbyCityCast.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:HolbyCityCast.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr.Men images

I got a few more deletion notices for these. I didn't see much discussion about the images so I will let them get deleted. I have not worked on that project in a while. Did you suggest a collage or some sort of combined image at one point? Either way I was not planning on adding any more images to that project. I did have some info to add but I will have to look it up again. Libro0 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, I haven't edited the Mr Men articles for quite a while, so I'm not sure why you're getting deletion notices now - sorry I can't be more enlightening there :) But yes, I remember saying at one point that a collage picture of all the Mr Men would be more suitable under fair use guidelines for the List of... article than dozens of individual ones. Something like this [11] ought to do the trick nicely if a slightly better quality image could be found. Frickative 22:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The Grinning Man (Jonathan Creek)

Hey, do you plan to take this to GA, it's a nice article? — Realist² 04:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; I think I'm going to leave it a day or so more just for the last few reviews to trickle in, then I'll put it up at GAN and see how it fares :) Frickative 05:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! — Realist² 16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question; it looks like, with a bit of exterior prose checking, it could be FA-quality. :) Sceptre ^(talk) 10:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks a lot for neatening up the reception section earlier! :) Frickative 23:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Cheeky

Hi. You merged all Mr. Men characters in summer 2008, but one of the mergers, Mr. Cheeky, was reverted back then but still has the notability- and merge tags up. I just restored the redirect, but then noticed this article was in fact about a book, not (only) the character. Could you have a look at this? – sgeureka ^t•c 09:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the heads up. It looks as though there's some discrepancy in the parent article, in that some of the sections are about solely the characters, while others are focussed instead on the books. I haven't edited the page for quite a while now, but I'll try and make some time over the next couple of days to go through and edit for clarity. Thanks again :) Frickative 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Monk (TV series) edit

Frickative, I don't feel the Sharona/Natalie storyline contrast from the novel fits well in the show article so I removed your addition. It seems we should stick to "cannon" material unless a source deems fit to address it. Also, it not being a sourced comparison is an issue. Maybe there's another way to appropriately address the manner in which the two presentations handled the characters.
Jim Dunning | talk 02:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In what way is it synthesis to mention how the character's exit was treated in the official series tie-in novel? It's not as though it happened in a fan-fiction; why doesn't the book itself constitute a reliable source? Frickative 02:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Danielle Jones

Hey, it's no problem if you look in the right hand corner her birthsign is described as Cancer and she is 19 and her password is veronica (ronnie) 1989 making her 20 in June/July 2009 Alex250P (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

Fair enough, point taken, and I won't do it again. I would however point out that the person in question was not in my opinion an editor, but a Vandal - changing the text of 100 greatest britons in order to replace Sir Winston Churchill with your own name does not really constitute a constructive edit does it - surely such an action is vandalism? 86.18.72.53 (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely it was vandalism, but if you check out this page here, there are a whole host of templates you can use to warn people for disruptive editing which are worded a little less acerbically. Sometimes users who vandalise articles do go on to become constructive editors, and it's better to try an encourage that than to potentially turn them away from Wikipedia forever with a personal attack. It looks like the user in question had received a lot of warnings in the past, though, so if you ever come across someone whose edits are nothing but vandalism, and they've already had a lot of warnings, you can also report them here, and an administrator may block them from editing again. Hope that helps :) Frickative 21:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made some more edits please do not delete them im trying to be nice about this but i put a great deal of effort into reserch on tom chambers and holby city infact tom is my best friend so leave me alone and dont delete my edits i hope you understand or i will have to consider banning you and i dont want to do that but you might force me to.Tommyc12 (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC) user tommyc12Tommyc12 (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

ne

I won't edit war, but please give me a reference for that usage. I've been speaking English for a long, long, time, and I've never encountered that usage, nor do any of the online dictionaries that I use show it.—Kww(talk) 18:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies - I'm just off for dinner, but even on Wikipedia we refer to né as the "masculine form of née". I'll try and scare up something a bit better after lunch. Frickative 19:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but even that article implies that that the usage is reserved for name changes that occur as a result of marriage.—Kww(talk) 20:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Although the terminology is most commonly applied to pre-marital names, it is not exclusive to that circumstance, and is valid when used to refer to any original or former name [12] [13] [14]. Frickative 20:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

None of your definitions or examples show it being used to describe a male's birth name. They are all either female persons with the condition of that female changed her name as a result of having married, or things.

Female restriction:

• Answers.com:Used to indicate the maiden name of a married woman.
• Encarta: used to introduce a married woman's maiden name
• Merriam-Webster: used to identify a woman by her maiden family name

Object restriction:

• Encarta:used to introduce the name that something was formerly known under
• Merriam-Webster: not explicit, but example is a sports team.

In terms of usage, "born" is much more common, and more likely to be understood by the reader. I would even argue that given the definitions you've provided, using né at that point is a sufficiently obscure usage that many would consider it incorrect.—Kww(talk) 01:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought we'd already clarified that né is the masculine form of née. Obviously the links aren't going to discuss males as they refer to the female form of the word. Here, though, the masculine form [15] on Merriam-Webster:

• Used to indicate the original, former, or legal name of a man <Robert Roe, né John Doe>

I don't think it gets any clearer than that, and I also don't consider the word or its usage to be obscure. It has been in place in the article for several months now without anyone expressing confusion until today, and is used in other articles across Wikipedia as standard - for example Bobby Beale. Frickative 01:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I've Wiktionary linked the word in the Edward Cullen article to avoid any future confusion. Frickative 01:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you lend a helping hand?

Hey there. I haven't really edited for a bit been busy, last one I made was Graeme. I have found a book about Coronation street and the characters it was for the 30th anniversary for the show. It has some info on Emily and Ken casting among plenty of others. It also has plenty of other info. Yet I don't know how to cite the reference part for a book for when I include a reference, I have noticed you can use a book for reference. Also what can I include, obviously I could write anything and say it's in the book. How do I make that solid? The book is called 'Life in the street' (Coronation street past and present) by Graeme Kay, and it was published with Granada television. (Maybe it has been used already, I do not know.) I am sad for buying it, I fancied reading it but it will come in use :P

I can also make a entry for Gary Windass found sources and the like. If you can help it's great. Richiie:)Raintheone (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's awesome that you've gotten ahold of the book, that's definitely going to come in useful! :D To reference information from it, you want this template. There are two ways you can go about it, I think. You can either use the template basically the same way you would with cite_web or cite_news, or, if you're referencing a lot of info in one article to the same book, you can reference it like in Nick Cotton, where you fill out the details once in full once at the bottom, and then for individual references just use the shorthand "Kay, Graeme, Life in the Street, pg. 37835674". As for what you can include, things like direct quotes from the producers/casting people/actors are great, but it is also fine to paraphrase as well, so for example, you don't have to word everything like... 'So and so said; "I wanted a young man with attitude to play Ken"', it would be fine to just say 'So and so wanted a young man with attitude to play Ken' (agh, these examples are rubbish, I know, forgive me, my imagination is asleep) so long as you include the page number that information is found on in the reference, so it's easily verifiable. I hope that helps, I'm not sure how coherent I've been, sorry! As for Gary Windass, you've just reminded me I have at least 8 weeks worth of Inside Soap lying around my flat, and there was definitely some stuff on the whole Windass clan I meant to include from a few editions, so I'll have to have a rummage and see if I can find it :D Frickative 00:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I used it for Kevin's article and actually managed to do it so thank you for the help. Raintheone (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No problemo, I was actually reading that last night & had no idea the actor was in it before as a paperboy. Interesting stuff! Frickative 01:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy!

It seems we are in an editing war i dont want this to be the case i think we should work together to improve the site and i would like to hear your comments but we need to come to some conclusion (Tommyvilla47 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

OK, what's wrong with you! All I want is just to improve the articles. I know that Grey's Anatomy isn't Soap Opera but if Grey's Anatomy is not a Soap Opera than One Tree Hill and Desperate Housewives are? Give me a good reason why they are and Grey's isn't!? I won't do the opossite of what you do. What I mean is that if you undo the changes I won't I redo them. I am just tring to improve the articles. Grey's Anatomy is famous as much as One Tree Hill and Desperate Housewives, maybe a little less or little more but that doesn't matter. I am bigger One Tree Hill fan than Grey's Anatomy fan, but I love, adore Grey's Anatomy and I am felling sad why is that happening with the articles. If that infobox doesn't fit than ok! But we are going to made an infobox that fits. The love relationships and stuff like that are present in Grey's anatomy as much in One Tree Hill and Desperate Housewives!? And one more thing why we can't make Grey's Anatomy template the way a propose and Desperate Housewives is very similar? I really don't understand. P.S. I don't want to be rude. All I want is to improve the articles related to Grey's Anatomy and to be good friedns with you!! SO please accept "my proposal for partnership". At least think about the stuff I just said as much as you want until you answer me I won't make you "problems" with this articles. Best wishes!

First things first - if you don't want to be rude, starting a message with "what's wrong with you!" isn't the best way to begin. Beyond that, I'm not sure what your point is about One Tree Hill and Desperate Housewives? Grey's isn't a soap, so we shouldn't use the soap opera template, that's all. There's nothing wrong with the normal character template. If you want to include a section in the normal template to add in the romances, then I can show you how to do that, that's no problem. With the navigational template, like I said on the talkpage, they're supposed to be functional, not pretty. When you start changing fonts and colours and things, you run into all sorts of problems with browser differences, for example. I edit mostly using Google Chrome now, and before that I used mostly Firefox, and often times if you change the colour or font on something, it won't scan right in all browsers. As far as possible, you want things to be readable for people whatever browser they're using, which is why you need a really good reason to deviate from the standard template. I have no idea why the Desperate Housewives template is the way it is, but it's certainly not the norm on Wikipedia. Even with the Grey's one now the way you've done it, having links at the top and bottom instead of in groups makes them harder to read, because they're on a darker background. I'd be quite happy to edit with you to improve the articles, but just changing things for the sake of change seems a bit superfluous. The only real problem I had, and hence why I left the message on your talkpage, was the fact you were deleting the

templates on the articles. You should never removed a maintenance template unless the problem has been fixed, and all the Grey's character articles are written from an in-universe perspective, so the templates need to stay until that's fixed. But that was the biggest problem, really. Like I said, I'd be happy to edit with you to improve the articles, and if you want me to show you how to add a Romance or Relationships or whatever section to the normal character template, just let me know :) Frickative 15:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok you are right! I was rude! Sorry! So I am very happy that you accept my help! And everything you have just said no matter how hard is for me to accept it its true and I respect that. This is not a fan page and every single Template should be just normal without the colors and the decorations. But I am insanely mad why those how edit about Desperate Housewives have the right to make the template the way they do it. And I don't understand why the articles about One Tree Hill characters and Desperate Housewives are using Soap Operas infoboxes? From now on I shall respect every single decision of yours and I am happy that you do that too. So before I change anything i will first show it to you we are goind to discuss that and then decide to put it or not. And yes i really want to make the normal character infobox similar to Soap Opera infobox. Ok so, I will want a section that is called "Relationships" or something like that and there should be two paramaters, one called Romances or something like that and one Relativs or Siblings no need for those extra parametars like Nices and Grandparents. And we could add a parents parametar too! The rest I think is good. I hope you will accept my apologize and become friends! Best whishes! --SmartM&M (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic, it's always better to get along, right? :) With regard to the Desperate Housewives & One Tree Hill articles, I don't really know the shows well enough to comment, but I am very surprised by the DH navigational box. Even the shape of it is quite obtrusive... But anyway, the character templates. Let's see... I'm just going to grab the Meredith one as an example I think... Okay, here's how it is now (just with the picture taken out, because I can't use that on my talkpage):

Dr. Meredith Grey
'Grey's Anatomy' character
First appearance	"A Hard Day's Night"
Created by	Shonda Rhimes
Portrayed by	Ellen Pompeo
In-universe information
Title	M.D.
Occupation	Surgical Resident at Seattle Grace Hospital
Family	Dr. Derek Shepherd (partner) Thatcher Grey (father) Dr. Ellis Grey (mother; deceased) Susan Grey (step-mother; deceased) Dr. Lexie Grey (paternal half-sister) Molly Grey Thompson (paternal half-sister) Laura Grey Thompson (half-niece) Eric Thompson (brother-in-law)

& here's how we could change it :)

Dr. Meredith Grey
'Grey's Anatomy' character
First appearance	"A Hard Day's Night"
Created by	Shonda Rhimes
Portrayed by	Ellen Pompeo
In-universe information
Title	M.D.
Occupation	Surgical Resident at Seattle Grace Hospital
Relationships
Romances	Derek Shepherd Finn Dandridge George O'Malley
Parents	Thatcher Grey (father) Ellis Grey (mother; deceased) Susan Grey (step-mother; deceased)
Siblings	Lexie Grey (paternal half-sister) Molly Grey Thompson (paternal half-sister)
Relatives	Laura Grey Thompson (half-niece) Eric Thompson (brother-in-law)

How's that look? Frickative 17:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is great. I am so happy that we made it! Good job. Ok so this is better than great, oh man thanks. Ok just one thing what do you think if we made all the infoboxes about Grey's Anatomy with Powder Blue? What do you think!? Great job and keep the good work. --SmartM&M (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! By powder blue do you mean this colour?

..........

It is quite nice, I'm just slightly worried that long strips of it in the infobox would look a little glaring. But the greyey-blue colour at the moment is quite dull. How about somewhere in between?

(the colour now)

..........

..........

..........

(powder blue)

Do you like any of the ones in between? I think they're slightly less dull, but a little bit more neutral. I think in the infobox they'd look liiike...

Test
'Grey's Anatomy' character
Created by	Test
Portrayed by	Test

Test
'Grey's Anatomy' character
Created by	Test
Portrayed by	Test

Test
'Grey's Anatomy' character
Created by	Test
Portrayed by	Test

Hmm, maybe it's just my eyes, but the first two look the same as each other to me. I think the last one is a little bit too bright, but I do like the soft blue. Frickative 18:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, the third is great, I was thinking about her by powder blue. Ok so I think that the infobox problem are done! Have you seen the Meredith Grey article, I think that the infobox is great! So now you can change anything you want at the infobox there and when is done just tell me here and I will do the same thing in all characters pages! When we'll finish this we are going on the next step! Great I am very very very very happy and exited working with you! --SmartM&M (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic, I just made a couple of minor tweaks to the Meredith infobox - changed the colour slightly so it's the same as the third example above, took out the 'real name' bit which only needs to be in there if the character is typically known by an alias, and also the 'gender' parameter, which you only really need to include for sci-fi characters or similar, where it's not actually obvious what gender the character is. And I think that should be everything. Did you have anything in mind for what you wanted to work on next? It's great to be working with you, too :D Frickative 22:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OMG, I am so exited! Ok great teh infobox is done. I will do the same thing at all other characters and than we'll discuss about other stuff we can do to improve the articles. This is great finaly something good for the Grey articles. Keep the good job, you are the best! So after I done the infoboxes in all characters articles I will notice you, you'll fix something if it should be fixed and than... Best wishes --SmartM&M (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to apologise for how i was acting i dint mean to be like this i was stubborn and i would like to apologise i hope we can get over our differences and i would like to do whatever i can to help with greys anatomy or holvy city (Tommyvilla47 (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

Criminal Minds Infobox

Welcome to Wikipedia. As I have warned you now twice, the infobox for current TV show articles; are to only contain current stars. Every TV show article uses this format; a format that I actually implemented. When a TV shows off air, then all the stars are to be mentioned in the infobox. I see you work on Grey's Anatomy, do you see past stars mentioned in that infobox? NO. Next time you removed that information your in violation of WP:3RR. I suggest you take a few minutes to read up on 3RR guildlines.--DJS24 16:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I suggest you do the same, as I've reverted once in the past 24 hours, and as such am nowhere near breaking 3RR. Not listing past stars in the ibox is blatant recentism, slanting the article towards a current series focus in the manner of a TV guide, rather than a reputable encyclopedia documenting the show as a whole. For someone who seems to find it acceptable to dish out 'warnings' via edit summaries and break out the capslock at what you perceive to be other peoples' mistakes, you might want to take a little more care in your own editing. Removing a maintenance template because you don't like the way it slants the page? Really? Frickative 18:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Project!

You, you are AMAZING. I can't describe how exited I am, i just can't! OMG!!!! I CAAAAN'T. Oh I am so frekin' happy about it. God bless you, you are the best. I love you. I simply adore you!!!!!!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks! I think it will work just fine! Ok, so I want to start right now to work, but after all I think that the best thing is to wait to gain more memebers and than we are going to start working seriously. I have tons of ideas and I can't wait to tell you them. There is this user that is new and he is just learning how to contribut but I think he is great. I am looking very forward to this. :) ---Max^(talk) 19:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! I'm glad you like it! :D I'll post a message about it on the main Grey's Anatomy talk page, and when I have a little more time, I'll start tagging all the Grey's articles with the Project banner so that people know where to find it if they want to join in. I'm looking forward to this too! :) Frickative 11:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm still exited and... I AM FREAKING EXITED!!!!! The biggest mistake in my life was not liking you at the bigging. Ok never mind. So, I can't wait to start working on the project, but first we have to gather more users. Almost a week I meet this great user I was telling you about and I offer him help if he need one. He isn't experienced a lot, he is only a beginer. I on the other hand am very experienced. I don't know have I told you before but I am user from another wikipedia and I made an account just to argue with you, but look what happend on the end. Ok so I think is great that you put a message on Grey's Anatomy talk page but we have to something more to attract more users. So I was thinking, because you are a very long time here you know few users that would be interesed so ask them? I will do the same if I met one! See ya soon ---Max^(talk) 19:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC).

Hey, I want you to see what I made in the project talk page. Is a great "tutorial", and very usefull. I want you to see it and correct the mistakes and finish it. It only need some stuff about the Reception section in the character's pages. So please see it, fix it and tell me your opinion.

P.S. Answer my previous questions or ideas! :) ---Max^(talk) 14:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you! I'm snowed under with work at the moment so haven't had much Wiki time, but I've read over your tutorial and it's great, very helpful! I'll add in a Reception bit and what have you as soon as I can find a spare fifteen minutes, thanks for going to all that effort! Frickative 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey i really want to help with the project but on the table with the tick's and cross's could you just clarify what you mean by the titles and i would be happy to improve as many as i can hope your ok. (Tommyvilla47 (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Hi Tommy, thanks for the apology, and I'm sorry things got so tense too. It's always much better to co-operate, right? :) And thank you very much for the Barnstar! With regards to the table, Max has written an explanation below it that outlines what sort of info should be included in each section, but if you wanted a finished article as a guide to work from, Erica Hahn is currently the only Grey's character article to have attained GA status, so you can't go far wrong using that as a model. Even if you're not sure what info is best used where, if you ever find an interview or an article where the actors, or Shonda, or the producers etc are discussing the characters, in terms of how they were created and how they developed over the years - things like that - even if you just leave a link to the interview on the character's talk page, then that's really helpful towards improving them all round. When I have a little free time, I'm going to make a list for the Project of useful websites for finding relevant interviews etc, but off the top of my head, a good one is The Grey's Anatomy Insider [www.greysanatomyinsider.com], and then there's also the Grey Matter writers' blog for first hand info from the episode writers [16]. I hope some of this is useful! Frickative 16:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok cheers i will start to improve some of the pages and you earned the banstar :)(Tommyvilla47 (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

Danielle Jones and EastEnders Template

Hi there Frickative. With regards to the EastEnders character article on Danielle Jones and the Template: EastEnders, i would like to explain my actions.

As with other past character articles, the template is removed when a sed character departs the show, as the template in terms of character use provides direct tabbed access to current characters.

However in the past, I also have looked at the system of the nav bar being removed from articles as being a bit strange. But in order to avoid keep the articles similar, I have carried on removing them.

I have been in contact with User:AnemoneProjectors about the issue and from what I gather, the nav bar will remain on the Danielle Jones article, along with restoring it to all past character articles too.

I apologise for any misunderstanding with regards to this issue

EDIT: Question now is, who's going to go through ALL the character articles to retore the template? HaHa Ammera (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for messaging me. As I said in my last edit summary on the article, I didn't mean to characterise your reversion as vandalism, that was a genuine slip of the finger using 'Twinkle' and I apologize :) Glad we got that settled amicably, and as for all the other past character articles - I don't know if you have WP:AWB at all, but I think any editor with that could set it up to add the template in automatically, which would save the trouble of doing them all individually - a mammoth task indeed! Frickative 17:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have AWB, I'll add it to my to-do list! ^anemone│_projectors 19:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent stuff! :) Frickative 17:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

An article you have edited is being considered for deletion - The Secret Mitchell

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Secret Mitchell for more infomation. Dalejenkins | 17:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Long time, no see!

Hi there! Long time no see! :) OK, so you know why I am here! The project was excellent idea, and from the moment we start talking I had on mind that we should made one. But I was 100% sure that we'll fail! So let's work by our selves, at least until we gather more users for the project! And I asked you if you know someone that might be intersted invite him/her! Please!

So the real reason is that I need help from you! First of all can you redesing the introduction? Please put loads of diffrenet stuff in it! I really tried, but I couldn't find any reliable or good sources at that point. I know that this article has a potential to grow in one successful article. Then can you see my sandbox! And what do you think about that!? Please fell free to change the way you think it should be! Or simply make the changes on the page directly! And just one more thing! About the section structure! Everything is great and I understand that we are not a fan page, but we really need the storylines section to be bigger that it is! Can we separate in two sections!? The firts would be called "Season 1 - 3", and the second, "Season 4-6"! Or something like that! Please tell me you ideas for the HOLE section strucutre! Have a nice day, and sorry for bothering. ---Max^(talk) 14:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey! The article in your sandbox looks great, especially the first table which is really smart - I'll try and keep an eye our for sources for you. About the storylines section - all we're really meant to provide is an overview, so really, 500-750ish words should cover it. But what tends to be the case is that you actually get a lot more detail in in the Development section when writing about how the storylines were conceived and acted etc, so you still have the same level of detail, just from a real-world rather than in-universe perspective if that makes sense? The best example I can think to give off the top of my head is this article which I wrote recently. The storylines are very brief, but then there's tonnes more info in the Development section. As a random aside, now that I've finished the last couple of articles I was working on, I think my next project is going to be re-writing A Hard Day's Night (Grey's Anatomy). I haven't written too many episode articles before, but I'm going to use Pilot (House) as a sort of guide, and that's a featured article, so fingers crossed it should come out well. So yes, on the same note, if you come across any reviews of the first episode, or know any reliable news sites that archive reviews dating back that far, any help would be appreciated :) Frickative 16:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my questions! Just I asked one more thing but I wasn't clear enough so you didn't answered. First sorry about my bad english! I am still learing! Ok, I asked you can you expand the introduction section in the original Grey's Anatomy article. Its indeed very little and needs serious expand. Than I have to say that you are very very good user and I think that you should candidate for Administrator. However, I was thinking that we should change somethings about the episodes article too. So, as you can see I made this template for start. And re-open this article! I think we should pay more attention on the episodes! Also I upload one picture for the first episode a week ago, just to see it is going to be earsed because its uploaded from ABC's site. And because its not, that means that you can fell free to upload lot of pictures from the ABC's site. And one more thing and that's it that you should made some changes to the cast and characters section in the article. Changes that says that Arizona, Saddie and Virgina were never actually certited as main cast! I haven't watched the 5 season yet, but I found out that they have never actually been main cast, at least officially!

And one more thing :)! Can you find a reliable sources for the season ratings! So I can put the offical season ratings in the article. And also can you re-model one of the season sectons in the article so I can see how should we write about the seasons! Because the sections are in big mess! Sorry for bothering and heard from you soon! ---Max^(talk) 14:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for taking a few days to get back to you! Okay, let's see - the introduction section should really summarise the entire article as a whole, so it's usually best left until the article is totally finished, but I'll certainly try and flesh it out a bit. I like that the season template colours match the infoboxes now! I agree the season and episode articles need some work. I don't know that we should really have separate articles for every episode - most of them seem to be just plot summary and trivia, and while some of them could definitely be expanded with lots of real-world information, like the pilot and Superbowl episodes etc, they're probably not all individually notable. I don't really have a lot of experience editing in that sort of area - I prefer character articles, but I know that for instance with Smallville, they tend to have excellent season articles in place of dozens of smaller episode articles. I haven't read it through yet, but for instance Smallville (season 1) is a featured article which might be a good indication of the way to go. I'll definitely tweak the wording on the character bit to clarify the status of the supporting characters, and I'll try and have a go at the season sections. I have my finals coming up at the moment, so if I'm a bit slow in getting to it, the summaries in the article Lost (TV series) are a very succinct model, and again that's a featured article, so you can't go far wrong following the example there. The only thing I can't really be any help with is the season ratings, I'm afraid. I'm English rather than American, so while I'd know exactly where to look for English ratings, I haven't a clue when it comes to American ones. But I'll certainly try and do a little digging and see what I turn up. Phew, that was a lot! Frickative 03:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Keep on the good work! I want to let you know that I really want to improve the Grey's articles, really really much! So I'll keep bugging you when I'll need some help! Just keep the good job and that' it. And yes I have seen Smallville articles, I am a huge fan of Smallville! And they can serve you as a guide for the pilot episode article of Grey's! Best wishes! ---Max^(talk) 18:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Great Moments in Aviation

On April 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Great Moments in Aviation, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

∗ \ / (⁂) 13:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My comments on Danielle Jones (EastEnders)

Please see Talk:Danielle Jones (EastEnders)/GA1. Dalejenkins | 18:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

EastEnders Family Templates Change??

Hi, I was just wondering why the templates for EastEnders families have changed? Personally I think they look messy but please can you redirect me to the conversation/article that should have been created when you were discussing it? Thanks :) Alex250P (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had nothing to do with any of the template changes - not my area of interest - but I believe the discussion is on the EastEnders WikiProject talk page :) Frickative 18:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Peggy Mitchell

Frickative,

If you remember, Janine revealed that Peggy Mitchell was a pole dancer to the Square. Everyone found out and eventually she didn't mind it. However, I find that AnomoneProjectors, always is looking to disrupt my ideologies and thinks that its 'okay' to delete Peggy from the fictional erotic dancers category.

Please mediate with me and I am asking for your consent to put her on the Category. 12th Doctor —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Twelfth Doctor (talk • contribs) 17:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking to disrupt your ideaologies, I'm looking to follow Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:CAT. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 17:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, as I pointed out in my edit summary, WP:CAT says categories should be for things integral to the character. Being a landlady is integral to Peggy's character. Being an ex-exotic dancer is a trivial aside. It's not something she's known for, or something that defines her, so she doesn't belong in that category. Frickative 18:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Dot Cotton

Hiya, I realise you're probably far too busy right now with exams, but I was wondering if you fancy collaborating on Dot Cotton when you have more time? I think we could make a really good article. I have added some idea on talk page. Could be a good one to get to FA eventually as there's so much about her.GunGagdin^Moan 16:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I actually have a 2 week break from finals at the moment, so now is pretty good timing :D I'm definitely up for a collab. If you're working through Development stuff at the moment, I wouldn't mind starting to fill out the Reception section. I'll have a dig around for sources and see what turns up :) Frickative 17:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have helped but I didn't have time! I think there are too many images though... Looks very overcrowded now! AnemoneProjectors (what?) 21:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to comment on the talk page about that - it won't be as bad when the Development section is longer, but I think 9 is still too many. Not certain which ones should go, though. Frickative 21:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Once it's longer we can move them around. As it is now, the first image needs to be on the left, and the single hander pic needs to go on the right because of the quote next to it. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 21:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you know the article for Nick Cotton doesn't have a storylines section? AnemoneProjectors (what?) 11:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I think it was me that nixed it. After the Revealed episode on him was on at Christmas and I'd included all the information from that, the storylines section was just direct repetition of what was already there in development. Seemed redundant to say the same thing twice. Frickative 11:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought that would be it. It just seems odd! Didn't know he had a Revealed episode :( AnemoneProjectors (what?) 11:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's still floating around online [17] if you wanted to watch it :) I might download it actually, it'll probabaly be useful for the Dot article. Frickative 11:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That was a 404 not found! Hmm I missed a Max Branning Revealed as well. Never mind! AnemoneProjectors (what?) 11:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, probably only works if you're registered with the site [18]. I've got spare invites if you wanted one, they've got the Max Branning one too :) Frickative 12:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh I'm not that bothered really :) AnemoneProjectors (what?) 12:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That's great!Dot needed Frickactiv-ating :) Shame those EE revealeds were all removed from Youtube. There was a couple focusing on Dot with loads of decent material, but from what I gather from Trampikey, the BBC got them taken down. As for the images, the one of Dot as a child can possibly go in the infobox as an alternative image, and if we're going to delete some eventually, I think the ones in popular culture should be culled first, because It's dubious that they're even fair use for this article, more so for the TV programmes they came from.GunGagdin^Moan 13:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should only use one popular culture image. I think the fair use claim is a valid one. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 13:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If we take out one of the popular culture images, I'd probably lean towards it being the 2DTV one. It's a good image and it's a shame to lose either of them, but I found something in the Guardian that I'll add in a bit where Alistair McGowan talked a little about the thought process and so forth that went into spoofing Dot, so there'd probably be a stronger claim for critical commentary with that one. Frickative 16:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you read this interview with Diederick Santer?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/characters_cast/interviews/interview_diederick_s_n2.shtml I found it very interesting with lots of information that can be added to Danielle Jones's page, if it isn't there already (I haven't checked!). Other characters too. I added a quote from there to Heather Trott's page, and it's made me really excited!!! AnemoneProjectors (what?) 20:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I never read any of those interviews before. They're all so good! AnemoneProjectors (what?) 20:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, cheers, I read the Santer one a while ago but totally forgot to add the relevant stuff to the Danielle article =D I'll get on that asap (not that the GA review seems to be going anywhere...) I've only read some of the interviews on the site, but from what I've seen there's probably a tonne of useful stuff for the Development sections of articles. Good stuff with the Heather one =D Frickative 16:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello there!

How is it going, I have not called upon you for a long time. I was thinking there is not much activity on the coronation street front so thought we could boost it a little. The project also needs some more members I think, even though we all do a good job. :D I haven't really made that many new character articles recently and there is still a chunk to get through, and was also thinking that we should collabrate on something to do with it. We could do with promoting some of the articles to good status too. (Only if you can I know you already help heavily on EE, Holby and the rest. .. I've missed Holby for over four weeks now so should maybe read them the character articles to see what they are up too lol) Raintheone (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, long time no talk indeed! I glanced at some of the Corrie articles last week and saw that with some, the in-universe plot details were creeping up and up in length again, eek. So yup, the Project could use some more activity, but I must admit I've been very lax with it lately myself, concentrating more on Grey's Anatomy and EastEnders articles instead. If there are any that you've written that you think might be good GA candidates in the future and want to collab on, I'd be happy to do that. I seem to recall doing a fair bit of work on the Maria article quite a few months back, so that might be a possibility for the future... In the meantime, Holby has been dire lately and I really don't recommend catching up! I'm just holding out for Clifford's return, myself =D Frickative 16:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey again. I have thought about it and after speaking to our friend we decied that all the work to Betty Williams had been done by your collaborations on the page. So I thought with Ken Barlow being the longest serving and the characters article page being in such a mess we could all collaborate on that article to make it better. I think it could be as good a Pauline Fowler's page one day. (If that's possible.) Probabally have to work out when everyone is free though... oh ad if you want to :P Raintheone (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, a collab on Ken sounds good to me. I'm actually pretty annoyed with that article, a few months ago I spent ages condensing the plot details down to an acceptable level, and then the last time I looked at it, wham, the Storylines section was a million words again. But that aside, I'm in. I kind of suck with Development stuff at the moment, but I'm sure I can manage some decent Reception work. I've got a really busy few weeks ahead, but I'll definitely do what I can :) Frickative 14:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Heather Trott

As you may have guessed by now, I'm obsessed with the Heather Trott article. The EastEnders website is doing another interview with Cheryl Fergison and we can send in our own questions but I can't think of anything that might improve the article! Can you? The deadline is tomorrow at 5pm. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 21:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, good opportunity. Reading through the article, there's not a lot on relationships in there. It might not be the sort of thing they're likely to put to her at the moment given the secrecy of the pregnancy storyline, but something about her relationship with Minty at least would be good to pad that bit out a bit, as it's not very long. Frickative 22:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There's an old video interview with her on the EastEnders site, she does mention Minty in that, but I can't remember what she says. I used that interview to get the stuff about her headbands and George Michael. Almost every news article I see about her says "headband-wearing Heather"! AnemoneProjectors (what?) 22:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I just realised there's only half a sentence in the article about cheese. We've got to get something more in there about cheese xD Frickative 22:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Omg yeah! What about karaoke? That's her other "thing". Cheese, karaoke, George and headbands. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 22:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Think of a question, there's only 6 hours left!!! AnemoneProjectors (what?) 09:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, everything that'd be good for the article that I can think of is all the really obvious stuff other people are bound to ask - what her favourite storyline's been, what she'd like to happen to Heather in the future... maybe we should ask her which Heather's favourite is out of cheese, head bands, karaoke and George Michael =P Frickative 13:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

OMG I WALKED THE DOG AND MISSED THE DEADLINE!!! Never mind! I was going to ask if Cheryl likes cheese as much as Heather! AnemoneProjectors (what?) 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I sent the question anyway... Do you think I was too harsh on Stella Crawford's article or just the right amount of harsh? [19] AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, fingers crossed they ask her it anyway! Definitely the right amount of harsh with the article. Geeze, the woman only had one storyline, she definitely didn't need the novel length plot section that was there before! Frickative 19:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The interview is online[20]. It has stuff about karaoke that I've already added to the article. There was a cheese question too but I didn't do anything with that. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff! The article's looking really good :) Frickative 16:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Izzie & Alex!

Hi, What's up!? I have to ask you are you thriled of the 100th episode! I haven't watched it YET! But I know the details! I mean Izzie and Alex! WOW! I love Izzie! I adored George before but the have ruined the character! Nevertheless, I went a little out of subject! So I wanted to ask you why do you change some things at Alex's and Izzie's articles! The reorganzing was great, don't get me wrong, I am asking about the Infoboxes! You've changed some stuff that I thought are important. Can you explain me that! And can you also explain me why that sentence at the top of the infobox that say's Grey's Anatomy character has the part Grey's Anatomy a little strange like with too bold or something! And one more thing can you check this new article I am tring to make - Grey's Anatomy (season 1). Can you repair the grammar mistakes that I made because of my bad english. Thanks in advance and all the best! ---Max^(talk) 21:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Max! I haven't seen the 100th episode yet either, but I'm looking forward to it :D I went off George a lot last season, but he's hardly been in this one and I miss him... Hm, what exactly in the infobox do you mean? All I can think of that I changed was using the 'spouse' parameter for both of them, because it's separate to just a romance, and removing the description bits from beside the names like 'sexual relationship/encounter' etc, because that's something that should be covered in the article itself, rather than in the ibox which is just a brief overview. The bolding is because of too many apostrophes, I hadn't noticed it but I've fixed it now :D And I'll go take a look at the season one page now and see what I can do :D I always get confused with that season, because it was 14 episodes long here, not 9... I started to re-watch it on DVD today, actually, because I wanted to listen to the commentaries by Shonda to find stuff to include in the articles, but then I found out my copy doesn't have the commentaries, grrr. Sorry, that has nothing to do with anything, just wanted to rant! But yup, I'll go take a look at the article now :) Frickative 21:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There, I've been over the page with a fine tooth comb - it's shaping up really well! I took out one reference because Amazon isn't considered a reliable source, but the other articles referenced were really interesting reading. One suggestion I'd make would be to have the table and infobox the same colour as the character infoboxes and the navigation templates, so that it's standard across all Grey's Anatomy articles? Then again, I don't really have any experience writing season articles, so if there's a good reason for using separate colours then by all means :) It's a pity the writers' blog wasn't started until the second season, that could have been a really useful source. Frickative 22:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, thanks, THANKS a lot for fixing the sesason one article! Yes its pitty that the writer's blog had started after the season 2, and I also searched for sources in the BuddyTV archive but there are not any. I mean they started writing stuff when season three was near end and after it. They like tons of season 5 news. It will be pretty hard for us to make the articles, but its worth it. The things you changed at the infoboxes should be updated in the "guide" I made it, so if you can please change it there! I am like the biggest fan of Wikipedia's infoboxes. An article is nothing without an infobox. Also did you see that guy that reversed the hole Izzie article. He said that we need to discuss that on the talk page, but instead I will send him an invitation to join the project if he wants to do such stuff. And one more thing about my anoying infoboxes! What's happening with Izzie's birth date? Have you heard of it? I have never! And what about her middle name Katherine? And Alex's Michale? ---Max^(talk) 10:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem w/the season one article, it's a shame there's not so many sources, but I look forward to seeing how it grows! I just saw the revert on Izzie and reverted it back. I don't think the changes I made were controversial given that the article was riddled with original research, point of view issues and flew entirely in the face of the guidelines for writing about fiction and explaining plot lines, but I'm going to continue to work on it today regardless and see what I can add in terms of Creation/Development/Reception... hopefully it'll look like a whole new article by the end of the day! I actually have no idea about Izzie's birth date and the middle names, but I assume the middles names were probably mentioned in the wedding ceremony. I must catch up on episodes before the season finale! Anywho, I shall go and get on with the Izzie article now... happy editing! Frickative 11:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OMG! That's great, another article that you will derive to GA standards! That's Great! Ok so when you finish the article, we'll have a new guide for how to do the rest of the articles! We of course have Erica Hanh article but she has been in the show for only 20 and something episodes and her storylines mainly involves her lesbian relationship with Callie! So her article is mainly about that. Now that we have Izzie on the other hand it will be totaly different. OH I LOVE YOU! You are the best! Right in this moment I am serching about the hole Grey's Anatomy concept and idea! I'll hope I'll find something! Ok you wont' hear from until the article is finished! I AM SO EXITED! And yes one more thing! About the colors! Can you explain me what exactly did you thought when you say all of them to use the colors we have already chose! I mean I totaly agree with you, it just every season article that's about other show have its episode list in one color and that color predominate in the hole article! Just note me do you want to stay that wat or changed in the basic colors! I don't mind I just want to be in order! And can you please give an example of a good cast list article and episode list article so I can fix those articles! Sorry for bothering and all the best. ---Max^(talk) 11:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your excitement must be contagious, taking a quick break from editing and reading your reply made me grin! About the colours - when I suggested that last night, I'd totally forgotten about the List of Grey's Anatomy episodes article, where the seasons are divided into different colours to differentiate them, so I understand why it's necessary now - basically, just ignore me on that one! I actually really struggle with list articles, but there's a section on the Featured List page for Featured cast and episode lists, so they would be the best ones to use as a guide. Hope that helps! Frickative 12:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Great Moments in Aviation

The article Great Moments in Aviation you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Great Moments in Aviation for things needed to be addressed. TheLeftorium 13:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the GA review of Danielle Jones

Wanted to review this article as it's been in the nominations list for a long time. Bit confused as to what's going on though, has the original review been abandoned? Rudy 12:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for any confusion. The original reviewer never responded to comments, and removed my message from his talk page without reply when I asked - some weeks later - if he intended to continue with it. So yes, it was abandoned without ever actually going anywhere. Thanks for your interest :) Frickative 18:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Right no worries, well I'm in the middle of another review at the moment but when I finish it if nobody else has taken yours up then I'll attempt to sort it out. Rudy 10:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)