User talk:Frickative/Archive 2

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)