User talk:Jack Merridew

Flight Time

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

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

Notification of proposed topic/interaction ban on Tbsdy

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

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

Your comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack, saw your comment at ANI. Want to file CU? If this really is John254, I warned him once before to get off your back. Durova⁴¹² 00:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attribution

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

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

Administrator Xeno,
asleep on the job

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would this be the right illustration for an editor who falsifies sources? Or would you suggest a different outfit and prop for that type of troll sockpuppet? Suggestions welcomed.

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

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

You're welcome. At the risk of violating WP:SOCK by posting to the same discussion under two identities no, wait, this is a disclosure so it's OK, check out this thread. Do we even need a CU here? Looks like he's admitting he created the new account to violate the avoiding scrutiny clause of the socking policy. My first impulse is to try to talk to him, but the clue-putty won't adhere to the clue-wall and he's trying to throw the outing policy at me. What's your opinion here? Wait for the SPI formalities and hope he gets it in time? Durova⁴¹² 01:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Heading out the door to the pharmacist. He's saying he'll find sources for the text, but doesn't appear to understand that the source is Citizendium. He needs to attribute his coauthors there. Also his paintball image uploads are somebody else's photographs (even if he's the subject they're hosted on somebody else's site and someone else is credited as photographer; they're the photographer's intellectual property and there's no OTRS submission). Haven't looked into what else has happened since the ban proposal, but this worries me. This fellow's contributions may need more double checking and cleanup than they're worth. Durova⁴¹² 01:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Still around? Have a look at my user talk, please, if you are. Substantial number of copyvio image uploads, and he's declaring an intent to ditch the current account in order to avoid scrutiny again. Seems to treat this as a game. Shall we go ahead with a ban proposal? Is there any viable alternative? Durova⁴¹² 04:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Well, that clarifies any urgency. If this concludes a siteban or indefinite block, please bear in mind that you would need to request that it be lifted before restarting under a new account. See Wikipedia:Standard offer for a basic outline; in your case I would want to see an experienced editor take responsibility for overseeing your edits to ensure proper sourcing and licensing. If you wait the appropriate time and find someone who's willing to do that, email me and I'll initiate the review request. It's all about the project, not about personal feelings. Durova⁴¹² 04:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Checkuser is not for fishing.

Took a subtler approach to the wanking theme.

No matter what else happens, at least this has inspired a new troll sockpuppet. :) Durova⁴¹² 03:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Actually it does have steel in it. The prop is made from bead stringing wire: multiple steel fibers coated in a thin layer of plastic. Durova⁴¹² 16:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The wire through the palm is a structural necessity because the puppet's thumb doesn't actually flex. There's a second pin concealed behind the button reel. Durova⁴¹² 23:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Hiya, Grawp. Still trying to stretch the truth? Durova⁴¹² 00:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Request

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

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

Do you realize how difficult it could be to get the matter properly in hand? Under the circumstances the admins may have to soft block him... Durova⁴¹² 01:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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

There's nothing very hard about the situation. Unfortunately for Drew he isn't an M.D.--fellow might never get cured... Durova⁴¹² 01:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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

There's something irrepressibly lame about using that moniker as one's own nick. Durova⁴¹² 02:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Help!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

Watershed (k.d. lang album)

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

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

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

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

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

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

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

Housecleaning

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring on User:Jimbo Wales

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

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

Font size

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

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

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

Mary-Louise Parker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, have you had a chance to look at:

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

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

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

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

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

Hold on, please...

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

re: this post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Miley Cyrus

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

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

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

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

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

You have mail

Hello, Jack Merridew. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

March 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anna Kendrick. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Your first edit under a deceptive edit summary was to remove the coding was a revert of an earlier edit, followed by 2 reverts. There is no consensus to remove the coding from the table and you are engaging in pointy edit warring to do so. Please stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)