User talk:Fabartus/Archive11

This user in good conscience can no longer support this project. // Fra nkB 21:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked you, see discussion at WP:ANI. Please reconsider your decision to leave. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't leave, there are still so many wrong people here! The whole debacle above looks ridiculous. Whilst attacks are generally not helpful, I fully grok your desire to call an idiot a fucking idiot. Stick around, and help balance the world out :) But please don't dismiss all liberals. Many of us have quite multifarious umwelts ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous is being chided for being plain speaking... though I did use the F-word w/o much thought there! You'd thunk I went looking for a confrontation. Has shame gone totally out of utility in society?


 * ... but thanks for the sentiment. I doubt I can be engaged like the old days ever again regardless... but that trend was occurring w/o the censorship


 * ... The loss was to the two article edits that were pending in my back buffer as per usual... Since one of them had an error or pov slant or some such that triggered the chain of edits, shrug. Be well. (SOMEONE IS WRONG INDEED! LOL and thanks... leave it to you to link to an oddball website!)

Best regards // Fra nkB  00:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * S'ok, everything goes in cycles ;)
 * (XKCD is famous around here for this one (Which might lead to a full article eventually...). But the whole comic is high geek genius, well worth an afternoon of clicking through the archives (with hover-alt-text for each, too))
 * Take care. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Looks to be one of your patrols
I've replied on the template talk page. Kirill (prof) 02:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Auto move fails
... needs your admin tools... I'd justified "''United Paramount Network is a formal entity, and should not have been created as a colloquialism, no matter how trendy the name.


 * Article is currently at UPN...
 * Your name is last in the recorded log (JAN 2007) when I went to move it, which I consider a no brainer. So do some of your kung-fu admin shit and swap the article and redirects!

Thanks, // Fra nkB 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see Naming conventions (common names). The article's subject usually was/is referred to as "UPN" (and seldom as "United Paramount Network").  Also note that for much of its existence, the network was officially known strictly as "UPN."  —David Levy 02:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Bazooka
Hey there. I left some notes pre-GA Review on the talkpage of the article. Skinny87 (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks... I'll take a look, but the article "fate per se" was not really my concern... the back story is here... such an article is well beyond start class... as at least "average" (i.e. "C"... I hope and trust you at least agreed with "that"! ). I was more TICKED by the template, and had hoped to stimulate proper classification and improvement efforts. So Thanks! // Fra nkB 16:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, that discussion looks...complex. I'd suggest removing the article from the GA Noms, as it won't pass. It needs some good sources, no websites or documentaries, Tell you what, I have Tetrarch (tank) to get to GA and a few other articles to work on, but this has picqued my interest. Give me a week or two and I'll see if I can scrounge up some sources to get it to GA. Skinny87 (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)   Not really... upshot is template wouldn't take commands I expected like others of type... class=X ought be consistent for all such, IMHO...


 * Heh, heh... but the GA nom has already worked... it's attracted YOUR interest. For my part, I merely made sure it had some data from the documentaries you trash ... my sole involvement, save for cosmetic stuff like title format, layout changes, etc... overall trivial things. Documentaries, are like news articles, they are better than wild ass guesses, and who is to say that their researchers are less skilled than a book writer's? Both have an editorial oversight and employer to vett the researchers work. Dissing such is kind of snobby to my way of thinking.

OTOH, fully agree with books as best source... but what then do YOU DO when two authors disagree... say one insists German's copied bazooka from Russians, and another copied from the one's captured at the Kasserine pass? in the North Africa Campaign? Not being Godlike, I can't say who is correct, whether both, or neither, and mostly, so can't anyone else! Enjoy trying though. But not as much as enjoy making sure we cover alledged factoids asserted elsewhere, including your despised documentaries... even if just in counterpoint! // Fra nkB 16:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think documentaries have ever been cited as a reliable source - even if they theoretically were reliable, which they never have been when I've watched them, you can't verify what they say as scripts are hard to access, as are dvds, even to rent.And they never seem to state their sources. At least with books you can get them from libraries or possibly online. As for the contradiction, you just say in the relevant section '...the origin of the Panzerschrek is not entirely certain, and two differing accounts exist. Historian X states that the German military copied it from a bazooka captured from Russian forces, and Historian Y states that it was developed based on a bazooka taken from US forces in North Africa.' I'll take the GA Nom down if that's okay with you, then, and work on the article for a little while.

(outdent) I've made a proposal on the article talkpage to take over the article and rework it to a proper GA level, but it would mean withdrawing the nomination and working on it for quite a while. Please look at the page and see what you think. Skinny87 (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Being rude to ThinkBlue is out of line; he or she was only trying to help improve the article, and in GA Reviews it's often left to the nominating editor to improve even small parts of the article like punctuation. As to what I would like, I would like to take over editing the article. Not to own it, but I want to withdraw the article from its GA Nom and completely rewrite it to get it to GA, perhaps even FA standards. If you were to agree to that, I'd start the process straight away. Skinny87 (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really my place to say, but I'll be doing that since you asked as soon as I finish being a rude kind of guy. For what it's worth, Stepping on People's Toes... until they apologize, REALLY does work wonders sometimes. Note the lead to this page. Be well. // Fra nkB 21:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks, thats kind of you. I'll have Bazooka to GA post-Christmas, I'm sure of it, though it'll take a while to rewrite it and source the whole article. But, I've got a nice crop of books at home and from a few friends that I can use. Should be an interesting project. Skinny87 (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Done... Shazam!!!    More power to ya, I wish I had the time. I will watch for a rebroadcast on that show and record it. They usually cycle back again inside a month or so. The experts are serious people in my judgment. Do you adopt strays and puppies too?  Haqve a good weekend. // Fra nkB  21:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Oberon class submarines
I've replied to your comments regarding the speed of the Oberon class submarines at the article's talk page. In short, the speeds are correct, with Janes' Fighting Ships and other sources giving the same figures as in the article and in the original source cited. Although World War II era submarines are faster on top than below, the majority of diesel-electric submarines designed post-war appear to travel faster when submerged. -- saberwyn 08:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you pleace clarify so I don't stuff it up again: do you want me to replace the given citation with Jane's, or add a citation from Jane's to the cite already there? Either way, it will have to wait until about 05:00, 26 November (UTC), when I get back to the book and find the correct bibilographic data. -- saberwyn 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just add a &lt;ref> ... &lt;/ref> pair citing Jane's. On further mature reflection, I believe you gave a year on that talk, so that should be good enough using Cite Sm and making that link to our article on Jane's Fighting Ships. (See the below and fill in the data that's available) // Fra nkB 20:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

&lt;ref>[[Jane's Fighting Ships]] (YEAR), Oberon and P___ class submarine data, &lt;/ref>


 * That will do, NO cite template needed. // Fra nkB

Can I help a bit
re: you closed this a short while before I became aware of it because one subtemplate was broken by the deletion nomination. In particular, need edits made like I just did in WDY and MTA ASAP, but would be best combined with closing fixes. That whole category is fundamental, as it provides the inter-sister site portability. // Fra nkB 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As (per the discussion) you seem to be who was designing this structure (to the seeming confusion of others), I would presume that your input and explanations would be helpful and welcome.
 * As User:Happy-melon seems to currently be the "point-person" on this, I think I'll point you in their direction, if you (and they) don't mind. - jc37 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mee tooo
Hi,

I restored File:ForeverCharmed1.jpg since it was in the infobox and presumably intended to be the "primary visual identification" on the episode or some such. So I figure it can be defended even though the current rationale is rater thin. The second image had the same kind of paper thin "show the episode" rationale, but since the first image does that and the image itself doesn't seem to contribute any significant info (just a framed photo of the 3 main characters) I descided not to restore that one. I didn't check too in depth though, so if you think I missed something about the significance of that image let me know. --Sherool (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks- that will do... there was a third evidently as well- found that commented out farther down. Hmmmm- just noticed that namespace is no "file:"... guess I'm missing changes right and left. // Fra nkB 21:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Re:About those tags
Fine, it's done. But many of those tags still belong there.

And I'm quite sorry if I upset you, but I was only trying to help. I thought it would be better to discuss what could be done to improve the article before being bold and really pissing someone off, but you obviously didn't understand that - and that's fine, but in the future, you might want to be a bit kinder to those who only want to help before you demonstrate blatant hypocrisy by slapping them with a "don't be a dick" link in the heading of a message in which you call that person a prick, just because you didn't like what they had to say.

Good luck with the article and remember that manners matter. The no erz (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Charmed
Well if its not allowed/not really accepted on wikipedia explain why other television programmes have these separate articles into separate pages (e.g. Buffy, Angel, The Franchise of CSI episodes). So i think it is a good idea to do this as this separate articles on other series have been of useful information to people. Please Reply, Pic Editor960 (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of what was allowed, but 'of what was and was changed'. Wikipedia has "Notability Guidelines" (?WP:NOTE???) (Which I opposed and still disagree with in the main) and the separate article in the series were turned into redirects last fall.
 * That activity may have been a rouge editor expressing his Point of View, so changing all to redirects. I only know this list article is inadequate coverage, no synopses whatever, and rates piss poor on my ratings scales. I've been meaning to datamine old existing articles, but it might be interesting to list a bunch of those episode articles and see if there is a trail to a discussion or it is the action of one or a few POV motivated grinches.


 * Me, I figure like Jimbo. If someone cares enough about a topic to make a decent article about something, it ought be part of the wiki. Unfortunately, he nor the foundation board have ever made that policy, so the active vandal patroling lobby of admins has a disproportionate say in this conflict.


 * Undoing a big group of the redirects might be interesting... see who pokes their head up with a message complaining, or undoes your edit. (All editors being equal, works for me! Especially since will save me an awful lot of work turning this list page into decent synopses in a table. // Fra nkB 20:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On further mature reflection...
 * Let me work up a template that will allow a list of the redirect history pages to be sampled and examined, if you're around, see if you can see a pattern with a group or single individual making the changes to redirects. A good admin pursuing a close out of a talk discussion would normally cite the decision in talk spaces in his/her edit lines. The couple I saw don't fit that pattern. Duh... Las will do the job for a single article. so... with the help of cut N paste in Notepad.exe...



Second half, 2nd season 34 	2.12 	"" 	Valerie Mayhew, Vivian Mayhew 	Anson Williams 	February 3, 2000 When Piper comes down with a life-threatening disease, Prue and Phoebe cast a spell to cure her, unknowingly spreading the deadly disease to others. After ignoring the code preventing witches for personal gain,it also backfires, and causes the sisters to lose sleep. The media become involved when the doctor treating Piper is suspicious to how she recovered so quickly and Prue decides to quit her Job. 35 	2.13 	"" 	Chris Levinson, Zack Estrin 	Don Kurt 	February 10, 2000 A trio of mortal college girls looking for men on Valentine's Day, turn to magic for a solution by transforming three animals into men, with some indirect help from Phoebe. Meanwhile, Piper deals with both Dan and Leo wooing her for Valentine's Day and Prue adjusts to being unemployed. 36 	2.14 	"" 	Michael Gleason 	John Paré 	February 17, 2000 One of Phoebe's past lives comes back to haunt her as she learns that in the 1924 her past self was seduced by a warlock named Anton, in attempt to steal her cousins' powers. She finds out, to her dismay, that she is cursed by her evil power and that her cousins were Prue and Piper, the ones who tried to kill her. 37 	2.15 	"" 	Sheryl J. Anderson 	James A. Contner 	February 24, 2000 A demon known as Litvack orders his henchmen to kill Bane Jessup, who Prue helped to put behind bars when Bane tried to have the Charmed Ones killed. Bane kidnappes Prue but all he wants is help from her. Meanwhile, Phoebe casts a spell that will give Piper a sign when it comes to choice of her true love. 38 	2.16 	"" 	David Simkins 	John Behring 	March 30, 2000 After Prue prevents a Darklighter from killing a potential Whitelighter, by tempting to commit suicide, she becomes the target for his anger. To get revenge, he throws Prue into deep depression with a curse, that could put her life at risk in the Magical World. 39 	2.17 	"" 	Javier Grillo-Marxuach, Robert Masello 	Kevin Inch 	April 6, 2000 A group of three elderly witches, one of them a sister of the Halliwells' grandmother, summon a demon called Cryto, to restore their youth. However, in return, the demon wants the powers of the Charmed Ones. 40 	2.18 	"" 	Zack Estrin, Chris Levinson 	Michael Schultz 	April 20, 2000 The Charmed Ones encounter a warlock who has the ability to make images from a film come to life. And when he brings characters to life from old B-grade horror movies, he sends them after the Charmed Ones. 41 	2.19 	"" 
 * 1) 	Episode No. 	Title 	Writer 	Director 	Original Airdate


 * is a bit busy, but the links are present. Let's do some investiging. I'm no fan of arrogant prigs pushing their POV where there is no clear concensus or precedent either. // Fra nkB  20:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well that didn't take long to find... some non-interested parties (IMHO over-construing) a questionable guideline (Popular cultural matters really have no needs for multiple independent sources... primary sources suffice) and undoing what some who were relatively "un-around" (sic) at the time had put together. Same old wikipedia...
 * For my money, feel free to unredirect any that seem to be fairly well put together. These content nazi's need a job that keeps them busier; or a brain transplant. // Fra nkB 21:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  The Le ft orium  16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the welcome, but I've been on the welcoming committee since 2005, or perhaps earlier, myself.

<br
 * I think you need to check out exactly who's got the time and seniority... which is why brash immature new editors, perhaps like yourself sometimes get an earful from me. Such young or foolish people, that in general, haven't the breadth and depth of experience to know when an rule is a good rule, and when to let well enough alone... costing many their free time picking up after heir unnecessarily rules oriented immature decisions. Trashing a well put together series is not progress for the project, especially not when notability was ramrodded through and is so controversial itself. But perhaps you like pissing off people that contribute tens and hundreds of man-hours.

/> BTW -- being an American, I insist on free speech and will be rude when its for the good of the project to whom I please. If I make you feel bad, you probably have your head up your ass in some way. So what is your specific gripe. // Fra nkB 16:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait... you're actually calling me immature? Ha! :P  The Le ft orium  17:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * xposted:Not if you reread it... so what did tickle Your comment? // Fra nkB 17:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? I haven't deleted your synopsis. They have been moved to their own page at Charmed (season 1), just like List of Smallville episodes and List of The Simpsons episodes and other featured lists. — The Le ft orium  16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that shows you how easy it is to overlook the link, doesn't it. Warn a guy... would ya. Apologies, my bad.

This is probably a good way to go, but you really should have inquired whether I was still in the page! (Turns out I'd closed that tab, so no harm done, save for time lost ... and a certain rise to the bloodpressure. Ahem )


 * Thanks for the speedy response. // Fra nkB 16:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. Your synopses are great, so I hope we can work together. I will work on the main page in my sandbox to avoid edit conflicts. — The Le ft orium  16:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Working together

 * My pleasure, but aside from the heart, go ahead and evolve it in place if you like... I'm trying to process recorded episodes in seasons 1-4, mainly 2 and 3 I think, so I'll be in those subpages. The thing that got me was there deinclusion! (Oh My!) For your further Info, I don't use a watchlist, so ping me if there is a talk page I should see and answer. Thanks. // Fra nkB 16:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * editconflictlike xposts:the below and the above

Yes, that sounds good. I will use AWB for changing the redirects. — The Le ft orium  16:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do! — The Le ft orium  16:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I should really take some time someday and learn it. See R to Charmed for when running it. Might be sensible to create a template replacement that links to each title as the section. I can do that, so you can fly it faster. Just need some logic like I built into Chrmd to swap out " (Charmed episode)" and such... no hurry to make those improvements. I'd prefer seeing a improved season or three in place then increasing the page traffic. // Fra nkB 16:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'll be able to run it quite quickly without a template, so it's not really necessary. I'll test AWB out later this week though, and then I'll let you know. — The Le ft orium  16:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever works easiest. Don't know AWB's features, especially search and replace capabilities. The issue is that so many titles are aliased in various permutations, so any episode may have multiple redirects. I'm pretty good at templates, if it helps. // Fra nkB 16:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll be able to use this whatlinks to change the redirects. — The Le ft orium  17:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely understand what you mean, but yeah, I don't think the co-stars and guest stars (etc.) should be included in the table. It's better if they're in their own section called "Guest stars" or something. — The Le ft orium  17:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking more along the lines of keeping sections to a minimum, and relegating them to also starring means I can morph that to be an infobox any time later... which is the way I'm thinking this should go... Sidebar presentations are useful. // Fra nkB 18:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How's this look
Got the edit tags to behave and believe the second format to be attractive enough to go with as shown here, what do you think? (I'll leave the page alone for a while, so you can check out the edit links behavior on the current version) // Fra nkB 18:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but I don't think the text should be centered. Can you change that? — The Le ft orium  19:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, looks nice. :) — The Le ft orium  14:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Charmed I5 images
Hi,

Restored those two images that was deleted as orphanded while the article was a redirect. Didn't find anywhere to put File:Paige4.jpg though since the "Spells" section seems to have been removed in the interim, so I tagged it as orphanded again, but it's there for the time beeing untill the time run out on the I5 tag again.

The All Hell Breaks Loose picture is retrieable, but it was deleted for having no non-free use rationale so it needs one of those. If you think you can write a suitable one for using the image in the article (it's a very small image of Prue and Piper lying on the floor), I guess I could undelete it based on that, but it might be more proper to ask Angr to do it since he is the one how deleted it as it might be slightly more "controversial" than undeleting images deleted for merely beeing orphanded. --Sherool (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Fireside chats
Category:Fireside chats, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Katie Jane Johnston listed at RfD
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Katie Jane Johnston. Since you had some involvement with the Katie Jane Johnston redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Katie Johnston listed at RfD
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Katie Johnston. Since you had some involvement with the Katie Johnston redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

About Katie Johnston
What you may want to do is to attempt to create a separate article for Katie Johnston, instead of redirecting to the Johnston surname article. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * xpost:Yeah, you find something... no bios on even IMDB or such competing websites... think she went the mommy route, as she's not acted since '99. This seems best consequently. // Fra nkB 23:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comment and response at the the redirect discussion. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Charmed Episodes

 * is a bit busy, but the links are present. Let's do some investiging. I'm no fan of arrogant prigs pushing their POV where there is no clear concensus or precedent either. // Fra nkB  20:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're interested in improving Charmed coverages, see the discussion below this answer for background on a new collaboration... can use help resurrecting synopses and improving them for all eight years. I've no DVDs, so any you can access will be a big help. // Fra nkB 16:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was referring to a more dedicated effort data mining the video's themselves for synopses. I'm stuck with aired repeats by way of contrast. Detecting a lack of enthusiasm on your part, how about at least considering filling in the gaps in expanded synopses when I've no access to being able to replay an episode either because I missed it, or was out of record space. (There are around two-and-a-half seasons I've yet to see the first episode in, four, five and 1st half of six, irrc. For example, I'm prioritizing and getting through season 4 at two episodes a day/10 per week courtesy of TNT's reruns.) // Fra nkB 19:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Charmed [Again]
Well i am in the middle of watching Tru Calling and CSI: Las Vegas/CrimeSceneInvestigation (re-watching) but tru calling is only 28 episodes so when i can i will watch them and start with season one and type a sypnosis will watching. WB WB Pic Editor960 (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever you can do. Specific known needs in Charmed, Season 3, 2000-2001,

I know I had to delete those before making up an adequate synopsis, as I went back to flesh them out today... no dice. The first in particular is important as the second when Cole plays double agent in the underworld... and the mind reading Demon Rayburn (sp? name?) almost turns him back to evil. Whatever those details, Phoebe was upset enough in the next one, to be vulnerable to the Banshee. In the current cycle, I doubt I'll have a crack at either of those again for about 15 weeks, if I calculated the cycle (close to) correctly TNT is doing with the reruns... and that assumes they cycle back to week one and begin again. // Fra nkB 23:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 1.19 Exit Strategy
 * 2) 1.20 Look Who's Barking


 * Well those pages on the seasons are a bit of a mess, i think people will need to edit them. Also the list of episodes page is messed up (i know its going through major changes atm.) but they will need to be fixed soon as they are a bit confusing. Also of a few episode on season 3 page that have an information box either i could try and add a sypnosis to them ( a longer one) and outweigh the ugliness of the table. WB Pic Editor960 (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the point. This is all progressing, but only two of us are currently working at it... and that's mostly me. Bottom line, a year ago, the "Rules Nazi's" raped the articles on all the episodes on notability grounds, and the List of article became a joke. TV blurbs have more detail than what was up before December. The List of Page is under Construction, so anyone can pitch in. I've been waiting for another to finish converting to the neat tables now in season 1 and 2... and mainly working to get some kind of coverage in each episode in the by season pages already split out. The last four years we'll get to in due course, no doubt. // Fra nkB 00:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll focus on the seasons 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and get the sypnosis and all fixed and the tables neaten out. I'll start that tomorrow as i'm logging off soon Pic Editor960 (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the DVDs, sorry. I haven't been able to do the tables because I'm really busy with homework. — The Le ft orium  00:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tell me what you think of a table like this (more info will be added)

Pic Editor960 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Made a slight adjustment

Pic Editor960 (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, i'm going to slightly edit season 2 is that okay?, also i fixed season 3 on the list of episodes. Pic Editor960 (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A thousand apologies
...but apparently someone else posted a message just after and I didn't see the above until today...


 * 1) Don't believe stars, or regular cast needs stated for each episode. Best handle that on season pages, as they've evolved in the write up leading into the tops of the episodes. (Currently show up, but that's to my mind temporary for the Rcs# fields. See below.)
 * 2) The recurring supporting characters (Leo, Cole, Darryl, Andy, etc) were and were not in the low program budgets episode to episode, so were and were not in an episode, especially in the first two seasons, though more so for Darryl when Cole (co-star) was a principle character. So for completeness, I documented that in also starring, whereas, my long term planning is to have that field just not manifest in the template, or manifest as perhaps a cite... so each episode would only list the "TRUE guest actors". It's easy to let the computer do the work that way, and forms a cite for other editors documenting data that has been researched and verified. To make things disappear in a template, all one needs do is alter the capitalisation, for example.
 * 3) Placement of where is moot. I think it more appropriate up top, not as bulleted trailing lists, because of IN-UNVERSE versus NOT described as In-universe conveniences... basically that means, (See what I put up) the character lists can be written to explain in advance the role played in the narrative summary to follow... in a expository way that eliminates some of the criticisms of fan_cruft AND unclarity. So to me this is a biggie.
 * 4) By now, I trust you noticed I reverted the non-sectionalized changes in Season 1.
 * 5) If Phoebe, Piper, Prue, etc. are deemed necessary, then I'd group them and the Rsc# characters as a "Stars and Co-stars:" titleline. Adding a number parameter to the template solely for seasons 1-3 pages, can be done as a global search and replace, the parameter sensed there upon page build to select between Paige or Prue. (Paige's five seasons giving her the default state.)
 * 6) Ditto juggling where things are displayed. Since BriefSummary=&lt;hr/&gt; ...  precedes each Summary (Or the few experimental stabs at a synopsis and a summary... some writing in  seasons 3 & 4, iirc)     A quick fix solution would be:
 * Add a postfix field "LongSummary" to the template after the "BriefSummary" field manifests (shows up), reserving instead BriefSummary= for a synopsis field, perhaps.
 * Globally Search and replace (GSAR) the strings "}}&lt;hr/&gt;"    with "}}&lt;hr/&gt;LongSummary=" or depending upon the desired order...    with "}}LongSummary=&lt;hr/&gt;" (In Notepad.exe or the equivalent.)     The page(s) first edited will be organized in the new order, those lacking the global changes still appear as if the template didn't have the new field... and not exploit it either.
 * By similar means, one can add a field: "ActorsList=" to the template, and GSAR BriefSummary= ", so the field can be put where ever you want.
 * By the same token, you can eliminate or move "&lt;hr/&gt;" if that kind of reformatting is wanted.


 * Regardless of this feedback, do what you want. I'm currently minded 'to make no more edits' here on Wikipedia. See Blocked for why, but while I changed my mind back in November, this place is really wearing on me, so I consider it pretty foolish to go on... time will tell. I've walked away for a while before.

I'm really getting weary of all the nonsense. Five years of free time is enough wasted. Best wishes. Sorry again about the delayed reply. // Fra nkB 18:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Ted King picture
Hi,

Looks like File:TedKing.jpg was deleted via an FfD (aka IfD) nomination here:. Problem is for use on the actor's article it's considered replacable since he is still alive and someone could presumably take a free licesned photo at some point. Also it was deleted from the character article because it was a promo photo of the actor rater than a "in character" screencap. There is some friction on that point, some people feel it's not aprpriate to use a unrelated photo of the actor to depict a fictional character, while others argue that unless the character looks very different from the actor (heavy makeup etc) it's perfectly ok to use a photo of the actor, but in that case the "replacable" argument comes up again since someone could take a free licensed photo of the actor for this purpose... Even though there wasn't rely any discussion as such on the IfD listing I don't think it would be apropriate for me to undo this on my own authority, better run it though Deletion review. --Sherool (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh snap
Crap. I forgot to tell you yesterday that I tried AWB and I couldn't get it to change the redirects to the different sections. That's why I let User:Pic Editor960 do it like that. Sorry. — The Le ft orium  16:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Guess I picked a bad day to take a wikibreak...


 * Well, old fashioned manual changes have been working fine... see for progress in the handful I've tried (and also tagged with R to Charmed), so your AWB skills are just misfiring a bit. The redirects work fine. // Fra nkB  16:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Its Moi Again
I fixed Charmed (season 1) tell me what you think now... Pic Editor960 (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, umm...It didn't look very nice but try below the summary

Also Starring: Pic Editor960 (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A
 * B
 * C
 * D

That would create a lot of useless whitespace, don't you think?

The key is, if it's in a template, the template can put it anywhere we all decide it should go... whether Summary is above or below, or we can slide to the bottom and reset it so it puts out the bullets you seem to be suggesting. Keeps the editing neat and easy.

These things can be worked out together... putting the data IN in the first place takes a lot of time, and is where the work is most need now.

Placing also starring inside the Summary field was and is a temporary expedient while the process of compiling information and building pages goes on... the series was raped by notability guidelines, I think we can agree. How best to recover from that institutional insanity... to make the new pages work for the tasks needing done needs a common talk page I think. If we work things out on private talks, people will feel free to mess with whatever we come up with. Hell, I've already lost at least an hours editing talking to you and Lefty this morning. Errr, longer... now it's afternoon! (I've got to get back to Quilting! ) // Fra nkB 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to put the Also Starring below the text? Pic Editor960 (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but it breaks things up from that table header like this, which I think looks better. It would also compete with the "Of special significance" notes I've been adding to more significant episode bottoms... where would those go if you put the other on the bottom? But anyhow, my main care is doing a thorough job putting information out in a clear, not-In-universe manner. Put together other trial format arrangements... something in a sandbox page and let me and Lefty take a look and compare on what you have in mind. // Fra nkB  22:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment
Please do not come onto my talk page with a chip on your shoulder. If you have a concern, address it in a civilized manner. FYI, I have rescued quite a bit of stubs of this type in the past and the fact I even have the admin tools in the first place means I actually write for the project, including three original features. That being said, I'll gladly review the deletion. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Not only have I restored the article, but I cleaned it up a bit. The line about the "slew of roles" is what led me to delete the article in the first place as possibly non-notable. I hope this has properly addressed your concerns. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: Sorry about the misunderstanding. --PMDrive1061 (talk)`

fine... but the below still needs mulled over... (I really don't appreciate these distractions for no good reasons...)
 * Thanks for the edit conflict...

I calls a spade a spade, and a fool and fool. Too many of you kids are full of your paltry little power and use piss-poor judgment, not to mention totally lack consideration for the time someone else invested. So the attitude is a much deserved mirroring of how You look to me.

Foolish and inexperienced. Arrogant and too stupid to ask a question before abusing your power and the intentions of speedy deletions powers. How can you justify that on ANY PAGE page that is not vandalism or obvious patent nonsense less than 24 hours old, much less one that was clearly tagged stub??? How do you know how that will look after someone closes out a current ongoing edit? So if you don't want spanked, don't exceed common sense. There is never, ever any hurry in this system that requires a hurried deletion... save immature crooked thinking. // Fra nkB 16:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, calm down. Second, read WP:CIVIL. Third, the problem is corrected. Fourth, I'm a grandfather. A "kid" I am not. I'm going to try once more and extend an olive branch and apologize once more for upsetting you. A stub article isn't worth this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, apologies. As one oldster to another, I find some around here need shaking up from time to time, so skate CIV's edge purposefully in the greater cause... like raising some's self doubts and forethought quotients when they need shaking up based on observed behavior. I guess once a Chief, always... Don't really believe in liberal clap trap like CIV anyway, people need to be honest in their opines once in a while, so others will learn their shit smells too.


 * Be well, and thanks for the cookie. I just get real aggravated that this society let's some waste and trash another's time so easily&mdash;far too often, since we won't limit endless editing or protect matured articles, we haven't the man-power to do otherwise&mdash;still, it's very disrespectful. // Fra nkB 17:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, man. I have to admit that I appreciate your candor.  This site does tend to be a bit too politically correct at times.  "Liberal clap trap" sums it up well!  Take care.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)



PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

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


 * No problems then, and candor I have in spades. People around here from Jimbo on down definitely know when I have a peeve, though these days, seems like most I knew well have quit. Loosing people like CBD, Mel Etitis, and David Kernow I really have to chalk up to the endless strife and hostility of these episodic outbreaks of someone creating a dislocating change... Deletions of something just created, qualify for that, if you'll allow the personal reference. I don't hold grudges, as many can tell you, so I'm taking you at your candorous word too!


 * Admittedly, the sweetness and light bit gets cloying all the time, so putting some mustard on things is actually compensation for the the otherwise thankless efforts, now and again. I know that's bent, but self-honesty let that out, so may as well admit it. Shaking preconceptions in those that forget WP:IAR is perhaps the best legacy I sometimes think I can give around here... particularly the young folks don't have enough life experience to know when to live and let live and so ignore a rule or guideline...


 * This silly series I'm working is a case in point. Ill served by it when I checked our coverage when I stumbled across it in November, I'm compulsed as I have been in many areas here to try improving it, mainly by adding to it, for it was cut by a harsh, ill-judged ruthless person. The original writers went on to other tasks in life's stages, so a nicely put together set of articles covering the series got run over by the mac truck of one guy, aided passively by 2-3 others, pushing the new notability rules so they wiped out hundreds of man-hours of work, in some nifty and salvageable articles. Turned them into around 180 redirects and put together a paltry in-universe list article that had almost zero value... leaving things well enough alone would have been far better. Kidz!!! Sigh.


 * So take care, again. And mind Frank's 24 hour guideline... Cheers // Fra nkB 17:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fresh dirty socks
Frank, you're a breath of fresh air. Your guideline shall become a part of my permanent repertoire when I'm doing new page patrolling. It's far, FAR too easy to rubber-stamp good stubs as non-notable when one is, well, rubber-stamping. Stay cranky. Wikipedia needs a good kick every once in awhile. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Now you've done it! Hot button!!! Maxed!!!    Notability makes my teeth hurt, and blood boil. I argued vociferously against it, at least in what they were looking at in literature, and to also construe that a recent work has to have third party coverage, like a published  source isn't capable of being checked and quoted, boggles my mind. So we have hoards of people making decisions about popular cultural articles... articles which attract readers to our pages (My kids and their friends usually check things first or nearly so here, when looking something up... we should celebrate that cultural link, not kill it off!) when they don't have the first clue as to how hard it is to get published, much less hit fiftyith on the NYT best sellers or some such list. And so forth. Charmed articles are unnotable because they reached only 4-6 million households the eight years the series ran... when a publisher is delighted selling 100,000 copies! Oh my aching logic trees! Sigh. // Fra nkB  18:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil
Hi, I noticed this comment you made to sgeureka. Please try and remain civil however frustrated you may be. Calling someone a "total screw up" is a personal attack and these should be avoided at all times. Even if you disagree with a particular action, please note that sgeureka has made many valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Please try to raise any disagreements in a polite manner, this way you are more likely to get a constructive response. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk)  23:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Over applying questionable guidelines aren't anything but a wast of time.


 * Why is it that every rookie around here thinks they need to say "WP:CIV... THAT WAS VERY CIVIL... you should see the first three drafts.


 * Rapists should be jailed or shot. What he did to the 180 charmed article is mind boggling. So. Sorry, don't agree... read the above exchange (a day or two back). Someone has to tell a fuck up the truth. It's also free speech. Mine, so thanks, but I'll do what's right. // Fra nkB  23:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikiquette_alerts. Gerardw (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for 72 hours for threats of violence against other editors, personal attacks and incivility. Edits like this one are wholly inappropriate here and will not be tolerated. Likewise the blatant disregard for WP:NPA and WP:CIV displayed here and here is not acceptable. You are a long term user. You know how this place works. Comment on content, not contribtuors. Never threaten another editor with physical violence. If you feel this block is improper, you may contest it by adding on your talk page. Please consult the guide to appealing blocks before doing so. When your block expires you are welcome to return to productive editing. Protonk (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is it flaming assed liberals think every liberty is their's except being told off kis bad? How's someone to know they fucked up without feedback. It's a statement of an honest heartfelt opinion, not your vaunted NPA... Also, didn't threaten violence, I promised it. See, I'm not liberal, so don't make threats. If that person were to add rather than subtract content, he might get the reason behind that sooner. That goes for all of you that think Admin is somekind of 'life achievement'.


 * BTW, thanks... I really shouldn't be letting myself get sucked into major efforts in this site anymore. You monkeys are in charge of the asylum. So You put together a team to fix up those pages. In between, see the box in the first section at page top... I don't get paid to contribute here. I didn't do anything but make plain my opinion of a vastly destructive action to this project, and an ill timed totally undiscussed link breaking action. THAT will adverse impact my time, so he needed some guilt. If you aren't grown up enough to know that others don't think much of constraining honest feedback... how is the jerk expected to grow? So sorry, I was raised catholic... we believe in guilt, and reconciliation. So take a hike along side him. I've no respect for your pov. // Fra nkB 13:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, and contrary to this, WP:OWN isn't involved. the alleged editor unilaterally changed a page name used extensively in section links, both in redirects, which are fairly easy to resolve, but in many other paragraphs, cross-linking series topics. In short, such careless behavior affects and impacts many's time. Totally unacceptable. // Fra nkB 13:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * FrankB, I just want to clarify a few things here. First, I am a completely disinterested third-party editor (NOT an Admin!), that fields WQA posts and tries to mediate between parties, so that something constructive can come from the experience. When I saw the WQA that was initiated about your account, I read (as I always do) through every cited diff, every edit descriptor and every response. I also (as I always do!) looked at each user's user page, talk page and contrib history.
 * What I read just floored me. I could not understand how an editor with such a lengthy contrib history as yours could apparently thumb his nose at every single Wiki policy and guideline in place to foster mutual respect and community. I recommended a block due to this, simply because warnings had already been tried and ignored, and mediation was not an appropriate solution, given the gross incivility.
 * FrankB, I've looked at some of the work that you've contributed here over the past 4 years. You're a good editor, FrankB! Its quite apparent that you spend a considerable amount of your time on these articles, and make some pretty thoughtful edits. What this displays to me is that you care, and I am encouraged by that.
 * Once your block is up, I would very much like to see you continue to be a valued part of the Wikipedia community. I would encourage you to try remaining civil and tactful, even in the face of problem edits and editors whom you may not agree with. Only by working together can the project as a whole be benefited. Respectfully, Edit Centric (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

<br
 * Well, hope the floor didn't hurt. But your characterization of my attitude and what I respect and don't is to say the least dubious. Did it occur to you that I didn't attend your schools, have different experiences, different parents, and can think for myself? There is plenty of room for differences in interpretation, as anyone that has mediated flame wars here, as I have can tell you. One cranky old editor spouting off does NOT make for a battle. OTOH, similar frank opinions have almost universally in the past resulted in a good working relationship, a clear communication, and about 3/4ths of the time, resulted in a new Wikifriend. So piffle to WP:CIV--you're not looking at the context, nor the intent of the context for that guideline. Being polite can in fact be counterproductive and a time waste, a matter of judgment--mine, as the observer.

/>Take Quiddity (who signed up at page top for example) who once demonstrated a unbelievable tendency to pro-offer unwarranted judgments and unsolicited advice. Ultimately, I had to get firm with him and sent this, which he threatened to post, SO I DID. Nothing there to be ashamed of, you see. Bottom line... there are some people in this world that need rapped along side the ear to get their attention. There are others that need to have their toes stepped on, UNTIL THEY APOLOGIZE. Both those types benefit some by being jerked up by the shorthairs. Failing all else, it makes me feel better, and communicates at least one person, however crazy they may think me, has less than steller appreciation for their actions as they impact others--''normally others time. I really don't get excised much here about anything else. Endless editing and all that, after all.'' Sooooo, Thanks for the appeal to my vanity, but I suggest in the future you counsel people to examine whether a situation is ongoing, escalating, or one time episode of venting. I spent 2-1/2 years here acting as a mediator myself, and would never have considered involving myself in an isolated message based case. Not sensible. Call it justifiable road rage if you like&mdash;a real world situation here in cyber space, and at least I cleaned up the vulgarity of what I had written in the first three drafts, to make my loathing judgment of his lazy rape of hundreds of pages plain. THAT is where I put my loyalty and focus. NOT on one of thousands of arguable interpretation of various guidelines and policies. If your INTERPRETATION of WP:CIV prohibits any colorful idiom or addressing a dumbshit-thing-to-do as a dumbshit act, I'm definitely done here. I'm floored that you haven't the imagination to understand that&mdash; save for the hyperbole about kicking ass, a deliberate attempt to indicate how poorly I viewed the 5-6 hours a day of well over six weeks of effort fixing his rape pogrom allegedly following guidelines &mdash; nor the fact that you were all being busy-bodies making much ado about nothing. One of the most reprehensible facts about contributing here is that there is a total insensitivity to the leisure time our contributors make, particularly by 'blithely accepting actions', one way or another, deleting their hard work and effort, which is about as personal an attack as one can make... Show me where NPA THE LEAST SENSITIVE to that VERY REAL, VERY PERSONAL virtual 'slap in the face'. And fools wonder why we have editor retention rate problems! Wake the fuck up. THAT IS A REAL WORLD PROBLEM, not my slight episode of 'hitting' to administer a lesson in courtesy to others. (Call me twisted, but a single discourtesy to me administered to make the point is properly due those who exercise the ultimate discourtesies, really without due process. Making 180 article pages into redirects without involving the community at large in the decision is to me, WP:BOLD applied way over the top. AFD or MFD should have been invoked, at the least. Not one talk page and three or four editors without a direct attempt to re-involve the originator of same articles, or their major contributors. BOTH THOSE badly need a quorum count provision, but I digress, the digression.) <br

/>Those articles --nearly 200 some-- were something apparently dozens put up... involving hundreds of man-hours and were well crafted. Oh, they needed some cites for a few fannish statements of cause and effect, but the necessity of that is itself doubtful in cultural articles about recently produced intellectual efforts. WP:AGF should be sufficient for such a report making a statement like "this is the first (last) episode character/actor-so-and-so appeared in, and so forth. <br

/>Then there's the whole joke of notability for such pages, which is hands down the most destructive guideline I've seen passed here. It's net result, because of the plethora of WP:NOTE guidelines, is we've literally lost thousands of editors by taking away their prime motivations for becoming involved, and applying inappropriate measures in an 'alleged' attempt to improve the quality of our offered articles&mdash;merely because some too wedded to the academic world have dictated the (anti-commonsensical) need of quoting a writer about something, rather than readily available source material. Others agreed, because like myself, they disdain one media or the other (I have no use for rock bands, and most TV--but at least I understand my prejudices) and felt that such has little place in an educational project&mdash;in direct controvention to statement's Jimbo has made lauding such breadth of coverage. <br

/>The failure to improve overall article quality in the two years since is manifold and obvious; GA, FA and B-Class articles haven't notably increased in either numbers or percentages. The manpower drain to such measures of deletionism (vice improvement of whatever to a reasonable 'type-standard') has really gone nowhere. OTOH, ANYONE can access a primary source in a cultural matter like a popular book or television program (albeit with some effort required) to check a fact, cite a quote, or check an interpretation or summation, synopsis or summary. Cultural topic coverage is some of the more entertaining reading we offer, after all, and those that punch in random article or just hear about someone/something new is something that attracts readers. ''So who should care that such articles aren't to an academic standard. They don't need to be--the reader wants information and coverage, not null search results...  In DIRECT CONTRAST to WP:NOTE's focus is the indisputable fact that today, many people come to wikipedia FIRST, not just via google, to get a laydown on a cultural topic.'' My teens were the one's who made this obvious to me. They checked things out here first... then google in many cases. The third party source and so called notability guidelines are frigging idiotic as written for fictional matters. But I get more satisfaction arguing with a wall. I guess you picked up some of my disdain for those ramifications and the narrow interpretations by some... but do remember, IAR trumps them. <br

/> That those editors apparently had moved on, perhaps found the contributory environment here too hostile, and weren't around to defend those pages became too patently plain if you examine the talk record... One idiot lemming behavior one sees over and over here is some young editor, from my pov 'much lacking life's perspective and experience' latches onto the language of some guideline or guidelines and gets carried away with it--totally discounting the effort of others to build whatever page or trying to make it work. <br

/>Had he accessed some off site materials (The scripts are on the web, for example), incorporated important series evolutionary trivia into the articles, and eliminated the fan trivia, the pages would have been easy to fix up. Instead, I saw it on my sickbed, queried our coverage an got appalled. I did however thank him for his screw up helped me get interested in the show, and I'm usually disdainful of entertainment media overall if it's not between book covers. The show's rather well done and enjoyable. My first wife, may she rest in peace, was a wiccan and I've been quite interested in comparing wiccan depictions these last 28 years. The miracle is not that I went so easy on that SOB, nor (to some) threatened violence, but that I bite my tounge for months without saying something&mdash;then had to spout when he made yet another ham-handed edit creating a slew of double-redirects without even discussing the matter, with me or the other two I've finally involved in editing the pages. WHERE'S THE RESPECT FOR OUR TIME, or the way he impacted our time DISCUSSED IN YOUR Wikiquette discussion OR AN/I? Where's the two times his edit crashed my browser, as the section edit on the page no longer matched the system software page... resulting in a lost hour and a half, for the edit got lost sans the system's ability to reestablish page context. So excuse me for feeling provoked by his incompetence. Not one's ever paid me a penny for giving time here. <br

/>In sum, that whole group of people, yourself included have the problem backwards--like a cart being pushed by a mule. You all wring hands and make tut-tutting noises about one well deserved dressing down that was a one on one communication, totally oblivious to the fact your jumping of the gun is part of the institutional insanity here that makes it increasingly a less and less satisfying place to contribute, and outright hostile most of the damn time. In the future, try intervening AFTER there is ongoing dissension, argument and acrimony--not just because one person has a forceful opinion and the balls to express it. He MIGHT JUST think you the fool, given the underlying facts... and attitude toward busy-bodies of course. In the real world, mangers curse and swear, people call each other names, and people pound tables... SOOooo, get a life and realize ideals aren't life, nor is it your place to make others conform without at least giving time to see if there is a ongoing problem. People vent. Period--it beats murder. <br

/>Had that dubious editor exercised mature restraint and judgement, the Charmed articles wouldn't have needed such a time sink by someone like me. But the half-assed juvenile half-measure HE CHOSE, caused the issue... then the other for me. So next time, be sure that a problem exists... or what it really is. If someone ASKED why, instead of telling me about things well known (NPA/CIV), I'd have been glad to explain. Had HE acted correctly, and just for one way, incorporated trivia into the body, and defanged the fan sections... I wouldn't be out man-months of efforts. Someone could then come behind and add better plot summaries, etc. in line with FICT guidelines. Instead we have a juvenile attempt at over-application of a dubious guideline for a program that reached a mininum of four million households for eight years running... Compare THAT to a best seller... defined as 100,000 books (which would delight most publishers). <br

/>Far too many go through the motions and hardly write any significant content. They peck and pick at word choices, hang tags instead of addressing a article or group of articles shortcomings, and basically criticize instead of acting, improving whilst patting themselves on the back for running up a high edit count. Piffle. Admins should need to demonstrate 500+ significant edits, at least half of which added material or cites, not this institutional madness of glorifying the inexperienced and power hungry zealots sans real world experience. <br

/> So thanks for the belated appreciation... but it's untimely. Now the project is out an editor who does little but make big edit improvements. The community doesn't deserve me, nor quality given the road to mediocrity it's hurling down helter-skelter. I'm so fucking out of here. I have lots of other things I can do with my Leisure time. I think I'll just follow along with dozens of good editors I've worked with and disappear. This institution is too incapable of appreciation, and has certainly lost appreciation of one important ancient and bedrock guidelines: WP:IAR. It certainly never demonstrated a vast respect for people's time. // Fra nkB 17:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)    Slight revise and extend during xpost, posted back here. // Fra nkB 17:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Webscriptions article edits
Could you explain why you added the claim that the Tor issue was resolved (as well as mentioning DAW as a Webscriptions publisher)?

I can only assume this was some kind of hoax...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolaviz (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

<br />So from my point of view, consider it a with that as the accessdate= field with backup. Arnold was also listing a couple of much smaller publishers as well. So... I may make a rare joke in content when the random circumstances align, but not at the expense of a point of fact. I'm well over 7,000 articles edited, so I'm hardly into making things up. <br
 * I'm not active nor interested in helping this site anymore, but as of the day of the posting, both publishers had lists of books on webscriptions. Further, I phoned Arnold and made some direct queries to make sure I had things straight. Some around here might consider that as OR, but the facts are right... or were. Haven't been there in what? something around or over a year, iirc.

/>Arnold Bailey (owner-operator)& webscriptions is an independent (Of Baen) businessman in the south somewhere--one of the Carolina's. Baen is a NYC region publisher. Why would you assume a businessman isn't trying to improve his sales by increasing product carried, floor trade, etc. // Fra nkB 14:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911tm
Template:911tm 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. - Noticed you in one of the template's previous afd's.Sloane (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OH... that's good, as I didn't see me in the edit history! Thanks // Fra nkB 17:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

CHARMED
I've completed the making of the season tables and i have all info filled in up until half of season 7, what do you think (dont lighten the colours please)

oOoJohnnn[ander]oOo

Pic Editor960 (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not exactly sure what it is you've done, but a quick look over, things look fine on s6 & s7 BUT FOR THIS section... which may have been transitional changes you can blame on me being interrupted by the self-righteous busybodies.


 * I apparently didn't make it plain... I'm not contributing to Wikipedia, or any of the other Foundations' projects (I'd made many an edit & contribution on nine other sister projects) from now on. I don't suffer fools gladly, and prefer not to suffer them at all.


 * On further reflection, surmise you were meaning ""...
 * Note you can now link to the eight new episode summary's pages. The templates There or There2 make that a simple cut and paste jobby... or even a succession of fast GSARs by sections since you have titles in place, and all are grouped in the table by coresponding page.
 * Consider cleaning up redirects systematically using whatlinkshere at some point.


 * Be well. Nice working with you, as long as it lasted. // Fra nkB 17:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ping
Thanks for your note re Thewb.com; I've replied on my talk page, but also wanted to alert you here that I've recreated the material in question at the bottom of User:Fabartus/Sandbox for your use. If you need any help in restoring a useful version of this material to article space, don't hesitate to ask. To the best of my knowledge, the page has not been protected against recreation, so it's entirely up to you. It seems as though we could use a less spammy version of the material, as you suggest. Accounting4Taste: talk 02:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ping 2
Re: Dave Navarro on Charmed-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  23:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Civility
Your latest edit to Template talk:Non-free use rationale comes across as a personal attack to me. Please refrain from making things personal on this project, and please consider removing those comments. Disagreements will not be helped by using language like this. Thank you. Martinmsgj 23:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What the hell are you referring to? Lack of respect for others time is about as incivil as things can get, and it's about time the rest of you figured that out. Dissing MY TIME is and cannot be anything BUT PERSONAL... so suggest you stay out of the middle. // Fra nkB 02:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am disappointed with your reply and urge you, again, to be more careful in your choice of words. Best wishes, Martinmsgj 07:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)