User talk:Frickative/Archive 3

Gene Hunt
You convince me and I have changed my 'vote' accordingly. Good effort. Springnuts (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I really have no vested interest in these articles - I've yet to watch a single episode of either Life on Mars or Ashes to Ashes. However the nomination seemed a bizarre one to me on the basis that both Sam Tyler and Gene Hunt are well-known household names, and so as someone that spends the majority of their time on Wikipedia editing fiction-related articles, it seemed important to demonstrate that notability really was not an issue in these cases - rather, these particular articles just need improvement. Frickative  14:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Coronation Street
Hey I made a big edit to Becky Granger's article, it took so long aswell added all the things required on the clean up project were all contributing too. Do you think the amount of images used is okay within the article. I've tried to help the Ken Barlow article, can't find any info over the casting though, any ideas? Raintheone (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, wow, I'm seriously impressed you managed to find that many refs for Becky! I know she's got quite a big storyline at the moment, but before that I always thought she was more of just a comic-relief type character... reading the casting bit is really interesting, I didn't know any of that :D I think having 3 images is fine - the one from 2006 just under the creation section is especially good because she actually looks really greasy, lol. As for Ken Barlow - because he's been in it since the very start, I think the only really useful sources for casting details will probably be the Coronation Street companion books. Which is a bit of a pain, but then I imagine it's the sort of thing that's probably available from Amazon marketplace for 1p. I think it says something about how badly I need to spend less time on Wiki that after editing the Betty Williams article this week, I'm seriously considering ordering Betty Driver's autobiography from Amazon for 30p for extra details, lol. I think there's a line that needs to be drawn... Anyway, good job improving the article though! Frickative  00:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for the comments on that. In the meantime I created the article for Amber Kalirai as it was one that was next on my list. I just need to tidy the references up on it and it will be better, I was suprised how much I found only about two corrie blog links needed and only relied on the ITV part for the personality really, the rest I found on news sources.Raintheone (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, another huge improvement - I'd never have expected there to be so many sources about Amber! The only thing I'd suggest is taking out the bit about Facebook - it's not really a reliable source, and, seeing as it only has 8 members, it's not particularly notable either. Another great job, though! Frickative  14:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I wasn't sure about that but just threw it in anyway. I removed it now though.Thanks again Raintheone (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you recently edited Sophie Websters page. I've redone the article, (Storylines mostly the same) would you mind if I put it all in?Raintheone (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By all means, go ahead! I was thinking when I edited it earlier that it needed a lot of work, but wasn't too keen on doing it myself. I look forward to seeing your additions :) Frickative  19:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Amy Slater
Why have all my changes been reverted? I know that there was a vandalism protection thing in but I put in viable references saying that Jack is the father. Not having a go I would like to know why you changed it? Alex250P (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove any references saying Jack was the father... The only ref I took out was to the episode summary where crates fall on Billy, which I removed because it was excessive detail that didn't particularly move the plot forward... If there were refs in there confirming that Jack is the father, you might want to check further back in the revision history to see who actually took them out :) Frickative  00:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

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


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

Whitney Dean
Well done, I have listed the article as GA. Otto4711 (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your thorough and helpful review! :) Frickative  23:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * wOO!! Just seen that you got this to GA. How fabulous! Well done, the EE project needed another GA, and you're a bit of a master at this now :)  GunGagdin Moan 22:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers! I was really surprised there was only 1 other EastEnders GA, I thought there were more than that - here's to more to come! Frickative  17:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


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


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

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


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

Connor Family Template-Corrie
Hi, I was wondering, how do you edit the template 'CSConnors' as I would like to add Ryan Connor as I have heavily edited the article and feel as though he should be on the template as he is a legal/adoptive member of the family and is quite a prominent character. Regards Alex250P (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, to edit the template, click the small 'e' in the top left. The 'v' is the view the template page, and the 'd' is the template's talk page. Hope that helps :) Frickative  23:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Mr.Men images
I got a few more deletion notices for these. I didn't see much discussion about the images so I will let them get deleted. I have not worked on that project in a while. Did you suggest a collage or some sort of combined image at one point? Either way I was not planning on adding any more images to that project. I did have some info to add but I will have to look it up again. Libro0 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I haven't edited the Mr Men articles for quite a while, so I'm not sure why you're getting deletion notices now - sorry I can't be more enlightening there :) But yes, I remember saying at one point that a collage picture of all the Mr Men would be more suitable under fair use guidelines for the List of... article than dozens of individual ones. Something like this ought to do the trick nicely if a slightly better quality image could be found.  Frickative  22:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The Grinning Man (Jonathan Creek)
Hey, do you plan to take this to GA, it's a nice article? — Realist  2  04:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I think I'm going to leave it a day or so more just for the last few reviews to trickle in, then I'll put it up at GAN and see how it fares :) Frickative  05:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! — Realist  2  16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask the same question; it looks like, with a bit of exterior prose checking, it could be FA-quality. :) Sceptre (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and thanks a lot for neatening up the reception section earlier! :) Frickative  23:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


 * Although the terminology is most commonly applied to pre-marital names, it is not exclusive to that circumstance, and is valid when used to refer to any original or former name  .  Frickative  20:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * None of your definitions or examples show it being used to describe a male's birth name. They are all either female persons with the condition of that female changed her name as a result of having married, or things.
 * Female restriction:
 * Answers.com:Used to indicate the maiden name of a married woman.
 * Encarta: used to introduce a married woman's maiden name
 * Merriam-Webster: used to identify a woman by her maiden family name
 * Object restriction:
 * Encarta:used to introduce the name that something was formerly known under
 * Merriam-Webster: not explicit, but example is a sports team.
 * In terms of usage, "born" is much more common, and more likely to be understood by the reader. I would even argue that given the definitions you've provided, using né at that point is a sufficiently obscure usage that many would consider it incorrect.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I thought we'd already clarified that né is the masculine form of née. Obviously the links aren't going to discuss males as they refer to the female form of the word. Here, though, the masculine form on Merriam-Webster:
 * Used to indicate the original, former, or legal name of a man 
 * I don't think it gets any clearer than that, and I also don't consider the word or its usage to be obscure. It has been in place in the article for several months now without anyone expressing confusion until today, and is used in other articles across Wikipedia as standard - for example Bobby Beale. Frickative  01:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I've Wiktionary linked the word in the Edward Cullen article to avoid any future confusion. Frickative  01:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


 * & here's how we could change it :)


 * How's that look? Frickative  17:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes this is great. I am so happy that we made it! Good job. Ok so this is better than great, oh man thanks. Ok just one thing what do you think if we made all the infoboxes about Grey's Anatomy with Powder Blue? What do you think!? Great job and keep the good work. --SmartM&amp;M (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! By powder blue do you mean this colour?
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * style="background:#powderblue"|..........
 * }
 * It is quite nice, I'm just slightly worried that long strips of it in the infobox would look a little glaring. But the greyey-blue colour at the moment is quite dull. How about somewhere in between?
 * {| class="wikitable"
 * It is quite nice, I'm just slightly worried that long strips of it in the infobox would look a little glaring. But the greyey-blue colour at the moment is quite dull. How about somewhere in between?
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * style="background:#dedee2"|(the colour now)||style="background:#d6d6ff"|..........||style="background:#d2d2f4"|..........||style="background:#bedee2"|..........||style="background:#powderblue"|(powder blue)
 * }
 * Do you like any of the ones in between? I think they're slightly less dull, but a little bit more neutral. I think in the infobox they'd look liiike...
 * }
 * Do you like any of the ones in between? I think they're slightly less dull, but a little bit more neutral. I think in the infobox they'd look liiike...


 * Hmm, maybe it's just my eyes, but the first two look the same as each other to me. I think the last one is a little bit too bright, but I do like the soft blue. Frickative  18:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you, the third is great, I was thinking about her by powder blue. Ok so I think that the infobox problem are done! Have you seen the Meredith Grey article, I think that the infobox is great! So now you can change anything you want at the infobox there and when is done just tell me here and I will do the same thing in all characters pages! When we'll finish this we are going on the next step! Great I am very very very very happy and exited working with you! --SmartM&amp;M (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, I just made a couple of minor tweaks to the Meredith infobox - changed the colour slightly so it's the same as the third example above, took out the 'real name' bit which only needs to be in there if the character is typically known by an alias, and also the 'gender' parameter, which you only really need to include for sci-fi characters or similar, where it's not actually obvious what gender the character is. And I think that should be everything. Did you have anything in mind for what you wanted to work on next? It's great to be working with you, too :D Frickative  22:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OMG, I am so exited! Ok great teh infobox is done. I will do the same thing at all other characters and than we'll discuss about other stuff we can do to improve the articles. This is great finaly something good for the Grey articles. Keep the good job, you are the best! So after I done the infoboxes in all characters articles I will notice you, you'll fix something if it should be fixed and than... Best wishes --SmartM&amp;M (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I apologise for any misunderstanding with regards to this issue

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


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


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


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

An article you have edited is being considered for deletion - The Secret Mitchell
See Articles for deletion/The Secret Mitchell for more infomation. Dalejenkins | 17:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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

EastEnders Family Templates Change??
Hi, I was just wondering why the templates for EastEnders families have changed? Personally I think they look messy but please can you redirect me to the conversation/article that should have been created when you were discussing it? Thanks :) Alex250P (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had nothing to do with any of the template changes - not my area of interest - but I believe the discussion is on the EastEnders WikiProject talk page :) Frickative  18:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Peggy Mitchell
Frickative,

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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

Have you read this interview with Diederick Santer?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/characters_cast/interviews/interview_diederick_s_n2.shtml I found it very interesting with lots of information that can be added to Danielle Jones's page, if it isn't there already (I haven't checked!). Other characters too. I added a quote from there to Heather Trott's page, and it's made me really excited!!! AnemoneProjectors (what?) 20:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I never read any of those interviews before. They're all so good! AnemoneProjectors (what?) 20:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


 * Hi Max! I haven't seen the 100th episode yet either, but I'm looking forward to it :D I went off George a lot last season, but he's hardly been in this one and I miss him... Hm, what exactly in the infobox do you mean? All I can think of that I changed was using the 'spouse' parameter for both of them, because it's separate to just a romance, and removing the description bits from beside the names like 'sexual relationship/encounter' etc, because that's something that should be covered in the article itself, rather than in the ibox which is just a brief overview. The bolding is because of too many apostrophes, I hadn't noticed it but I've fixed it now :D And I'll go take a look at the season one page now and see what I can do :D I always get confused with that season, because it was 14 episodes long here, not 9... I started to re-watch it on DVD today, actually, because I wanted to listen to the commentaries by Shonda to find stuff to include in the articles, but then I found out my copy doesn't have the commentaries, grrr. Sorry, that has nothing to do with anything, just wanted to rant! But yup, I'll go take a look at the article now :) Frickative  21:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There, I've been over the page with a fine tooth comb - it's shaping up really well! I took out one reference because Amazon isn't considered a reliable source, but the other articles referenced were really interesting reading. One suggestion I'd make would be to have the table and infobox the same colour as the character infoboxes and the navigation templates, so that it's standard across all Grey's Anatomy articles? Then again, I don't really have any experience writing season articles, so if there's a good reason for using separate colours then by all means :) It's a pity the writers' blog wasn't started until the second season, that could have been a really useful source. Frickative  22:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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

Regarding the GA review of Danielle Jones
Wanted to review this article as it's been in the nominations list for a long time. Bit confused as to what's going on though, has the original review been abandoned? Rudy 12:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for any confusion. The original reviewer never responded to comments, and removed my message from his talk page without reply when I asked - some weeks later - if he intended to continue with it. So yes, it was abandoned without ever actually going anywhere. Thanks for your interest :) Frickative  18:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Right no worries, well I'm in the middle of another review at the moment but when I finish it if nobody else has taken yours up then I'll attempt to sort it out. Rudy 10:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)