User talk:Lucy-marie/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Metric units

Hi, I think it would a good idea if you were to avoid this discussion for a while. Although you have raised some valid points (e.g. why should someone who isn't a UK railway enthusiast know what a chain is?), users like SouthernElectric and Olana North don't seem to want to listen, purely on the grounds that it's you that's raising them. So we just end up with a lot of arguing and going round in circles, rather than making any progress.

Incidentally, I don't think it's true to say that the UK is a purely metric country, but on the other hand it's not a purely imperial (measurements) country either! Regards, --RFBailey (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on the metrication of distances in UK transport articles would be the same if Lord Lucan was to reappear and raise the issue. SouthernElectric (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, the UK is specifically and explicitly not a metric country. iridescent 23:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It shows the uk is not exculisvly metric but the weights and measures act requires the sale of certian goods in ml and kg.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant in this case, as we're not talking about the sale of goods; the important point here is the part alluded to by Ian Pearson near the end, in that miles are still considered a standard unit of measurement in the UK. (Personally, I'm not a fan of chains, which I consider unnecessarily confusing, and would convert them into miles-and-feet in these situations - but that is my personal opinion and I know I'm outnumbered. (I'm not stalking you by posting here, incidentally; just that I have no intention of joining in the group-kicking you seem to be getting on WP:UKT right now.) iridescent 00:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I would personally like action taken but I believe it would be futile. I find it amazing SouthernElectric returned the exact same day that I rasied this issue again. I do not say the miles ect should not be used, I just say that metric equivilancies should be included aswell.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Is that a crime Lucy-marie, I thought that was what the "watch (this page)" function was for?! SouthernElectric (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Please calm down. All I said was you cliamed to have left wikipedia, but returned exactly the same day I initiated this discussion. Two reasons are for this either you didn't leave wikipedia or it was coincdence.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Metric/Imperial System

Congratulations, you won the argument!! User:SouthernElectric has decided to leave Wikipedia after being blocked for edit-waring. Yor ability to win argument and defeat everyone else is quite impressive. We lost a useful and positive contributor ... but what does that matter? After all, nobody remembers who came second. Olana North (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody wins or loses. The actions taken by individual users while discuss edits, is their own choice. If their way of editing contravenes the rules and guidlines to the point where they get blocked, that is the judgement of appropriate administrators. I would also like to point out that SoutherElectric was blocked for edit-waring on a completly dirent topic altogether.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that SouthernElectric wasn't banned, he was blocked. See WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK for clarification. --RFBailey (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging assistant officials (soccer)

Hi. I don't know how you are getting on with the merge between Assistant referee, Fourth official and Fifth official, but please note that there should be capitalisation of the word "Association" when constructing new article title - as in Assistant officials (Association football). Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 01:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Current convention says association is with a small a. This can be seen in Kit (association football) and Formation (association football). If you disagree with this, please raise this issue at the appropriate discussion on the association football wikiproject.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Case on Hold

As a case is currently occurring at the Arbitration Commitee, i have placed the current MedCabal case on hold to prevent conflict occurring between any consensus that occurs at MedCab and any decisions that are made at ArbCom. I recommend you watch the outcomes and discussions that occur at ArbCom as you could be affected by them.

If you do do not want me as a mediator and wish for someone else to mediate after the ArbCom case is over then feel free to place a request on the MedCab talk page and then notify me so that i can see if your points are valid enough for me to recuse myself. I hope that this case will be dealt with soon. Seddon69 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

association football entry on Forward disambiguation page

Hi, Lucy-marie. I have returned the '(soccer)' to the end of the association football entry on the Forward disambiguation page to present a more globally inclusive view. The term 'association football' is virtually unknown in the United States, so 'soccer' should be there, also.

I have started a discussion on this topic at Talk:Forward and would encourage you to comment. -Gwguffey (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in discussion on Talk:Forward. At this point, I am withdrawing myself from this topic barring additional thoughts or viewpoints being presented. Should you choose to remove the word soccer from the entry, I will not revert it. Should another editor decide to add it in the future, though, I will not remove it either. Best wishes. -Gwguffey (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svgImage:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colours).svg

Regarding your recent request to WP:RM to perform the above move - images cannot be moved in this fashion. From WP:RM:

Images: To rename an image, upload the image again, but with the name you want. Then change the relevant links to reflect the new name and list the old image at images and media for deletion.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. JPG-GR (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Status "not used" on characters pages anymore?

Lucy, recently you reversed a change I made to 2 characters pages, reversing me re-adding the statuses of characters. You claim that statuses are "no longer used", but I feel that it can add valuable information about the character, and it does not hurt for it to be there. Who decided that statuses are no longer to be used? This is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, I don't see why it was necessary for you to remove my edit. Steve Crossin (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the comment you posted on my page, you mentioned that there has been a "previous agreement" on the removal of statuses? I'm not here to fight with anyone, I'd just like to know when this was decided.

Also, I'm working on the Minor Characters page. Can an admin please make the edit to the Noah Daniels redirection page, I'm trying to make all the disambiguation pages redirect to their proper sections.

And finally, can we please put a hold on merging all these characters into one big article? I actually put a tag on the page, it is way too long, unorganised, and desperately needs a cleanup. Can you at least wait until this page is cleaned up? Thank you Steve Crossin (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The quality of any page has absolutly no bearing on what happens to anotehr page. Mergers will go ahead unless real-world notability for the individual pages can be established by the end of February. or another date decided by mediation.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of these mergers, from what I have seen, have had little or no consensus in favour of merging, and as quite a few of these mergers are under review by the Arbitration Committee, it would not be in good faith to merge them before an outcome is decided by them.

And in regards to the organisation of the Minor Characters in 24 page, it needs reorganisation, and quickly. Is it really too much to ask to wait until the page can be reorganised, or do you insist on creating one massive, unreadable article? Steve Crossin (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, just in case you didn't know or weren't aware of it, I'd like to direct your attention to this:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Temporary injunction. 1) For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.”

It doesn't look like any mergers will be taking place for the time being regardless of the Cabal case. Angelriver (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That has a small relation to this case. The fact that policies and guidleines are still being breeched is not being addressed by this pointless procrastinating.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you figure that what I quoted has only a small relation to the case? It clearly states that no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character. That includes ALL television shows--even 24. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Angelriver (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment-Definetly agreed, its right there, in black and white. NO mergers are to take place regarding TV shows/episodes for the duration of this case. It is NOT acting in good faith to continue to do so. Steve Crossin (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Can the fighting just please stop? I asked an administrator about this, as I've been improving the Minor Characters in 24 page, and I've made some suggestions, and some edits. I was told this:
  1. In fact someone linked me this decision a few minutes after our conversation (the 2 events are of course unrelated ;)). That means that we are asked not do delete (and probably merge) any article based on Episodes or Fictional Characters for the time being. This is of course temporary (there is an investigation going on on the behavior of some editors). Split should be okay if you keep everything. Note that oversplitting articles is often a bad idea. But being bold and trying never hurts. -- lucasbfr talk 15:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering this is an arbcom restriction, the editor not following it faces a block (if he's aware of the restriction, of course). I guess that'll keep people away. -- lucasbfr talk 16:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find where Lucy is requesting the merge of these articles but if she performs it, simply revert her change and point her to the arbcom case. -- lucasbfr talk 16:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

yup don't hesitate to update the tag if necessary. Good luck on the referencing! -- lucasbfr talk 17:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from ""

And furthermore, if this merging madness does not stop, I will request the pages be protected from moving/deleting/merging. This case is under review by the Arbitration Committee, merging these articles while under review is NOT in accordance with WP:AGF. It is not acting in good faith to merge when there is no consensus, or when it is being reviewed by a committee, and furthermore, an injunction HAS been made, and failure to comply with it is a breach of Wiki Policy. Steve Crossin (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The point that no work is being under taken on the pages is being missed and the articles are still voilating policies. The language used in steve's final paragraph is incredibly suspicious, and similar to user:MiB-24 the phrase "merging madness" and the immediacy to jump all over this issue and tagret me is also suspicious. I have left the articles alone to allow for work to take place on the, all that has taken place is Lan Di added under construction tags and nothing actually being done to most of the articles.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You cite that the articles are "violating policies" without mentioning any policies in specific. And you completely disregard WP:AGF. How are you acting in good faith? Read the injunction that the Arbitration Committee issued. Disregarding a decision by them is a gross disregard of the Wiki Policy on Injunctions, and I quote-
[edit] Injunctions

At any time between the opening of a case and its closure, Arbitrators may propose Temporary Injunctions, which are binding decisions that shall be in effect until a case closes. Such Injunctions take the form of Remedies outlined below and are enforceable by blocks of appropriate length (usually no more than 24 hours for a first offense) against parties violating the Injunction.

An Injunction is considered to have passed when four or more Arbitrators have voted in favour of it, where a vote in opposition negates a vote in support. A grace period of twenty four hours is usually observed between the fourth Aye vote and the enactment of the Injunction; however, Arbitrators may, in exceptional circumstances, vote to implement an injunction immediately if four or more Arbitrators express a desire to do so in their votes, or if a majority of Arbitrators active on the case have already voted to support the Injunction.

So disregarding their decision is not in accordance with this, and if it persists, I will have to bring this up with an administrator. Steve Crossin (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I have made no comments on their decisions at all. The policies and guidleines being voilated are clearly spelled out on the mediation casefor the articles.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The main "policy" that they quote is WP:FICT. However, if you look closely, it it is a guideline and not an official policy, as is clearly stated. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy". So it cannot be solely used as basis for deletion/merging. And regardless of what their opinion is, they were not an official mediator in the discussion, and the ArbCom recently made an injunction on this topic. Are you really going to disregard a ruling by ArbCom? Steve Crossin (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you be kind enough to show me exactly where the "policies and guidelines" are being violated, and where all this is "pointed out". Please clearly back up your statements with evidence, and clear links to what you are claiming/stating Steve Crossin (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
All that needs to be done is read the first section of SH10 of the mediation case and even a simple scan reading of any of the artile pages within the mediation.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you please just put your argument here, paste in either a link to the section you are referencing, and give an explanation as to specifically what policies these articles are in violation of. And officially, citing WP:FICT as a policy is not appropriate. It is a notability guideline, not an official policy. Steve Crossin (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Purported policy violations don't exist or are subject to her arbitrary interpretation. So it's a lose-lose scenario no matter how you ask her. As I stated in the MedCab she initiated, it has not been possible these last several months to AGF with Lucy-marie. TunaSushi (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Why bother recreating another place to argue. This not arguing over me personally, go back to the apropriate talk pages, unless you have legitimate concerns with my editing and not generic discussions. I also do not say say directly WP:fiction is a policy I say policies and guidleines.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, I think you may be overreacting here. Every time a new editor takes an interest in the "24" articles, you accuse them of being someone's sock puppet. You did the same thing to me accusing me of being Tuna's sock. Sometimes Lucy, new people take an interest and join in discussing and editing the articles. There's really nothing sinister about it. Angelriver (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The phrases used by the new user are vitually the same as MiB-24 that is merly an observation. I also find it amazing that the user is soley focusing the "madness" at me which does seem suspect.
I would also like to point out that I am abiding by the mediation reccomendations by not pushing om mergers and I am waiting to see if refrences can be found.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

overlinking of disambiguation page

Hi, there...again. MOS:DAB#Individual entries specifies that there should only be one navigable link per entry. Just wanted to be clear that I changed it to adhere to the MOS and not out of pettiness or to be difficult with you. I would have made this change regardless of who put it in.

P.S. I wasn't sure whether to leave 'association' or 'asociation' in there unlinked. I chose the double 's'. If you prefer the single 's', change. it. Gwguffey (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

New Section

May I ask why you decided to archive this last page? Let's be honest, you're just hiding facts you do not wish to be visible to others. Steve Crossin (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to discuss things which are inaproporiate for this talk page. If you have legitimate concers towards me personally, fine. If you want to discuss content specfific to 24 or related issues please do so on the appropriate article talk pages. Also please do not insinuate that anyone is trying to hide anything in a malicious manner, please remain civil at all times.

I have personally had enough of my talk page and other talk pages being a batlle ground about my editing style which I am no longer willing to continue with. That is the main reason I ceased the previos discusions.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding WP:CIVIL, i think you should re-read that article yourself. And while you're at it, re-read WP:AGF. Recently I discussed the injunction recently put into force by ArbCom, on your talk page. The next thing I heard, you accused someone that this account was a sock-puppet of theirs. Just because someone else shares an opinion, does not mean they are the same person. Assume good faith. Steve Crossin (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I said there were striking similarities and that was suspect. I never direcly said the account was a sock puppet, just that language used was virtually identicle to anotehr user MiB-24. I am willing to asume good faith, there are similarities between the language in my opinion this could be conicidence and I am willing to accept it as this, for now.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It is really not for you to decide who is a sock puppet and who is not. Just because some users have similar opinions does not mean they are sock puppets of the same person. There are official ways to make these accusations. Like, report the account to an administrator, I'm sure you will find I'm a real, seperate person. For the record, what is your problem with 24 articles anyway? Why not just take the advice of the Mediation Committee that was given to you, and take a break from these articles? Get a mentor. Steve Crossin (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not unilaterally deciding which acounts are sock puppets, I am simply drawing comparisons to the use of identicle wording. I have taken a break from editing but I am not willing to competly disengage from the articles unless all of the involved parties are willing to do the same.--Lucy-marie (talk)

I've read the archives which you commented on, then archived them before anyone could even read them. So, if you are not pushing the mergers, you would not object to a cleanup of the Minor Characters in 24 article? Some of the characters which have been proposed to be merged into the article, have already been given a section in the article, as if they have already been merged. Either these sections should be deleted, or a (Duplication) tag should be affixed to each section in question.
I've also proposed splitting the article. If you have looked at the page, you will see the suggestion tagged on the page, and a link to the discussion on the articles talk page. I've given clear reasons as to why I believe it should be done, I'd like your opinion. And I do not mean to attack you personally, I'm just trying to resolve some issues. There's no point me editing if you're going to constantly either merge all the articles, or just revert my edits without justification Steve Crossin (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not oppose the clean up of any article on wikipedia, I simply say that article quality has no bearing on weather anoher article is merged into it. A split tag on the minor characters page has been there some time and was previously agreed to complete the merging process before spliting. I have no objection in splitting long articles into smaller articles, as, long as it is done sensibly and in acordance with policies and guidelines. If you feel concensus has changed discussion is the way to see if it has changed. It appears as if this course is being taken, I have no objection to splitting of pages into smaller ones if agreements are reached and policies and guidleines are not breeched.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why the article quality of one article has no "bearing" on whether other articles are merged into it". Thats just not common sense. OK, so, let's say, merge every single 24 character there ever was into one article. That would create one big mess that would have so many cleanup tags onto it, that it would probably be deleted.

Also, can you express your opinion on the Split on the talk page?

What "policies and guidelines" are you suggesting could be breached. Please cite the policies, instead of being vague. Steve Crossin (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The article quality being merged into has no bearing, as it is based upon the article alone and the individual reasons for merging are specific to the individual article. The qulity of the article can be bought up but if it is deemed the appropriate end point for an article merging, then the qualiy of the page being merged into is redundant. The section being merged in can be of a high standard and the rest fo the artcle can be improved as the article is merged into the page.

Certian policies and guidelines when dealing with fictional works, which can be breeched are origial research, plot summaries and fictional notability. These are the main ones when dealing with works of fiction.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is one article, Nadia Yassir, that has been given external notable verifiable links for the character before, and I believe they were contested. Also, you commented on that page once saying- "LEAVE THE TAG YOU PETTY INGORANT OBSESSED FAN". That is hardly civil. The page also have 5 citations. And who gets to decide whether a character is notable or not? Steve Crossin (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
We are not here to discuss the past or insinuate anything about any user on any talk page or discusion page. The policies and guidelines laid out by Jimbo Wlaes and the Wikiboard are what govern wikipedia. The addition of any refrences to any article must show real world notability and must be independent of the article itself. Only one of the five refrences from the article you talk of has been indetified as an idnependent of the article itself.--Lucy-marie (talk)

One other note, my apologies, I did not mean to edit your comment. How it happened I am unsure, it was not deliberate, once again, my apologies. Steve Crossin (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of your policy ranting and raving. Read WP:BATTLE. It's not a battlefield. Please give us some chance to improve these articles. Also, I'm new to wikipedia, so excuse me if i dont know every single wikipolicy in existence, I'm seeking a mentor to learn more, so I'd appreciate it if you didnt attack my inexperience. I'm trying to improve Wikipedia. you may be forgetting the fundamental rules of Wikipedia, WP:IAR, if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it, and WP:AGF, you seem to think I'm out to make pages worse, or something. Give me time to learn the policies before you throw the rulebook at me Steve Crossin (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I apeciate any legitimte attempts to improve wikipedia. I am not attcking your inexperence or the experience or inxperience of any user, I am am simply stating my point of view. Ironically I igrnore WP:IAR under the doctrine of WP:IAR. I believe IAR is a stupid get out clause which can be over used (I am speaking abstracly). I beileve that policies and guidelines must be upheld or they just become a waste of space and as far as posible procedures should also be followed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well,WP:IAR is the first rule of Wikipedia, and whether you like it or not, a rule is a rule. Steve Crossin (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Steve Crossin, you are wasting your breath arguing with L-M. She always wins by means of getting other editors banned, never conceding (whether right or wrong), or using every single piece of WP policy that she can use to support her goal of always making sure that she wins (even going to the ArbCom). Olana North (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I would apreiate if you Olana would remain civil and refrain from posting untruthful insinations.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Using your contribution history, I think I can validate what I (and many others) believe to be true ... that you are a highly disruptive editor. Olana North (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You are inisinuating I am a bad faith editor which is uncivil. If you have a legitimate concern regarding myself then you are more than welcome to post here. If however all you comments are to consist of are uncivil insinuation, Your comments are not welcome here or on any part of wikipedia.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Your editing style is disruptive, as you can plainly see by the wake of controversy you create. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it untrue, just as pointing out the difficulties you create for others who want to edit Wikipedia is not uncivil. It is merely fact. Talk pages are meant for rational discussion of issues exactly like these, and attempts at communication with you don't have to be met with hostility. TunaSushi (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is nobodys personal space to simply insinuate anything about any editor. If users have legitimate concerns with me then they are free to post here, but posts which simply throw accusations of bad-faith they are not welcome and will be reported appropriately. I do not create dificulties, all i simply do is point out policies and guidlines that are being breeched. Just because certian editors dislike that I have raised these points does not make any user disruptive or a bad fiath editor. No user is welcome to post here who is here soley to make insinuations.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Lucy, can I ask why you moved the section to my user talk page? And why it was more appropriate on my page? It was merely put here to show you the work that has been done on the article. Also, I've been reviewing some of the articles, and have changed my POV. Some of them should be merged, as they're mostly plot summaries. Steve Crossin (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologise if you dislike the move. I read the section and the section the way i read it was directed soley towards yourself and not me. That is why I moved it becasue the user was talking to you and not me, if accidentally moved anything else please feel free to add it back in.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If i have misread the setion and you believe that the section should remian here please feel free to re-add it.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nadia Yassir

Steve Crossin and I have been working together to improve the article. We all know that many articles of fictional characters are crap, but we've been adding sources to Nadia Yassir (good sources like NYT and NY mag that does not show her interviews). I believe that Nadia Yassir definitely meets WP:N now and the debate be closed. миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 04:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviated notability guidelines for your convenience

  • "Presumed" without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.
  • "Significant coverage" as in there are sources; OR not needed
  • "Reliable" verifiable, published
  • "Sources," as in secondary sources
  • "Independent of the subject" as in sources not affiliated to the subject миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 04:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarangha - there's nothing wrong with interviews with cast - Thirteen (House) was just on DYK, and that does have an interview with Olivia Wilde (who plays her). They just can't be used to assert notability on their own. Will (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

24 medcab

Seeing as you stole my userbox (seriously, I'm that influential?), I just wanted you to know that I can give you a hand if you want (as suggested in the MC, but I'm not forcing). Will (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. I saw the userbox I created for myself on your userpage. Weird, as I don't recall putting it on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia. But sometimes people do stuff based on me without telling me, so...
  2. I can give a hand with merging articles (or asserting notability), and with the metadebate. Will (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Any help in establishing noatability (or lack of) would be gretly apreciated.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, before merging, you could do a quick search on Google News for the character name, and (if common), the show - e.g. for Ricky Schroder's character Mike Doyle. Easily notable, now. Will (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)