User talk:AnemoneProjectors/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Pauline Fowler refs

As recommended in the peer review, could you change the refrences on Pauline Fowler to cite news and cite web ones? I would, but I don't really know how it works... can't see what's wrng with them as they are, but apparently it makes a difference. Also, do you know how to do page references for info from books? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I already changed them all the other day and said so in the peer review. Have a look at template:Cite book for help on the book references (just add a thingybob for that says "|pages=36" or whatever the page number is). — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Phil and Ben Mitchell

Are these still semi-protected? If not, could you re-protect them? Danh90 is back. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Phil was, I've reprotected Ben. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 11:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. 52 sock puppets and counting. Grr. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe nothing is being/can be done about it. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 11:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I was sorely tempted to go on his MySpace and have a go at him, but I can't see what that's achieve apart from another "AntiTrampikeygroup" lol. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Help!

I have to go now, but could you take over reverting edits made by (and warning) User:Majormk42, please? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll try. Is your Wikipedia clock set to the correct time zone? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I doubt it. I don't tend to look at times anyway. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, it's a Wikipedia thing. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Help! 2

Can you please move Bree Van de Kamp Hodge to Bree Hodge? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Done — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way I've not yet seen any of DH series 3 so you're lucky I already knew she's remarried or I wouldn't be too happy lol — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Didn't she remarry in series 2 though? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
No. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Request

Could you please protect User talk:Oldman50, please? He's falsifying user warnings etc. again. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Would it be good if I protected all the sockpuppet's talk pages? — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 10:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. Probably, see User talk:Thevandal999 and User talk:Idontliketheimage from the last couple of minuts.... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It might prokove him to make more accounts, though... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 10:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Timewaste and User talk:Nonpayer, also. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I'll start watching the sockpuppets' talk pages so I can protect others when I see them, but I won't be available after about 7 tonight until tomorrow aftenoon. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 12:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at User talk:How3, lol -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I protected that one as well, although I've only just got the message cos I was out at Starkers! last night :) — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 13:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony Andrews

I notice you added him to the list of minors. is one of these Tony Andrews?[1] [2] Gungadin 19:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The second one is him. Neither Trampikey nor I recognise the other one although he looks familiar. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks i'll upload.Gungadin 23:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Support Userbox

I'm glad you like it. I changed it up a bit since the Green color seemed a bit random (It was only green because it was the color the person I originally supported's clothing was in the official group photo). I changed it to a neutral gray, but if you'd like to add color these eyes are free for use in the box: Image:GrayscaleEyePink.JPG, Image:GrayscaleEyeGreen.JPG, Image:GrayscaleEyeBlue.JPG, and Image:GrayscaleEyeYellow.JPG. FireSpike 00:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't catch that "Gerry!?" bit at the end. Well, I only started supporting him after Johnny left, and that was only after Shabz was evicted. FireSpike 02:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ray Quinn (Doing It My Way)

I'm curious to know the source of your information that states this album has been marketed as "self titled" only, as every retailer I have encountered lists it as "Ray Quinn (Doing It My Way)". This includes All Music Guide, Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, Yahoo Music, and a host of others. It seems to me the correct title for the album would be Ray Quinn (Doing It My Way). (Mind meal 00:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

Quinn's official website refers to it as "self titled" and the official website store links to Tesco.com which lists it as being titled "Ray Quinn". I don't know where "Doing It My Way" came from but it was listed with that title in the chart listings on the BBC website. Doing It My Way redirects to the correct title. I've not seen "Ray Quinn (Doing It My Way)" used anywhere, but then again I'm not really interested in buying the album :) In fact the official website does name the album - http://www.rayquinnmusic.com/news/ray_is_our_number_1.html?page=1 — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 12:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Yougivemesomething.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Yougivemesomething.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mr Bot. That's not like me but then again I didn't upload that image originally! Why I'm replying to a bot I do not know. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 12:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Kayvan Novak

I noticed your query on WP:AN/I about a possible copyright infringment about http://www.fonejacker.tv taking information from the Wikipedia article Kayvan Novak (and the IMBD entry) and placing a copyright tag on it claiming it is their own. Just letting you know I contacted the owners of the fonejacker.tv website and hopefully this can be resolved. I'll let you know if anything else develops. Cheers! — Moe ε 23:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 08:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Just got the reply we were looking for: http://www.fonejacker.tv/Kayvan_Novak.shtml Cheers! — Moe ε 19:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
That's excellent. I didn't realise they were a fansite though... but then again an official website wouldn't copy Wikipedia! They'd write their own biography. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

ABI BRANNING

I see you keep reverting my very valid edits and have now seen to that the abi branning page is protected. I cannot see why you deleted what I added to the article, since it was all factually accurate. Now I know in the past I've made some less than sensible edits to certain pages but this time i wasn't taking the piss. What's more, that clown freak (User : can't sleep clown will eat me) bloody blocked me. I think my edits should be restored, either fully or at least partially, SINCE THEY ARE TRUE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.102.68 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not factually accurate, it was your own personal opinion. See WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. — AnemoneProjectors (I can't help it if I've got a natural curl to my hair!) 12:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of speculation/guesswork for The X Factor series 4

Hi AnemoneProjectors,

Just messaging you about the 'speculation/guesswork' I put on the article. I'm happy to have anything I've written edited or removed with good reason. I accept that the thing about the managment of the winning act was a bit too speculative and am okay with seeing that go. However the bit about the judges' vote for which act would go home each week was half fact. It is true that there will need to be a change to the format in this respect because with four voters there can be a tie. Speculation aside, it is perfectly permissible to say that the format will change with regard to the judges' vote without saying that bit about the mentor of the act with the lowest vote losing their right etc. May I re-add that bit about the judges' vote...? without the speculation! hehe

Let me know what you think,


Jonny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki edit jonny (talk • contribs) 14:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC

The management bit was indeed purely speculative. I think the bit about who goes home was also too speculative. I would simply say that there may not always be a majority and it is not yet known how it will be decided who goes home (without listing any possibilites). If that's ok with you... — AnemoneProjectors (I can't help it if I've got a natural curl to my hair!) 15:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

templates

Hey, do you think it would be worth making a character specific EE template for Pauline? As well as spouses we could have siblings, parents, children etc. That way we could get rid of the family section, but keep the same amount of info in the article. I thought it might be a good solution as the section is getting criticised quite a bit on the FA.Gungadin 19:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean a template like the family ones we have now, but that has all of Pauline's relatives from her family section? I don't think we should do something like that just for one article. Would it go on all the other pages? It would have to say how each person is related as well to keep the same amount of information which isn't good for a navigation template. — AnemoneProjectors (I can't help it if I've got a natural curl to my hair!) 19:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeh that's what I was thinking. To have a line similar to the "spouse" part in the current templates, with "uncles & aunts" "siblings" etc. But I suppose it would get a bit big, and you're right, we'd end up having to do tons for each character, which isnt really practical.Gungadin 19:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

EastEnders Character page

Why do you keep on reverting peoples edits? Wikipedia is a website that can edited by all. Fair enough some edits do need reverting, but not all of them. The EastEnders character page is the page you seem to be focusing on more recently. The situation where the dates are being included, and then you revert them, you say is due to a "project consensus." - by who? Its the first i've heard of it and also alot of people judging by the number of times its being edited. Your excuse of it not being needed due to "individual dates is available in the articles for individual characters" can also be said for the ALL the other soaps but yet they have the date information both on the main page, and on the individual pages. Why should the EastEnders page have to be different. It looks stupid as it is now. It SHOULD be changed to include the dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.214.132 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You should bring this up on the article's talk page, or on WT:EE. — AnemoneProjectors (I can't help it if I've got a natural curl to my hair!) 22:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I will, but i though i should bring it up on your talk page before hand...seeing as its you who is making the reverts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.214.132 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm reverting because of decisions made by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders. — AnemoneProjectors (I can't help it if I've got a natural curl to my hair!) 22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Christ, your actually that sad you had to semi-protect the page so that you get your own way, and so that no-one can revert YOUR crap edits to be better - just proves a point doesn't it! Forget it mate, your not all that imprtant- just because your a mod, not exactly God are you. Shows just how much your lot know about "free editing." (oh and if you think i will give a shit about being banned for this, i won't - i won't be coming back on anyway!) Got better things to do with my time than argue with a bunch of muppets (you being number 1) over edits that shouldn't have been reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.93.202 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC
I explained why the previous actors had to be included, you ignored it and I wasn't willing to be involved in another revert war. — AnemoneProjectors (I can't help it if I've got a natural curl to my hair!) 22:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Furry

Looking for something to do? WikiProject Furry is improving articles on furry and anthropomorphic topics, and we'd like to have you on board.

Our current goal is to raise Anthrocon, furry convention and furry fandom to good article status and beyond - but if that doesn't take your fancy, there are plenty of other articles to work on. Give it a go and let us know how you're doing!

You recieved this one-time invitation because you are a Furry Wikipedian. GreenReaper 22:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Men with unusually large penis

I would urge you to reinstate Category:Men with unusually large penis and submit it to a regular CfD. The category had more than 50 entries. I do not accept your deletion criteria, and I would like the community (of those who would care) to be able to have its say on this. __meco 06:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh all right then. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 11:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrections well received

The errors you have just reverted were made unwittingly, so it's good that you caught them! __meco 14:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So I can do good things sometimes ;) — AnemoneProjectors (?) 15:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You are being misrepresented on the talk page for the Human penis size article

Editor meco has posted a statement at 19:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC), on the talk page for the Human penis size article, that you, the nominator for deletion of, Category:Men with unusually large penis, are now his supporter in his effort to include his silly list, "Men famous for their large penis," in the Human penis size article. He is confusing you with AnonEMouse, who mentioned three names of non-porn stars in the category deletion discussion, which, in his confusion, and despertion for support, he takes as an endorsement for inclusion of his list in that article. 72.76.10.245 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 23:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
YW 72.76.10.245 23:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I find the instructions for adding photos very complicated

I wish to add a photo to Will Young's page but cannot understand the instructions! It is a jpeg photo of Will in concert. Can you help? Oyster24 14:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it's probably easier if I direct you to Wikipedia:Uploading images for the guidelines on what to do. I hope it is helpful. Good luck. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 16:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure where to submit this, but I've found a 'griefer' on Wikipedia

Activites of this user Freedomeagle centered around deleting images, I think we have a griefer since he seems to go around indiscriminately tagging each image he finds. Klichka 19:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no such user. Corvus cornix 19:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The activites of user Freedomeagle seem to be centered around deleting images, I think we have a griefer since he seems to go around indiscriminately tagging each image he finds. (Fixed) Klichka 19:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Non-free images should have fair-use rationales so I believe Freedomeagle is correct to tag them. He should also inform the uploader that the rationale is missing to give them a chance to add one before the image is deleted. Anyway, see Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 21:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Lorna Fitzgerald

I do not understand why you insist on reverting perfectly accurate edits on this page. It is unnecessary and reduces the accuracy of the article. I don't know what point you are trying to make, but if I decided to constantly revert/delete perfectly true information, you wouldn't be best impressed, would you ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.37.249 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary to remove personal opinions from Wikipedia articles. They do not belong here. If you want to say that someone is "cute" or whatever, join a fan forum. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 22:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I do not regard this as purely a personal opinion (although it is true in my opinion). The general concensus of eastenders viewers is that she is cute. The article should include a section on 'popularity' or 'public perception' in order to improve it, whether or not it is 100% "factually accurate". I mean, the page on George Bush contains sections on his perceived image. Surely this is not 100% "factually accurate" , not in the same way as the statement, 'Bush is the president of the USA'. This comparison highlights the hypocrisy involved - if the article on Bush can have such a section why can't this one ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.37.249 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Where is this "general consensus of EastEnders viewers" then? Even if true, it doesn't matter if people think she looks cute. Her looks are not important and describing them does not improve the article. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 23:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
If you go on the digital spy forums, a series of chatrooms about various soaps (as you probably know) you will find several threads specifically dedicated to both the character, Abi, and the girl that plays her, Lorna Fitzgerald. Very often the focus of these threads is 'Abi/Lorna is so cute' or a similar sort of statement. The comments made, both in these threads and in other, more general, eastenders threads, almost universally reflect this. Therefore it is safe to say that this is infact the general consensus of eastenders viewers. By saying that she is cute and adorable you are not merely "describing her looks", you are describing her persona. This is clearly a very relevant and important part of the article and obviously does improve it. Also describing her appearence is important since the article should contain as much relevant info as possible - and this is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.37.249 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
A forum isn't a reliable source, and doesn't make it the general consensus of all EastEnders fans. And it's still not important or relevant, so it will not be added to the article. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 18:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Fowler

Hey, what are your thoughts about the comments on the Pauline talk page? Are you still interested in getting it to FA? and do you think we should try and work all the storylines into the development so we can erase the duplicated information? I asked Trampikey, but he doesnt seem to be active here at the moment and I wanted to get your opinons before going ahead with it. I'm not bothered either way, but i'd be willing to do it if everyone thinks it's a good idea.Gungadin 20:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you, I haven't read most of the comments on the talk page (because they're so long and I have a short attention span!) but I would love to see the article reach FA status because we've all (you mostly) worked so hard on getting there, I think we've come too far to give up now. I suppose working the storylines into the development is the best idea, as other fictional characters with FA status don't have storyline sections. I feel a bit guilty though because I don't think I have it in me to do the work. But if you're willing to do it, I'll try to help in what ways I can (probably minor ones). — AnemoneProjectors (?) 20:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
That's ok, I dont mind doing it gradually, I was just worried about getting rid of the storyline section without approval, particularly as all the other character pages will still have them. Sometimes when i'm writing all that OOU stuff, I cant help but think what a load of bull-shit i'm writing - who would ever need/want to look that deeply into a soap opera character. I certainly don't and i'm the one writing it, lol.Gungadin 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I still think we should start our own EastEnders wiki, where every character, shop, house, animal and plotline can have its own article. Then we could write as much plot as we wanted!!! It should be called Wiki-stEnders. Let's not do FA on any other articles, I like to keep them rubbish ;) — AnemoneProjectors (?) 20:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I think an EE wiki would be a good idea actually, particularly as some users are beginning to completely delete all the plot summary from some of the American soap chracater pages and then put them up for AFD. It wont be long til they start on us. It seems to have started after they developed WP:PLOT, which is the deletionists wet dream come true, :o) Gungadin 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Andy Hunter picture

I changed the picture on the Andy Hunter page, but it was taken of. Why? The picture I put on is so much better then the one there is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rune Thandy (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Because your image doesn't have a corrct fair use rationale. Check the description page for your image, and Wikipedia:Non-free content, for more information on this. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

RE : Lorna Fitzgerald. Excuse me matey - I'm not quite finished

In actual fact, a forum is a perfectly reliable source and is of course the consesus of Eastenders viewers since a wide variety of people comment on these forums. Hence it is a representitive sample of the population of Eastenders viewers and is therefore a reliable source. Seeing as I have 9A*s at GCSE, including subjects where you need to use sources, I think I know what I'm talking about, matey.

And WHY THE HELL isn't it important. It is clearly very important and relevant info to be included in the article. You have not justified why it isn't important, you have merely stated it, thinking that just because you are an "administrator" (ie: you spend more time on the internet than most other people) that gives you a right to do whatever you want. How exciting for you !! You don't seem to be able to come up with a logical reason as to why it cannot be inluded, or a logical response to any of my arguments, you just vaguely state, 'it is not important'.

I also noticed you protected the article. How very immature of you. Doing this means you get your own way just because you're a poxy administrator. I noticed on another wikipedia page (about protected pages) it says administrators should NEVER protect pages in an edit war witha non established user, but instead should resolve the issue on a user talk page. You are unable to do this, since you are unable to reasonably justify why my edits can't be included so you resort to the petty action of protecting the page. Well, seeing as you have gone against wikipedia policy by protecting the page in an edit war, I may have to report this to someone higher up, unless you include my edits in some shape or form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.19.169 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not the consensus of EastEnders viewers. The majority do not post to forums. It's not important because it's not important. I protected the article against vandalism (i.e. yours). It is not an edit war. That is all I have to say on the subject and I will not respond to threats. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
'It's not important because it's not important'. Wow, what a great justification. What the FUCK do you mean ? It IS an edit war, and I was not vandalising the page, I was adding factually accurate info, you retard. Just beacause you're pansexual and you're probably in love with a turtle or something. Just because you want to lift up its tail and sniff its little bottom, you gaylord. Just because your bisexual and enjoy sodomy you spaz. Fine don't respond to my "threat" (I think it was pretty generous of me to give you a warning you dickhead) but I WILL report this dogma. I don't care if this is all you have to say on the subject, I am most certainly not finished. Just because you didn't get 9A*s you are obviously very jealous and want to ruin my edits. So fuck you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.19.169 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Tell you what, I'll unprotect the page and let you add what you want to say about Lorna's cuteness. Just because you've made me laugh. Who cares about Wikipedia guidelines and policies anyway? — AnemoneProjectors (?) 21:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
What vile, offensive comments. Find a published source that says she's cute and you can quote it in the article. A forum topic does not count by the way and would not be seen as a reliable source. Some reporter may have described her as cute and complimented her acting in a review of Eastenders. If you are desperate to say she's cute then including it in the article that way would be acceptable.Gungadin 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Cambridge

I've just reverted an edit to Cambridge made in your name, stating that "Many cyclists in Cambridge prefer to do so naked". I must say I've never witnessed this phenomenon! I notice you are an administrator, so I assume good faith - I just hope someone doesn't have unauthorised access to your account. All the best, --Malfidus ~ (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have found a news article about 1 person riding through Cambridge nude, although I don't think that this is enough to be included in the article.  Tiddly Tom  17:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There is one person who is quite well known for doing it, and there are two local news articles about him that I have seen. Apparently there are other people who cycle in Cambridge naked, but I haven't seen them for myself. I just wondered if it was mentioned at all on the article and it wasn't so I decided to add it (I should have sourced it but I was feeling lazy). Feel free to remove it if you don't think it should be there. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 18:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If there are infact several people that have done it, it should be kept. I think the statement should be well sourced though. After a quick Google search, I can only find one instance[3]. If you could find more, it should be kept, if not, in my opinion, it should go.  Tiddly Tom  18:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The only other source I can find is this, which just mentions that Richard cycles nude. Richard was also organising a World Naked Bike Ride in Cambridge[4], but it was cancelled. Now that could probably be sourced and added. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 18:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
So far, we have one nudist cyclist, whose exploits on one particular day were uncommon enough to spark a news article. Nude cycle protests and nudist bike events have taken place in other cities (eg. York), without being mentioned in those articles. As it stands, the disputed statement is misleading, as it sounds as though a number of Cambridge residents regularly cycle around nude, which just isn't true. If you believe it to be notable and relevant content for an encyclopaedia article (which I honestly do not), please qualify and source the statement. --Malfidus ~ (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I've removed it now because I can't source it. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories for redirects

Regarding a few of your edits such as [5], [6], and [7], please take the time to read when a redirect should be properly categorized. Categories of trivial matters are unnecessary, the redirects become italised in the category page and further clutters it. I'm no expert on this guideline (just following protocal) but if you have any questions, please leave a message at WT:CAT-RD instead of my talk page if you still feel that they should be categorized the way you desire them to. Thank you, Lord Sesshomaru 22:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

List of minor EastEnders characters 1990

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of List of minor EastEnders characters 1990, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mind42.com/wiki/Joan_Garwood. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 17:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bot. That is a copy of a Wikipedia page. Duh! — AnemoneProjectors (?) 17:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Who'da thunk it?

The Sister, Sister twins in EastEnders... strange casting! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 12:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking how bizarre it is when I saw it added! — AnemoneProjectors (?) 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a funny storyline though! — AnemoneProjectors (?) 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
They must have taken a leaf outta Joseph Marcell's book! I guess EE is the place where Ex-US sitcom actors crash. I suppose If Michael Palin can make a cameo in Home and Away and Emma Bunton can appear in Neighbours, what's wrong w/ the Mowry twins in EE? (User:Conquistador2k6) 00:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I did not know Aubrey Valentine was from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air! — AnemoneProjectors (?) 12:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh, the rumour's been trashed, they'll be played by twins from Essex... on a brighter not, Shouty Man Kevin and his kids are leaving, but Diane Parish is going on maternity leave :( -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, I checked my Google News alerts before I checked my Wikipedia user talk page :-P — AnemoneProjectors (?) 14:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
What, the Wickses are going? Fine, sling Deano and Carly but at least keep Kevin! He and Denise probably have the best chemistry on the show right now. Conquistador2k6 (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Phil Daniels has decided not to renew his contract, so Kellie and Matt have also been axed. Kevin Wicks is rubbish anyway. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 22:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess it looks like Shirley's prediction will come true; Kevin and Denise's marriage won't last a year. I don't see how they're gonna keep them together if Phil Daniels is leaving and Diane Parrish is returning. Conquistador2k6 (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Paulo da costa

Probably not CSD material, but do you think Paulo da costa should be taken to AfD? -WarthogDemon 21:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows that it's a copy of http://www.attlc-ltac.org/Costa.htm — AnemoneProjectors (?) 21:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Oops. =O I probably should've caught that. Oh well, thanks. :) -WarthogDemon 21:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm always suspicious of unwikified pages with indented text! — AnemoneProjectors (?) 21:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You beat me correcting you by an edit conflict. =) I was going to jokingly point that out and add that pages without intended text would probably be marked {{db-empty}} or {{db-test}}. :P Heh, cheers and happy editing! -WarthogDemon 21:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging of Kids

What are your thoughts on merging past babies/young children into the minor lists, such as Jack Evans and Joe dimarco? I know they appeared over many years, but most of them had no real storylines of their own, so expansion wont ever be possible. There isnt much OOU info that can be included in their articles either. The only exception I can think of is Hassan Osman and maybe Tomas Covelenco (but he's been merged anyway).Gungadin♦

Yeah I agree with that. Trampikey was supposed to add the crying stuff for Tomas but never did... — AnemoneProjectors (?) 20:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I can always include it in the Dot OOU section when I get round to writing it. I wrote a sentence in my sandbox months ago and then got bored :) Gungadin♦ 20:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots

I thought that screenshots were pictures taken through a didital camera of a television screen of the subject of an article. Could you please tell me how to make a proper screenshot?Kkbhe 07:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You will need to do it on your computer with some kind of software, though I don't know the details. The best person I know to ask is User:Gungadin, if you leave a message on her user talk page, I'm sure she'd be happy to help. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 08:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor characters

Would you have any objections to me including a bullet point list of supporting characters within the list of minor characters? I'd like to make our lists as comprehensive as possible, but some of the minor characters dont merit their own sections with infoboxes in my opinion, because there's very little to say about them, but I would still like to list them somewhere.

Each bullet would have a small sentence about the character and possibly their appearance dates. I think this would be a good way to include them without clogging up the page with tons of infoboxes and barely any writing. Another reason for this is to keep fairuse images on the pages down - I'm not sure if it matters for character lists, but I noticed that the pages were listed at a 'fairuse overuse' page before we split them. Some minor characters have bigger roles than others and this way we could keep the infoboxes with images for the more important ones. What do you think? Gungadin♦ 19:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead :) — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Promotional trailer

Do you think it is necessary have the section about the X Factor promotional trailer? To me, it seems a little pointless because it doesn't include anything anyone needs to know. It is also a bit out of date because we're now in the middle of the series, with the promotional trailer long gone. Let me know what you think. Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 20:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's necessary, I agree with you. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Just a happy Birthday message to you, AnemoneProjectors/Archive 3, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!
  • FROM YOUR FRIEND:

 ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day, AnemoneProjectors/Archive 3!

I know you already have one birthday greeting, but I'm feeling full of Wikilove today, and I thought I'd give you another! Happy Birthday!
→ jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 04:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)



Here's to you on your birthday, AnemoneProjectors/Archive 3! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Socks 01 04:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday to u, squashed tomatoes and stew, Happy birthday dear AnemoneProjectors, Haaaaappy biiiiirthday tooooo youuuuu!! hope you have a brill day :o) Gungadin♦ 13:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to see naked men on my birthday! — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 13:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! I know how old you are! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 15:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does say in my userspace! — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 15:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Proof needed

Wheres your proof that Darren is still an EastEnders character? Tonights episode said he's gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeipedia (talk • contribs) 22:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Simon Cowell's comments after Leona Lewis' performance of 'All By Myself'

The quote I changed it to was in fact accurate of what Simon Cowell said - I'll get a reference to prove it. Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 15:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Did he say it on Xtra Factor or somewhere like that? The quote I used is, I presume, what he told the newspaper that printed it, but they could have just got it from the TV and reported it wrong. If you have another source (not YouTube!) please add it. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 15:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
He said it straight after her performance during the judges' comments. Added references now. Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 15:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
That's fair enough. The only problem I have is that the references are a blog and a forum. But I won't remove them. I'm also going to reinstate the original reference as a backup and to confirm that Cowell believed Quinn would win. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 15:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine. I'm afraid I could only find blog and forum entries, sorry about that. But on YouTube (pardon my French) you can see Cowell say it. Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 16:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it wouldn't hurt to also add a citation for the episode... I'll do that as well. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 16:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

They've changed the rules

Have you taken a look at this recently Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). They have completely changed the guideline on minor character lists. This is a quote from the talk page

"The idea is to indeed draw the notability standard upward, because as it stands right now, too many all-in-universe subarticles/lists are around (most of which created as temporary "dams" for this info; right now, WP:FICT is defensive and not authoritative); these are full of excessive plot summary without any real-world material to balance it out. If an article/list cannot be transformed into a complete encyclopedia article, then it shouldn't be notable enough for Wikipedia; instead, it belongs on specific wikis. After all, even though we aren't paper, we are still a general purpose encyclopedia"

It used to say non-notable characters should be merged into a list, as we did, but now they are saying that these lists should not exist if notability cant be proven. This confuses me, because if notability can be proven then surely they would be entitled to their own page anyway! The lists also have to be written OOU perspective now. I've noticed that some character lists have already been nominated for deletion. I cant believe they can just change the rules like this! Sources for the 80s and 90s characters will be impossible to find. Do you think there's any point in continuing to extend our lists now? Gungadin♦ 20:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with those changes. I don't see why we should give up. Don't let those deletionists get you down. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 20:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I suppose you're right, but the constant rule changes here are beginning to make me lose interest in this project. It seems that a small minority of forceful individuals make all the policy and guideline chages.
You know when you mentioned making an EE wikia a while ago, were you just joking? Because i'm starting to like the thought of it. It would mean that we could save wikipedia for just the main characters and never have to worry about threat of deletion again. For characters like Pauline, all the in-universe stuff can be moved to the wikia and linked to within the Wikipedia article, meaning FAs would be much easier to pass too. Ive noticed this done on some other projects (smallville I think it was).Gungadin♦ 16:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't joking but I wouldn't know how to do it. But it would be great to have our own EastEnders Wiki. Then every character, no matter how minor, and every pet and every house and every shop and every bench and war memorial and shed could have their own separate page. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 16:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
and no OOU bullshit to write and no AFDs! sounds great. Seems an EE wiki already exists [8] it was started in Dec 2006, but there doesnt appear to be anything on it yet :) Gungadin♦ 17:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Great! What do we do next? — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
We can just begin creating articles and personalising the project any way we want to apparently. You can type the article name (ie Jane Beale) into the search bar on the wiki page, and it will take you to an edit page just like Wikipedia. I might go and include a Pauline one, using the detailed plot summary we had before the cuts. What do you think? it's not necessary to even be logged in by the look of it.Gungadin♦ 17:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good although I'm not sure I can be bothered with more Wikis :( — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 18:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ah well, it's always there as an option if we need it. It's only worth doing it if everyone is on board anyway. I like the idea of dumping Pauline's storylines there and linking to it. That way we could keep the content instead of rewriting it all for the FA.Gungadin♦ 19:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Lorna Fitzgerald

Please stop deleting my valid edits. This may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohcahtoa...baby (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice way to bring an admin's attention to yourself. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 17:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't flatter yourself mate. I just wish that my edits wouldn't get your attention and you'd just leave them alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobydick (talk • contribs) 20:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the only person who has noticed your edits. At least four people have removed your edits, that must tell you something. If you made more constructive edits, instead of giving your personal opinion on a particular 11-year-old girl all the time, maybe you wouldn't keep getting yourself blocked. If you want to stick around, please read Wikipedia:Five pillars, especially the pages about neutral points of view and codes of conduct. And actually follow them! — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 20:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You and I seem to have attracted a particularly devious little ilk... thanks for the reverts and blocks. - Philippe | Talk 22:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The 5 pillars say that multiple points of view can be represented. 'Lorna is cute', is 1 point of view. Therefore it can be represented (and has been again). The fact that the Eiffel Tower is a major landmark of Paris is technically opinion, but is so widely thought that it makes no sense to not include that corollory in the relevant article. See the parallel with Lorna/Abi's cuteness ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starburst41 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Your point of view is not worthy of mention in this encyclopaedia. Blocked. Again. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)" - your views are neither significant, nor published by reliable sources. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"article should have no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately". My point of view is one point of view. You could write another point of view if that makes you happy. Then we'd have multiple points of view !! You simply stating that my point of view is not worthy (without any justification) is immature. Just because you say something doesn't make it true. My view is in fact shared by a significant number of other people and should therefore be included to improve the accuracy of the article. So it is worthy to be included. Also I don't understand why you keep blocking my account indefinitly without warning. Others (including myself in the past) have received several warnings and are then blocked for 24 hrs. In particular, since I haven't used this account to edit ANY other page other than your user page, it would seem unfair and unjustified for you to block this account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calculus dude (talk • contribs) 21:56, 5 September 2007
You are being blocked for sockpuppetry. I believe you were originally blocked for a short period of time yet you still attempted to evade the block, therefore you were blocked indefinitely. Blocked users are not allowed to edit. As you have been indefinitely blocked, you are not welcome here. Ever. Don't even bother replying. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 22:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think that you're being a little unreasonable? After all, all this user wants to do is insert some commentary about a little girl's adorableness into a few articles. Wants it desperately... urgently... could even be called obsessed with the adorable little girl. Becomes irrationally angry when thwarted in his pursuit of the little girl. Thinks about the sweetness of this little girl many times every day... Actually, that's extremely creepy, now that I come to think about it. Never mind; carry on. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this person may have finally got the message. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 10:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Gungadin/sandbox

Hi i'd appreciate your opinions on this OOU Pauline rewrite that i've started. I was unsure whether or not to make the information chronological, but I decided to go with themes instead, otherwise i'd have to break up the Arthur section and that works as a stand alone segment. This is not complete yet, but I wasnt planning to add anymore titled sections, I will just work the rest of the storylines into the ones there. Feel free to let me know if you have any ideas for changes or inclusions. I'm not keen on the title 'early storylines', but I dont know where else to put this information, the stuff about fibroids and her being axed in 1989 isnt relevant to the other segments is it?Gungadin♦ 17:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Having just briefly looked it over it seems fine to me. Is this your way of eliminating the storylines section completely? That's a good idea! See what Trampikey thinks - I think he prefers things in chronological order. I certainly have no objections. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 17:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeh, i'm trying to include all the bits from the storyline section into the development section so nobody will be able to complain about repetition. I dont think Trampikey's interested in doing another FA. I did ask him when the FA failed what he thought about me rewriting it, but he didn't reply so I assumed he didn't care either way.Gungadin♦ 18:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well you're obviously interested and I'd love to see the article reach FA standard. I think the themes thing is fine, maybe actually better than chronological order. So go for it. The best I can do to help is check for spelling, grammar, punctuation and wikification (one day that'll be added to GCSE exams!), but every little helps, right? — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeh, it certainly does and it's good to be able to talk through decisions with someone too. I'm very indecisive :) Gungadin♦ 21:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is near enough complete now. I've tried to include all the plot details. I hope it's ok, let me know what you think, and feel free to edit the sandbox if you want to change anything. Gungadin♦ 17:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Old SALT vs New SALT

This is mostly an FYI to you as an admin who still uses the old, templated method for salting pages. That method of salting pages is depricated, and the template is now up for deletion. While things can still change, the current discussion definitely looks headed towards deletion. Assuming that this happens, you will no longer be able to salt pages with the old method, and will need to begin using the newer salting method that involves cascading protection on the title, and allows recreation to be blocked while still having no article at the name, leaving it as a red link. This new method of salting is centered at WP:PT, and the instructions for how to make it work are there as well. - TexasAndroid 13:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I never salted before (until recently), but I'll try to do it the new way in future. Or not at all if it turns out that it looks too complicated. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 14:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not too complicated. For me, I mostly just find the current month's page, and on it I duplicate an existing listing and then edit the duplicate to show the correct information for the newly protected page. As for you not doing it much, I gave the notice to all admins who used the old salting template in the last month or so, to get it to all who have used it. You used it, so you got the notice. :) - TexasAndroid 15:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Chances are I'll never need to do it again. But you can blame Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages because I just did what it said to do first. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I'm almost 100% sure User:Abi is very cuddly is a sockpuppet similar to one you recently banned. → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 23:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you were quick to it :) → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 23:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Have you seen the number of sockpuppets? Something is wrong with this person. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, somebody needs to find something better to do with their time. It doesn't seem much gets past you, so their attempts are pointless ;) → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 23:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Another one, User:Abi is very very cuddly. → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 23:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm thinking of doing something to counter the numerous edits we've had which state the judges' categories on the main X Factor page. Do you know the template that directs readers to the talk page? It appears on the page in superscript and reads 'see discussion', or something like that. Thanks. Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I've seen one of those. Hehe, everytime someone adds the judges to the categories, it's different! I'll put a comment on the page that might help but probably won't. I think we know that Louis hasn't got the groups this year... — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 17:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Tee-hee, I know what you mean. It somehow confirms that what their saying is utter speculation when they can't all read from the same hymn sheet! Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 21:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, on the show they seem to be referring to the lower age groups as "Boys" and "Girls". What do you think about changing it to just that? — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 17:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a ploy to differentiate the younger category from the older category and to make it seem somewhat 'hip'. I'm not keen on the idea of calling it boys and girls because A). It is incorrect - there are people in that category who are as old as 24. B). Those kinds of terms never look good in an encyclopedia article. But it is a fair consideration :-) Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 21:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Seen the comments on the edit page - it's a good idea. Hopefully it will have an effect! Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes technically it is incorrect, perhaps where we talk about the splitting of the younger age group we could say that they are referred to as "boys" and "girls" on the show. And I doubt the comments will work!!! — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds absolutely sound (pardon the terrible English) :-) Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 21:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh it already says that!! Never mind then! — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
They're too efficient for us! Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 21:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Trueman

I was warning User:Mrs trueman Jr when I noticed that it appeared they had a vendetta against reverting you. When I checked further I discovered that they were actually a sock puppet of User:Mrs Trueman31 (which was apparently a sock of User:Trueman31). The latter two were blocked, with Mrs Trueman31 getting an indefinite block from you. I just thought I'd let you know what was going on in case you didn't notice the reverting.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am so fed up of sockpuppets. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 13:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

New addition to The X Factor (UK series 4) talk page

I've posted a new discussion topic. So far, no-ones replied to it but it's still early days. Jonny - Wiki edit Jonny 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Leona Lewis pic

Could you tell me why you think the pic of Lewis at the showcase is unnecessary please? Thanks. Wiki edit Jonny 18:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't add anything to the article that isn't mentioned in the text. It's just a picture of her singing. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 18:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You could say that about all pictures that are added to Wikipedia articles. In any case, images are used to help a reader visualize what they have just read. I think it is important to include it because it is the only pic in the article of her post-X Factor. It is also symbolic on a more abstract level that an artist from a talent show in the UK is signed by major US music executive; the image illustrates this event. Bear in mind that this event was international - all major record execs. around the world attended. Wiki edit Jonny 19:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
From WP:FU: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function." — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree; it doens't need to be so rigid. I can tell you that images make text read a whole lot easier. Without sufficient images, an article reads like a slab of black and white text that the reader has to wade through. I know wiki-purists would disagree, but I think if a picture has a point, makes the article more engaging and has been added with the correct copyright, then there is no reason why it shouldn't be included. Wiki edit Jonny 19:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I shan't list it for deletion, but if someone else does, I won't be opposing its deletion. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That's fair enough. Wiki edit Jonny 10:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I suspect Treueman 31 VS AnemoneProjectors (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Trueman31 (talk · contribs). Just informing you incase you didn't see :p — jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 15:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:New ee web.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:New ee web.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael French

Hi, can you semi-protect this page please? Some anon keeps removing the disambig to Michael French (actor) for no apparent reason. Gungadin♦ 17:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I warned the user for now, it it being vandalised by lots of different users? — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 17:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. I see that is is, I have semi-protected the page. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 17:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) Gungadin♦ 17:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Leona's album/Bleeding Love review

Hi, I removed the "Bleeding Love" review from the album but there are some comments about the album that you might like to add, such as "Good things are worth waiting for and this is no exception. The debut album is likely to surprise critics." I was going to do it myself but am too tired at the moment to put it into the right words! — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine, seeing as the comments are about the single and not the album. I'll add the ones about the album tomorrow, got to go to bed now. Wiki edit Jonny 23:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
What about this review of "Bleeding Love"? I know it's a bad one but a) it would keep the article balanced and b) I love the line "it sounds as much like Gwen Stefani's "Hollaback Girl" as a ballad can." :) — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 14:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw that earlier and it made me laugh lol. Yeah, it's good that it provides a different opinion. I'll get working on it now... Wiki edit Jonny 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Should I include the comment saying: 'Lewis wisely restrains her vocals, never devolving into those vocal acrobatics that have historically plagued Christina Aguilera.'? It's highly relevant because Christina and Mariah (Carey) have received criticism for their 'vocal acrobatics' that makes their work 'more impressive than expressive'. However, the comment isn't neutral because it is defamatory of Aguilera. Wiki edit Jonny 17:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I never liked Aguilera so I say go ahead ;) — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 18:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark Hudson being fired from The X Factor

I was just wondering whether to include that vocal coach, Mark Hudson (the one with the colourful beard), will not be returning for the fourth series. He's a pretty minor character, but a character nonetheless. The story can be seen here[9] Merci beaucoup. Wiki edit Jonny 13:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. To be honest it was such old news that I assumed it was already there. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 13:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Leona Lewis debut album

Why have you added the "Critical reception" bit to Leona's album page? The article you are linking it to is a review of the single "Bleeding Love" and not the album, hence the title of the article "Leona Lewis is back with Bleeding Love". There have been no reviews of the album yet.

Oh and can I also ask why you changed the single cover of "Bleeding Love" back to a lower quality version where the text is smaller? The new one I got from her official site and that's why I uploaded it. As it stands, the cover on the article now is wrong and not the proper one. Adi39 20:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add the critical reception section but parts of that article are about the album, not just the single. I didn't check which parts so some of it may be wrong, but it shouldn't be removed in its entirety. The single cover already uploaded was fine. Until the single is out, we don't know the size of the text, it seems that they haven't really decided on the final cover yet. I suggest leaving it as it is until there are more images. However, it's just as easy to upload a new version of the same image, i.e. keep the same image name on Wikipedia, rather than upload with a new name. That way the article doesn't need to be changed and the old image doesn't end up tagged for deletion. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 15:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but that article isn't a review of the album so the sentence - "The first reviews of the album gave a mixture of opinions." is false as there haven't been any reviews of the album. This part - "One described it as "leaving you wanting to hear more", saying, "...from the moment she opens her mouth we are instantly reminded about her amazing voice, capable of heart stopping intensity and a playful light touch..." is all about Bleeding Love and not the album. The only part about her album is "Good things are worth waiting for and this is no exception." And sorry, I didn't know you could upload a new image with an identical file name to another. I assumed they all had to be different names. Adi39 19:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I didn't add that section. But sure, go ahead and remove it as just that one sentence doesn't add anything. I think the originally uploaded image of the cover actually looks more professional than the one with larger text, so I hope they actually use that one. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 13:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok will do! Yeah I prefer the smaller text but the quality of the pic is better in the larger text cover. I think they just want the title to stand out. Adi39 13:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I uploaded the image from the latest email, which is more similar to the one you uploaded. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 15:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The socks

Thanks for blocking the recent Trueman31 sockpuppets, but please note that User:Ln of x is a different sockpuppet to User:Trueman31. Ln of x always mentions Abi Branning, Lorna Fitzgerald or me, whereas Trueman31 is into more random vandalism or adding false information to articles. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 18:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, I didn't realize they were different socks. I just assumed from this user, this one, this sock, and this sockpuppet that they were all the same person. Thanks for clarifying. Acalamari 18:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they've both used "VS AnemoneProjectors", so they could be the same, but they make distinctly different edits, and have left each other messages (though not uncommon for socks). I haven't seen any other evidence to suggest they are the same person, and I still believe they are different people. By the way, is there anything we can do to stop them coming back all the time? — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
One way is to keep blocking them and hope they go away (which, most of the time, does work, but not always), though another way is to list all the socks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check and have a checkuser find and block the underlying IP is it's possible to. However, it seems that Mr.Z-man has listed the Trueman31 socks there at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#User:Trueman31 already. I hope that helps. :) Acalamari 19:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Grammar fix on my user page

Thank you! :-) - Philippe | Talk 19:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. P.S. Abi is sparkly and magical ;-) — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Spears's

This matter was debated earlier, and was moved to Spears's. I am surprised that you felt it correct to move it and change all the Spears's references. Wiki style guides indicate that Spears's is the correct form and the move was originally done by an admin. I suggest you revert the move. Thanks 15:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added s sound, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by The Guardian, Emory University's writing center, and The American Heritage Book of English Usage." Spears's is not the correct form and I will not revert the move. It doesn't take an admin to move a page and if I wasn't an admin I would have moved it anyway. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 15:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ray Quinn

Why did you revert my edits to Quinn's debut album? I don't think it is an album of covers, as all the songs on the album are known in many versions by many artists, not just one off renderings. Gareth E Kegg 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

They're not original Ray Quinn songs, so I think that makes it a covers album. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry :)

Don't worry about this! :) I mistakenly did a similar thing on someone else's user page. Sometimes the mouse button gets stuck or something, and I end up clicking on "rollback" by mistake! :) Acalamari 20:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't worried ;) — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 20:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting

its a redirect, relax its hardly a big deal. --Cloveious 12:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still annoying and the page history is in the wrong place. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 12:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

X Factor 4

How did you get the finalists all correct only half-way through the airing of the show? Jordanhatch 18:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone else already posted them but I reverted it because it wasn't from a reliable source. But when it seemed that it was right half way through I couldn't be bothered to wait and just did it. I know it was naughty... — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 18:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Autofellatio#What image should we use

I wasn't sure if you were watching the discussion, so I just thought I should let you know I had a new idea, if you want to take a look at the talk page. Taric25 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Shoddy bios for X Factor 4 finalists

Hi there, as you are an admin and have more power than I, would you be able do something about the crap mini-biographies some people have done for the Girls and the Over 25s in the X Factor 4 article? They've just copied and pasted it straight from the X Factor website with little editing at all. Not only this, they don't provide the information we need, like their age, their occupation etc. And, they haven't referenced it. All the best Wiki edit Jonny 18:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do as an admin that you can't! But if it's copied and pasted from the X Factor website then it's a copyright violation and can't be used. It should be written from scratch. I'll take a look when I'm free. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the intervention though. I'll bear in mind what you said. I'm having to do the bios in my spare time as I'm in my final year at uni atm and have a lot of work. I'll get them done eventually, they're just a bit time-consuming. Wiki edit Jonny 20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Letitia Dean website

Hey AP, can you give your opinion/advice on this User talk:Gungadin#Advice on proof (Letitia Dean official fan site) Does Wiki have a way for checking whether so-called official sites are genuine? It seems genuine to me, but it keeps getting removed with no explanation.Gungadin♦ 21:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at that myself. It probably is official but it shouldn't be listed as a fan site or it will be removed. If it's her offical website it should just say "Official website" and not "Official fan site". I'm just changing it now and removing the actual fansite and forum. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeh, I hadnt noticed that it was saying fansite. So is it right that no fansites are allowed to be listed whatsoever? I'm sure the rules for external links used to say explicitly, but they seem to have been altered since I last looked at them.Gungadin♦ 21:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I hate it when rules change after you've learnt them. I'll read them tomorrow as I'm too tired. My understanding is that no fansites should be listed unless they're mentioned in the actual text of the article and therefore are important. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Icaro - X Factor contestant

Have you seen this? It's disgusting! I always knew that Icaro was plain crazy.[10] Wiki edit Jonny 19:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm surprised she didn't divorce him after that. He didn't even cook it first! If I was going to eat a placenta, that would be my first question: how do you prepare it?! — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
With a chianti and some fava beans F-F-F-F-F-F-F lol Wiki edit Jonny 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing dispute

Hi, how can I stop that persistent user who keeps making this [11] edit? I've reverted it something like three times now and I'm getting tired of it. Cheers - Wiki edit Jonny 11:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fed up of it too. I've reverted it more times than I can remember. All I can do is semi-protect the page. It seems pointless warning the person as they use a different IP address each time. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 13:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Theme for first live show

Take a look at this [12]. Do you think it's reliable? Seeing as Leona's perfoming at the first show the theme, Number 1s, would seem apt. Wiki edit Jonny 11:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's probably right but it's not the most reliable source we could get. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 11:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

SONGS!

ANEMONE! THEY'VE REALEASED THE SONG CHOICES FOR THE FIRST LIVE SHOW [13]. Argh, I don't know what to do with all the information! Can you do one of your funky tables with all the live show details? Muchas thanks :-) — Wiki edit Jonny 18:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I can get it all ready to add but until we know the order I can't put the completed table in the article. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 12:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, no worries. It's obvious Simon's favouring Hope over Futureproof as he's given the girl band contemporary hit, Umbrella, whilst the boys have got 90s mediocre song, She's the One. Can't wait to see Sharon's reaction to Rhydian, maybe he's grown on her. I have a feeling Same Difference are going tonight — they're singing Tragedy... need I say more? lol Wiki edit Jonny 12:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
They've been favourites to go first for ages but a lot of them are singing pretty dire songs. I'm quite disappointed. From that list I'm only really happy with Alisha's, Niki's and Emily's songs, maybe Leon's too. Kimberley, Beverley and Same Difference have the worst choices. I also hate that Meatloaf song but I think it could suit Rhydian. I'm working on getting it all ready now, all wikilinked and such... — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 13:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh and if Daniel's is the Bryan Adams song then that's a good choice too :) — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 13:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Same Difference were surprisingly okay. I think Kimberley was definitely the right choice as there's no way she could have won the competition (and she just looked plain odd with the Christina thing going on). WHAT HAPPENED WITH LEON?! Poor thing, he's got an amazing voice but his performance tonight was just a mess! Niki, Beverley, Rhydian and Hope stood out for me though (although ITV's gonna get a tonne of complaints for Raquelle's slapper top). What about you? Wiki edit Jonny 22:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I wanted Leon to go. I've never liked him. Out of the two though, I'm glad it was Kimberley. She was in my bottom four. Daniel's was actually a bad choice. Same Difference weren't bad, and I think they will have a market, Louis is wrong. Niki, Futureproof, Hope and Beverley stood out for me. Actually, Leona stood out the most! Hehehe! Was Sharon drunk by the time Rhydian was on stage? And did you see Kimberley mouth the word "fuck" at the end of her second performance? lol — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
She so did! She wasn't particularly professional either as she forgot the words in the first performance and broke down in the second. Yeah, Daniel wasn't as good as I was hoping, not particularly distinctive. Totally, Leona was great, definitely had a boob job but it was good to finally silence all those journalists wondering where she's been the past 9 months! Did you notice that Sharon's got considerably more bitchy this time round with the whole 'Mama' thing? Scary. And, how bad were Sharon's song choices? She is my favourite judge but this position is becoming questionable Wiki edit Jonny 23:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
You think Leona's had a boob job? I doubt it! Sharon's starting to scare me. She'll probably quit now. I still think she was drunk. And I can totally understand why Louis was sacked before. His comments (even his nice comments) really infuriate me. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't even get me started on Louis, he's always been the most contemptable judge! I've definitely noticed a change in his judging style - he's more ruth/reckless. Probably because Simon and the producers sat him down and told him why they sacked him... cos he's rubbish! Upping his performance sealed the bargain really. I think Sharon was certainly drunk though, nothing new there then! She said that Rhydian was 'completely barmy'. Coming from Sharon Osbourne I'm not quite sure what to make of that. Dannii's judging was good though — constructive and critical. Wiki edit Jonny 23:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Louis Walsh has just turned nasty really. Simon has got better. Louis just has no tact really. Yeah Dannii's good too. I like Sharon but I think she seemed a bit depressed. Her song choices were weird. If she's not careful, she'll have no acts left soon. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

America

Just think, all the people fuelling American pop culture will soon be looking at the Leona Lewis article to investigate who she is—can't wait! They're gonna prick up their ears when they hear Leona debuting on American media and we (in Britain) will be sitting looking pretty smug lol Wiki edit Jonny 19:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I know. I will especially, cos I a) started the article from a redirect and b) expanded it from a stub and c) spent a long time finding sources and adding new stuff all the time. In fact I take credit for the whole thing. The rest of you can go to hell. I own that artice, it's all MINE!!!! Just kidding, your edits are appreciated too ;) — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Haha! Wiki edit Jonny 23:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You know what though, thanks to Perez Hilton, she's already pretty well known in the States, so lots of people have probably already had a look. What makes me laugh though is when you see news articles about her and you know they got the info from here. It's so "Bleeding" obvious! — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
ABSOLUTELY! Isn't it brilliant when you see so many articles in trashy magazines that have the info directly from one of our articles? There were loads leading up to the first episode of The X Factor - most of it was from the old 'Changes to the format' section. Very rewarding though. P.S. Have a look at the discussion page for the Series 4 article. :) Wiki edit Jonny 23:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

CFD nominations

CfD nomination of Category:Big Brother UK contestants

I have nominated Category:Big Brother UK contestants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Number1spygirl 12:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Fame Academy participants

I have nominated Category:Fame Academy participants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Number1spygirl 12:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Pop Idol contestants

I have nominated Category:Pop Idol contestants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Number1spygirl 12:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:The X Factor contestants

I have nominated Category:The X Factor contestants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Number1spygirl 12:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Songs for week 2

What do you think of the songs for this week?[14] Personally I think Daniel's is a disaster and I don't know why Sharon's got Alisha singing a song that's 40 years old. All the others I'm happy with though. Wiki edit Jonny 09:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Andy and Daniel = terrible choices. Leon and Same Difference = I don't know the songs but I can see "Breaking Free" is from HSM. Emily = very good choice. Futureproof = absolutely brilliant choice. Oh and please can you send me the link every week so I can prepare the table for the Saturday (as I don't check the website very often)? It's really helpful to know in advance. Thanks. anemone|projectors 11:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
What did I say? :P Alisha's song was a terrible choice and so was Daniel's so am not too bothered they were in the bottom two. The groups were pretty good tonight and I thought Niki was very good (even though the top notes were very strained). I think Rhydian sank to an all-new level of unothordoxy with his performance, very dramatic and odd! What did you think? Wiki edit Jonny 20:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I blame the judges. Both very bad choices. I can't stand Rhydian but then I don't like operatic pop music. I know he's good and I'd understand if he won but I don't want him to. I agree that he could be world class though, and that's what they want. For me, Futureproof were the best tonight. anemone|projectors 21:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Futureproof were fantastic. Their performance was slick, un-boy-bandish i.e. non-cheesy, it was powerful and the harmonies were tight... I loved it. Louis seriously pissed me off tonight with the way he disagreed with Simon for the sake of it. Daniel's song was crap and he wasn't man enough to admit it. He also forgets that even though he doesn't like 'kitsch' or 'cheesy', as he puts it, he needs to admit that there is a substantial market for acts like Same Difference. Ironically, he said that, then he had Daniel singing Build Me Up Buttercup... sorry but I'm seeing double standards. And if he doesn't like 'kitsch' what the hell was he doing with Eton Road?! It's so obvious he's slamming Same Difference because Simon gave him a hard time over the MacDonald Brothers. I wish he'd stop being incompetent and just do his job. Wiki edit Jonny 22:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I want Futureproof to win now. I don't care if their second single flops and they never release an album, they just deserve to win. Yeah Louis pisses me off every week. I totally understand why he was sacked and I hope they sack him for good if he doesn't stop being at twat. You're totally right about Eton Road. I can see Same Difference doing Eurovision next year, if they don't win, that is. Which they won't, because Futureproof is going to... anemone|projectors 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I sent a list to the series producer when they were trying to find a new judge. Top of it were Jack Black, David Bowie and Bob Geldof, who, I think would be a vast improvement over that useless leprechaun! He replied saying that they were considerable suggestions and that I'd have to wait and see... unfortunately we got Brian Friedman and then got landed with Louis Walsh again. Oh dear. Wiki edit Jonny 01:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think Jack Black, David Bowie and Bob Geldof are terrible choices, what the hell were you thinking?!?!?!?!?! I think they should bring back Pete Waterman but he hates The X Factor so it would never happen. anemone|projectors 12:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah woteva ;) Wiki edit Jonny 12:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sortable tables

Hey there. Please see my comment at Talk:2007 in British music re: sortable tables. violet/riga (t) 14:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. Leona Lewis

Come on MSN and I'll explain to you. Majorly (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

'Under Review' tag

As you're an admin, I thought I'd ask you... I'm looking to put one of those things to say that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards and/or it's under review at the top of the Spice Girls article. Have you seen the article?! It's terrible! It's been written by a load of non-registered users who don't know how to spell, write objectively or just write anything coherent at all! lol Wiki edit Jonny 23:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not as bad as I described, there are some pretty dodgy bits but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's 'terrible' lol. I based that opinion on this edit[15] I had to sort out. Wiki edit Jonny 23:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a fan, so no, I haven't seen it. At a glance, it seems ok, but if you think it needs cleaning up, try one of the templates at WP:TMC. P.S. please stop edit conflicting me on my own talk page ;) anemone|projectors 23:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Haha! Neither am I a fan I'm afraid; I happened to notice the shoddiness on trying to find out whether they're actually making a full comeback like Take That have (as they said the never would but it seems the money was all too tempting). Thanks once again tho :-) Wiki edit Jonny 23:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I notice when you make a comment, you then edit it several times. This causes edit conflicts. Can I suggest using the preview button before saving? anemone|projectors 10:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My Page

Why have you edited my page when you don't know me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.212.46.184 (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What page? anemone|projectors 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Results summary

Do you think it's necessary to have the results summary showing the bottom two? As the same information is given in the live show details. Wiki edit Jonny 20:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do. anemone|projectors 21:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Pauline FAC tense

Do you have an opinion on this? You know what annoys me the most? The same people were commenting on the article both before and during the peer review, and none of this tense crap was brought up then. It seems like they wait til it gets to FAC to do it, just to be contrary.Gungadin♦ 22:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, because it's in OOU context, it should be past tense. Isn't that what the guidelines say? It would be nice if these people could actually make changes themselves, it would save a lot of time if they did. Is it forbidden or something? anemone|projectors 22:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I have been thinking. If I was into reviewing for FA, I would happily make corrections for people where I could, and I know that's what you would do too. I just think that some people enjoy criticising, and i'm also noticing a dictatorial trend, which I refuse to tolerate anymore. I'm about 1000 times more argumentative now than when I first started editing here, lol Gungadin♦ 23:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed! I just want to tell these people to {{sofixit}} sometimes! anemone|projectors 23:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.