User talk:Bradley0110

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The Deal

The Working Man's Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for this amazing expansion. I think you could consider nominating the article for good article status (see nominations page). Great work. :) Qst (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Deal (2003 film)

Updated DYK query On 25 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Deal (2003 film), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Travis

I've made a quick edit on the Pete Travis page you started as i dont think he's Irish.

Your feedback is welcomed.

81.149.176.198 (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK: Andy Harries

Updated DYK query On 9 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andy Harries, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Bathurst

Thanks for your additions. If you're a fan of him, you might be interested in [1]. The JPStalk to me 16:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] boo-hoo you say?

yea, i guess that comment was a bit in poor taste. mea culpa. it sounded better in my head than it does when written out. at any rate, i was commenting specifically about the trivia contained in the table, and the fact that the table itself takes up halve the page for just a very few entries. one thing though, when you revert someone's work, make sure you only undo the portion(s) you object to instead of a wholesale rollback. cheers! --emerson7 18:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 30 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cold Feet (series 1), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 04:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cold Feet Series 5

I see that you undid my comment about the spoiler. I didn't realize that this was specifically called out in the Wikipedia policy. My mistake.

Re the number of episodes: I bought the DVD set for Series 5 and there definitely 6 episodes. The episode with the car accident was episode 5, and the finale was episode 6. Could it be that there were 4 episodes aired, but 6 episodes produced and sold on the DVD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.106 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the four 90-minute episodes that aired were divided up into six nonsensical DVD episodes that begin and end in random places (e.g. the "first" episode ends after Pete smokes the joint, which is about 15 minutes too early. The proper second episode should begin at the scene where the characters are picking up their post in the morning, which is dumped mid-way through the "second" DVD episode). Presumably Granada prepared one-hour versions of the episodes for international sales and its media arm decided it would be funny to put those ones on the DVD instead of the normal episodes and then charge people for it. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

this seems like good information for the Cold Feet page, not just your Talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.103.96 (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all original research; there are no reliable secondary sources (or even primary sources) that say that they are international masters. Reference to the fact that the episodes on the DVD are different to the broadcast versions is already in the series 5 article. Including it in the main article would probably put too much weight on one thing. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brideshead Revisited

Hello Bradley0110. I just wanted to drop a note of thanks for moving the page for BR from miniseries to TV serial. I had meant to do this for some time and kept putting it off. Also a BIG thanks for fixing the redirects after the move (I hope that you saw my note on Pheobe Nicholls page when you got there) not all editors are so thorough. Even though I am a yank I know that the term miniseries does not apply to British programming and I am always removing it from the lead sections of various pages. Thanks again and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 22:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I would be happy to help if and when I can. Are you working from a list somewhere or just changing those that you come across? I did see one change yesterday that I want to mention. You moved Clapham Junction (TV drama) to Clapham Junction (film). I think that it should have been moved to Clapham Junction (TV film). The distinction is a small one but when it comes to categories (which I have worked with a lot) we have a [[Category:British films]] and a [[Category:British television films]]. Now I don't want you to feel that you have to go back and change this one because I don't think it makes a big difference. It might be something to think about during future moves. Also I am not insisting on this, if you disagree that is okay too. Once again thanks for your reply. Let me know what help I can give, although I will let you know that I sometimes get diverted into other projects, but I will do what I can. MarnetteD | Talk 10:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and for your thoughts on my suggestion. Along with the fact that I was trying to match them with the category I think that I was struck by the one you changed yesterday on Pheobe Nicholls page. Her work was split out into stage, film and television (not all actor pages do this) and the CJ that you fixed is in television. Although this is highly unlikely, the potential is there for some editor to come along and move that entry from her television work to her film work based solely on the way that the entry reads. They probably wouldn't click on the link to read the page in question to find out that it is a film made for television. I do realize that this is all way too nitpicky and, again, since this is the hidden qualifier in the link it is highly unlikely that what I have just mentioned would happen. Also, as I said above I don't think that you need to do it the way that I suggested if you don't want to. You are already doing good work and I wouldn't want to interrupt the flow of that based solely on my opinion. As to discussing it with others we could get a conversation going if you want but I think that we would need to mention it at both the film project and the television project talk pages and I don't know if we would get agreement between the two. Regards. MarnetteD | Talk 17:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. In my opinion they should be called miniseries just like Wikipedia's page describing them is. I doubt that you will bump into an editor who insists on the hyphen, but, if you do let me know and we can discuss it with them. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I just reread your last note to me and I realized that I didn't completely understand it when I typed my note above. I guess that you are wanting to list them as (TV miniseries) to distinguish them from the comic book ones. That sounds good to me so please continue on. My apologies for not reading your note correctly. MarnetteD | Talk 19:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jo Whiley

Please do not change reference formats without prior agreement, per Wikipedia:Citing sources. Please restore them. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil edit summary entry noted and passed to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Uncivil_edit_summary_comment. It looks like someone removed reference mail060206 and LemmeyBOT in attempting to fix it, made it worse - [2]. The formatting of the reference was intentional. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 22:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, how about without a template?

You are allowed to remove warnings, but I wish you wouldn't call it "insulting" in the edit summary. Listen, you have a long history of positive contributions to the encyclopedia, and your edits are very strong. But I hope you understand why it is unacceptable to ridicule other editors for "stamping their feet and crying," etc. As a longstanding editor, you must be aware of WP:CIVIL. Just try to be more careful, okay? You were in the right regarding the edits, and it eventually went your way; why get nasty over it?

I'm sorry if you found the use of a template insulting -- but I do feel a warning is called for. Thanks, and I hope you will understand. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, understood. Okay, well if you would like to remove this section too, that is fine, I just wanted to make sure the message had gotten through :) Regarding the other editor, I thought the report to WP:WQA was way premature (the edit summary he linked to probably wasn't your finest moment, but it wasn't so offensive that it warranted making a federal case out of), and ironically I was just going to ignore the report until you responded, ha ha ha... If he's making frivolous reports to the dispute resolution process, let me know and we can do something about that. If he's just whining, then I'd just say, do your best to ignore it. Best of luck!  :D --Jaysweet (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wallander - The Series

BBC & Yellowbird let the press in on a shoot the other day so there are a handfull of articles in talking about the Wallander films. I am VERY new to this Wiki stuff but manybe some of these can be of use.... VsanoJ (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)