This page 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.
Islam in Christmas Island nomination
Minor point... it's in the Indian Ocean, not the Pacific. :) But I agree it should go. Orderinchaos 15:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I do stuff like that all the time. Occasionally someone will send me a link to a diff by email and I'll be like "I wrote what?!" Orderinchaos 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar. Once I get enough of them, I'm gonna get my own barn.Mandsford (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Good nom... but the stub article seems to be an inadvertant duplicate of the much better article Kirtichakra. I suggest after the deletion the stub, the original Kirtichakra be then moved to Kirti Chakra as such name is how it is officially listed at IMDB. Makes sense? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for your recent copy edit on The Bill.
I don't know if you know this, but The Bill is currently on hold as a good article. One of the things that's counting against it is the fact that some references don't have retrieval dates against them. I know when I add refs to it I just copy and paste the URL into the Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). tag and sometimes a retrieval date is added, sometimes it isn't. I don't understand why that is. How do we get retrieval dates to show? --5 albert square (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, you're welcome. I stumbled across it looking for something productive to do on here and thought I'd touch it up a little. I wasn't aware that it was up for GA, but, having spent a fair bit of time there, I'm not surprised since it seems to meet the basics of the criteria. If I'm honest, I've no idea about the retrieval dates. I don't see why you couldn't make them up but I have a feeling the MOS and the GA reviewers might disagree with me!! I'll ask around- see if I can find out how to put them on. HJMitchellYou rang? 20:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for looking into this. I did consider trying to do this manually but then it'd probably end up being discovered and failing for that! It used to be a GA four or five years back, no reason why it can't be again :)--5 albert square (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, it's something I've wondered myself but I don't create many articles and my experience with GA/FA is limited to copyediting so I've never needed to know, but I shall find out for you. It would be good to get it up to GA status and to keep it well maintained so it stays there. I'll see what I can do to help- I've been looking for something to get my teeth into. HJMitchellYou rang?
NOTE: You guys should both add the Reftool. It adds some special ref-inserting tools to your edits screens. It makes adding cite waaaaaaaaaay easier. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: It also allows you to correct improper efs to bring them into line with guideline. You should each go to your individual monobook pages... User:HJMitchell/monobook.js and User:5 albert square/monobook.js and click "edit this page" and then enter "importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/refToolbar.js');", then go to your "my preferences page" (link at top of screen when logged in) and your "gadgets page" and then click the "Gadgets" tab and then under "Editing gagets" check the box for "refTools". Nice. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Well there we go. You add |accessdate=Year-Month-Day after the URL. It's easy once you know how! Cheers, Michael! HJMitchellYou rang? 20:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Nope... I was not exactly right the first time, though I meant well. See better explanation on my talk page... with thanks to User:Franamax. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Accessdate should be the date when you personally checked the reference and verified it against the article wording. Otherwise, how would you know the accessdate was correct? As far as making them up, sure, go for it. You can make up anything you want on Wikipedia, you can present yourself as a college professor and put wording into articles supported by references to and quotes from books that never existed. Just remember that if a question comes up about your inventions, you will have 25 or so experienced editors poring over every single edit you ever made, there will be topic experts looking, there will be librarians with access to every source in the world looking, and there will be both tar-vendors and feather-vendors in the crowd. Nothing gets Wikipedians stirred up so much as evidence of fakery. Best to steer the boat away from those waters... Franamax (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Question. Would it be improper (and, more importantly, would I get caught) if I just added |accessdate=Year-Month-Day after the references with the date that they were added to the article as per the edit history? If so, then what is the best way (using small words!) of adding these retrieval dates into the article retrospectively that complies with wikipolicy and won't incur the wrath of those reviewing the GA nomination? HJMitchellYou rang? 00:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, using small words, how's this? Don't
As far as getting caught, like I said, go for it. It's your own decision if you wish to face the consequences of being caught cheating. From my observation, it's way worse here on-wiki as compared to teacher catching you in the classroom and sending you to the principal's office - here it's the entire world painting the black stripe on your forehead. It's never pretty.
As to adding accessdates themselves, the question you should ask is: why? Is it because you want to get a GA-star for your userpage? IMO that's pretty lame motivation. Or is it because you want to advance the sum of human knowledge and you yourself have read and verified the sources in the article and you know for sure we're accurately restating those sources and the article is truly of high quality? IMO that's a pretty laudable goal. Now with book sources especially, verification can be difficult (you might have to post a request to our WP:LIBRARY or actually walk down to a real one made of bricks) - but my feeling is that if you are advancing a Good Article candidate, you should be confident of all the contents and sources.
I could be wrong on all of this of course, maybe this is just a random rant. WP:GAN would be an alternate place to check my reasoning. I'm sure I was perfect once, but I lost the piece of paper saying so... :) Franamax (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Straight to the point, I like that. I'm not after the GA star- my name has only been in the edit history since yesterday. I was asked a question by 5 albert square which peaked my curiosity so I decided to ask around to find an answer. My only motive is the improvement of the article and getting it to meet the GA criteria out of boredom rather than narcissism.
I am curious as to how to put these access dates in for future reference, but does it really matter? Would URLs alone be acceptable references for a GA? HJMitchellYou rang? 02:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, will have a play about with this tomorrow :) --5 albert square (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
HJM, let me backpedal as fast as I can. I did not mean to imply improper motives on your or anyone else's part. I was just trying to use a rhetorical device to show contrasting motives, and by separating them, comment on each one clearly. I'm quite confident that no-one is trying to play games here, and I was somewhat talking "over your head" to 5asq, the original questioner. Rather than individual tactics, it's often better to address general principles first (IMO). You were only the interlocutor, not the target of my comments (and nor was 5asq either, they're just general comments).
As to your last question, as I recall there is a huge controversy raging as we speak about whether acsessdates should have "yyyy-mm-dd" format, or "day fullmonthname year", or "day shortmonth year", so I can't even tell you the right format for the date! I'll venture though that naked reference URL's will never meet GA standards, they should always be wrapped up in a {{cite}} template for proper formatting and presentation. That template (well, it's sub-templates) has a field for accessdate=, and just at the moment it is acceptable to use "|accessdate=2009-10-25" as a template parameter. And as mentioned above, IMO the access date should always be whoever last accessed the source and verified that is was congruent with the article text.
For specific requirements for GA's, I'd strongly recommend asking at either of WT:GAN or User talk:Casliber - that's where the experts are. And if you ask Cas, tell him I said hi! :) Franamax (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
It's OK, you were expressing your opinion. FWIW, I'm inclined to agree with most of it and I'm always happy to harbour an editorial difference of opinion on my talk page, since I don't have an office. I've added the reftool now so I can use the relevant templates etc. So if I was to go over the sources, check they verify the info in the article and then effectively "re-cite" them, using my access date etc, would that be acceptable to you, if, for the purposes of the discussion, you were reviewing the article for GA? I appreciate your taking the time to help me out on this, btw. HJMitchellYou rang? 03:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that would be exactly the right thing to do imo. The original author still gets credit in the article history, your new accessdate will be informative in case the link goes dead in the future. I'm thinking though that if an accessdate is already there, it may be better to leave it as is. Web pages can change over time, so if the link goes dead, knowing the date when the original author first viewed it could be helpful in picking the right version from the Wayback archive. You still should be checking each source though, at least that's how I read the GA criterion #2, especially #2b. Franamax (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Brilliant, I'll make a start on that tonight. It shouldn't take too long once I've got to grips with the templates and reftool. And fear not, it was always my intention to check the references- not least since I'll effectively be putting my name to them. Thanks again for your time and help and feel free to drop by my talk page any time. HJMitchellYou rang? 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
:::{{Talkback|5 albert square}}
::::{{Talkback|5 albert square}}
Hello HJM, thanks for dropping a message at my talk page. The Bill still needs a fair bit of work - Silk Tork dropped by the GA review and made some useful points. The article has improved a great deal, but it is a fair way from where it was to GA quality. I'm kinda tied up at the moment - I suggest responding to silk tork's suggestions and doing a search for new articles sources, eg. google books or google scholar, and seeing if there's any aditional historical analysis. Still needs ratings info etc. - and i will try adn get back in a day or two. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been less active on Wikipedia until recently. I've revisited the Speckled Hen article and wondered if you knew of anywhere that I could pick up some more recent sources to keep the article up to date. Regrads, HJMitchellYou rang? 14:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
O gosh - sorry, I've been rather busy. There are some industry journals that will send you free email updates. The best are The Publican and Morning Advertiser. You'll get daily emails on news and info about beer, breweries and pubs in the UK. SilkTork *YES! 21:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Speckled Hen and The Bill
Thanks for stopping by. I'll look at the sources you suggest for the Hen. Thanks for the tips. Also, thanks for taking the time to comment on The Bill's GAC. I'll take note of your suggestions. Indeed, I'm in the process of compiling a subpage of useful sources in order to expand it slightly and get it better referenced. Kind regards, HJMitchellYou rang? 08:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggested to 5 albert square that the library is a good place for sources. Sometimes the local library can be a bit slow in getting books (or the books are out of print), so I sometimes buy them second-hand from Amazon. Google Books is a good place to look as well, because some of the books can be read online. I'll take a look at your subpage later. regards SilkTork *YES! 08:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Much obliged, as always. There's no rush, it's definitely a work in progress. I've tried google books and found a few useful sources though no previews so I'll trawl through amazon and ebay, though, with our beloved Royal Mail in and out of industrial action, it may be a while! Google news is churning out a lot of good material- I couldn't sleep so I've been sifting through it and dumping the usable stuff on the aforementioned subpage most of the night. There seem to be some good sources, I'll get round to sorting them and putting them in the article later today, unless I manage to get some sleep, in which case it'll be the early hours. HJMitchellYou rang? 10:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Amazon will be changing their carrier from Royal Mail - and I suspect that a number of other major mail order companies will do the same. This strike will result in more job losses not less. It's suicidal madness! SilkTork *YES! 11:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. I have some sympathy for them but striking is not the way to muster public support. One wonders if it would be a good or a bad thing if there was a service that could deliver door to door in competition with RM. From what I know the EU competition laws seem to have gone too far or not far enough and effectively ruining the part that made RM profitable. I've yet to look for books, I've just finished trawling through google news. 19 good sources so far. It's had a good amount of coverage in the broadsheet papers so there's a few good quality articles. Trouble is, most of it's in titbits but at least they're all in one place now. HJMitchellYou rang? 12:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, just to let you know I've just edited the article again. I included some info on Kevin Lloyd's death and Jeff Stewart's attempted suicide. The edits I think are one sentence long, certainly no longer than two. I've also included info about the legal wrangle between STV and ITV regarding The Bill. All edits properly referenced, if I can remember correctly the references are either from The Independent, BBC or The Scotsman. Because the argument between STV and ITV is a legal issue, I've done my best to make this information as up-to-date as possible, in fact the article is only 10 days old. Over the course of this weekend I intend to try and get more viewing figures so I can start a section on this. If need be I will email BARB to see if they have any suggestions as to where I can find this info. Hope you're well! --5 albert square (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I'll probably work on the article later today, since I don't have much time right now. You idea on the library is good, I might do the same but I'd have to register. Though I could cheat and register in the next county since Nottingham's main library is massive. It's good to have the info as long as it's refd. Have you seen any of the stuff I've put at user:HJ Mitchell/Material for The Bill? There's some good information there- it covers ratings, but not in much detail, Stewart's suicide attempt, the ITV/ STV case and various other things. I'll check back later. All the best, HJMitchellYou rang? 10:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, yes I did see your page and I used the refs on it :). I've also spoken to one of the mods who knows a heck of a lot about images that are allowed on Wikipedia. I sought advice on it from them because The Bill's image now spreads over two screens rather than one, so if we were to update the image it would require two screenshots, something that I've not seen on Wikipedia before, so I thought I'd see if it was allowed. I spoke to Anemone Projectors and they've suggested that I just use one of the images, probably the "Bill" section of it and basically jazz it up a wee bit to make it look interesting. They've also suggested that the caption is something like "an image from The Bill's opening credits". I'll play around with this at the weekend and hopefully get something added --5 albert square (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Seems to make sense. Careful, though, WP are very strict on their fair use policy. One of my uploads was zapped because an alternative could possibly maybe be found one day the wasn't copyright even though an alternative doesn't exist now. Anyway, we can discuss my disagreements (there are many) with WP policy another time. We have to prove to the rest of the world that The Bill is a GA. I would advise against "playing around"- keep the image true to what you see on telly but crop and brighten what you really must (and mention it on the file page) it's less likely to be speedied that way. Glad you like the subpage, by the way, it's there to be used to your heart's desire- saves having to research every little point. It'll probably be tomorrow that I can get down to business on the article, but feel free to leave me a message on here if I can be of use, and let me know how you get on. Until then, HJMitchellYou rang? 18:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi HJ, don't worry I didn't play about with the screenshot, there wasn't any need to as the blue image appears over "Bill" anyway. I've uploaded it, I think I followed the instructions OK (bit complex) but it's appearing ok. Anyway, I'm on here to ask a favour if I may. Someone vandalised the page before, and then a bot carried out some maintenance work. I didn't really want to revert the page as that would've undone all the bot's maintenance work so I've had to go in and manually remove the vandalism. I think I got it all, if you have two seconds today could you please just double-check that I've not missed anything? --5 albert square (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Bloody vandals. I checked the edit history and it looks like you got it all. I've taken a look at the IP's talk page and contribs and I think an AIV report may be in order. I don't know if you've already done it, but if not, I'll get on it later. It looks like someone at that IP has a serious problem with The Bill! Hopefully an amdin will be able to do something, or at least keep an eye on it. In the meantime, I'll check it whenever I can and keep rollback and twinkle trained on it. I noticed the picture as well, good job on that, it's good that we've got the most recent screenshot. I'll see if I can't make some progress on the article a little later on. HJMitchellYou rang? 18:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the IP reverted one edit on one of The Bill's episode pages to say that Dale Smith wasn't charged with murder. I watched on Youtube, the episode the IP said this didn't occur in, and if it didn't occur, I'm wondering what The Bill meant when one of the stand-in sergeants meant by "Dale Smith, I'm arresting you for the murder of Louise Larsson", that sounds like a murder charge to me! I had to laugh today when I realised it was only me giving him warnings, he probably thinks I'm picking on him! I'm not, I just hate it when people vandalise pages in general! I didn't report the IP earlier because I wasn't sure whether or not to, but I think I will report it as a vandalism only account. Honestly, I had the exact same problem with the Neighbours article yesterday too. Oh, I've also replied to the comments on the talk page of The Bill --5 albert square (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, send him my way next time if you want, I'll twinkle them all the way to WP:AIV. As for Smithy, I wonder if it's worth my while as a law student pointing out the difference between being arrested on a murder charge and being charged with murder? But hey, that article was in enough of a state last time I saw it that it doesn't really matter. I don't know how, but there seem to be a lot of articles on The Bill (just take a look at Category:The Bill) that have been allowed to slip into disrepair. It's a shame the wikiproject's inactive, really. They could be very helpful. I saw your comments, Hamiltonstone makes some good points. I'll try and put some work into the article in the early hours. HJMitchellYou rang? 02:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just to say thanks for all the work you've done on The Bill. I'm no law student but I would imagine the difference is that 'arrested on a murder charge' is where someone is arrested and helps police with their enquiries whereas 'charged with murder' is the police actually saying "we think you did it!" I have today ordered a book about the history of Sun Hill off of eBay, I figured it was better doing that than getting a book from the library as I've then got it there for reference should I need it for any of The Bills articles in the future. So I hope my order doesn't get delayed too much in this damn postal strike! That said, I might still see if my local library have the book so I can get cracking with the history section straight away --5 albert square (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Something like that. As long as the article's clear on whether he was arrested or charged (i.e. a court case was brought against him) it should be fine. I was just fiddling with The Bill when I got your message! I've tidied it up a bit and moved some stuff around. I'm going to move the impact section to nearer the bottom but it's handy where it is right now since I'm going to be putting a good bit of work into that section now. HJMitchellYou rang? 10:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, just to say I've managed to get one more reference for The Bill's awards. It explains what the Writers Guild award was for. I'm about to edit the awards page to include it :) --5 albert square (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Howdy! How are you tonight? --5 albert square (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::::{{Talkback|5 albert square}}
::::::::{{Talkback|5 albert square}}
:::::::::{{Talkback|5 albert square}}
:::::::{{Talkback|5 albert square}}
::::{{Talkback|5 albert square}}
::::::{{Talkback|5 albert square}}
:::::::{{Talkback|5 albert square}}
::::::::{{Talkback|5 albert square}}
:::::::::{{Talkback|5 albert square}}
::::::::::{{Talkback|5 albert square}}
Hi, I am the one that reverted the 24 hour format change. I placed my explanation in the edit summary, but you may not have seen it. I reverted it because there isn't any context for the times to be in a 24 hour format. It's just not particularly common, especially in the US where the event occurred. Even though it occurred on a military base (which I presume does make use of 24 hour time) nearly all of the coverage and discussion uses 12 hour time. Also, the rest of the article uses 12 hour time, so for consistency the lede should probably use it too. Please let me know your thoughts, I don't want to accidentally stumble into an edit war over a time format! Cmprince (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, with all the edit conflicts, the last thing we need is two people battling out over a time. It was my opinion that the 24hr time format should be used because this is an encyclopaedia, thus we should be using formal language (obviously without being unnecessarily so) and, especially when using time as precise as 1:34 pm/ 1334, it would seem to make sense to use the 24 hour format. However, if the consensus is against me, I'll let it be, though I do think the 24hr format should be used somewhere, perhaps the infobox. I'd suggest opening a thread on the talk page, but I've had so many edit conflicts on there, it's absurd. HJMitchellYou rang? 22:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
New Messages
Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at SpK's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Fort Hood
Thanks for your thought and sterling service in updating, especially the, perhaps tiresome, constant, casualty updates. Have one on me.
220.101.28.25 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
I don't think you can take it with you, but it's worth asking someone (who, unlike me, knows what they're talking about!) about. The most complicated part of setting up an account (at least, until you complicated it!) is picking your username! It just gives you a little more credibility. It shouldn't, but alas, it does and, of course, once you're autoconfirmed, you can edit semi- protected pages and a few other perks. Oh, and thank you for the cookie, it's much appreciated. In fact, it's the nicest thing I've been give on WP for a while! HJMitchellYou rang? 03:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you jumped the gun in accusing me, if you wanted to know why I changed it, I posted why in the discussion. I changed it the first time because I found an image with rank. The second time I edited was because someone (or you) changed it back to PTE without looking at why I changed it in the first place. I had even said several times that PTE was incorrect and fake, yet only to have it changed back to it. So what was I supposed to do, leave completely fasle info on the page, no, atleast the PV2 rank had merit. But PFC is acceptable because I too have found sources stating PFC.
Unknowntbeast (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't an accusation, it was a friendly warning that reverting again could inadvertently land you in hot water. That aside,I didn't change it back to PTE, but I reverted you when you changed it again. I understand your concern and, as it turns out, we were both wrong. I was reverting to PTE because that's what it said beforehand. I'm no expert on ranks. Obviously, with things changing so quickly, it is difficult to keep up. In future, if you encounter such a situation again, I'd suggest using a detailed help:edit summary in which you mention the thread on the talk page and very clearly express your reasons for the revert and your willingness to discuss it. After that, you have to allow a few minutes for the discussion to conclude. In this case it did, because we've arrived at PFC, which seems to be backed by the majority of sources. I apologise for the confusion. Friends? HJMitchellYou rang? 09:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, friends. Wiki editing is so screwy. I think when I wake back up I will read up on how to make pages and edit and other grand-ole stuff like that. 72.205.2.83 (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It can get a little tense sometimes! Have fun with your reading, some of those pages are pretty boring, but it's useful to know the basics. If you need a hand or you just want to chat in future, you know where I am! HJMitchellYou rang? 09:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Well the main reason I decided to get in to the editing of this page was because I served at West Fort Hood for 3 years. And since I have been working on this, I may just start editing more often. Unknowntbeast (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Brilliant. As you've probably seen, we can use all the willing volunteers we can get! Your expertise in this area could, and has been, helpful- most people actively involved with the Ft Hood article don't have particular knowledge of the US military or the incident so it's always good to have someone on board who does. HJMitchellYou rang? 18:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
More The Bill
Haha I guess that the no refs cite error is the thanks you get for trying to make the page look nice! --5 albert square (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's me pratting around! That'll teach me to experiment in mainspace! I was trying to tidy up the references but I thought I'd try it on the awards page (where there are a hell of a lot less refs and less traffic) but it didn't work, which is irritating but, knowing my expertise with such things, not surprising. Maybe I should stick to copyediting! I understand that! HJMitchellYou rang? 17:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm going to have a quick look at The Bill and Neighbours when I get home tonight, Neighbours will be undergoing a copy edit, The Bill will be getting more info on awards. My book still hasn't arrived though :( --5 albert square (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
That's irritating. It'll be monday now, won't it! I've got mine and I'll try and make an effort on The Bill soon. I've spent all my wiki-time today on the Fort Hood shooting article and its talk page (edit conflict, after edit conflict, after edit conflict!). It's semi protected so a few IPs have been making suggestions and providing refs etc via the talk page and there's been all sorts of POV pushing, quibbling over minor points and, of course, the adding, removal, adding again, removing again etc of the word "terrorism"! Fun! That's just about starting to quieten down now, so I'll try and focus my efforts back on The Bill. I'll probably blitz it one night in the week and keep at it til 5AM and get it done. then it should just be a case of tidying up the mess and the 5AM typos! HJMitchellYou rang? 18:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not best pleased with Royal Mail, did they have to strike when I'm waiting on my book! I'm planning to blitz both The Bill and Neighbours tomorrow, get them up to scratch :) --5 albert square (talk)
Well, they do have a point. Whether striking and pissing off the whole country, not to mention a few Wikipedia editors waiting for a book was the best way to make it, I don't know. I might try and sort out that history section later, but there's always the real world to consider. Damn! I'll get something done anyway. If you're on an editing spree, I have a favour to ask. Since you're sorting the awards, can you have a look at List of Awards of The Bill and try and get all the awards we know about into that table. I'd do it myself, but I'm useless at anything fiddly (as I proved last night!) and I really, really hate editing tables! Do you want me to cast a copyeditor's eye of Neighbours? Much as I hate the show, the one thing I'm really good at on WP is copyediting! HJMitchellYou rang? 07:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I've just looked at the list of awards and have updated it. I really do think that we have all the awards there, I've googled for more and can't find any. Yes please, could you cast your copyeditors eye over Neighbours and see if there's anything that can be improved? I'm still learning copyediting! --5 albert square (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do in a mo. I'm all over the place today. I've been fiddling with the awards article, watching an RfA and an AfD, reverting vandalism on an article on my watchlist and helping out on the shooting article and its talk page. Take a look at the referencing system I've use at List of Awards of The Bill (you'd have to view the refs section in edit mode). I'm considering doing the same to The Bill- I just wondered what you thought. It has its pros and cons- it makes it a hell of a lot easier to edit (it's not cluttered up with the cite templates, just the refname) but it would take quite some time to move all the templates and other editors who added refs to the article in future might find it confusing. Have a look and see what you think. HJMitchellYou rang? 20:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi thanks for that. I looked at the new refs, I'm assuming that the editor that edited inbetween didn't change them all back! I agree that it does look better but I think that editors could get confused (indeed I think the editor changing it today found it confusing!) Whilst I like the new look, I would vote to keep the previous system because it could confuse other editors :) --5 albert square (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The other guy was there to fix the cite errors- I made a bit of a mess of it (no idea how!) and he fixed it. I don't think he appreciated the mess I'd left for him though! I'd still advocate the new system, I think we'd just have to keep an eye on the article, put <!-- --> notes in to explain it and explain it on the talk page. As long as it was well maintained, we'd be alright, but it's a big change to do that for 70 odd refs and not something I'd be happy doing without consensus. I might ask Hamiltonstone for an opinion. Speaking of whom, have you seen his latest comments on the review page? He raises some good points and offers useful advice. HJMitchellYou rang? 21:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I've just looked at it just now. That seems quite a lot to get on with! --5 albert square (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, but we knew it was coming. It's not all that different from the to do list I put on your talk page. Most of it is little things that won't take long but make a big difference to the article. I note his point about the reliability of our sources, but some of the information would be very difficult to verify otherwise. I think we might get away with it as long as we use them sparingly and make the best use possible out of the good stuff, like the articles in the broadsheet newspapers. He makes another good point in saying it's the base article for a shitload of related articles (there are 40 something in category:The Bill and probably more!) and the significance of the series so it should look its best. HJMitchellYou rang? 22:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added another link to your article page, something I came across accidentally whilst looking for something else. Might be quite useful for the history of the programme? --5 albert square (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Nice! Cheers for that. It could definitely help with the history section. I'll keep it there and come back to it when I get round to that. I doubt it'd pass WP:RS, but hey, it's better than nothing! HJMitchellYou rang? 23:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
That's ok, that website said that they got their information from The Bills Bios which is The Bills official website. I might go on their official website tomorrow and try and track that information down. If the source is their official website I would think it would be ok for WP:RS --5 albert square (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Probably not- it'd be a primary source, though an official website would be a better source if the information is there (we could always take the information from the nicely laid out website but cite the official one, assuming the two are the same). I'll take a look at it in more detail when I get round to sorting out the history section, but, alas, I can only have so many tabs open in firefox before it gets ridiculous! HJMitchellYou rang? 23:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for the new discussion.--chaser (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Ronnotel is an admin. When it comes to removing things that conflict with their interpretation of policy, they tend to edit without obtaining consensus first. patsw (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I noticed. He might have been right, but as I say on the talk page, it defeats the point of the talk page to do it unilaterally. HJMitchellYou rang? 15:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
A bit rude I say --220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hiya! I've been doing more work on The Bill tonight. I've added more info on the relationship between Sergeant Gilmore and PC Ashton though no more than 3 sentences including the info that was already there. I was going to make a start on referencing the notable cast members section, but I remember when putting it together I got most of my info from Wikipedia. I've also sent a message to Hamiltonstone tonight asking him if citing Wikipedia as a source would be ok --5 albert square (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I can solve that one for you- no, you can't cite WP as a source, not least because you could just be citing yourself. I'll think of something for the cast section- that's not the most important thing atm. As for the history, it's an important fact so we might just have to leave some of it in without a ref. It may be 5AM, but I'm up now so I'll see what I can do with it. HJMitchellYou rang? 05:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I see our little friend has been back vandalising again. This time at List of The Bill episodes/19. Just reported him to WP:AIV for it to see if they can do anything. I am really struggling to find useful edits from this person --5 albert square (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Howdy! Have you seen Hamiltonstones edits to The Bill? --5 albert square (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Bloody vandals. There's always one! Not if he's made any recently. I've not been on for about 36 hours. I'll take a look tonight. HJMitchellYou rang? 22:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
There is ain't there! I reported them but the report was removed with no explanation so I'm assuming Wiki can't do anything. Never mind from now on I'm just going to give the person final warnings and keep reporting them each time. Oh, I'm going to spend time online this weekend and properly reference the notable cast members section. I'm thinking of just making it 5 or 6 notable cast members, people that have been in it a decent length of time and/or had significant storylines --5 albert square (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I just looked. He's added 2 refs tot hat cast section, which is incredibly helpful- less work for us to be cynical! I think we might need more than 5 or 6 but what I suggest, which Hamiltonstone seems to agree with is that we include only those who have been in it for a long time AND had a significant impact on Sun Hill (from the top of my head: Brownlow; Chandler?; Okaro; Meadows; Gold??; Crier?; Ackland; Beach; Holiss?; Stamp). Keep the details to minimum- joined X, left Y, actor now does..., concise reason for leaving etc etc. Everything else should be available on the actor's article and the character's article or list entry. Any thoughts? HJMitchellYou rang? 22:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is isn't it? Yeah I only suggested 5 or 6 because I don't want it to become too much of a list. Am going to work my way through it at the weekend, anything that I don't need I'll see if it would be of use to the characters/actors page. I'll certainly give it a major overhaul. Have you finished reading the book yet? I haven't though I have made a start on it. --5 albert square (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I know it's generally frowned upon to have large amounts of information in lists but there doesn't seem to be an obvious solution. It's better to have a comprehensive list than an article lacking information. Btw, I bumped into a repeat on Watch this morning on my nana's cable- I didn't know Claire Goose was in it! Who did she play? HJMitchellYou rang? 23:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah she played Sergeant Rachel Watson in it. Apparently she's on maternity leave at the moment --5 albert square (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You learn something new every day. Oh, and I haven't read the book- I have no real intention of doing more than scanning it for useful bits of information and it's handy to have it there to cite when I need it. The history section's coming along thanks to the book. I'll add another paragraph to bring it up to 2009 and then, ironically, it'll be better than the "main" article it links to! Ah well, one challenge at a time. Speaking of which I have an idea I want to bounce off you... HJMitchellYou rang? 00:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm all ears. What's the idea? --5 albert square (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Well since The Bill's wikiproject and wikiproject British TV series both seem inactive, I'm considering setting up a "British crime/ police drama wikiproject" to look after or just keep an eye on articles covering, by my rough estimates, just shy of a dozen series- spooks, the Bill, 55 Degrees North, Merseybeat etc. What do you think? HJMitchellYou rang? 00:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
That does sound a good idea! Yeah I have tried getting people interested in helping with The Bill's article again, left messages on talk pages, sent emails etc but I've only had one reply and that was to say the person was too busy to help! --5 albert square (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Does that mean you're interested? I've not asked anyone else yet but if the two of us are willing to give it a go, we can try and get some publicity and leave messages for regular editors of those articles etc etc, see what comes of it. Some of the articles could definitely do with a little TLC. HJMitchellYou rang? 11:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Btw, I've just dumped a pile of links at Ye Old Subpage. They should be helpfulwith referencing the cast section and (in due course) the character articles/ list entries. They won't display properly and I don't know why and I can't be bothered trying to fix them since it's only a subpage and it's 2AM! Take a gander. HJMitchellYou rang? 02:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, sorry I only just noticed your reply! (That's what I get for not paying attention), yes I would be interested in helping out with it. By the way, our little friend User: 58.173.18.123 has now been blocked from Wikipedia for a month for taking the trouble to vandalise something I'd referenced myself about Inspector Dale Smith being arrested for murder. That'll teach him to pick on Smithy and The Bill!! Mind you I'm keeping an extra eye on all of The Bill pages as I think he might try and become a sockpuppet --5 albert square (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries. Great, I might look at setting that up in the week. I'd need to generate a bit more interest though- two people isn't really enough for a wikiproject! Always best to keep an eye on them but it's good to hear that he's blocked! What is is his problem with The Bill anyway? Anyway, to business. The cast section is looking better than it was but it still needs references- I've dumped a pile of them at my subpage. A point was raised about region 4 DVDs on the talk page- we need to verify and reference this. The novels section could do with a few more refs if possible. We could do with a little expansion on impact. episodes needs a bit more of a lead in before we talk about the live eps and last, but not least, could you check the history and opening sequence sections to make sure I haven't missed anything important. HJMitchellYou rang? 19:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi I have absolutely no idea what his problem is with the programme. I could understand if it was just one character that this was happening to but he seems to have an issue with the programme as a whole. Anyway, to business, I'm sure that I tried to find out about region 4 DVDs for Australia before but I could not find any proof that any had been introduced so I erased it assuming that it hadn't gone ahead for some reason. I will check the opening sequence sections later on :) --5 albert square (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, it would be nice if people put their efforts into constructive contributions rather than trashing peoples' efforts but what can you do? I'll have a look around for the R4 DVDs if you want and I'll do some of the referencing of the characters, too. Btw, i removed a couple of names from the list because they didn't seem to had that much impact on the series, if you disagree just add 'em back in. HJMitchellYou rang? 20:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've now added refs for the novels section. The ISBN numbers, I actually got them from Amazon, do you reckon we'd be able to cite Amazon as a source? --5 albert square (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Good work. You can if you have to, but if you have the ISBNs, type them in to Google books and cite that if it provides anything useful but having the ISBNs definitely adds to the article- it doesn't look like we've just made it up. HJMitchellYou rang? 00:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I might see about adding them tomorrow night then, can't hurt anyway and it makes the article look like it's got more refs! How have you been doing tonight anyway? --5 albert square (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Well it's not so much the number of refs- they're in a table so you could easily just create a "ISBN" column because regardless of whether it's reliably sourced, an ISBN shows it at least exists. Google books might have the blurb or something which may add something to the article (don't stick it in if it doesn't add anything). None too shabby, I've been patrolling the new pages. Every time I do it I think "you should have to be autoconfirmed to create an article". Ironically, you have to be autoconfirmed to patrol them! HJMitchellYou rang? 01:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Awww nuts! ITV have withdrawn The Bill from their schedule until 10th December because of other scheduling commitments (according to Digital Spy), in other words because of I'm A Celebrity. Dammit! I was really looking forward to an episode of The Bill tonight, god knows how I'm going to last nearly a month before I see it again! Meh, I'm A Celebrity, can't they just all leave the celebs in the Australian outback and get back to normal viewing? Dunno about you but I'd rather see Inspector Smith weekly than Jordan! By the way, did you see the comments on The Bills talk page from hamiltonstone? --5 albert square (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
That's ITV's trouble- they don't realise they can profit from The Bill! They always cancel for bloody football or I'm a Celebrity! Ah well, I don't watch it anyway but I can't stand I'm a "Celebrity"! I did notice his comments and, to that effect, I've been blitzing the cast section- no doubt making your watchlist light up! I was half way through when I got sidetracked by dinner (at midnight) then I got your message! How are you tonight? HJMitchellYou rang? 00:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I can't stand I'm A Celebrity! I'm going to have a look at the refs tomorrow make sure they're all reliable sources, I'll try to find alternative sources for anything that has solar navigator as it's source. Er, dinner at midnight???? --5 albert square (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm a student!!!! Good idea- bear in mind that a shite source is generally better than no source- most of the character refs are imdb but they'll do and I'm not really fussed about the consensus on its reliability- any respectable editor knows it's useful for many things and at least better than no ref! I removed on yesterday though that cited The Bill's wiki which is as bad as citing WP (our article's better anyway!)! If it looks dodgy but you're not sure, leave it and I'll check it later. If you can get a better source, much the better! HJMitchellYou rang? 01:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I will look into that tomorrow. Busy reverting the weird and wonderful pages that keep appearing on Wikipedia just now. For some reason some anon IP is taking it upon themselves to spam the sandbox just now! --5 albert square (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Lest we Forget
Take a quick look at the top of my talk page, if you have time.--220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I appreciate the need for a source - even though it is abundantly clear from the evidence. It's not like he just went berserk - it was clearly planned. What do you think would be best, media commentary such as these
[1] or an official statement from law enforcement? I think a reference to it is relevant - despite how obvious it is, to differentiate from someone who acted spontaneously. Regards. Leaky Caldron 13:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for dropping in. If there's something (I don't think it's hugely important WHAT exactly) that says this is undoubtedly planned, add it in with the sentence I took out. So far, if I pretend I know nothing of the subject and have just stumbled across it, there's nothing that deals with the possibility that he just got to work and thought "I'm going to shoot these people", with the exception of the purchase of the weapons so close to the event. As someone who's followed this event on the news and on WP, I'd say it's pretty cleat he planned it to at least some degree so if there's a source out there for it, by all means, add it in. Do we know what came of his meeting with his lawyer yet? HJMitchellYou rang? 13:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Going to sleep soon (I HOPE), + real world stuff to do so may not get back to you for 10 hours or so. nb Warm ≈25°, dry and sunny today, BUT heat wave coming!
I hesitated a bit about your excision of the comment, reinstating and then reverting back to your excision. I agree that it was a stupid and disruptive comment, and I imagine the personal attack on Sherurcij put it over the edge. Generally, though, I think that excisions are counterproductive except in extreme circumstances.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, which is why I only removed a small portion (and I hesitated myself). However, the comment was absurd (comparing Hasan with the Buddah) and disruptive. I was very careful not to prevent him from expressing his opinion without allowing the AfD to be hijacked by POV pushing. Thanks for your comments. HJMitchellYou rang? 15:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I think your essential point is correct. I am sick and tired of incivility in these Fort Hood related articles, and Wikipedia in general. It's brought to view how WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are almost universally ignored. You know, I considered reporting a particular user for incivility on one of the Fort Hood related pages, and I found that there is no mechanism for dealing with that. AN/I doesn't want to hear it, and there is a "Wikiettiquette" notice board that has no teeth. This is becoming a serious problem. Anyway, I wish I'd read the excised edit more carefully, as it contained a personal attack. I'd like to see more of that kind of removal universally and across the board. Unfortunately, disruptive edits are not uncommon and rarely dealt with.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Join the club. I've seen so much incivility at the AfD and both talk pages- even from experienced editors. My understanding is that we have to be civil and assume good faith but, unless we're personally attacked, we can do nothing about those who are uncivil to us. WP policy has a tendency to defeat itself like that. That said, I won't allow people to hijack legitimate discussions with personal attacks and POV pushing- I've removed one or two comments from the Fort Hood shooting talk page accusing Hasan of being a Muslim terrorist and other editors of being collaborators or sympathisers for denying the repeated insertion of POV. Perhaps it's worth raising the issue somewhere? I don't know where though... HJMitchellYou rang? 22:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Even if you are personally attacked there is nothing much that you can do. NPA issues are explicitly excluded from AN/I, and referred to the toothless "Wikiettiquette" noticeboard. And yes, in the past I've been amazed by the childish behavior and ignorance of basic rules by long-time users. By all means keep up the vigilance. There is really nothing else to do and nowhere to complain unless things get totally out of hand.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, sometimes it's worth bugging an admin directly. I've seen people blocked for personal attacks before. People take this thing too seriously- at the end of the day, in a month or two, noone will give a shit if Hasan has his own article or what the exact title of the main article is or any of the other tiny points people have squabbled over so much! Editors (from IPs to admins) would do well to remember that. Besides, writing nonsense and attacking other editors draws us away from the main issues which, despite the AfD being almost doomed to a "no consensus" thus default keep, need to be thrashed out once and for all. HJMitchellYou rang? 22:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Things seem to have calmed down a little but I agree with your zero-tolerance attitude toward personal attacks. If any more come your way, let me know. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Good. I will do. Might still be worth making a proposal somewhere for a noticeboard or something that can do something about it. It goes without saying, I'd support it if you can find the appropriate venue. HJMitchellYou rang? 15:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Apparently it's been tried before and rejected. See[3]. Isn't that depressing? The community just doesn't care.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It is depressing, but hardly surprising! If you get something particularly appalling, I'd suggest taking it to WP:AN or WP:ANI even if it's the wrong venue, it'll get attention. I'd do so for the "comment" I erased from the Hasan AfD but it's too old for anyone to do anything really. HJMitchellYou rang? 16:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, good idea. I think the general practice seems to be to enforce NPA only in very extreme circumstances, after much provocation. Whether this is wise thing or not is a separate issue. Personally I think things have gotten out of hand. The best solution for now is to try to exert restraint, and to help others when appropriate. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps that's the right way to go? After all, closing admins aren't going to attribute nay weight to some idiot accusing editors of being jihadists and most people are sensible enough to ignore it. Some things can't be ignored, but perhaps some should be to avoid the risk of "feeding the trolls"? Besides, everyone seems to have a different view on what constitutes "incivility" or a "personal attack" and some people are just here to disrupt the place but they'll find themselves indef'd sooner or later. In the meantime, it's up to the community to be mature and not rise to the bait. HJMitchellYou rang? 20:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
You have asked me to remove my page from wikipedia. My website is a PC Software Forum which was openned on the 13th November 2009. As it is new there is not much to write about it. Once I have got the ball rolling and I actually get somewhere I can write more. I dont think it being a new page about a forum that has just openned is a bda thing because there is not a lot to write about
I apologise for the abruptness of the notification. The problem with the page is that it appears to be an advertisement for its subject- Wikipedia articles are required to be written form a neutral point of view. They also have to be notable in that they receive coverage in multiple reliable sources which, unfortunately, this one doesn't seem to be. If you think there's a good reason for the page not to be deleted, I suggest you put {{hangon}} on the article and explain why in your edit summary- an administrator will then take this into account. If you have good sources, for example, an article in a newspaper or a respected technology magazine, then add them in to the article and I'll take the tag off. If not, I suggest you wait until there are more sources available and then create the article, or wait for somebody else to since you seem to have a conflict of interests. Let me know if you need any help, I'll be glad to do what I can. HJMitchellYou rang? 16:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I try to help when I have time. I really ought to put a notice at the top of my IP talk page, claiming my account. You're not the first to suggest I create an account. :) I must admit, though, I've considered getting back into the habit of logging in to edit. Many, many times I'll click the necessary buttons only to find that someone using one of the quicker tools has beaten me to the vandalism reversion. Thank you for taking the time to drop me a note, and thank you for your own efforts in finding and fixing vandalism. Happy editing! 152.16.16.75 (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've had a quick look and converted the two links on the article to references. The stuff about Johnny Depp is enough to establish notability. I'll check back a little later on and see if there's anything else I can do that might be useful. Any other material you can come up with would be great (I'll have a look myself later). Try checking Google news- if there's an article in a respected national newspaper, that would be really useful. Until later, HJMitchellYou rang? 14:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi HJM, I see you are improving the referencing at The Bill. A word of warning, as I am finding out in other articles I am editing - IMDb is mostly not thought of as a reliable source. IIRC this has been discussed in WP editors' discussions in the past, though i can't give you a link. Where possible, try and locate more reliable sources (BBC sources you are using are OK). Just a flag, and good luck hunting those down. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm attempting to blitz the cast section because it seems to be the biggest of the hurdles to GA status. I was aware of the IMDb consensus (I have my own opinions on it, but that's not ever so important). I've struggled to find better sources. The recurring theme seems to be that the actors move from one soap to another and so, while they meet WP:N, there's not an awful lot of in depth coverage of their roles. I was of the opinion that IMDb, if not a reliable source, was better than not sourcing it at all. What do you think? And, more importantly, how would that affect the GA nomination? HJMitchellYou rang? 03:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I might ask for a consensus view at the GAN talk page. I wouldn't want to see this particular issue be the only thing that held the article up at GAN, but i'd like to hear what people say, and it may not be the only issue outstanding, in any case :-) cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hamiltonstone, thanks for that. I too have looked for other references other than IMDB and have not been able to find anything. I think the problem we have here is if someone only works on a TV programme say for a few episodes, it really isn't mentioned much. I can only assume it's because people think it's not worth mentioning. It would be a shame if this is all that held the article back from good article status --5 albert square (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I'd be curious to see what the outcome is. In your opinion, is it better to cite IMDb or not to have a ref? While we're all online, are there any other glaring issues that could fail the nomination? I've read the review page (it's on my watchlist) but a concise outline of anything major would be appreciated. HJMitchellYou rang? 03:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Cite IMDb rather than no ref at this stage. And although i've asked for opinion at WT:GAN, my view is now that the IMDb cites, provided they are for non-controversial facts, such as "X appeared in film Y in 199x", will not hold up the GAN. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Brilliant. Thanks for your trouble. I don't think I've used it to cite anything potentially controversial. Like I say, it's actors who aren't really A listers who bounce from one soap to another. As far as I can see, there may be a few dodgy refs (exc. IMDb) for potentially controversial facts but I believe 5asq is intending to find better refs for those tomorrow (it's 4am here!) and I'll look at that myself. Are there any other glaring issues you can see? I know it needs a bit of a tidy up and a fine tooth comb on some of the punctuation and grammar.... Thanks for your patience, by the way! HJMitchellYou rang? 04:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have really tried hard to find another link other than solar navigator and I can't find one that would count as a reliable source. Solar navigator is only one reference and it references that someone held up filming when The Bill first started as she was protesting against something they were doing or did. I've looked in my book, nothing. I've looked on The Bill's official website, nothing. Google has links but they're all to websites like Bebo, Freewebs and Wapedia which we can't count as a reliable source. It does have a few links to other encyclopedias but they all state that they get the information from Wikipedia! I've searched the BBC's website, I've searched ITV's website, nothing. The information does state that this happened when The Bill first started which is some 25 years ago so my honest opinion is that we're not going to be able to get a reliable source for this. My opinion is that if we can't get a reliable source, then we should just delete this. Does everyone agree? --5 albert square (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I concur. Do it. I looked for something better myself but that's the only place I've ever read that. I've googled the sentence and found nothing reliable and it's not as if it's a turning point in the series' history is it? HJMitchellYou rang? 21:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, done that and thank you for spotting the other link to Solar Navigator, missed that one! --5 albert square (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm just that good! That'll teach you to slap CSD tags on page before me! I've just stumbled upon something interesting that I missed when i did the first load of research. I'll add it in in a minute when I've figured out what we can use. Did you get chance to read through the history/ opening sequence sections for errors? HJMitchellYou rang? 22:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I've had a quick look at it, couldn't see anything obvious. I will have a more in-depth look over it later though --5 albert square (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi I've looked at the article history/opening sequence sections and couldn't see anything wrong. I've also updated the sentence we had on ITV suing STV as STV have now issued a counter-claim and apparently more will follow! Don't worry I've not added a great deal as I don't want to give this undue weight. I've only added that STV are counter-suing for over £30 million in unpaid advertising revenues and that more claims are likely as that's what my reference has said. I've also changed "unusual" back to "unique" but mentioned that it's a "unique British police drama". The editor that changed that before I think said it wasn't "unique" because a couple of American police dramas also had this format.
Also, looking through my book tonight and I notice in the introduction it says that Woodentop was originally called "Old Bill" and was rejected by the BBC. Do you reckon this is worth a sentence?
I will also put together a more comprehensive notable cast members list in the next few days. I'm thinking characters that have been in the series for a number of years and had notable storylines. Characters like Ackland, Lines, Hollis and Carver. Any thoughts? --5 albert square (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Right then! I've not looked but the info you added sounds fine- obviously we don't want too much detail on it because it's only slightly relevant to The Bill and I'm sure it's documented elsewhere on WP. I see your point on "unusual" v "unique" but, now I think about it, Merseybeat and possibly HolbyBlue took a similar format. Both of them pretty unashamedly copied The Bill and neither of em were much good but I don't think we can call it "unique" I've added something in impact and legacy about those two and Hill Street Blues- I'd been meaning to find something on that for a while before the other editor brought it up I've mentioned the original title in the history (I think) but rejection by the BBC (who have tried to copy it ever since!) is definitely worth a mention and I'll trawl the web (again!) and see if I can find anything decent about the beeb's competition because I'm guessing they're not happy that they rejected what became the most successful British police series ever! Whether I can find an WP:RS to that extent, I don't know but I'll look. That could be a good idea. I'd suggest you do it at List of characters of The Bill- underneath the list of current cast members, just discussing the most notable but perhaps a slightly longer list than we can afford in the main article. Ideally, I'd like to trim that down a little but not at the expense of excluding a notable character, obviously. I shall look at your pic now. Coincidentally, I was doing some work on Alex Walkinshaw's article yesterday! HJMitchellYou rang? 14:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, OK I've added a sentence or so about the BBC rejecting the pilot, bet they're kicking themselves now! I was looking at the notable cast members section tonight, I was wondering if we should maybe insert that list into List of characters of The Bill? That way the main article has one less list (if I remember rightly it was marked down previously for being too list-like). We could then re-name the section Cast and Notable Cast Members thus joining two sections together and just re-word the introduction in there a little to reflect this. What do you think? --5 albert square (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to disagree on that. I think it's important to have some information on the very most notable characters in the main article- it's not a very good example, but if you went to Judge John Deed, you'd be confused if it didn't mention Martin Shaw or to JAG (I love that show!) and it didn't mention David James Elliot and Catherine Bell. Obviously it's a struggle with the sheer number of characters who've appeared on The Bill, but I think it's information we need to keep. If we could shave a few off the list though..... As for the [[[List of The Bill characters]] (which is bad grammar and I intend to move at some point!) I think we ought to have a similar list there, but slightly longer, thus allowing us to take a few of the "notable but not quite that notable" characters out (possibly Lines, Hunter...). I also think the section should retain its current format, though we might take the sub heading out. It could do with a little more prose if we can find more to write about it without getting in to the realms of OR.
Also, two more things, minor points, but I want to raise them:
When citing the book, use <ref name="Tibballs"/> to avoid duplicating the refs
When linking ITV, use ITV plc for the company eg "[[ITV plc|ITV]] was so impressed that they commissioned an entire series" and ITV for the channel eg "The Bill is shown on ITV". HJMitchellYou rang? 23:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah ok, I'm still getting used to this citing thing lol. I'll take a look at the notable cast members list just now then and see who we can shave off....... --5 albert square (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Okyday. I got used to it by properly formatting the refs at a few articles I maintain but it's a bit fiddly. Just copy and paste it from here if you want! I'll copy the list into characters article so we have somewhere to put them, meanwhile, if you could shave off a few of those from the main article, since you're the expert! HJMitchellYou rang? 23:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've just done quite a big overhaul of the notable cast section bit. I took quite a few of them out (and yes I noticed that you disagreed with me!), expanded a little more on most of the characters that were left, explained why they were notable eg Smithy being arrested for his girlfriends murder. I'm in two minds whether or not to leave Tosh Lines in the list, I can't remember any particular storyline that he was notable for and there's nothing about him in my book that I can see. I'll maybe try and research him more on google tomorrow, if I can't find anything notable I'll then remove him --5 albert square (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I only disagreed on one (Beech) because the Don Beech scandal was massive. It also established Murray's reputation (he seems to have played nothing but dirty gangsters since!), prompted the resignation of the station commander and brought us a new DS (whose name escapes me) but hey, a little editorial disagreement is healthy! As for Lines, my question (though slightly crass) is "if the actor was alive, would he make the list?" if not, take him out of the list. I'd be inclined to minimise that kind of thing- we're talking about the actors, not the characters (who have their own entries). It's difficult with the two existing cast members because we can't say "was written out because...". Btw, when you cite the book, you don't need the cite template, just type <ref name="Tibballs"> and it'll display. I also moved some of the info into the history section, because we don't need to go into much detail in the lead. Any objections? I'll finish tidying that up in a bit.
Btw, once we're done on The Bill, I'm thinking of taking on Merseybeat (TV series). If you're interested, it would be one hell of an achievement to get it from 2 sentence stub to GA....! Also btw, I just noticed I stopped leaving you talkback templates- do you want them? HJMitchellYou rang? 01:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, yeah sure I could help you however I've never even watched Merseybeat before! When it came along I decided to stay loyal to The Bill lol. Yes I did consider leaving Murray but then I thought "well he was only in it for five years......." that was why I removed him. However I don't mind if he stays. And thanks for the tip about the book, I didn't know that before. Oh and you don't need to leave me the talkback messages as I've got your page on my watchlist --5 albert square (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Suits me- I normally leave them but this is getting to be quite a long discussion! I watched the first series but didn't think much of it, if I'm honest. I can barely remember it but I think it's worthy of slightly more than the 2/3 sentences we have! Once we've sorted The Bill out, I'll do some proper research and see if there is the prospect of getting a GA. Even if there's no hope, there's no reason we couldn't get a reasonable article out of it. I've also got history of The Bill in my crosshairs, since the main article now gives much better info. Most of the articles in Category:The Bill could do with some attention. Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself and I still have a wikiproject to consider setting up! HJMitchellYou rang? 02:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah they do don't they? Speaking of categories d'you know what I found on Wikipedia the other day? I was on the Dale Smith page looking for something when I realised that somebody had added him as being a police unit! So when I clicked to confirm my suspicions, there amongst the likes of the air command support unit, SO19 etc was Dale Smith from The Bill. I mean for gawds sakes he's a made-up character not the entire Metropolitan police unit! I was laughing for a good few minutes when I came across that little error! Don't people pay any attention to what they're adding on Wikipedia nowadays? --5 albert square (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? What fool put that in? I'm sure it was good faith, but surely one would actually check the category one ads a page to before doing so! Well, apparently not! I could use a little help if you have some time on your hands- I've gone and moved all the lists of characters to their grammatically correct titles but created a shitload of double redirects. Could you give me a hand fixing them? If you can help, starting at the bottom of the alphabet would avoid tripping over each other. HJMitchellYou rang? 02:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure I'll help a little before I go off to my bed. I've had a look at The Bill's page though can't see where you're meaning. Which page is this on? And how do I cancel double redirects? --5 albert square (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I moved List of The Bill characters to List of characters of The Bill, thus creating a redirect. However I forgot that most of the characters redirect to the list. so, for example, Jim Carver redirects to list of the bill characters (A-D), which redirect to where I moved it. Complicated, yeah! Basically:
type the character's name in the search box, you should get a redirect page
copy the text from the edit mode
click back
click on the little "redirected from..." at the top
open edit mode and paste the text into the page titled "(name of character)"
I hate doing these but they have to be done or you end up with an almighty mess!
HJMitchellYou rang? 03:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've done a few such as Roger Valentine, I think I did them correctly but I'm not 100% sure as I've never really dealt with redirects before. Anyway, sorry, am going to have to go to bed now, got work in the morning! --5 albert square (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries, no need to apologise. A bot's found them and is sorting them out now so I'll just go and tidy up after it so everything points where it should do. Drop us a line if you're on tonight. HJMitchellYou rang? 14:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Heya am on tonight, haven't had the chance to look at the bots work yet though. Watching EastEnders on Children In Need first! --5 albert square (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Haha! I just watched the cast of The Bill! Their singing's not half bad actually! I might put a sentence or two into the article on it if I can find some news coverage! They were better than Hollyoaks anyway! The redirects are sorted now- everything that redirected to "List of The Bill characters" points directly at "List of characters of The Bill" and I've changed all the templates and whatnot. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you could take the ranks out of the subsections on List of characters of The Bill (eg "Sergeant June Ackland" to "June Ackalnd"). I've done A-D. Then it's a case of back to The Bill. I might contact Hamiltonstone to get his opinion on the recent changes and see how much further he thinks we have to go on the GA nom, though we're not there just yet. HJMitchellYou rang? 21:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey they didn't show that in Scotland!! Hmph!! I think I've taken out the rankings you're meaning, but you might like to check in case I've misunderstood --5 albert square (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I misunderstood what you said at first. I think I'm looking in the right place now but I'm away up to T and can't see any characters with their ranking in the name title? --5 albert square (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries, I think we've got them all now. That'll teach me to create a mess! HJMitchellYou rang? 22:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I did stumble across some eventually, I think that's them all done now though --5 albert square (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Thought I'd let you know I came across two articles about The Bill being on Children In Need [4] and [5] --5 albert square (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
cheers. I'll see if I can't knock something out on that later. I'm sure it's not the first time The Bill's been involved with children in need but I don't normally watch either of them if I'm honest! HJMitchellYou rang? 00:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, according to Google they were also in it in 2008 [6]. I've only just stopped laughing from them doing the birdie at the end there! --5 albert square (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I shall add something into the article about that. It's not exactly earth shattering but it's worthy of a mention, perhaps in impact and legacy? Or perhaps history? Or both? Meh, I'll find somewhere!
Btw, if you have a few minutes to help your favourite editor (:D) and, of course, to improve WP could you go through List of Characters of The Bill starting from Z (or V or wherever it ends!) then click on the name of the actor and add [[Category:Actors appearing in The Bill]] to the bottom. I created it earlier and I've added a few in (alll of A and most of B). It seems a good way to keep track of the articles and improve coverage of The Bill. Besides, it's a handy way of monitoring BLPs without having an absurdly long watchlist! HJMitchellYou rang? 04:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Er, that link says the page doesn't exist? Which page are you meaning? I'll have a look later when I'm home --5 albert square (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries. It's my fault, i shouldn't have capitalised the "C" but hey, I've redirected it now! HJMitchellYou rang? 17:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries, will do this later tonight or tomorrow :) --5 albert square (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
At your convenience. There's no rush. I'm off for a pint (or three) of ale so I'll be back on in a couple of hours. HJMitchellYou rang? 21:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hah I'm having a pint or three of lager whilst on my computer tonight! --5 albert square (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You disappoint me, my friend! You can't beat a nice bit of ale! Have you had chance to add that category in yet? Like I say, no rush. I'll probably finish A-D later on but my internet connection's shite! I'll have a look at The Bill in a bit, too. HJMitchellYou rang? 00:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Ha, no haven't had the chance to do it yet, thought I'd better leave it for tonight. I've already added the wrong warning template to someones userpage and tagged an article that was marked for deletion! So thought I would leave it or I'll end up merging the article with Neighbours lol! Do it tomorrow though --5 albert square (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, that should be them all added now. I also altered some of the names already appearing in the list as they weren't appearing properly. It was only because no defaultsort had been added to their profiles so they were appearing under their first name instead of the surname --5 albert square (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Brilliant! I knew there was a reason I liked you! hah! Since you're on, I'm in the process of making another mess (I do that a lot)! How do I set up a GA review? I've created and signed the review subpage, is there anything else I need to do? Btw, have you seen the main page? My article's in ITN! It's the first time I've had anything on the main page! HJMitchellYou rang? 20:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
As long as you've carried out everything that it says at Wikipedia:Good article nominations then you don't need to do anything else. It's just that it may take a month or two for it to be reviewed. I know that I nominated Neighbours in October and it's still outstanding. Oh, I forgot to say before, I also altered Reg Hollis' name before, for some reason on one of the lists it was appearing as "List of Bill Characters", no idea why! Oh and also removed a non-free image from one of the actors pages and carried out a basic tidy up of another actors page that seemed to have a load of shouting on it though I don't think it was intentional. More the work of an inexperienced editor. Haha love your article on the main page! --5 albert square (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Any idea what we still need to do to bring the article up to GA status? I did look tonight, the only thing I could see possibly was the History and Premise section, I think there was something about them being expanded and broken up into 3 articles? Oh and something about a prose introduction to the episodes but as I still don't understand what a prose is, kind of reluctant to do that --5 albert square (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not nominating an article for GA, I'm reviewing one but the instructions on the GA page have me stumped (I very, very, rarely venture into that area!). You've reviewed a GA beofre haven't you? I've taken on The Climb (song), could you take a look?
As for The Bill, I think the production/broadcasting section needs a bit of a tidy up and perhaps a little more detail. Impact and legacy could do with a look, but I'm not sure how much more there is to say about that. Prose is just coherent sentences as opposed to a list- for example X is notable for Y and Z as opposed to
X is notable for:
Y
Z
as relates to the episodes section, it needs just a sentence or two about number of episodes, number of series (which I've added), the fact that the first 3 series only had 12 episodes and perhaps something on format and filming without repeating the broadcasting section if possible. It also places probably undue weight on the live episodes. The information on those should be consolidated and there needs to be more analysis rather than just plot summary- date of broadcast, reason, etc but they don't really warrant more than 2/3 sentences each because 2 episodes in a 25 year history? Not all that significant. Run that past Hamiltonstone and see if he has any more suggestions, especially on what to write for the episodes section because I'm not entirely sure on that myself. Any help? I'll lend a hand when I get chance. HJMitchellYou rang? 23:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I reviewed Tracy Flick and that is a rarity for me cos I went outside my comfort zone of rollbacking on Wikipedia by reviewing! Yeah, that's all you really need to do, then if you pass/fail it just follow the instructions on the good article page. I messaged hamiltonstone before but don't know how quickly I'll hear back as they're on a wikibreak --5 albert square (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least if he's on a wikibreak, it's not going to be passed/failed until he gets back. I'll see what I can do in a mo but I've got a GA review, an article on the main page (woo!) and food to worry about so I can't do a lot quickly but I'll check in once I've eaten. HJMitchellYou rang? 00:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Heard back from hamiltonstone, this is what he says: "You have now included an intro sentence, which was needed: the section still lacks information about episode running times. Something I had not previously noticed is that there are quite a few uncited facts in the section on the novels. Does someone want to have a look at this (including whether that is the best section for them)? Must dash." I've now added a section to the intro about running times. As for the citings, I noticed them too but thought we'd got rid of them by now. I'll have a quick look over them later tonight, and if I get the chance to sneak on Wiki tomorrow at work, then too. Might have to make any edits under an anon IP though! --5 albert square (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been worried about the novels for a while. I think the only solution might be to strip it down to nothing more than "x number of novels were published by Y in Z year" because that's all we can verify unless we can find a reliable source. I'll have a look but I'm not holding my breath. I think we're pretty well cited everywhere else but it's worth a look. I'll have a look at the detail you added. I'll try and rework the entire episodes section but it'll probably be tommorow. Btw, have you seen the GA page? The Bill is the 6th longest held article! The first has been on hold for something like 70 days! HJMitchellYou rang? 02:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, just to let you know, I quickly sneaked on works computer today but I can find no citation templates in The Bill's article? Have we finally managed to get rid of them all? Or is my work pc up to it's usual tricks and trying to fool me? I agree with you about the novels --5 albert square (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
What is it with vandals tonight? Everywhere on my articles! By the way did you get the chance to look at The Bill? --5 albert square (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There aren't any {{fact}} tags that I'm aware of (I put most of them on and later took most of them off myself), I think Hamiltonstone's point was the lack of citations themselves in the novels section. I might be able to knock something up on the episodes section- I have an idea or two. I'll tackle that if you're OK to find something (anything) on the novels- even amazon or something dodgy like that- just to verify their existence, publication dates, etc etc.
I'll not be able to it now but later tonight or the early hours, I should have chance to get onto it. HJMitchellYou rang? 22:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Didn't think there were any. By the way List of characters of The Bill has received some vandalism tonight. Someone is saying a character is joining, when I click on the character link it takes me to a page about Hollyoaks, the ref they've provided links to Twitter which ain't allowed by Wikipedia and I can't find anything on Google to support the fact that this actress is joining. When you've got a sec can you please check I've got rid of everything? --5 albert square (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I had a look and left the other editor a message. I'll keep an eye out because if he adds it back in, it's WP:3RR, though a word of warning, you'll technically be in violation if you revert him, so kick it over to me and I'll sort it. I've advised them to get in touch or go to the talk page if they have a better source. The information seems to be true but, unfortunately, it's not verifiable by WP standards. I'm going to have a look at the episodes section, can you try and dig up some sort of ref for the novels section? HJMitchellYou rang? 01:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I don't think I would be in violation though as I think that classes as vandalism. I googled the information and genuinely could not find any other source, this news isn't even on The Bill's official website. The only place that's stating it is Twitter and that's a social networking site so Wikipedia gives it a wide berth. With the refs for the novels I think we will struggle to get these as I was struggling to get the ones I already got! I will try though but might take me a few days as I don't know if I'll be on tomorrow night. Going to see "We Will Rock You"! --5 albert square (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I googled it and got digitalspy forums and the twitter page of the producer, neither of which are reliable, but I'd say the information is probably true, so it's a good faith edit. Keep an ee on it- maybe we'll hear something official in a few days. Where are you going for that? I'd quite like to see it so let me know if it's any good! HJMitchellYou rang? 01:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Aha I'm going to see it at the Edinburgh Playhouse with about 30-odd people from work! By the way I have tried to find other refs for the novels section and I can't find any. Plenty websites have the ISBN of the books but none seem to have what the books are actually about. Nothing can back up the claims that the first two books follow characters home. I've searched every single search engine that Wikipedia suggests, I've also googled everything I can think of and the only page that's stating all this is the one we're trying to reference! What do we do? --5 albert square (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
In fact I'm going to suggest something here. As I can't find any refs whatsoever for the rest of the novels section, how about we simply have the first paragraph and then the table? --5 albert square (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Have fun! Sounds like a good night out! If we can't find anything more than the name and the ISBNs, then, I'm afraid, we'll just have to gut the section and strip it right down to "X was published by Y in Z year, ISBN No 12345" etc. I feared we'd end up having to do that and the information must have come from somewhere, but if we can't verify it, we can't write it. It'll have to be in prose (continuous sentences) too, rather than the wikitable, even if we only have 4 sentences to write! HJMitchellYou rang? 02:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah It's just a shame there's no citations to back it up! I've googled everything I can think of from the ISBN number to something like "The Bill 1 book review" and I've even copied and pasted the exact wording from here into Google. Still nothing! I will look tomorrow though whilst I'm at work and see if I can come up with anything else. Oh and yes I will have fun tomorrow night and will let you know what it's all about! In the meantime you can check out [7]! I've been jiving at the same time as doing edits all night to that! --5 albert square (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Let me know if you come up with anything. Take a look at the episodes section! Oh, and take a look at the refs- the book is cited like 16 times! haha! HJMitchellYou rang? 03:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I've left my thoughts about The Bill character page being deleted. Also let them know what I thought of them biting! --5 albert square (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, just to let you know I've again added more thoughts on the deletion process. --5 albert square (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi HJ are you about tonight? How are you? --5 albert square (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I am indeed! I've been busy making a mess elsewhere! I've had a look at The Bill and Hamiltonstone's comments though (some of which I've addressed, some I'll have to delegate to you!). I'm all good, I'm actually managing to sleep in the night and get my arse to lectures in the day. What of your good self? How was We Will Rock You? Can you do me a favour and start a new section on here (this one's massive!) so we can discuss the last points on the GA. HJMitchellYou rang? 23:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Re:Image copyright tagging
Hi HJ Mitchell. Sure, I'd be happy to help! Mkay, well, before I can help - I'll need the following information: what type of images these are (free or non-free (i.e. copyrighted or not), who (author/phtographer) took them, the source of the files, and when they were taken (The exact year is good enough). If these are non-free images, the manner in which they are used on Hull Blitz is a violation of WP:NFCC#3 and I would recommend removing them. However, if these are free images (i.e. do they fall under one of these categories in terms of licensing or are they old enough to be classified as Public Domain images), then such usage is acceptable and the only thing that remains to be done is to provide the appropriate documentation on the image description pages of the files. Drop me a line on my talk when you or User:Pippin0490 have the info and are ready to proceed. Cheers, FASTILY(TALK) 08:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
ITN for 2009 Heilongjiang mine explosion
On 22 November 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2009 Heilongjiang mine explosion, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Hey, thank you so much for offering. And the answer is yes. But one small request, please hold off critical reception because the article is a collaboration and the other user is not quite done with the section. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I can deal with that. What I'll do is create the review page with a few general comments (excluding that section) and when that section's done with, we can get down to the "nitty gritty". It'll be a collaborative discussion (rather than a unilateral box-ticking) because, after all, that's what WP's all about. Drop a line on here and/or the review page when you're ready to continue. Oh, and good luck! HJMitchellYou rang? 19:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. I'm just in the process of of making it official. If I might make two suggestions? Can we keep discussions in one place? I'd suggest here, your talk page or the review page. And I'd suggest you add Talk:The Climb (song)/GA1 to your watchlist so you can keep track of the review. I'll let you know when it's all official and "on review" (in a few minutes) and then I'll take a look at the article. HJMitchellYou rang? 20:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, critical reception is done. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll get on it in a minute. I'll have a thorough read of the article and provide a few comments on the review page for you. That'll probably take me an hour or so because I need to eat but hey, it's better than waiting a month! Regards, HJMitchellYou rang? 00:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Lol... thank you so much. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Brad Pitt
Hey HJ Mitchell, sorry to bother you, but I was maybe hoping if you can copy-edit Brad Pitt's article, as I'm trying to aim the article to Featured article status. This past June, the article failed its FAC, due to the article not having a good prose. A couple of kind users have copy-edited the article, having one more pair of eyes would be very helpful. If you have time, I would appreciate your help a lot. :) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 17:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I'll take a look. If it suits you, I'll probably go through it section by section, correcting what I can and leave a few comments on the talk page where I have something useful to say. It'll be a couple of hours before I get chance to really scrutinise it though because I have quite a bit on my plate at the minute and real world considerations! I'll be in touch! HJMitchellYou rang? 21:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine, a very easier way to go by, really. Absolutely, if you have any concerns just let me know about them, I'll be glad to assist. :) Sure, take your time, no rush, really, I know that outside of Wikipedia we all have lives. ;) Thank you, HJ Mitchell, I appreciate this a lot. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 16:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Right, I've had a quick look. I've got some time to have a good look through today so I'll do what I can. Btw, I left a tag on "cited as one of the world's sexiest men"- just thought I'd explain- do you know who gave him that label? If so, I'd suggest writiting "x cited Pitt in y publication as being..." I'll let you know how I get on as I get through it. HJMitchellYou rang? 12:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you're not the first person to challenge the sexiest man thing. But, yeah that statement is already sourced in the article. Also, I'd like to apologize for you getting in "trouble". I read your discussions with LaVidaLoca and I know you didn't mean no harm with your edits. :) But, yeah, please let me know how your progress goes. P.S. I've watchlisted your talkpage, like you noted on mine. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 21:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Haha! No worries. I do think it's important to say who cited him as that but that's hardly an FAC failing issue! As for the "trouble", there's nothing to apologise for- I was probably a little defensive of my edits (who likes to see themselves reverted) but LaVidaLoca made a valid point. I think the sentences at the end of the lead could do with some work but I'm not sure yet how they should look. Leave it with me- I might create a sandbox and fiddle around in my userspace rather than the "live" article. Also, I don't know if you have an opinion on this, but the lead does seem to read like a career section. I'm not sure if it might be worth consolidating it? Any ideas? HJMitchellYou rang? 21:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I know how you feel, I take it personal when someone reverts my edits. Well, I'm glad you guys got this straightened out, didn't want to see any controversy between you guys. Are you referring to his production company and the social issues thing? To be honest, they don't seem to be a problem. Well, if you want to work on it in a subpage, I guess that's fine. Well, you know, the lead is supposed to summarize the entire article, I guess it should have that "feel" to it. I mean, look at Angelina Jolie, Reese Witherspoon, and Ethan Hawke's articles an example of that. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 21:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it's human nature, but anyone who has time to start an edit war has too much time on their hands!! I suppose it would be difficult for the lead to do its job without acting that way. As long as the supplementary info is kept further down. Anyway, I'll have a look further down and see if anything sticks out as needing copyediting (I'll try not to make a mess, I swear!) later on. Btw, how did you find me (not that I mind, I'm just curious!). HJMitchellYou rang? 22:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed on the edit warring. Yeah, let's just keep the article the way it is, meaning the setting, not the prose. ;) Yeah, take your time with it, no need to rush it. Oh, it's fine I'll tell you, I found you here, hope you don't mind. :) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 03:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll probably take a look later on and see if I can do anything useful with it. And no, I don't mind in the slightest. I'm always happy to take on the odd copyedit request, especially when an editor asks as nicely as you did! HJMitchellYou rang? 13:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Cool, just do your thing, and of course let me know if something comes up. :) Well, I'm glad you said yes. I thought maybe you'd decline (it happened a couple of times), but I'm very grateful you didn't. ;) Also, Happy late Thanksgiving. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 23:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I've had a chance to look at it over the last few days and I've made a few changes. I made a few changes and amde a point of leaving detailed edit summaries so you can see what I've done. Any thoughts on those? Feel free to revert/ discuss if anyone disagree with me. Like I say, I'm always happy to take this kind of thing on- it's nice to have something to do that requires more thought than "which CSD tag" or "do I use rollback or Twinkle" when I get bored! And cheers. I'm an Englishman so I didn't even realise it was thanksgiving, but the thought is much appreciated. Happy late thanksgiving yourself! I'll probably take another look in a few minutes. Best, HJMitchellYou rang? 00:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for my late response, been very busy. Good, good. Yeah, I've seen them, very helpful to what you're doing. I'd probably do the same... maybe, Shh... don't tell anyone. ;) They're good, though, a current edit you did. Shouldn't "the" be in the sentence about the ABC show Growing Pains? Cause, right now the sentence reads kinda odd, or maybe it's just me. But, the rest looks fine. Well, I'm glad you took on this task, even though I know this a tough thing to work on. :) You know, I kinda sensed that you were English, cause of the spelling of "scrutinise", lol. Well, then, happy holidays? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 16:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
moved below so I can actually find it!
More information for The Climb (song)
Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at User:Ipodnano05. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, We Will Rock You was ace! Kevin Kennedy from Corrie and Darren Day were both in it, Kevin Kennedy was very funny! Would thoroughly recommend it. Did you know Darren Day was once in The Bill? Wish I'd known that before last night, I could've taken a list of queries to his dressing room!
I'm in the middle of referencing The Bill just now and I came across this rather amusing story. Apparently a teenager who was wanted by the real police went along to watch The Bill being filmed. The real police were present during the filming of The Bill, spotted this youngster and arrested him whilst filming was going on. The newspaper said there was quite a commotion and members of the public thought the real police were all actors! You can see the article at [8]. Maybe it's just me but I couldn't help laugh at that! --5 albert square (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec)That is slightly amusing. Shame we can't use it in the article! How are we doing on Hmailtonstone's last few points? I've fixed a few where I can. The ones that particularly concern me are the broken ref he brought up (I removed it, but we now have no ref for some vital facts) and the lack of referencing on the foreign broadcasting. Any thoughts? HJMitchellYou rang? 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
No I didn't see that he'd brought up a broken ref. I've fixed the refs for the outdoor filming though. As for foreign broadcasting I did try to get refs for that but can't seem to find anything. --5 albert square (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
It's about halfway through his bullet list. We'll need something for those. I'll have a look and see if I can't dig something up. We should be able to verify at least that "The bill is broadcast in X country". He makes some good points though- try and have a look if you can see through all the Ys! HJMitchellYou rang? 01:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, can you read my two comments in the review for Ready, Set, Don't Go. One is about the critical reception and the other is about the quote that you want. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Certainly, my internet connection is appallingly slow, but I'll be there when it loads! HJMitchellYou rang? 00:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
That's fine by me. Take your time. I'm not going to arbitrarily fail it. I'll check back every now and again. Just let me know when you're ready. HJMitchellYou rang? 13:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure if it merits a fail just yet. I may be able to replace the sources. I've got a cat in my lap at the moment, so I can't get too much done, but I'll have a better answer tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
No worries, like I say, I'll leave it on hold for as long as necessary if you're willing to put the work in. I'll check back tomorrow. Let me know if I can do anything useful. HJMitchellYou rang? 11:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
ITN for 2009 Bologoye derailment
On 28 November 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2009 Bologoye derailment, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou! That makes it all worth staying up all night editing! Regards, HJMitchellYou rang? 08:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Told ya
I wouldn't be able to keep away from Wikipedia! --5 albert square (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Haha! I knew it! How are you? You wanna keep me company? I'm nocturnal! That's what you get for staying up all night to get an article on the main page (for the 2nd time in a week!). HJMitchellYou rang? 01:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll be up for the next half hour or so. Taking my goddaughter to the Santa Train tomorrow so have to be up early! --5 albert square (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll have to make the most of it then! Someone vandalised me the other day- completely random IP I've never seen before (traces to Herndon, Virginia!) came and inserted some spam link to manikin website! WTF? I've never seen anything like it, have you? HJMitchellYou rang? 02:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Weird! Never ever heard of that before! For someone that's supposed to have been on a Wiki break I think I've been online here more often since I put that notice up as someone seems intent on vandalising some of the EastEnders pages! One IP in particular is annoying me, they seem to think just because the Laurie Brett page doesn't have a date of birth, I should personally write to Laurie to get this as we can't get a reliable source for it online. Short answer to that one, er no. Not essential for her page so I have no intention of bothering her to ask for it. Five times I've had to explain that today though (!), so now I've also asked for an admin to speak to him too. Plus, because Lucas Johnson murdered a character on Thursday night, I had to revert all the subsequent vandalism on his page plus get it protected! --5 albert square (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Makes you glad you've got Twinkle and rollback I bet! It tends to work like that! I deal with a lot of current events and you should see the vandalsim some of those get! At least I can understand what causes that, but [[[Jaguar]] (the cat, not the car!) and Bon Jovi (I've filed 2 RPP requests on that in as many months!) seem to attract more than their fair share. The place would fall to pieces in about an hour if nobody reverted the vandals though! I do sometimes get slightly frustrated by the lack of available admins though- especially when you need a page speedied or an IP blocked. HJMitchellYou rang? 02:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. I wouldn't mind being admin someday on Wikipedia, but that admin that we dealt with the other day over one of The Bill's pages kinda put me off. Talk about a chip! Anyway, I will be back editing The Bill next week though I notice someones been making edits meantime :) --5 albert square (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't possibly comment on that. I've thought about it but I can't be doing with the hassle of RfA. I !vote in quite a few of them and I've seen them derail over the stupidest of things- there was one a few weeks ago of an editor who racked up a whole load of "oppose" !votes because of an incorrect image tag he made months back! I know admins are supposedly held to a higher standard (even if they can do what they like once they pass since its so bloody difficult to get them desysopped) but people seem to expect perfection. Besides, if you ever made admin, I'd be bugging you every 2 minutes to update the main page, delete this, protect that, block them! I saw the edit to The Bill but it didn't look vandalous so I didn't follow up. Drop us a line when you're back on and we'll see if we can't crack this GA! HJMitchellYou rang? 02:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, HJ. Thanks for the offer, I would love for you to review the article. I'm pretty confident that it's GA material, my concerns for FA are the number of quotes and tightening of prose. It's my first "song article", and I based the structure of it off 4 Minutes (Madonna song), which is I think one of the most recent song article to pass FAC. Sentences such as "Clarkson criticized Tedder for providing the same musical arrangement to Beyoncé Knowles for her 2008 song, "Halo", without informing her." probably would need reviewing at an FA level, if it is even worth going for FA. There are also a couple of unsourced sentences about her recent AMA performance that keeps getting added and removed, and someone keeps adding component charts from Billboard, but people are on top of that, too. Thanks in advance, Matthewedwards : Chat 06:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll open the review page now but it might be a while before I can give you any useful feedback. You're not the first to base your work on that article- I just reviewed a couple of Miley Cyrus songs for GA. Since you're aiming towards FA, I'll be as detailed as I can- I'm pretty good at copyediting so I might be able to help you out on the prose etc. I suspect the GA review itself might be something of a formality but I'll take my time over it (assuming that suits you). I'll create the review page and and update WP:GAN now and let you know here when it's done. Regards, HJMitchellYou rang? 06:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm totally fine with you taking your time. Neither I nor the article are going anywhere. I'm watching this page, but just leave me another talkback note or a heads up or whatever when you've completed it just in case I miss it. Best, Matthewedwards : Chat 06:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
That's handy, I like to keep things in one place- it can get fiddly otherwise. I've just opened the review and put it "on review" at GAN. I'll leave you a message (on your own page) when I have some useful feedback for you, probably by the end of the day (UTC) and you can fix any issues in your own time (I'll make any minor tweaks if need be as I go through). Until then, HJMitchellYou rang? 06:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The Bill VII
Hi there. Any chance of getting those last GA points looked at? BTW, you might want to do another talk page archive. It's a looong way down to the bottom :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm considerin' it, but I've got quite a few active threads on here atm. I'm waiting for 5asq to return from her weekend off. She's the expert. I just do what I can but I'll have another look and see if I can do anything useful. Best, HJMitchellYou rang? 17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
He? Haha I'm a she! Anyways back from my weekend now. Just about to remind myself what needs doing on The Bill's talk page :) --5 albert square (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I do apologise! How presumptuous of me! Now I'm slightly embarrassed! Hamiltonstone's made some good points at the review page. I think our main problem (recurring theme!) is the referencing but I reckon if we go all out, we could crack it by the end of the week. What do you say? HJMitchellYou rang? 21:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
That's ok lol. By the way I'm in the middle of a major edit of The Bill just now, will let you know when I'm finished :) --5 albert square (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, thought there was more to do but can't see anything. I've removed everything I can see that wasn't referenced from hamiltonstones list on the talk page. Wanna take a look? --5 albert square (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look now- I took an early night. I've got a couple of hours now before I have to go to my constitutional law seminar (joy of joys!) so I'll take a look and see if there's anything useful I can do. HJMitchellYou rang? 08:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything still needing done to this article? From the maze of ticks it looks like everythings been done. Is it a matter now of just waiting to hear from Hamiltonstone? --5 albert square (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, can you take a look at hamiltonstone's comments at Talk: The Bill? He's saying that the paragraph isn't clear and that the reference isn't much better. The paragraph I thought I'd leave to you as you're the experienced copy editor. However it's the reference that's causing me the most concern. It's definitely the only ref I can find. I spent an age getting this referenced before and BARB are unfortunately the only source for this. If they're no good then I don't know what we can do --5 albert square (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC).
Hi, how did you get on with finding an alternative reference? --5 albert square (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I've not actually looked yet- I got sidetracked with a GA review I promised I'd finish a few days ago and then played strip twister (after a drink or two!) with my flatmates! I'll trawl through the world wide web tomorrow afternoon though. I reworked that whole paragraph- it was appalling- how the hell did that get past both of us? If you're on now and looking for something to do, I'd suggest having a look at some of the news articles (especially the ones from The Independent)to see if they have any useful facts in 'em. If you've not got time (or you have better things to do) no worries, I 'll do it tomorrow afternoon.
BTW, I've spent a bit more time than normal on the recent changes the last few days- I've rekindled my love of the rollback button! I normally use Twinkle because it loads the vandal's talk page, but I'd forgotten how quick rollback is (and you can use it without clicking on the page when you get an edit like "replaced today's featured article with [insert name] is gay" or when you get an IP address with a page full of warning removing 30,000 characters from an article! I think I scared someone out of vandalism by putting "yes, I'm watching you" after the warning template! Always funny when you do that then sit on their contribs for half an hour reverting everything they do! I'd forgotten how amusing vandal patrol can be! HJMitchellYou rang? 02:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep I'm patrolling new pages and anon IP contributions tonight. I'm having fun! Someone before replaced the entire contents of the controversy page with 'a problem'! I've looked at The Independents articles but can't find anything else that would be of use to The Bill I'm afraid --5 albert square (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)It does make me laugh the stuff people write on here! Patrolling the IP contribs catches a lot of vandalism but if you patrol all the recent changes, you often discover loads of other things- I also watch WP:AN and WP:ANI for the entertainment as much as anything else- someone found a page that couldn't be deleted yesterday! Just when you think you've seen it all! I'll have a look at The Bill tonight and see if I can find a better ref for the ratings. We'll just have to cross our fingers and hope I get lucky! HJMitchellYou rang? 13:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, are you online? How are you getting on with finding another source for The Bill? I've been searching but not been able to find another source --5 albert square (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, OK just posted something at Talk: The Bill about what I've noticed about the ref to BARB. Would certainly explain why the programme ain't showing up in the ref! I've also explained how to get the ratings for previous years using that ref, it's on the section on the left hand side that allows you to select various months and years etc. Still not able to find another source though --5 albert square (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, any update on this? --5 albert square (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I've not found anything useful yet, but I read your comment on the review page. Is there a link to a specific week (a/o just the present one) that we can use? That would be incredibly useful but just a link to the website is less so. Anyway, I'll not be on til later on this evening now because I'll be here drinking real ale and eating ostrich! HJMitchellYou rang? 10:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sure I tried that before but it didn't work. Am at work just now and can't get access to BARB's website at the moment because my computer has Websense on it which has blocked BARB's website but not Wikipedias! I will double-check BARB's website when I get home :) --5 albert square (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, just checked this and it's not possible to get a seperate URL for individual results. Any ideas what to do about this? --5 albert square (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Brad Pitt III
moved from above
I don't know if you read my message above. I'm hoping you did. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 16:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Oops! I got the orange bar straight after I left that for you! I suppose it might read better if we stuck "the" in there, I'll have a look later on, I'm just glad to be doing something useful. So that's what gave me away? Don't worry, I've spent enough time on the web that I can write in American and British English (minus the odd error you might spot when I get tired). I'll probably take another look in a few hours and see if I can do anything useful but, as ever, fell free to discuss/tweak/revert or whatever if I make a mess. The thought's appreciated anyway! HJMitchellYou rang? 16:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I was like 'What's going on? Did someone tamper with my reply?', but I'm glad it got straightened out. Alright, I was just wondering about the "the" not being there anymore. I'd rather not "revert" someone's edits before it's discussed, you know. Yeah, kind of. I have a friend here who uses Irish English, and when I saw the word, I was like 'I wonder if he's English or something', but I didn't want to ask. That's cool. I've tried British English, cause I worked on Coldplay, I don't know if you know them, related articles and I had to use British English spelling. Alright, take your time. No, I'd rather discuss the changes with you before reverting them. That way, we're in the same page. :) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 17:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, I don't think it really makes much difference so, by all means, add it back (if it's not important, I doubt readers would notice the difference and you're way probably makes more sense!). I was just checking my watchlist and saw you'd been on so I thought I'd drop you a line, only to see you'd beat me to it! I like that! But if I make a mess, I'll not take offence if you revert it! I will take my time, but mainly because I'm rather busy atm (reviewing 2 GA hopefuls, working on another GA nom, and a few articles that aren't quite there yet, not to mention the odd contributions to WP:ITN/C, P:CE and the various noticeboards!) but I will make my way through it as time allows and I'll make any suggestions for stuff I can't do myself. HJMitchellYou rang? 18:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll add it back, if it's been cleared up. I have no intentions on reverting what you did, just restore the "the". Yeah, I have a habit of first seeing what's going on in articles, and then I reply to any messages I receive. If a situation were to occur with any edit of yours, I'll tell you, or if it's kinda bad I'll just say "going back". Hey, it's understandable, do your other tasks, and then when you get time go to Pitt's article. :) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 19:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
That's fair enough. I guess we all have other things to be doing (not to mention the real world!) but I'll take another look when I get chance! I'll probably be lighting your watchlist up sometime tomorrow! HJMitchellYou rang? 20:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the real world has something in store for all of us, some good... some bad. Anyways, when you get the chance, please have a look. Hey, if I see you in watchlist, I know it's for a good reason. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 20:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I certainly will. Obviously getting to FAC is quite a long journey but I'm happy to help along the way, I'm just glad I have skills that can be of some use. And thanks, that's a very nice thing for you to say! HJMitchellYou rang? 21:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
It is, I remember when I had Kirsten Dunst at FAC, the process took two months, but to me it seemed forever. I thank you for taking part of this pre-journey with me. :) Hey, I think you deserve to hear some nice things. ;) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 21:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar, I appreciate a lot. :) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 21:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec)The only other experience I've had around FAC is at Ralph Bakshi, which I was asked to copyedit but it failed. That said, it needed more than copyediting. It's nice to have an excursion to the top end of the spectrum rather than the bottom (new page patrolling). You're welcome, if I deserve to hear nice words, you deserve a barnstar for saying so! It's people being nice like that makes all this worthwhile, even if we are supposedly losing editors in droves! I couldn't help but laugh when I heard that- I wonder how many of those "editors" are vandals and indef'd sockpuppets? HJMitchellYou rang? 21:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for my late, late, late, late, late, late, late, reply. I've been busy, IDK if you can see. I agree, sometimes is not the writing, it's something else. Thankfully that hasn't been the case with my past FAs. Well, I like to say nice things, cause I'm nice, and because the other person I'm talking too does the same. Who knows, but that is a good question. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 19:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I'm sure you have more important things to be doing elsewhere. I'll have a look at Pitt today or tomorrow when I should have a bit less on my wiki-plate and I'll make a point of turning my attention there before I fill it back up! HJMitchellYou rang? 21:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Don West, Jr
Thank you for your help with AfD earlier today. I was struggling with how to handle a 2nd nomination, and you stepped in and did the 3rd before I finished the 2nd one. Is there an easy way to clean all of this up so that we have only one AfD proceeding open on this article? I have only nominated four articles for deletion until now, and they have all been 1st nominations. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I noticed that. I just used Twinkle to create the AfD but it automatically created the "3rd" nomination. I think your best bet would be to post at WP:AN and ask for an admin to close the 2nd, since the third is the one that's linked in the "subst:AfD" template on the article. Other than that, all you need to do is add a rationale. For future reference, WP:AFDHOWTO is quite useful- it explains exactly what you have to do for the "three steps" and it has the templates/ edit summaries to use that you cna copy and pate, but don't worry, no self respecting editor hasn't cocked up an AfD nom before (myself included!)! HJMitchellYou rang? 18:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I did follow the three steps and got confused between the article name and the AfD article name. While I was working out the product of the step-2 template in preview mode, you came in with the third nomination. Someone has fixed this. Sorry for the confusion. Racepacket (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I left it for a few minutes in case you were working your way through the steps. I forgot that Twinkle would automatically create a "3rd" nom but as long as it's fixed now. These things happen all the time. Drop us a line if you need a hand with anything in future. HJMitchellYou rang? 18:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
It was a translation from the Polish article. Don't see why it's allowed there but not here. At any rate, I added a list of their singles to the page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Semsem (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
If you disagree with the deletion, I suggest you add {{hangon}} below the speedy tag and then explain why on the talk page. The problem is that the content of the article is not verifiable by reliable, third party sources. If you have references (even if they're in Polish) add them in. Google translator can be used to view webpages in other languages. Let me know if you find anything useful. HJMitchellYou rang? 00:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Please help!
My Twickles page was speedily deleted from Wikipedia. It was said to be meaningless. Please, can I write it again? It's a lovely poem. My heart split when I saw it was deleted. It's a rhyming poem that talks about Twickles. Twickles are grumpy little gnomes, elves or dwarfs. Please accept! Sincerely, Julia Howard 01:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottyslurp (talk • contribs)
I suggest you contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you but recreating the page is a bad idea because it will only be deleted again and probably protected. I'm sorry your page was deleted but it evidently didn't meet our criteria for inclusion. HJMitchellYou rang? 10:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, our little friend has been active on List of characters of The Bill adding the same rumour and citing Twitter as a source. I've had it confirmed by admin now that as per WP:SPS Twitter cannot be accepted as a source. I've explained this in full at Talk: List of characters of The Bill and have also posted this on this persons user page last night explaining why it can't be accepted but they've refused to heed the warning. I've told them they are perfectly welcome to re-add the rumour if they provide a source other than Twitter. I've now posted a more severe warning explaining that if they keep citing Twitter they run the risk of eventually being blocked, hopefully this has done the trick, but can you please just check this page later on to make sure the same rumour has not been re-added still citing Twitter as the source? I'll try and be on later on but I'm going out for a chinese meal later! --5 albert square (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Good work catching that. Twitter is not a reliable source and I've searched google for something better but found nothing that isn't Twitter or hasn't come from Twitter. I'll keep an eye on it. For the record, you be being a little heavy handed with the template warnings- I think this guy is acting in (to use a legal term) the utmost good faith. I'm sure the information is true but until we have something better than Twitter, it doesn't belong on WP, as frustrating as it is. HJMitchellYou rang? 20:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Woohoo The Bill is GA! For what it's worth I also believe the guy but I can't find a reliable source to back this up. In fact I might also post on his talk page and state this. I've just had to post a 3RR warning on his page because he's reverted the page something like 4 or 5 times today. Whilst I wouldn't report him at this stage, someone else might come along and do so. I'm hoping that they'll check his talk page, see I've warned him and think it's already been reported --5 albert square (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello HJ Mitchell, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Theanarcho Communism) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! GedUK 19:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Just out of curiosity, since I don't have access to deleted material, what was the criterion I tagged it with and what was the criterion it was deleted under? Thanks for your time, HJMitchellYou rang? 20:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I deleted it under A7, notability (which was pushing it a bit, to be honest). You nominated it as db-nonsense. It wasn't nonsense, it was written in English, it made sense, it wasn't gibberish. Yes, it was made up (as mentioned on the talk page), but it wasn't nonsense. Hope that clarifies it. Don't worry too much, it did need to go! GedUK 20:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Lesson learned! Thanks for the note, anyway, it's a good idea to let people know like that. HJMitchellYou rang? 20:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
s! HJMitchell You rang? 01:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)