User talk:Angmering/Archive3

The Pit

Well, I think I didn't note it because I came to it late in the game, after it got elevated, so I didn't want it to look like I was claiming credit for its FA status. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Very kind of you to ask after my welfare and I genuinely mean that, since part of my reason for not contributing for a while was (and still is) due to very difficult personal circumstances. Still ongoing, so I will be contributing less for a while. But it's nice to be thought of and I hope you had a good Christmas and have a good New Year. --bodnotbod 01:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. Hope things look up for you soon. Take care. Angmering 07:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life on Mars (television)

I understand the use of the square backets, in this context. No hard feelings. ant_ie 22:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's one of Wikipedia's little weaknesses — sometimes when you use square brackets they think you meant to create a link and just made a mistake. Easily done. :-). Angmering 22:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Newman

Hey, Paul. I'm winding up my Wikipedia-ing for the day right now, but I will take a look at Sydney Newman tonight or tomorrow and try to provide some feedback. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've made a few very minor tweaks (edit summaries should explain all). I've got down to the Canada heading, but will stop for tonight. Best way to get me to remember to carry on is just to edit my talk page again, that will alert me). No need to explain why; just go BOING! or something, just seeing my messagess thing will remind me. It's a very interesting article. I may bring it to the attention of my friend who's into TV history. I had no idea that there was a man who links Armchair Theatre, Dr Who and The Avengers, so it's all good stuff. --bodnotbod 00:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks great to me. The only change I could think of was to link bug-eyed monster, which is pretty darn minor. Good luck with the peer review! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a fantastic article! Good job! Shanemcd 00:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Thomas

Thanks for noticing and the kind words! ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 10:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - the Sydney Newman article is excellent, by the way. I've just read it though and it's fascinating and well written. I've added a photo I took of the ABC Didsbury studios just before they were demolished at the turn of the century. Are you going for featured article status for it? ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 11:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Police Surgeon

I was trying to help out with the red links on Sydney Newman, so we were both there for the same reason. That we were doing it at the same moment is bizarre :-)

I must admit to knowing hardly anything about it - since I cribbed from the two links on the page, I can guarantee there was no original research... —Whouk (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As easy as ABC

Darn it. I spotted it on The Avengers article and remembered the logo on Thriller. Said to the Thriller fan sitting next to me "Was it ABC?" and he said yes. He apologises :-) —Whouk (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Season 3 of The Office

Could you please provide a citation for the information you added? Thanks. Jtrost 22:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Newman

Hello Paul. I do fervently apologise - it's late in the evening and I'm touchy at the moment for reasons which are nothing to do with you. I've always admired your Doctor Who work and have been comparing and contrasting 'calls' you've made on Newman - such as whether to emphasise the role of Kenneth Adam rather than Hugh Greene in bringing Newman over to the BBC, for example. I'd like to investigate how The War Game ended up in The Wednesday Play at some stage, as I'm sure it started out as a documentary commission. --Matthew Kilburn 01:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article

Hi, Paul. Congratulations on Sydney Newman reaching Featured Article status. —Whouk (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, but like all Wikipedia pieces it wouldn't have made it without the efforts of the other editors such as yourself, I'm sure. :-) Angmering 20:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're far too modest, both here and in crediting Sydney Newman to the Doctor Who WikiProject. You did the lion's share of the work and you deserve the credit. :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! bd2412 T 04:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Elms

Ah, I can sleep tonight at last! --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Link fox"

New species? :)--Sean Black ^(talk) 00:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I keep doing that one. D'oh! Angmering 09:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore broadcasters

I know some of it was broadcast here sometime in the 70s and early 80s, about I don't know the exact dates (I was not a fan back then). It would have been on "Radio & Television Singapore" (which became "Singapore Broadcasting Corporation" in 1980) at the time. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Drwhostub-02.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Drwhostub-02.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 05:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Tennant not playing Mr Polly

I added my source for the denial comment on his talk page, so you can check it out. It's not an original source so it's not ideal. It seems to me it was either reported from a source posted on their messageboards (couldn't be bothered to look) or direct from his agency. When i first posted that denial, i did think it necessitated a reference, since the polly thing wans't widely reported anyway. So, what now? Is that fansite a good enough source even though it's so vague? Amo 18:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Granada (production company)

Hi there,

I notice you're one of the few contributors to the page Granada (production company). Thre's a vote on whether to merge it with Granada Productions, which I tihnk is the same company? I wondered if you could shed any light on it/add your vote? Talk:Granada_Productions is where you'll find the poll.

Thanks!

Mike1024 (t/c) 00:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arena page

You ruined the G4 Arena page. You could of easily copied the text and made a disambugation (sp, I know) page. Sheesh! Your hasty revise of the page is very evident, whereas the Arena British show page is very well done...I wonder why...

I'm afraid I don't see what the problem is. I copied the text out that you'd put there and put it on its own page, with a disambig header at the top. I didn't change anything because I don't know anything about that programme. I fail to see what's wrong with that? Angmering 22:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Database

I thought you might be interested in this http://open.bbc.co.uk/catalogue/infax Jooler 00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

England and Germany football rivalry

Well done. I don't have the patience to begin articles of any length. I used to when I first came to Wikipedia, but the spark has gone. Very well done. Jooler 08:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Singing Detective

Hi Angmering,

I noticed you list your expertise as being British television. I was wondering if you could weigh in on The Singing Detective: what needs expansion, what's missing, etc...any pointers, any additions you'd like to make. I've mentioned some specifics on the talk page already. Thanks, by the by, for fixing the "miniseries" vs. "serials" thing. Downright decent of you. Cheers! Yossarian 08:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Singing Detective is definitely one of my all-time favourites (if not the favourite), too. I had watched it for the first time about a year ago, and when I went to Wikipedia to find out more, I was shocked to find there was no article. Not being one to question opportunity, I created it myself, and have been sort of fostering it along since.

I recently watched it with the commentary tracks, and got a fair bit of information (I have some notes somewhere), but the stuff that pertained to the series as a whole really only got discussed for the first few episodes (though I didn't get a chance to see 5 and 6 with commentary, so that may be wrong). Anyway, I just need to find a day to sit down and give the article it my full attention. I have no doubt we could get it up to featured status without too much work. It definitely deserves it! My only hard source has, so far, been the DVD, and I don't think any of my local libraries have anything specifically about Potter or the show, so I shall have to do a fair bit of digging on the web. By the way, do you know of any other Wikipedians who might want to pitch in? Cheers! --Yossarian

18:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

England Germany

Congratulations on your good work on the England Germany football rivalry page. Very informative and interesting.--Zleitzen 12:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research

If you have a library card, and your local authority library subscribes to the Times Digital Archive you can access nearly every issue of The Times from 1795 to 1985 in a searchable format for free from home. I'm in East Sussex and as well as The Times I can search -

Britannica Junior – ages 5 to 11
Britannica Student – ages 12 to 18
Encyclopedia Britannica – adults
Grove Music Online
Grove Art Online
Kompass
NewsBank
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - really useful
Oxford English Dictionary Online
Oxford Reference Online

Jooler 21:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina and England football rivalry

thanks for correct my grammar. Jor70 23:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are making a great article!

what do you think about mention this regarding who distressing was to hear english fans chanting “You’ll never take the Falklands” instead of care more about football ? Jor70 14:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as if it could be added to the fans' behaviour section, yes. Angmering 14:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Paul weller.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Paul weller.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. meco 11:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call for consensus on fan site list on Andy Murray page

Hello Angmering,

You've probably noticed my (probably foolhardy) attempt to resolve the edit war on the Andy Murray page regarding fansites. The protagonists do not look about to resolve it among themselves, so I'd appreciate it if you and other regular editors could express your views on this part of the page, so that we can stop the war going forward, or at least block a protagonist who persists in it. Please come to the talk page here

The questions I've put are:

Please can I have the opinions of those who regularly edit this site:

1.Should there be a list of fansites?

2.Should it be ordered

a) alphabetically

b) by site's popularity or quality

c) by some other factor

3. If by popularity/quality how to judge this?

Thanks RobbieC 21:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Featured article review/Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme)

The article listed above I have put up for featured article review. Since you are once of its main contributors, I thought you should be given the opportunity to address my concerns. Feel free to comment on the review page. LuciferMorgan 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind reply. I think the articles you've got to FA are quite decent really, a lot of insightful info, but the only gripe I have is with inline citations, which is now an FA requirement. Thanks for being so nice about it though! LuciferMorgan 00:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well for a young wikipedian it's a brilliant article, even a veteran! I think it would reach good article status easy. Given some work, it could easily reach the new FA standards, and I hope it does as I'm a Cushing fan. After the 2 week review period (nobody has even commented yet, which is quite unfortunate) has expired, I intend putting the Quatermass articles up also. I hope you don't find this offensive or anything, I think all the old FA's by anyone should be put up for review really. I could put them all up at once, but I don' think it would be fair towards the collective people who have helped them towards what I would deem a good article state. LuciferMorgan 00:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the old articles are commendable you've worked towards FA and you should be proud of them indeed. To use book refs as inline citations, try www.print.google.com - you type in what you want then you can preview several pages from several books. Time is the prime opponent, all articles could be spruced up given free time on one's hands. I certainly wish I had the time to do so. Try some of the more recent FA's for examples on how to freshen them really, like Halloween for example. Old FA's should have automatic reviews in reality, especially if wiki wants to retain an overall standard across the board. If 1984 loses FA, try a peer review, edit a little, then nominate it as a good article. LuciferMorgan 23:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Crouch

Shouldn't peter crouch's goal/appearance for England count be 13(10) instead of 12(8) following the game official game with Greece since he scored two goals? Xioyux 15:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh, ok then I see. Xioyux 16:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footballer infobox

Please note that only domestic league stats are used on the infobox. Your edit to Peter Crouch has been reverted. Slumgum T. C. 23:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life on Mars Episode Three

Hi Angmering. You are right that BBC America edits out content for commercials. It is one of the banes of my existence. But, in the case of this show we get the opportunity to see it uncut by ordering it thru our 'On Demand' feature and I have been taping the episodes to share with friends from this. My viewings of the episode show that Gene and Sam have a bet of ten pounds and a huge can of Watney's Red Barrel (sorry I know that there is a specific term for this but I can't remember it at the moment) that Gene's intuition about who the killer is is wrong. Sam seems to lose the bet on three occasions but is proven right in the end. At the end of the episode they are both holding a hammer and chisel, because it take two to open this huge can, and the camera freeze frames on the bringing the hammers down as they cut to the credits. First I am not doubting your edit, but, I think one of two things has happened; either I missed something, and I am always happy to go back and learn the errors of my ways, or the person who put the edit in originally got the Watney's Red Barrel mixed up with Red Rum. A third, remote, possibility is that there are totally different scenes filmed for the UK broadcasts versus the overseas, but I think that this is very remote. Do you have the episode on tape or DVD? Can you or someone you know rewatch it and then leave me a message about where in the episode (like the running time where it happens or the scenes just before or after) the horse race in question is mentioned so that I can go back and find out what I missed or, if my viewing was correct go ahead and re-edit the section in question. I have seen you name in many sections of wikipedia and respect your editing so I hope that we can work out this conundrum together. I won't have a chance to rewatch the episode until this weekend so if you get to it first I'll just say thanks for any help that you can give.MarnetteD | Talk 18:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you so much. It all comes flooding back to me. That speech was in both the edited and unedited version. I do have to say that it is such a small reference that I feel that it is not quite notable (in the next ep the mention of Roger Whitaker is a larger plot point in its way!), but that is just my opinion and I hope that you won't take offense at my mentioning it, and apologize if you do. I had been waiting for Dr Who to get a mention in LoM and it finally happened in episode five that aired last night. It is amazing to think that, with the action taking place in '73, that Tom Baker's Doctor has not hit the small screen yet! I have been following UK TV since the showings of The Avengers and The Prisoner on US TV in the 60's. But it was The Six Wives of Henry VIII that cemented my admiration and I have seen as much as I can ever since. I am luckiest to have made it to the age of DVD's because I am getting to not just rewatch, but own, shows and series that I would never have thought that I was going to get to see again just a decade ago. I think that the DVD format has made some of shows look better than they did on their original transmission. Thanks again and I will look forward to seeing your contributions to wikip in the future.MarnetteD | Talk 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I didn't sound like I wanted to take it out because I am fine with leaving it in. It has been great fun seeing events (just think today it is unlikely that any horse would race as many years as Red Rum did when there is more money to be made in stud fees), music, clothes etc. of my teenage years treated like they happened in the stone age and I am warning the 20 and 30 year olds that I am turning on to this show that this will happen to them one day. Well it will if there are writers and directors and actors etc. as creative as those on this show around. Cheers.MarnetteD | Talk 22:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. You may have noticed that Phennphawcks moved the edit about the Grand National and Red Rum to episode four today. This helped clear up a confusion in our previous messages in that all of my original comments were about episode three and the scene that you quoted was actually in episode four. Well, Friday's are when we get a chance to see and record the unedited episodes of this series and today was episode five (the one about the football and its growing hooliganism). Thus, I had the opportunity to go back over the episodes in question. Episode three unfolds as I discussed above with no mention of horse racing. But I did get a chance to relearn that the huge can of Watney's was called a party seven. I went through episode four slowly and with a finetooth comb (er... ear anyway) and there is only one mention of Red Rum. At the 31 minute mark, while Gene is giving Sam a bollocking about how he fell into a honey trap, he says that if Sam doesn't play the game that "You'll be out of here in the time it takes to say Red Bloody Rum". At no point is there a mention of a sweepstake nor is there any attempt to swap tickets. The scene outside the meat locker contains the following exchange: Sam "How's that little animal in your stomach" Gene "You know I do believe that he's sleeping". This refers to the previous scene where Gene describes his feelings about taking backhanders from Warren. Now episode five does contain a sweepstakes bet but it is on the Man United versus Man City match and Gene says that he has Man City by two nil.

Now we still have three episodes to go here and the events in question may show up in one of them. But, with the research that I have done today I am going to move our comments to the discussion page for the show so that other wikipedians can chime in and try to help us solve this question. MarnetteD | Talk 19:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One last note Angmering. In case you haven't already seen it user And I has straightened out the situation regarding the scenes in question. It is a total drag that I am not getting to see all of this well done series, but I hope that they will show up on DVD one day. Thanks again for the time that you put in reading all of this. MarnetteD | Talk 00:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life on Mars Trailer

Hi. I didn't mean to so rudely revert your removal of the link to the Life on Mars trailer on YouTube. I just installed the Wikipedia popups tool and it got away from me... Anyway, as it is promotional material, I don't think the Life on Mars trailer on YouTube is a copyright violation, nor do I think there is a problem linking to it. If you know where the trailer resides on the BBC site, we can link to it directly there, otherwise I think the YouTube version is useful and should stay. --AStanhope 03:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]