Are You A Fan Of The New TV Show MERLIN On BBC One If So A New Wikia Has Just Started On www.merlin.wikia.com and it desperatly needs pages editing and adminastrators so if you would like to edit or be a part of the community start editing and drop me a message on the user name Michael Downey. Thanks
On the website www.Myspace.com there is a page dedicated to the fiim studio. You may find relevant information from the fella who is operating that page.
Hello there! I take it, by your username, that you come from Angmering - if so, you may be interested in the above WikiProject. As yet, its pages are incomplete, but help would be appreciated there, too! Take a look at the project page and see what you think - if you like what you see, feel free to join!--VoxHumana8'14:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Angmering! You are receiving this notice because the WikiProject BBC is attempting to determine which members are still active. As a result of this all people on the active members list are being asked to re-register.
If you do not re-register within 15 days of receiving this notice your name will be removed from the active members list and put onto the inactive members list (if for any reason you were unable to reply to this notice in time, you can just move your name back).
Yeah, I'm pretty happy today. I mentioned that September 10 was Alison Bechdel's birthday at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests, but didn't make a formal request because I was trying to find a freely licensed image for the article first. (There used to be a photo of Bechdel in the article, but it was mislicensed.) I didn't find a free picture, but Raul put the article up anyway — I guess he liked it! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Angmering, I prefer to post this here, for it is pretty private stuff and not relevant to the article. Seriously, what Margaret Thatcher said was outrageous. But considering that Basil Fawlty delighted the audience of the BBC only years before, many people in England would probably have reacted in a similar way. When I read it I didn't think of the hundreds of thousands who lost their lives in these wars (my grand dad being one of them), and neither did Mrs Thatcher I dare say. Still I guess that most Germans will find this comparison quite as amusing as I do - it is just so completely out of proportion. At the end of the day, this type of statement says more about the person who says it that about the person it is aimed at. dentsdelyon20:00, 11 September 2007 CET
I get your point, and maybe I am doing poor Basil injustice, but I have a very personal experience linked to his character. About five years ago when I was at Uni in England, I went to campus in my car (with German license plates). When I parked it, three undergrads came marching up on me, Fawlty-style, and once they were at about five yards distance, they saluted. They didn't look the BNP lads, they were just doing it for the fun I guess. As I said, this is an individual experience, but I understand that this scene is among the best-remembered of the programme. And I believe that this is the actual danger of it, compared to Thatcher. When a comedian makes fun of this sort of thing, the audience believes that this is a subjet fit to make fun of. It has made its way into popular culture, and I dare say that it will remain there for a while. Let's not make too much of a thing of it. dentsdelyon12:57, 12 September 2007 CET
You're all clever people who know a lot about things, so someone answer me this, as I am puzzled. I got a new pair of glasses yesterday (I'm horribly shortsighted). Very nice they are too, and I am very happy with them. But I have noticed that any light they reflect is green! The lenses are fine to look through, but if you take them off and have a look at them, or look in a mirror and can see lights reflecting off them, it's always been turned green. Bizarre! What's that all about then?
Obviously, you've been given a pair of spectacles from the Emerald City.
“
I am the Guardian of the Gates, and since you demand to see the Great Oz I must take you to his Palace. But first you must put on the spectacles."
"Why?" asked Dorothy.
"Because if you did not wear spectacles the brightness and glory of the Emerald City would blind you. Even those who live in the City must wear spectacles night and day. They are all locked on, for Oz so ordered it when the City was first built, and I have the only key that will unlock them."
He opened the big box, and Dorothy saw that it was filled with spectacles of every size and shape. All of them had green glasses in them. The Guardian of the Gates found a pair that would just fit Dorothy and put them over her eyes. There were two golden bands fastened to them that passed around the back of her head, where they were locked together by a little key that was at the end of a chain the Guardian of the Gates wore around his neck. When they were on, Dorothy could not take them off had she wished, but of course she did not wish to be blinded by the glare of the Emerald City, so she said nothing.
Uncoated glasses lens (top) versus lens with anti-reflective coating. Shamelessly stolen from Anti-reflective coating. Zoom right in and you can see the photographer in the top lens!I can help you a little... The green reflection is because you are the lucky owner of glasses with anti-reflective coating. Indeed you can even see in the picture that someone's gone to the trouble of taking (ah, WP is so wonderful) that the difference in the two lenses is that the bottom one has a greenish reflection when viewed from the front.
As you can see from the piece, you should be very grateful for the anti-reflective coating. Without it you would find it much harder to work with computer monitors and would no doubt be unable to spend so much time making Wikipedia better. The article is not very clear on why it's always green though. Something to do with the refractive index. ¶22:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You as someone who participated in the editing of English people article might be interested in taking part in this discussion. Feel free to state your opinion. M.V.E.i.16:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Robinhoodpress.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Robinhoodpress.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been placed on the Inactive members list. If you would like to continue contributing to the project, please move your name back onto the active members list here. Thank You, Tiddly-Tom17:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:The gift.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot15:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you could help me. I wonder if you know how I might be able to view all Images uploaded by yourself, so that I might be able to select some free use images of UEA to input into the article. Kind Regards, --[[79.72.39.22020:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stateofplay02.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stateofplay03.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Stateofplay04.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Kneale01.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot(talk)18:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.
At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars
If you are interested by all means feel free to join
Thanks for uploading Image:Kneale01.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Quatexp03.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Confessions of a pop group.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Hoodlogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Stateofplay01.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
With regard to your edit to the Hugh Laurie article. The comma should be there because the sentence describes "his friend and comedy partner". Laurie only had one friend who would go on to become his comedy partner. If the latter was deleted from the sentence then "his friend Stephen Fry" would be perfectly correct, since Laurie has more than one friend. A similar problem arose with the last line of the paragraph, which at one time referred to the "the American drama, House". Clearly this is wrong since there is more than one American drama, so the comma was removed. Similarly, at the time of writing, "Laurie's novel, The Gun Seller" is correct since he has only one published novel. However, by the time the second is issued, "Laurie's novel The Gun Seller" would tell the reader that there is more than one. :-) Chris 42 (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Delamitri.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is with significant effort that I have identified you as the person responsible for citing Doctor Who Magazine's report that David Tennant himself requested that he be credited as playing "The Doctor" rather than "Doctor Who" in the new Doctor Who series (I also noticed that, for no stated reason whatsoever, Khaosworks removed the specification of the page on which this is to be found, p. 23). I would like to suggest that you get the issue's cover date, the title of the article or column in which this information appeared, and the name of its author, and make a properly encyclopedic reference citation of it. I myself have no issue after #320, and therefore can't do this myself. Here's hoping you still have your copy. Ted Watson (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Paul. With all due respect, that's not a fair edit. I accept it was a light-hearted change I made, but Behind the Sofa is not exactly a heavily intellectual article, and surely Wikipedia has room for a modicum of irony. Best regards, Neil. Annatto (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As far as i see it Wikipedia is a place where intelligent minded people can read intelligently sourced material. When reading an article I usually make a judgement, based on the legibility and citations, as to how much I trust the piece. I trust the average Wiki-reader to make a similar decision.
Cowering behind the sofa is something I very much remember as a child. As the article states "its use is usually intended to be humorous and/or nostalgic." I don't see any reason why the article should not reflect the humorous intent.
For many years the Oxford English Dictionary featured "Fool's errand" as "see Errand"; and "Errand" as "See Fool". Why should Wikipedis be so humourless when dealing with such unimportant issues? Annatto (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am currently working on getting Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial) to GA standard (maybe even higher someday), and I found this edit of yours from 2.5 years ago, in which you added two newspaper sources about the initial critical reception that I couldn't find online. Do you have more of those at hand (please don't jump through hoops for me)? Because initial critical reception is kind of the one weak spot of the article where googling hasn't really helped me so far. I have extensive sources for all other parts of the article (most of them already added), but I guess I could also merge the current "Reception" section and "Influence and legacy" section into one so that the lack of the initial critical reception is less noticable.
Can I also ask you what the difference is between the words "adaption" and "adaptation" (as in novel->miniseries)? I'm a non-native speaker, my dictionary doesn't make it clear, and the used sources don't make it clear either (they seem to use both words, but I'd like some consistency).
Last question because I think you know/like the miniseries well enough to give me a second opinion. I'd like to illustrate the infamous pond scene with a fair-use image. I have a DVD screencap that probably shows the "wet shirt" best (I would have liked to have a screencap of the two main characters at the same time, but that's not how it ended up in the miniseries), but I've also found this and this promo shot (lower quality, but they at least show the characters at the same time). Do you have a strong preference for one of the three?
it should be easy enough to use it to find some more reviews from the time - I shall try and get hold of a few for you, with the appropriate citation details. - That would be very kind and much appreciated. Thank you. (If you find something, you can copy it to my talk, to a new subpage of mine, or email it to me.) – sgeurekat•c21:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I have found some more usuable reviews from 1995/1996 myself (I kept the reception section short and to the point), and I have now improved the article to what I believe is near-FA quality (it is already GA). Since you're British, and since you're interested in British television history, would you mind reading over the article for British grammar and spelling? I have written my previous two FAs (and a few GAs) in American English since that's where I am most comfortable, but P&P is my first British article and I'd like to be sure that I have nailed it before submitting it to FAC in a week or so. I have also asked User:Bradley0110 for a read-through, but two more eyes can't hurt. I am still tweaking for conciseness here and there, but my prose and grammar skills shouldn't be a problem otherwise. – sgeurekat•c09:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I've tagged this image "no fair use rationale" (on the talk page, due to protection) - it's a derivative work of the DVD covers, and so should be marked fair-use, not GFDL. --dave pape (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Science Fiction On Television.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
The article Quatermass (TV serial) is currently at WP:GAN after a ref-hunt and tidy-up by me. I'm planning to nominate Bernard Quatermass, the four original serials and the two writers as a featured topic, "Original Quatermass chronology", discussion here. As the writer of the six featured articles, you're welcome to co-nominate it. Any help on the article before it's reviewed would be greatly appreciated. Frankly your work deserves the recognition. -- Escape Artist SwyerTalkContributions20:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally thought I might have to bring the films up to good article status too but, if you read the topic at the discussion page, I was assured it was a topic in its own right. Basically, if there's anything you think needs improving in the article, drop me a line about it before it's reviewed for good status. -- Escape Artist SwyerTalkContributions21:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Quatermassdvd.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanztalk13:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul. Thanks for your kind words about The Quatermass Xperiment. I'm hoping to get the other two films up to scratch in the coming weeks. Stay tuned! - Joe King (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. An anon user reverted my work, so it was unfortunate that you made your edit right after it. I don't have any problem with your distinction on Montoya's mathematical chances, thanks for pointing that out. GoldDragon (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Doctor Who for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated BBC television drama for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the good news. While I freely admit that I assumed the Cushing run was as gone as Wilmer's because I could just barely document that it had been made in the first place, it was reported in no uncertain terms many years ago that the Wilmer episodes were indeed all wiped and not copied onto film. I can only assume that, like much early Dr. Who, some copies were found somewhere else in more recent years. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Angmering! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 6 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 6 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
I have nominated Sydney Newman for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's lot of cites. Start with the book ref I included on the Article talk page, which has a whole chapter devoted to his time as NFB head. Then this cite has a bit of overview of some of his clashes with CTV as head of the CRTC. Googling his name along with NFB, CRTC, CBC and "Secretary of State" will no doubt summon further results, as would his name with "On est au coton," one of the films he banned. Remember to check Google Books and Google Scholar, too. I'd like to help you but I can't right now: too swamped with work. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Angmering! You are receiving this notice because the WikiProject BBC is attempting to determine which members are still active. As a result of this all people on the active members list are being asked to re-register.
Thanks for uploading Image:Robinhoodpress.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading Image:Science Fiction On Television.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
