User talk:ED drama

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

You have received these suggestions because we are currently running a study to see if SuggestBot is helpful for newly registered Wikipedia editors. Normally SuggestBot only makes suggestions for users who ask for them explicitly on the SuggestBot request page. We will not post suggestions on your talk page again unless you ask for them. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find a complete consent form with contact information on the SuggestBot Study page.

Stubs: Maisie-Jo Stahl; Finningley railway station; Nina and the Neurons; Empty (TV series); The Beechgrove Garden; Doncaster to Lincoln Line; Chellington; Michael Underwood; The Against All Odds Tour; Sharnbrook; Red Bull RB6; Doncaster Tramway; Carlton, Bedfordshire; The Rise and Fall of Little Voice; Love Doesn't Have to Hurt; Edlington Halt; Doncaster (Cherry Tree Lane) railway station; Landward; Finningley

Cleanup: Robert Kristan; Wakefield Line; Gaspar Frutuoso
Merge: Steph Haydock; The Tipping Point (The Outer Limits); Danielle Harker
Add Sources: Legit (TV series); Wilfreda Beehive; Diana (mythology)
Wikify: Doncaster Pride; Danum School Technology College; Louis Royal
Expand: Me Too! (UK TV series); 2010 Turkish Grand Prix; Lorna Dickey

SuggestBot picks the articles you might be interested in based on the articles you've edited and using a number of different techniques: following links from them to other articles, matching articles based on their content, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedia users. It tries to recommend only articles that others have marked as needing work, such as stub articles that need to be made longer, clean-up articles that need writing help, and so on. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you choose to participate we encourage you to leave feedback on these suggestions, which you can most easily do here by editing your user talk page. We'll stop by later to read them.

Regards, Nettrom (talk), project researcher and SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Award of a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This barnstar is hereby awarded for extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially in regard to cleaning up vandalism. Awarded by PhilKnight (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reviewer request

Hi, I've left a question for you at WP:PERM/RW#User:Waterloo Road ED. If you could pay a visit there and answer when you have a minute, I'll be able to make a more informed decision. Cheers, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rose/Marcus/Sam/Emily

I am starting a talk page section, particularly concerning these four characters, at Talk:List of Waterloo Road characters. Please join the discussion. U-Mos (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (Waterloo Road ED) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because all edits relate to Waterloo Road and associated topics. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. ^{Velella Talk} 12:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have known better...

... than to get involved in Waterloo Road articles again. Here is what I am basing my edits on. Series 7 started airing as a 30-part series. Every source, including the radio times, called it this. Now, some of these sources have changed. Not just RT, but (for instance) the guardian's tv guide as well. The BBC's episode site, never the most frequently updated, and is behind on this. But that sources have changed, and what is almost certainly the most reliable tv guide out there is now calling series 7 ten episodes long, is something that cannot be ignored. Series 7 is 10 episodes long, and so later episodes must therefore be series 8. WP:RS confirmed. U-Mos (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's up to the BBC how they promote a series, not the production company... and as my edits attest, I am not for a second denying that filming began on these 20 episodes with a view to broadcasting them as part of series 7. But things change. U-Mos (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, the BBC can promote it how they want in regards to advertsing. What I mean is in terms of the series number and promotion of it, it will be up to the production company as to which one will be made official. After all, it is them who pass on details to other promotion outputs such as DVD retail etc. But, as you have said, things can change. I just think we need to wait for a little more confirmation before we go changing it perminantly. ED drama (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I have to say though, thank you very much for tidying up the Series 7 section. It was in desperate need of it, and you have made it look much better :) ED drama (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about any magazine though, we are talking about the Radio Times. The BBC owned Radio Times, if you like. Their information tends to be very accurate (can't think of a time they've been wrong, in fact), and the fact that they have changed from calling series 7 30 episodes long to 10 suggests it is the way to go for now at least. (I would assume that, coupled with the early broadcast for the current run the BBC have decided to distance Amanda Burton's time on the series from the autumn/next spring episodes.) U-Mos (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day ED drama is right. Just because Radio Times says it doesn't it any way make it "offical", owned by the BBC or not. At the end of the day the BBC micro site (also owned by the BBC [obviously]) says something different, which counteracts what you say. It doesn't matter what you in turn "assume" either. At the end of the day, as ED drama has said, until it is officially announced whether it is Series 8 or Series 7 mark 2, it should not be editied otherwise. Radio Times, having been owned by the BBC or not (totally irregardless and which by the way is a magazine as well as online source), do not decide whether it is Series 7 or 8. It is true that the decision lies with Shed Productions, and not the broadcaster. And at current there has been more suggestion of it being an extension rather than series 8. 78.145.113.250 (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better point to consider is what are our sources for calling it series 7? The original source is fansite waterlooroadtv.co.uk, which although may turn out to speak the truth more often than not is not a WP:RS. So as far as reliability is concerned, the 30 episode count comes from nowhere but television guides (including the BBC's microsite). Eight weeks ago all sources were in agreement, now some sources, including as I said the most verifiable and trustworthy of all of them, have updated to call series 7 10 episodes long. How can we possibly justify ignoring that? "Official" doesn't really matter here, verifiability does. U-Mos (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most official and verifiable source is the Shed Production website, which currently states this:

Shed Productions, part of the Shed Media Group, is an independent UK television production company, specialising in contemporary, original drama programming and content. It was established in 1998 by Eileen Gallagher, Brian Park, Ann McManus and Maureen Chadwick, who previously worked together at Granada Television. Shed has developed a reputation for producing high quality long running drama series at a cost effective price for broadcasters. This reputation is based on the strength of its brands, most notably WATERLOO ROAD for BBC1, currently in production for a seventh series of 30 x 60' representing 130 hours in total, BAD GIRLS and FOOTBALLERS' WIVES, both iconic brands which consistently delivered mass prime-time audiences for ITV1. Shed retains control and ownership of the programme rights for all its productions and has a growing library in excess of 340 hours. Shed generates substantial additional revenue streams through exploitation of the ancillary and secondary rights in its programme brands through Warner Bros. International Production. http://www.shedproductions.com/whatwedo.aspx

The Radio Times IS NOT the most verifiable at all. That statement is as clear as clear on the Shed Productions website, more verifiable than any other source at current. 78.145.113.250 (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, does the BBC press release not suggest that series 7 is seperate from the new episodes? U-Mos (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggests - maybe. Officialy confirmation - no. 78.145.113.250 (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:Verifiability, not truth. Maybe it won't be correct in the end, but that is irrelevant. Shed's website is absolutely a source that all thirty episodes were going to be in series 7, Radio Times and the Guardian provide sources that this has changed. We don't ignore reliable sources. It's as simple as that. U-Mos (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously do not think you are understanding this, and I am not prepared to get into an edit war here, butthe Radio Times and The Guardian's source are NOT thats NOT a confirmation, all it does it add to the specualtion. As the Shed site is the most reliable, (it cannot be argued, as they make the programme) and as thy have not edited anything different since, it stands. ED drama (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no edit war, in case you haven't noted I have not changed the pages back. But I don't think you're getting this, as you're still talking about "confirmation". WP:Verifiability, not truth. If Shed released something today calling series 7 30 episodes long then I'd be with you 100%. But what we have is something that's months old, written when the plan was to broadcast 30 episodes as series 7. We now have reliable, citable information that that plan has changed, and that it doesn't come directly from the production company is no reason to ignore it. U-Mos (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of copying this discussion over to Talk:Waterloo Road (TV series), so it would be appreciated if you could wait a couple of minutes for the section to appear there and reply on that page. U-Mos (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith issues

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Waterloo Road (TV series). Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. I was hugely offended at your recent edit summaries [1] and [2], and will not accept communication of this sort from you again. I cannot comprehend why you suddenly felt the need to do this when we were from my perspective happily working towards a compromise on this page. It is exactly this sort of attitude that put me off improving Waterloo Road articles before. U-Mos (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User talk:U-Mos. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for Vandalism. If you feel this block is unjustified, you may contest it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiderolls 00:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User:Monty845, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]