User talk:MarnetteD/archive29

February 2, 2013

Just for your amusement Cheers!
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 07:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.
I recall your telling me last year that BBC America only show one of the three matches per weekend – and it is usually the England game. All the best!
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 01:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Good morning America! Glad to hear about next weekend.
Wales was magnificent after Ireland's last score. Towards the end I even believed we were going to snatch a victory ... but the final score is 22 – 30
For my part, I am an unhappy Welshman; if Wales had played half as well in the first half as they played in the second, it would have been a resounding victory. With a score of 3 – 23 at the break, it appeared to be a disaster. Three minutes into the second half and the score was 3 – 30, then Wales went on fire and Ireland were, for most of the time, losing the plot entirely.
Final score 22 – 30
So, we will have neither Grand Slam nor Triple Crown this year.
All the best! - Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 09:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Post script: Should be good in Paris on Saturday following —this cracking game—both teams having lost their opening match.
Are the broadcasts live or shown at a later time? - Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 19:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the details about the way the game unfolded. We get to see them live so the upcoming game will be at 10 am our time. I'm looking forward to it. Cheers and have a great week. MarnetteD | Talk 19:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That is more like it!!

A tough defensive struggle is capped off by a wonderful try. Hope that makes your Saturday more enjoyable. In the game we got last weekend the official/ref/ump (sorry I don't know which one is correct) was miked. I liked that as it helped in my learning more of the ins and outs of the game. Enjoy the rest of your weekend! MarnetteD | Talk 18:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Terrific courage and self-belief—I am so proud. Yes, we have that option to listen in on the referee's mike rather than hear the commentators, by using the "red button", a service offered by the BBC. Does that make any sense to you? The match official is the guy "in the car park" (U.S. parking lot) who has overall control and judges the video replays of uncertain tries scored. I am glad you enjoy rugby. Here is a souvenir for you. Hoping you too have a great weekend. Cheers! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 20:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, referee. The two guys who run up and down the sidelines (touch lines) are the touch-judges. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. So it was the referee that was miked last week. You could occasionally hear him in today's game but that was only when he was close to the field mikes. We have something similar to the red button. It activates the "video descriptive service." I don't have many cable channels that use it but I know that if I had a "dish" instead that those companies offer more versatility for that button. After those losses in a row I hope that this game means that the team have righted their ship and will experience more success in the rest of the tourney!! Road trips to both France and Italy means that the fans got to eat well :-D Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you as well Redrose64. MarnetteD | Talk 20:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A Guiness for you!

Thanks! DonQuixote (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

re: "1978"?

Thanks for the reply - I've posted on the other user's talkpage this morning. I think! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

regarding KOI-172.02

hi Marnette, the source is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KOI-172.02 . isnt that obvious enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.215.99 (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There are two BIG problems with this situation a) wiki articles cannot be used as a reference and b) since you are the one who added the suspect info to the first article as can be seen here it needs to be removed from both until an outside reliable source can be found. MarnetteD | Talk 23:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for letting me know: the moment I saw he was already blocked, I tried to undo my report, only to see that the helperbot already undid it. That, and I'm waiting for the new "morning fresh" and "lavender" flavors of Troll B Gone.--Mr Fink 23:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hah good one. Thanks again for your efforts. MarnetteD | Talk 23:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The Girl

Good idea to add that. I must confess the spelling differences hadn't occurred to me. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I like and respect WP:ENGVAR and I try to be accurate when editing. HBO and the Beeb have a business relationship that goes back to the mid 70's and avid drama watchers like myself have long benefited from it. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Riverboat (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Little Missouri River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A Piraat for you!

Thanks! DonQuixote (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Article on Reese (POI)

Hey, buddy! Would you do me a favor? I needed some serious stress reduction today (don't ask...) and took a mental health day by working on an article on John Reese. It's not finished, but there's a link on my talk page (one discussion up from the bottom) -- would you mind casting an eye over it and giving me your thoughts on my talk page? Grazie! --Drmargi (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Article is live, gulp! Now the worry is that it's notable enough to survive. Gad, this is CBS' #1 scripted drama; I would think it wouldn't be an issue. --Drmargi (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd keep my fingers crossed but it is harder to type so I will keep toes crossed instead!! MarnetteD | Talk 01:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Just don't drive that way!  ;-) I started Finch (all one sentence), and kept the sandbox version of Reese so I can work on other parts. If you have a minute, would you rate it? --Drmargi (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the star thing at the bottom of the page? I have not used it before. Would you like me to use it now - or would you rather I wait until you have fleshed out the article even more? MarnetteD | Talk 02:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the star thingie, but you're right. It probably should wait. --Drmargi (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Our Brazilian friend

Is it my imagination, or has our Brazilian friend been quiet for a while? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Good to hear from you and I hope that you are well. I caught him towards the end of February here 201.19.96.201 (talk · contribs). I think that there are several other editors - Sjones being one - who are on to him so any return gets shut down fairly quick. I hope that is the situation anyway. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope you are well, as well. Actually, not long after I posted the message above, I caught one that may have been him. It was minor. But, I would not be surprised if he does not return to cause havoc. At any rate, be well. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Was your Brazilian friend ever registered? --Drmargi (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi DM. This is the original (or at least the one we encountered first) editor Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs). This is his lengthy SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pé de Chinelo/Archive and this Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Vandalism by 201.19.*.* is a good example of how pernicious his activities have been. He likes messing with film articles - especially genre changes, and attacking [[User:Andrzejbanas}}. He usually geolocates to Rio but has also used IPs from Sao Paulo. He is banned and reverting entries and tagging the IPs ASAP do seem to have slowed things down. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 03:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I remember the SPI; I'll go read up and see if might be the same person. At the moment, all I have is an editor with a user name that appears to be Portuguese, and a few problematic edits to TV articles. Grazie! --Drmargi (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Howdy

Thanks for the kind words--one of the rare occasions I was quicker on the draw than your good self! ;) Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You are most welcome and many thanks for your message here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Vandalism by 201.19.*.*#Congrulations.21.21.21.21. I agree 110% with your mention of that kind of vandalism being far worse that typing the word poop and hitting save. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 02:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Fiona Bruce etc

I thought the recent edits about street names in Oxford looked iffy - thanks for looking into and sorting it out.--ukexpat (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I bumped into this info being added yesterday by IgorChe (talk · contribs). Then when a new editor Elvicendecun (talk · contribs) started adding the same thing today my antennae tingled. For a moment I thought a proper ref was being added but it turns out it wasn't. The list was certainly eclectic but not totally out of the realm of possibility. The street stuff was just plain weird and the fact that one of the streets was being given 4 or 5 of the "recipients" names caused my suspicions to grow. My time online is kind of choppy right now so I didn't have a chance to investigate further. If a source can be found to support the honour, of course, the items can be restored. If this or another editors starts with the same thing tomorrow we might want to alert the biography (living and otherwise) project(s) to see if their editors can verify things one way or the other. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say that none of the streets were actually renamed after these people - this image implies to me that somebody in the University's publicity department has simply written in some names when designing the cover for the prospectus; the idea being "all these famous people studied at Oxford - study with us and you too might become famous". It's a marketing exercise with no basis in fact. The University do not have naming rights for any streets outside their own property - that lies with Oxford City Council. It's rare for OCC to rename streets, but when a new street is to be named, they may invite suggestions from the public, and the University may offer ideas.

Some street names are so old and established - even quirky (what other city has Divinity Road, Five Mile Drive [actually 600 yards long], Logic Lane, North Parade Avenue [one mile to the south of South Parade], Squitchey Lane or Turnagain Lane) - that to alter them would cause much discontent. Come to Oxford Wikimedia Meetup Number 4 and I'll show you these streets, and more. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello R. This shows how valuable you are as a "talk page watcher." I feel sure that your assessment of the street naming is correct and the image helps explain how one street had several peoples name attached to it. Those street names are great - so is there a "Soandso" street as this edit [1] mentions? Gosh, I wish my budget extended to allowing to fly over to the meetup. Along with meeting many excellent Wikipedians it would be great to see the places where Sebastian Flyte and Charles Ryder went to school. I wonder if Lewis will be called on to solve a murder while you all are there? :-) Thanks so much for your info!! MarnetteD | Talk 15:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The road shown in that map as "Oscar Wilde" is really the somewhat boringly-named Norham Gardens. It has the desirable feature that the houses on the southern side have a view over The Parks.

The location shooting in Lewis that is intended to depict various parts of Oxford is pretty much all genuine; it's easy to watch an episode and think "oh, I was walking along there just last week". It only becomes "fake" when they show the police station itself, or when they go out to the villages - a real village is used as the setting for one that was invented for the story.

Strange thing: I was at a model railway exhibition four years ago this very day (7 March 2009). There was a layout there named "Ascott under Wychwood", depicting the area around Ascott-under-Wychwood railway station some time in the 1990s. Looking carefully, I noticed a crimson Jaguar Mark 2 in the car park, with two men in suits stood close by. I asked the layout's owner, "what are Morse and Lewis looking for?" "Well", says he, "in 1995, a woman was murdered near the station. They've not caught her murderer yet" "I know," said I, "it was Vikki Thompson. I was at school with her" Anyway, seven months later, this happened, to be followed over a year later by this. Maybe Morse and Lewis really did solve it. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I wish I could come to the meetup, but I won't be back in the UK until August (for the Wadham Gaudy). --ukexpat (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What a remarkable set of coincidences! Thanks for all of the links!! Several years ago I purchased the Corgi model of Morse's Jag (as well as the delightful one of Basil and his car from "Gourmet Night") and they sit on a bookshelf next to my computer. What a delight to walk those streets daily. Several years ago I WP:ORed my way through the Morse episodes to find all of Colin Dexter's cameos (here is the outcome [2]) and, this very week, I am doing the same for the 7 seasons of Lewis. Focusing on the background has given me an appreciation of a) how beautiful walking the streets must be and b) how talented the people who act in the background are - I know that some street scenes use the people that are there that day but others aren't - restaurant/pub scenes, punting scenes, concert scenes and on and on, suffice it to say that in the 26 years of filming there aren't many scenes where they seem to be "acting" or they forget and notice the camera. Speaking of 26 years that has to make Whately's portrayal of Lewis one of the longest, non soap opera, performances on television. It beats Kelsey Grammer's Frasier Crane in terms of number of years. I haven't done the math but, since it takes four or five episodes of the two sitcoms to equal one episode of M & L I wonder if KW isn't approaching the total amount of onscreen time as the character as well. Thanks one more time for taking the time to relate all the info. MarnetteD | Talk 18:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I cannot read with so much enjoyment without leaving a note of my gratitude here on this thread. Great stuff – and all generated from some iffy editing. Thank you –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 00:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Wish I could come for the meet-up, too. I've done the Morse walking tour, have the Corgi model of the Jag (purchased in a little shop that sells nothing but miniature vehicles right in Oxford), stayed in the Randolph (the summer of "The Remorseful Day"), drunk at the Trout, tripped over Lewis solving a murder in a pub and even purchased the little "Lewis/Morse wuz here" book required of all tourists. I even have a college scarf from Brasenose, but that's because its colors and my university's are the same (as with Trinity Hall in Cambridge). Ah, Oxford. BTW, tangental but still apropos of this discussion, the streets around UCLA are all named for academics... from UC Berkeley. When they laid out Westwood, they gave the streets the names assuming the university would eventually change them, but it never happened. --Drmargi (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Good morning America! Yes, you are correct.
For Wales the away-match test against the newly super-charged Scotland (kick-off is at 14;30 hrs GMT tomorrow) is going to be a cracker. First game this weekend* ...
On Sunday, England play Italy at Twickenham—surely a chance of Italy winning now that Parisse can take part—albeit tiny.
... *The Welsh are a superstitious tribe. We are not able to mention even the possibilities of "Super Saturday" as John Inverdale coins it.
Good to hear back from you! All the best!
Sincerely,
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 08:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Footnote: Italy nearly did it today—if they had a Leigh Halfpenny, then they would have. Thought you might like this and this
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 20:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your's last night.
Here is an up-date of signicance and I am most interested to know if you are able to play the "Scrum V Statpad: Scotland v Wales" which is to the immediate left of "Cardiff Blues flanker Warburton did not start in the wins over France and Italy but returned in place of Justin Tipuric against the Scots. et cetera ..."
It is a clip from Scrum [V], a BBC-Wales rugby programme. I do hope you can because you will enjoy the analysis of method of play.
Cheers!
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 12:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a pity, but I suppose it was pretty unlikely that you would be able to see part of a BBC show "on demand" several thousands of miles away. Saturday is going to be a heart-in-the-mouth mixture of joy and suspense. It can't come quick enough!
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 21:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

List of abandoned and unfinished films:

Thanks for adding I, Claudius to the list. Add more if you have the time. - Fantr (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. I will be happy to as I remember any. You are doing an excellent job with it. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, MarnetteD. You have new messages at Elizium23's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Hyliad. I think that you were correct in your edit here [3] but I wanted to pass along a little WP:OR on my part. More than one of the extras/commentaries on the DVDs for the LotR's films talk about Lee's comprehensive knowledge of the books and all things Tolkein. Specifically, because of his work during WWII, regarding his death scene he told PJ how a man would sound when stabbed in that fashion. You might already know this but I thought I would pass it along just in case. Those influenced/influences sections are always problematic since they are rarely sourced. It is always good to see you name on my watchlist so let me say thanks for all your work and vigilance here at WikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 15:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting. But still, if Christopher Lee give him advices about his vision of Tolkien, or how a man would sound when stabbed in that fashion, it's a kind of influence but I don't think it can be seen as an influence as director. --Hyliad (d) 7:42, 11 March 2013 (CEST)

BBC TV Shakespeare

Hi Michael, you may be interested to see that I've done an extensive overhaul of the BBC Television Shakespeare page. Greatly expanded the introduction and the behind-the-scenes info for every episode. I'm not overly happy with the "Reception" section as it's almost all negative stuff, but I don't really have the time to delve further into reviews of the period at the moment. It's on my to do list. As I work my way through the plays, I'll continue to expand each behind-the-scenes section, and to fill out the "Omissions and changes" section. Bertaut (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

For Saturday

Good afternoon Michael,
With a little more than two whole days to go, here is the team announcement –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 13:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As ever many thanks. Interesting info especially the fact that the Cup could wind up being shared! I wasn't aware of that before. Less that 48 hours to go. MarnetteD | Talk 16:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If England win, England get the Six Nations, the Grand Slam and the Triple Crown.

If the match is drawn, or Wales win by 6 points or less, England get the Six Nations.

If Wales win by 8 points or more, Wales get the Six Nations.

If Wales win by exactly 7 points, I was under the impression that other deciding factors came in, like most tries scored, etc.; but if there are no deciding rules like this, I suppose it could be shared. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is the "number of tries scored during the tournament" as the final decider –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 22:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yea that last item in the permutations "if Wales win by seven points but England score two more tries then the TITLE WOULD BE SHARED. " threw me. It looks like, if this situation occurs, then they would have the same number of tries and there aren't any other tiebreakers. I would think that the teams would hate to have to cut the cup in half cause it is darn difficult to drink champagne out of it after that - terrible joke I know but I couldn't resist. MarnetteD | Talk 22:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Michael, See this –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 22:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I had another bad joke idea. They could go to penalty kicks like football does but, since there is no goalie, they could start ten meters away and move back another ten for each subsequent kick (and/or side to side) until someone misses. Ugh. Well the clock keeps moving - fortunately I've got a ton of college basketball games - as well as several newly arrived DVDs - to fill up my time until Sat. MarnetteD | Talk 22:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ha, ha! You don't realise how accurate that is. Some tournaments are decided in the final throw with each side kicking a place kick at the goal posts. Recently, Cardiff Blues lost silver in that way –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 22:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In the group stages of World Cups, when two teams finish level on all the usual criteria, their relative positions are then decided purely by the result of the match between the two teams who are tied. On that basis, if Wales win by 7 points but score two fewer tries than England, Wales as match winners would also be tournament winners. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That, of course, makes more sense from a fans (and I would think a players) perspective. Makes me wonder if item three in the link Gareth provided was written by some middle manager of the RBS. :-) MarnetteD | Talk 23:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah ... the same RBS middle manager who came up with the idea that the British public would be aroused that they were taking the financial mess seriously, if they deprived The Man of the Match his blue bottle of dodgy champagne –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 14:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

HeeHee a complete lack of imagination seems to be a requirement for the position. Less than 24 hours now!! MarnetteD | Talk 19:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Good summing up here by Jonathan Davies & Jeremy Guscott BBC rugby union experts –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 22:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Just heard on the 0700 hrs news that the roof will be closed ... thank heavens! I was afraid England – it is the prerogative of the visiting team – would insist that it is open –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 07:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Just over an hour before gametime. Last we got a half hour pregame show but BBCAmerica abandoned that this year so let me say. once again, thanks so much for all the links, They help me to experience the anticipation and drama of this week leading up to the battle. All the best. MarnetteD | Talk 15:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Good morning Michael,
Thank you for the Scotch ... I am still intoxicated — with pleasure — and more than several celebratory glasses!
And to think we were worrying over seven, or will it be eight, points difference?
I don't want to flood you with links and considered this the most suitable souvenir
Yours sincerely,
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 09:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Post script This is your answer to your *unfair* question: this win, Gareth.

Thanks for the award!

It's been interesting touching all the episode articles! - New Series is not quite as varied as the classic though :P Etron81 (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

disagree with your revert

Perhaps the misunderstanding is on my part when I added the info about Homicide crossovers. Did my edit defy some sort of Wikipedia rule I'm not sure of, either in content or formatting? I really don't think so, but if so, please let me know. However, in a section specifically about crossovers, it seems incomplete and foolish to ignore roughly half of the actual crossovers. If you found that my edit resulted in a version that was not "clean," perhaps you could re-edit the page in a manner that corrects the specific issue, rather than simply responding with a knee-jerk edit that completely removes entirely relevant and easily verifiable information.

The item that you added was a cameo appearance of Noth's character. It was not a crossover story as those have a storyline that is continuous on both shows. MarnetteD | Talk 14:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The Doctor commeth!

Happy days! BBC America is all Doctor Who all the time (except for the news, but never mind.) New episodes are a coming! I'm so ready. Did you see that MS will also be on the premiere episode of The Nerdist as well? That show is such guilty pleasure. And best of all, the LA Times has been doing a whole series of feature articles in anticipation of the new series and 50th anniversary. Check 'em out! --Drmargi (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - lots of good stuff. Having been a part of the 20th anniversary celebrations, where even TV Guide mentioned the show, it is great fun to see how much wider an audience has embraced our wanderer in space and time. Saturday evening cannot get here quickly enough!! MarnetteD | Talk 15:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of Chris Hardwick I hope that you saw when he and Matt were on Craig Ferguson's show a year or so ago. If not I think all of the segments are available on YouTube including the opening song and dance that were cut for legal reasons. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 18:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

We get "The Bells of Saint John" on BBC1 at 18:15 (UTC) tomorrow.

I bought this today. It consists of five miniature (6+1⁄2"x3+3⁄4") sheets of stamps, plus some pages of text & pictures. The first-class TARDIS stamp is included five times: once as part of this sheet, and four times as gummed stamps. Altogether there are 19 gummed stamps and 5 self-adhesive stamps, plus one TARDIS label which is not a valid postage stamp. Four of the stamps are not DW, but ordinary Machin series stamps. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I did see them on Ferguson! They were so funny. One of the LAT articles talks about the growth of interest in Doctor Who, particularly since BBCA began carrying it. The concurrent broadcast was the wisest choice, really -- I wish they do that with Top Gear as well. I see RedRose gave you the word on the stamps. A friend's brother-in-law is supposed to be sending a set for me. Fingers crossed they make it here. --Drmargi (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Redrose thanks for the info and links about the stamps. I am so glad that you got them AND that they wont be going astray due to Mom's misplacing them :-) Drmargi if you have OnDemand they have been putting the Dr Who teasers in the menu with the full episodes. I don't know how long they have done that as I only noticed them with "The Snowmen" - and those were a hoot - they have the one for "Bells..." available for viewing now. One more thing D I hope that your friends don't use one of the Dr Who stamps to send you your Dr Who stamps heehee. Always exciting when new eps are on the horizon. Thanks again for stopping by to leave your messages!! MarnetteD | Talk 19:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

HAPPY DOCTOR WHO DAY! --Drmargi (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

TOTALLY!! Oof did I just time travel back to 1980s slang :-) Many thanks and enjoy the new ep! MarnetteD | Talk 18:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Verdict? --Drmargi (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting start. WiFi stealing our lives may already have happened :-) It is always good to see Celia Imre. Are there betting odds on whether Clare is going to die more times than Rory did at any UK bookies yet? When Billie Piper was on Graham Norton a couple months ago she said she wasn't going to be part of the 50th anniversary special but I notice things have changed since then. I hope that you enjoy the Pertwee retrospective tonight. MarnetteD | Talk 15:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

JC too

Do you get to watch Jonathan Creek? We have a new (feature length) episode tomorrow.
with the gorgeous Joanna Lumley
Happy Easter, Michael! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 20:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi G. I have always enjoyed Jonathan Creek. We used to get episodes on BBCA but they have not shown any of the specials made since the regular episodes ended. Thus, I have to wait until they are released on DVD. Enjoy the new story!!! MarnetteD | Talk 20:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sure I will. It also stars Sheridan Smith who appeared in the previous special. She was great in Love Soup and Gavin & Stacey –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 21:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The Taming of the Shrew

Regarding your last revert for this article, a valid citation for the statement in question is necessary. Do not delete this editorial remark until a valid citation is provided. It is not acceptable to claim that the citation is hidden somewhere in the body of this lengthy article. If you are unsure, please refer to Wikipedia's guidelines.

Neutrality is very much in question. While the play may have caused you personal upset, you must not allow emotion to compromise article objectivity.

Further, this article is too long, exceeding Wikipedia articles on Hamlet and Lear! I have scheduled the article for a full clean up so that it is in keeping with Wikipedia's standards. I kindly ask that you do not interfere with this process or restrictions will be put in place. Thank you. 1.127.85.63 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Cassel.

Your WP:POINTiness regarding the situation is rather sad. Are you saying that no scholar or critic has ever pointed out the nature of the play? The p[lay has never caused me any upset whatsoever (I own four different versions of it and enjoy each of them) though it must have for you. Removal of one sentence does not make the article shorter it just makes it incomplete. MarnetteD | Talk 16:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misunderstood once again but that's quite alright. Wikipedia thrives because errors such as the ones currently on this page are corrected by the more experienced. I'm not sure why you think the play has caused me upset but it's already been established your logic is wanting. Further, I'm not here to discuss the play itself with you but rather, the neutrality and length of the article. As mentioned, it's not just one sentence that will be corrected, the whole article has been scheduled for necessary clean up. It will be shortened significantly, by about 40%. I appreciate your suggestion that I need to read the whole article but I propose it's more a matter of you needing to read my whole reply above! 1.127.85.63 (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Cassel.

Now you are just babbling. You have not established anything about logic or anything else. There are no current discussions about the articles length or neutrality going on anywhere. If you are planning to remove 40% of the article I would suggest that you discuss those plans first. The section where you are placing the tag discusses the interpretations and aspects of the play in detail and with more that sufficient references. It is a shame that you chose to continue being an WP:SPA but that is your choice. MarnetteD | Talk 16:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I see you have the banner IGNORE ALL RULES on your page but I'm afraid this doesn't apply to Wikipedia. There are, in fact, very clear rules in place when contributing to an article. You need to familiarise yourself with these before you undo any further constructive edits, or even make any further adjustments whatsoever to Wikipedia. I have done my best to explain them to you. I advise that you do not become defensive when others try to help clarify matters you find challenging. There is no question this article is far too long and reads like a poorly-argued and poorly-referenced undergraduate essay. When new information is introduced it needs a reference cited immediately, not several thousand words later. The article is clearly not written from a neutral point of view and this needs to be addressed. Please do not dismiss this as 'babble' because it doesn't suit you. The disruptive edits to Wikipedia are solely of your doing. I kindly ask that you take a break from this site, and today's disruptive edits you have made, and revisit the matter when you are more familiar with Wikipedia. Many thanks. 1.127.85.63 (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Cassel.

I will take my knowledge of Wikipedia's policy's over yours any day and yes you are still babbling. You have provided no evidence as to any of your assertions about the article. Your "clarifications" are nonexistent. The only posts that you have made are disruptive and any further posts here will be considered trolling and removed bu Toll-be-Gone though I haven't decided which scent to use as yet. MarnetteD | Talk 17:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW Wikipedia has policies and guidelines not rules. You will want to familiarize your self with the need to provide evidence that the article is too long and non neutral. Perth is a wonderful city so after reading through Wikipedia's policies why don't you get out and enjoy the fall air because winter is coming. MarnetteD | Talk 18:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

MarnetteD is quite correct. There is no discussion anywhere that I know of regarding a 'clean up' of this article, and lead ins don't require citations when such citations are provided elsewhere in the article. And I would suggest that before you start lecturing established users with excellent standing in the community, you might consider opening an account yourself. Bertaut (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I find the whole dispute a bit disingenuous. That Taming of the Shrew has highly misogynist content has been the stuff of freshman literature classes for time immemorial. Frankly, I'd question the knowledge base of any editor who isn't aware of that. --Drmargi (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep .. you got it. ding, ding, ding ... We have a winner winner - chicken dinner.

Ched has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can 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.

Congrats on catching the obscure movie quote. (and don't worry - I won't tell anyone that you must be older than dirt to have seen that movie in the theater .. :-D) — Ched :  ?  19:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!