User talk:Gungadin

Hey

Could you take a look at this please? -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:

you know abi branning how old is she in eastenders and whens her birthday can you add it 2 her profile on wikipedia on abi branning please

from jennifer

Sorry Jennifer, I dont know her age or birthday. Perhaps you should leave a note on Talk:Abi Branning to see if another user knows.Gungadin 13:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop!

just thought I'd let you know I'm currently working on 1990-1994 :) Also I was thinking it would be better to use "(1990)" in the title instead of "1990" as it's proper disambiguation... please reply :) — AnemoneProjectors (?) 17:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL, oh no! dont tell me Ive just changed all those redirects for nothing, but that's fine by me if that's what you'd prefer.Gungadin 17:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, let's not bother with brackets unless someone complains. It's just always bothered me but I'll let it go! — AnemoneProjectors (?) 17:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if we're likely to get complaints then it's prob better to do it now rather than later. Shall I move the current pages and start on the redirects again? I dont mind if you think it's best.Gungadin 17:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Up to you then, I've done 1990-1994 now. I'm going to use AWB to make sure all pages (including redirects) have the EastEnders project notice on the talk pages. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If you've already finished 1990-1994 then lets leave it how it is. I see what you mean though, now that you've pointed it out it is starting to bug me too :) Gungadin 18:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Well when it was a yearspan that's kind of how you might say it anyway, but you wouldn't say "EastEnders minor characters 1990". — AnemoneProjectors (?) 19:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Let's change them, but i'll wait for your response here before starting :) Gungadin 20:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well at least there's only 10 years to do... plus the redirects but at least it's not 2006 and 2007! You can make a start if you want, and I'll do 90-94 again. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 21:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Apprentice (UK)

Hello, Gungadin and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins

Dirty Den and Angie supercouple article

• Hello, Gungadin. I was going to contact you earlier about this, but I certainly need to contact you now about this: The Dirty Den and Angie article needs to be cleaned up to provide significant real-world context and cultural impact, as I'm certain that you know. I am the only editor at Wikipedia fixing up the soap opera supercouple articles, but I feel that for the Dirty Den and Angie supercouple article, an editor or editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders, such as yourself, will be best-suited to fix up this article. Also, this article has just been nominated for deletion, not by me, of course. I know that you will want to comment in its deletion debate. Oh, and this same message has been sent to User:Trampikey; I know that you two work very well together on some articles here at Wikipedia. Flyer22 19:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers!

Thanks for the award. I thought I'd have to submit updates in my sleep ala some of those in the rankings of 500 or higher on this site to get one. Conquistador2k6 August 21 2007 22:14 (UTC)

Jacqueline Leonard

The source I used was imdb, so by the sounds of it your information is better sourced and more reliable, so I would suggest you update the article and remove that particular addition. Apologies for the mistake Smeddlesboy 05:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mrs. Fowler

At first glance I'd have to say that it looks like a huge improvement. My eye caught a couple things that could use rewording as I went over the page, but I'll know more when I can sit down and read it top to bottom. I'll try and get that done before the day is out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick thing. I noticed there are no images on the page. Have you decided which images you will use, because there were images in both the original character development section and the storylines section, and I think 6 images in one section may be a bit much.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Going through trying to clean up the references and I noticed a couple of things. You use several sources twice (the books), but reference different page numbers. To cut down on the literal size of the article, I'd suggest citing the first instance of the book like you did, but citing all succeeding instances like:<ref>Miller, Julia, pp. 33—40</ref> ...This cuts down on the repetative information. There's no need to cite the publisher, isbn, title over and over again. The basic identifier would be the author and the page number (unless you have an author who is being cited in more than one book, then the title would be relevant). Also, I noticed you used the same reference names over and over again, but were citing different things. The most immediate that comes to mind is the one titled "biog" (reference #22). I noticed it was the reference name for two different pages of a book. The problem with that is the HTML code recognizes the reference name and not the change in information, so reference #22 is cited 4 times where it should not have. If it's a similar source, try doing succeeding pages with a reference name of "biog", "biog2", "biog3"... I have a feeling you have a few sources that are not showing up in the reference list because of this issue.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for looking over it and for your improvements. I haven't thought about the images yet, I was planning to include them all, see how it looked and then delete some if it looks cluttered. Thanks for the tip on the references, I meant to change the "biog", but just copied and pasted the ref and forgot to alter the name part. We duplicated the book refs due to something that was said on the last FAC, but you're right, it would be much easier for editors if we didn't repeat ISBN and title data. I will change that. Thanks again, i'm pleased you think it looks a better :) Gungadin♦ 22:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw the reply. I haven't read the whole thing, I got side-tracked on another project during my attempt to clean up some of the references. When are you planning to put it into the mainspace? Are you going to be bold and just put it in, or are you going to have a discussion on the talk page first?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, I just didn't want you to think I was being rude by not saying thankyou :) Once i'm happy with it I will just add it to mainspace. There's only three main contributers to the article (including me). I've already got approval from one and the other one hasnt been active here recently, but I dont think he will have a problem with it anyway. I think it's much better now that there's no repetition anyway. I can't believe i've done so much work on this character, I always hated her :) Gungadin♦ 00:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have the sandbox saved so if you move it before I can read it all word-for-word then I'll know. I have Pauline saved as well, so I'll know when it's dumped.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Susan Lewis 2005.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Susan Lewis 2005.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 14:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please

Do not feed the trolls! Thanks — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like to see anyone go hungry. Even Trolls.Gungadin♦ 21:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there's a rumour going around the BBC, and apparently Marge the guinea pig will not be on our screens much longer—they had to write her out as she became traumatized by Abi Branning's sordid antics. The pervert even broadcast Marge giving birth over the internet! What more proof do you need?

Abi is just irritating, she tries too hard to be cute and it's a little sickening. I know you're her number one fan, but I think you need to be a bit more objective about this. "Hugely talented" is just a blatant lie. I'd say moderately talented at best. Hopefully Max will send her off to boarding school soon so we dont have to witness her lame attempt at acting any longer. Then Lorna Fitzgerald can get back to working towards a career she is more suited to, such as a toilet attendant or something. Anyway, i've been told not to feed you.Gungadin♦ 23:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Abi doesn't need to try hard to be cute, she just is. Incredibly cute. Sickening is like, 18 yo ASBO drunk slags with skewed morals or crazed muslims trying to blow us all up. A bright, innocent, cheerful, enthusiastic, kind, caring, cuddly and sparkly little girl is not "sickening". She's adorable and lovable.

Lorna certainly is fantastically talented. For a start, she was competing against 80 other people to get her part. She is very convincing, and livens and brightens up every scene she's in. You can't tell she's acting, she's just so natural. In terms of talent she's just on a completly different (ie: much higher) level to all the other child actors (take a look at Lucy or Lauren) and just as convincing as the adult ones who have been acting for way longer such as Steve McFadden or Babs. She's a lot better than some too, eg : pretee. (sorry pretee). The fact that she's been in so much other stuff at her age is another indicator of her immense talent. All that and she's so adorable, both as Abi and in real life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linkin park - like - totally rule (talk • contribs) 00:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree she's better than Preeti, Babs and the girl who plays Carly. Actually I was lying, I think she's a good actress really, much better than Pinocchio aka Ben. I dont think she is a great as you suggest though, but that's your prerogative to think that. Gungadin♦ 00:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So agreed, Abi/Lorna roooooooooooooooooooooool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So innocent, so adorable. Linkin park - like - totally rule 00:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

lol, you forgot to say so Sparkly and so scrumptious Gungadin♦ 21:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh and so magical. Sparklyabi 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)