User talk:5 albert square

Hi everyone

Welcome to my talk page!

Finally please remember to sign your signature using the button.

Christian Clarke

Hi. So far, the café explosion isn't important to Christian's storyline. We try to keep the storylines sections to a minimum and only include the main points for each character. The explosion was more important to Nick and Bradley, so it's mentioned in their articles, but Heather, Lucy, Abi, etc, who were involved, don't have it mentioned in their pages because it wasn't important to their development. If, however, it turns out that it actually was important, it'll be added in the future. We also only include storylines that involve that character, so mentioning what happened inside the café in detail wouldn't be necessary even if we were mentioning the explosion in Christian's article. Basically, for Christian, it was a very minor thing in relation to what we include on Wikipedia. I understand your frustration and your edits were in good faith, but this time they weren't necessary, so they were removed. I hope you understand. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes

Wikipedia:Userbox should help you. It takes quite a bit of experimentation, I should warn you! Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Hi I am trying to change the background of my profile page. How do I do this? --5 albert square (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You cannot change the background of the whole page, but you can create boxes like this one with a different background color. See Wikipedia:Colours. 龗 (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Hi

I am trying to change the background colour of my page and don't understand how to. I went to Wikipedia:Colours but can't understand that page. I'm really just looking for somewhere I can go to get a pre-made colour so I can just copy the code over? --5 albert square (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Use the code below, and change the colour from f5fffa to anything you like - see the list here;

{|
| bgcolor="#f5fffa" | Text goes here.
|}

That will look like this;

Text goes here.

龗 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Abusive language

Hi, you should take issues like this to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1572101 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: –xeno^talk 00:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request. |}

Ah phew! Thank you Xeno! --5 albert square (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect copyright infringement claims

Please be sure to research something carefully before claiming it is a copyright infringement. In this edit you claimed that the Ōnishi, Ehime article was a copyright infringement of this page at AllExperts. However, if you read the bottom of the page at that site, it clearly states the following:

This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia.

This indicates they copied their content from Wikipedia, not the other way around. If you have any questions regarding possible copyright infringement or plagiarism in articles here, feel free to let me know and I'll look into them. Please let me know if you have any questions, too. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

Well, if you run into someone like that with a real agenda, feel free to either report it directly to an administrator or better still, post a notice at the vandalism-in-progress page. That's how I found it. Guy had a serious axe to grind; between the the snarky edit summaries and the questionable edits, I figured a timeout was warranted. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Vaudeville and 207.165.149.21

Hi 5 Albert Square! Thank you for warning 207.165.149.21 about his/her vandalism to Vaudeville. But, s/he was already at a Level 2 warning. So, your warning, which I think was applied by Twinkle, should have been a Level 3 warning such as {{Uw-vandalism3}}. Would you please consider deleting and replacing your Level 2 warning with the more appropriate Level 3 warning? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

Yeah sorry about that, I reverted the edit (I think) it was using Twinkle but someone added a warning template at the same time as I did. I have replaced it now though and also added a final warning template as the user has vandalised since then. --5 albert square (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Very good! When the IP-only editor hits Level 4im, it’s time to file a report on him/her at WP:AIV. The blocking admins are pretty good about giving such editors much-needed time-outs. I notice that Twinkle (TW) sometimes does odd things like giving a Level 1 warning after another recent changes patroller has given a Level 3, which was exactly what gave rise to my contacting you earlier. I also notice that TW and Huggle (HG), which I use, are not very compatible. Sometimes, just as I am about to revert with HG, HG will tell me that it as already been done, but not show me the new version. Then, when I investigate manually, it’s usually because the other editor reverted with TW. Thanks again! Happy hunting on the recent changes trail! — SpikeToronto (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Stacey Slater

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stacey Slater. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to say that even though I agreed with your reverts, I still felt the need to give a warning because I wouldn't want you to get blocked, so I wanted to make you aware of the three revert rule. Obviously it also applies to myself. If it comes down to it, I will have to fully protect the page so that only administrators can edit it, but I really don't want to do that. Keep up the good work, anyway, and thanks for staying cool. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong to warn you about edit warring, as you actually only reverted once. So please ignore the warning, in fact I'm going to strike it! You did the right thing. It just seemed that the page was getting lots of reverts and I knew you were involved and in my haste I neglected to double check, and thought it best to warn everyone involved (obviously I can't warn myself!) So I'm very sorry about that, I humbly apologise. I won't protect the page at the moment, as he seems to have stopped edit warring and has joined the discussion. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah that's cool, everyone makes mistakes Anemone, including admins! I'll need to look up the 3 revert rule though as I'm not 100% sure on how that works. I added the page to my watchlist tonight as I thought with it being seen on screen that Stacey was being told about the divorce that people might try to change it. That's why I asked on the talk page first, thought it only polite and had half-hoped that people would check the talk page before editing. In the meantime I will come and help you out in the discussion :) --5 albert square (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

David Vitter

Thanks for your politically motivated revert of my fully cited edit to Vitter's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.216.241 (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! It was reverted because I could not find anything in the reference provided that specifically states that companies are paying off rape victims to keep them quiet which is what you stated was happening in his article. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must keep as up-to-date and as accurate as possible. Because I could not see any evidence in the link stating that this was definitely happening, it was reverted. I can assure you it was nothing to do with political views. As you can probably see from my userpage I am in the United Kingdom not America. I hadn't even heard of this person until today! --5 albert square (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Hangover14

This user is uploaded several copyrighted images to Commons. I've tagged them all for deletion. Thought I'd let you know. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anemone, thanks for that. I did somehow think that the image wouldn't be allowed but I wasn't sure which template to use for recommending speedy deletion of them. One thing though, the user also tried to use the image that's on the Stacey Branning page. I take it we also can't use that? --5 albert square (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No, copyrighted images shouldn't be used when a free image could be created, so a screenshot can't be used for a living person. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up Anemone. I did message the user after you reverted their last image and told them to go to Wikipedia Commons to find out what types of files are allowed and to obtain permission to use any files they don't own. Hopefully they will take this advice on board before uploading any more --5 albert square (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully. But then again, they've put on every photo that it was their own work, so I think they're just trying to get around uploading copyrighted images to Commons by lying. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? Should really realise that Wikipedia will not fall for that. They've also just changed Stacey Branning's name. Never mind, I've reverted it back and told them to look at the talk page for the character. Hopefully they will also do that :) --5 albert square (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what, I really like you as a Wikipedia editor. You learn from your mistakes, are always polite and always assume good faith! I don't know how involved you are with the EastEnders WikiProject, though I know you're a member - it's just that I've noticed lately that we don't have anonymous editors updating storyines regularly like we used to. I did lots of them yesterday but would you be interested in updating articles as well as sorting out vandalism and stuff? It's ok if you don't really have time, but we do lack editors who actually add good material to our articles. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Awww thank you Anemone! Yes I'm a member of EastEnders WikiProject but don't know much about it to be quite honest. I've just added most if not all of the EastEnders and Neighbours cast list to my watchlist and I do update the storylines for both soaps if I think they're important to the characters development. Yes I would be interested in helping EastEnders WikiProject further if I can. How would you like me to help? --5 albert square (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, just like, updating storylines if you happen to come across any that haven't been updated for a while, presuming you can remember them! That's about it really. I don't know how good you are at writing about characters from a real-world perspective. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I'll do that. I'd say I was quite good at writing about characters from a real-world perspective. If not then someone will tell me and I'll learn from it! As a matter of fact I've just been catching up on EE to find out if there's anything I can update on the Christian/Syed/Amira love triangle. I'd really love to know who took the photo on that mobile! --5 albert square (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically, when you look at our articles, the sections on creation, development, reception, etc, are writtin from a real-world perspective. Some of the articles don't have any real-world perspective so it needs to be added. Some articles have sources listed on the talk page but they haven't been used yet, otherwise it might be necessary to search on Google. Not having these sections is slightly worrying as it could mean articles end up nominated for deletion! Probably the best way to learn is to look at the examples we already have. That's my main concern but just updating storylines is good too because they do need to be kept up to date. Of course, you don't need to feel lke you should start doing stuff tomorrow, if you want you can just carry on as you are. I'm just trying to get more help as the addition of storylines has slowed down a lot recently. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll certainly have a look at it tomorrow, probably once EastEnders has aired and see what I can do to help :) --5 albert square (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Hello, 5 albert square. You have new messages at Tide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Girls' Generation

No worries. It's my fault for editing without noticing the in-between edits. Thanks for helping. :) SKS (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tracy Flick's recent GA pass

Hello, 5 albert square, it seems I've been reverting you at the aforementioned article... ;) As I explained in my edit summaries, the Category:Wikipedia good articles is added to the talk page automatically when the reviewer updates the GA template to reflect a successful promotion. As you can see on the current version of the talk page, the article is currently listed in WP GAs along with other categories which stem from pertinent WikiProjects. The only thing you, as a reviewer, need to do when promoting an article to GA-status is what is listed at the WP:GAN page. If you have any questions about the process, let me know. Hope this helps, María (habla conmigo) 00:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry it's my first time reviewing an article. When I passed Tracy Flick I honestly didn't see the GA category added anywhere. I will now know for future, thank you :) --5 albert square (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and no worries. We've all been there at some point. ;) As for The Bill, I'm afraid a reassessment isn't what you're looking for. According to WP:GAR, reassessment "is a process to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article status, whether former good articles have been improperly delisted, or whether good article nominations have been inappropriately failed." In the case of The Bill, the article was properly delisted four years ago! That ship has come and gone. If you think the article fills the criteria now, you should nominate it at WP:GAC to be reconsidered for Good Article-status. As you know, articles have the potential to radically change over time, so it should really begin the process anew. So, I suggest removing the GAR template from the talkpage and nominating the article for WP:GAC if you think it fulfills the GA criteria. That way a reviewer will likely sign up to review it in a month or two.

Were you to nominate a deserving article for individual reassessment, however, it looks like you've followed the correct protocol. Because it's not a community reassessment (i.e. to be listed at WP:GAR), nobody will know that you've asked for input unless you've alerted them or if they're currently watching the talk page. Rarely do people show up randomly with comments and suggestions galore, so it's best to pin down the main contributors of the article to see if they are interested in improving the article. This also helps when you're nominating an article to GAC that you may not have had a huge hand in writing. Hope this helps, María (habla conmigo) 12:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

conglomerate ≠ company

A conglomerate is a big company that has accumulated lots and lots of other companies which make lots of different products or services.

General Electric is a conglomerate, becauase they make everything from the lowly light bulb to Jet engines, plus they own TV broadcast networks.

Walmart is big, and sells lots of different products, but they only have one business model. Discount retailer. So, they are not a conglomerate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.50.217.99 (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you've lost me. I haven't asked anyone what a conglomerate company is? Maybe you're getting me confused with someone else?  :) --5 albert square (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Neighbours

Hi!

I would be happy to work with you to bring the Neighbours page up to good article status. Thank you very much for asking me to help. Please let me know what needs to be done and I'll get to it. JuneGloom07 (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey,

I don't know if you saw, but there was some major vandalism done to the Neighbours page today. I've, hopefully, got the page back to how it was, but I was just wondering if you could check it over and see if I've missed anything. Thank you. :) JuneGloom07 (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi June, I've just had a quick look at Neighbours just now and I think you've got it all. I'm at work just now, not on my usual pc with all my anti-vandal tools (!) so will look at the page properly when I get home. If I'm in any doubt I'll just revert to a page from yesterday that is vandal-free. In the meantime, given the amount of vandalism, I'm going to request temp page protection for the article. That way, providing it's granted, anon IPs won't be able to vandalise it :) 5 albert square (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you. Just noticed the same user who added the Falkland Islands to the International Broadcasts section added the same information again. Like last time it wasn't backed up with a source/reference, so I removed it. I decided to check what other edits they had done and noticed they had been to a few television shows pages and added info under the broadcasting sections that isn't backed up. I'm still learning about Wikipedia and don't feel that I should try and warn them about unreferenced edits, incase I do it wrong. I was just wondering if you could help or point me in the direction of an admin. Thank you in advance. On another note, I've checked the whole Neighbours article for spelling and grammar and I think everything is okay now. I also found and added a reference to the 'Video Game' section. :) JuneGloom07 (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again June, I've just been reading the Neighbours article and have sent the user a warning about adding such unreferenced material to Wikipedia. I know that I googled this last night and could find no evidence of Neighbours being broadcast here. I'll also look at the other edits that they've carried out today and warn them appropriately. --5 albert square (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, 5 albert square. You have new messages at JuneGloom07's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey! I think our old friend is back, the one adding the Falkand Islands to the International Broadcasts section. They've also added two other countries this time with no refs again. JuneGloom07 (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey! I just had a look and his edits are all along the same lines, some TV station with a weird name is showing all these programmes? Anyway I've issued him with a final warning as he's made some 15 edits like this over the last two days. If he edits like this again within the next 24 hours I would report him to WP:AIV --5 albert square (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The Neighbours page was vandalised today, so I've undone that. Elle Robinson (Pippa Black) left the show yesterday and someone has added her to the 'Notable former cast members' section. I'm thinking of removing her from there, as I don't think she's that notable yet. Let me know what you think. JuneGloom07 (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yeah I agree, she's not yet a notable actress. I'm going on just now so I'll restore the page to a previous version to ensure we are rid of all vandalism. --5 albert square (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Afternoon, I've just seen that our Falkland Islands friend has been busy again adding edits to Everbody Hates Chris and some other pages. Also, I was wondering about the note on the Neighbours Theme song section. I don't know how much work was done to the section when the note was placed there, but I can't see how to prune/improve the section without losing important info. If only there hadn't been all those different versions of the theme, lol. :) JuneGloom07 (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for that. Yeah I've had a look at it, I can't see how we can prune the theme tunes either :) --5 albert square (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, 5 albert square. You have new messages at JuneGloom07's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, 5 albert square. You have new messages at JuneGloom07's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Perfectblend has a good page about the theme song and it's many versions. You can find it in the Music section under 'You've Changed Your Tune!'. On the offical Neighbours site, there's a small page on Neighbours: The Music (the CD mentioned in Version 5 of the theme song). - JuneGloom07 (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just found this: [1] - it has some info about the current version of the theme tune (and filming in HD). - JuneGloom07 (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that. I just properly cited all the references on the page and have placed the article under construction meantime. I will look at those pages and see what we can use from them --5 albert square (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Neighbours actress page

Hello, just a quick apology regarding the Eloise Mignon page, but I did undo it after I realised there was a clash. Thanks for the welcome, in any case, and if I can help you in that area with anything let me know- I have quite a good fan knowledge of that area if that's of any use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wedgely (talk • contribs) 22:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bill

Hi there. I've just undertaken a GA Review of The Bill. I know these things normally sit in the list for ages, but i also sometimes check new nominees, in case they look like they are almost certain to fail. In such cases, it seems a shame to make the nominator wait two months (the typical waiting time at the moment) only to be told the article isn't going to get through. I undertook the review on The Bill because I think it is in this category. It needs a large amount of work before it would meet the GA criteria. I've outlined my main issues on the review page, and you can leave a message there, or at my talk page, with any queries. i will keep it on hold for a week or so, in case you and other very committed editors manage to get some significant revisions underway. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, 5 albert square. You have new messages at Hamiltonstone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback (The Billl)

Hello, 5 albert square. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HJMitchell You rang? 20:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I seem to be hosting an editorial discussion on these damn references since it makes sense to keep it in one place. The outcome might be of interest. Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 00:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, I've been trying to whip up some interest in the plight of The Bill as well as various other related articles. I stumbled across WP:WikiProject The Bill which seems to have been inactive for a while but I've contacted every (a dozen or so) member of the project to try to engage them in a wider discussion about The Bill. My hope is that one of them will be able to assist us in getting the article itself to GA and hopefully help improve some other articles such as my current effort Dale Smith (The Bill). I've also got in touch with on-wiki contacts with more GA experience than myself about the references. Anyhow, I'll watch the project talk page and hopefully there'll be some interest. If you need anything, or just want to talk about The Bill or WP in general, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page (though a new thread might be an idea, since the current one's getting a little long!). Kind regards, HJMitchell You rang? 18:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again for all your help. Yes, I plan to take a look at Dale Smith as well once I've finished The Bill. Though this time I will work the article up to GA standard and then nominate it, not the other way around! --5 albert square (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Just letting you know that i am keeping one eye on The Bill, but am a bit tied up in real life right at the moment. Will try and get to the referencing issue at some point, and then will look at other things. Thanks for your hard work on the article. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hamiltonstone, not to worry, I think I've managed to work out a solution for the references, it was something I needed to enable in my preferences. I tested it out tonight, and after a few mistakes, it seems to have actually worked! I've manually gone through every single reference on the page tonight and all of them now have retrieval dates and most of them also have author names etc. I think all I really need to do now is to proof read the article and ensure that there is nothing being repeated, nothing against NPOV etc and that should be it. It's currently undergoing a major copy edit by Copy Editors so I can't really do anything else tonight, but I will focus on that tomorrow. Not bad work for one week! --5 albert square (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if the orange bar disturbed you in your editing. I noticed the "inuse" temp. If you're tweaking it, I'll wait my turn and fiddle with Smithy in the meantime. I think I've cracked the referencing so I'll sort that later on. I agree with your idea on nominating it once you've actually got it to the standard! Frankly, it looks like a very elaborate essay on his life and times with very little encyclopaedic analysis. I may have to leave a portion of that to you, but I'll copyedit it to within an inch of its life for you so you have something to work with. I don't know if you've looked at WP:RGA but, if not, it may give you more guidance with The Bill. As ever, anything I can help with, just yell. HJMitchell You rang? 02:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again HJMitchell, thanks for all your help in this. I've finished with The Bill now, just one of the refs wasn't displaying properly. I gave up in the end used another ref! Actually funny you should message me about Dale "Smithy" Smith just now lol as I'm actually watching The Bill just now, and he's on my screen! --5 albert square (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're most welcome. I was bored so I thought I'd lend my wiki-expertise to a good cause. There are still a few bits of grammar I'm not happy with but 3AM is not the time to be fiddling about with those. I'll probably do it late tonight (tuesday) since it gets quite high traffic in the day and I don't like leaving "inuse" tags up where I don't need them. I've fiddled with two of the refs (13 and 38). I put an accessdate on #38 and an ISBN on #13. I would advise you to add a page number from the book (I've specified it as 1-64 as explained in my last edit summary). I'm sure we'll bump into each other on Smithy's page over the next few days and if you see a GOCEinuse tag on a The Bill related article, it's probably me! Until tomorrow (or, later today!), HJMitchell You rang? 03:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I've noticed that ref 38 isn't displaying correctly for some reason, but I'm off to bed now so will look into this further tomorrow. I did try to get a page number but for some reason can't seem to find this --5 albert square (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Bollocks. That's what you get when you let me near anything fiddly. I'll have a look- if I can fix it quickly, I'll do it now. HJMitchell You rang? 03:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. All fixed so you have a nice shiny copyedited, properly referenced article to fiddle with at a more sociable hour! This has certainly been interesting so far. Hopefully, this massive collaborative effort will be enough to get it to GA status yet! HJMitchell You rang? 03:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I notice you red Silk's comments on the review page. I was pointed to those myself. If I had a list of "most respected editors", he'd be on it and his advice is well worth taking heed of. May I suggest you take a good read of three of the most boring webpages you'll ever lay eyes on- The detailed criteria the reviewer uses Wikipedia's Manual of Style and WP:LEAD (yes, there is a whole page devoted to the lead section!). WP:V and WP:RS are also worth a look. I could think of more acronyms but those are the most important as concerns The Bill. By the way, the book that's referenced in the article- you wouldn't happen to have a copy of it, would you? I'm thinking that would be a very useful source. If you don't have access to it, I might see about taking up library membership, but one of us should leaf through it, it could be a good source. I can't sleep so I'll probably be fiddling with the article in the unsociable hours. We'll speak at a more sensible hour, I'm sure. HJMitchell You rang? 03:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can't sleep either tonight lol. Yeah I read his comments but to be honest I didn't understand the majority of them if I'm honest. I looked at the links given and that just confused me even more! They're so in-depth I found it quite hard to follow them. Unfortunately I no longer have any of The Bill's books, might look on ebay at some point see if I can get some second hand --5 albert square (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, 5 albert square. You have new messages at Hamiltonstone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OK. I've not done as much as I'd like to the article itself today, mainly because I felt ill earlier and I drank too much whisky after that, but I've managed to follow the threads here, on my own talk page, on Hamiltonstone's and at the GA. Leave the lead to me, I have a few ideas- I've copyedited similar articles in the past, though my GA experience is limited. I now know why I prefer the other end of the spectrum- The Twinkling and new page patrolling etc. Anyway, The Bill is now my second most frequently edited article- after my proudest creation to date, so I'm going to see this through to its conclusion, so if you're not sure or you need to talk, just yell.

As for Silk's comments, the lead aside (I'll deal with that), his main points appear to be:

• lack of content:

We need more prose. Information on ratings, quirky facts like viewing outside the UK, ratings figures- most viewed episode (if possible), record viewer number, record season. More info on the relationship with the met, especially the meeting with Sir Ian Blair would be brilliant. Parodies, if there are any (I haven't watched it in years), with real events. Try looking around at other TV series- JAG, Casualty, Highlander (the series) for example, although none are GAs, you might be able to draw inspiration.

• lack of credible references:

We've cracked the referencing templates now. However, we need more references. I've left "fact" tags in a few places that are in obvious need of a reference. Every fact, assertion, quote or anything else that is not common knowledge needs a reference. For example, "The Bill is a British police procedural TV series" is common knowledge- most people who know enough to type "the bill" into a search box will know that. However, for example, "The Bill is the only British TV show allowed to use real police uniforms" (paraphrasing!) needs a reference (I think it does, but you get my drift.). We need more reliable sources than we have at present. I hate to bound the wiki-policy acronyms around again, but it's worth a read. If something backs up your point, reference it- RS or not. Consensus appears to be that IMDb (much as I disagree), blogs, youtube etc are NOT RSs. They can be used to support something like the title sequence/ theme music, as youtube is in the article, but things like reputable newpapers (if you cite the Daily Maill, I'll scream! See my angry edit summary on Her Majesty's article!). The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian and all their supplements are very good sources. I'm going to search google news later on to see if I can find anything new. Books are also good sources, but be careful that they're not "unduly self serving" (I forget which policy acronym that came from, there are so many!). If they're completely independent of ITV or Talkback Thames, then they're very good sources.

Does that make things any clearer? Feeling a little less daunted by it all? Please say yes, this took me ages! HJMitchell You rang? 05:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I trawled the list of GAs. I struggled to find a direct comparison to The Bill, but Judge John Deed is a GA. Might be worth a look as a broad template. HJMitchell You rang? 05:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

update

take a gander at User:HJ Mitchell/Material for The Bill. It's a pile of references (properly formatted so they can be simply copied and pasted) with my comments. I've got more, which I'll put on in a few hours but there's a good bit of material there at present. You can fiddle with it to your heart's content- add, format, whatever floats your boat. Once we've finished with it, I'll have the page speedied. Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 08:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bill II

Hi there

I'm having to message you because I really don't understand the comments that you made about The Bill.

In what way should the lead section be expanded? It says in the link you provided to include controversies. I did once include a section about it being axed in Scotland in this part but I got told to remove it as it wasn't allowed in the lead section? So I removed it and it's now down at the bottom of the article, reduced to two sentences as requested for it to be a good article.

What's a prose? I did look at the link you provided but it didn't make any sense. Is it that there are too many tables in the article? We could take out the cast tables etc but the article would probably be as clear as mud without them. They would then be reading something like Supt Jack Meadows, Simon Rouse, Insp Dale Smith, Alex Walkinshaw, DI Neil Manson, Andrew Lancel. Not clear in my opinion.

You also say that there's very few citations, which I don't understand because the article has over 40 references? That's about the biggest amount I've seen in any article on Wikipedia. So I don't understand why you're saying it's got too few citations? Also I got told to try and avoid fansites as references (which is what I've done) as they're not reliable references but everything else is, yet you're saying the article has very few reliable sources? I don't understand that at all.

Finally, can you please help me with this article then? When it was first reviewed it apparently didn't meet the criteria for quick fail, now it does so it seems I've done the article more harm than good which wasn't my intention obviously. But with the comments left today I don't understand where I'm going wrong --5 albert square (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch. I'm afraid I already have more than enough on my plate at the moment, so I would be unable to help out. I did leave links to the relevant guidelines, which are quite clear and helpful - they just need careful study. I noted that there were large parts of the article uncited (such as the first three paragraphs of the history section and almost all of the cast section). I also noted that a significant proportion of the cites are to primary source via YouTube. As regards amount of cites. I am currently reviewing for Good Article status, Cyprus, Hong Kong and Pink Floyd. And articles I have worked on recently myself which were accepted for Good Article status - Van Morrison, Kraków. As you'll note, the cites in these articles range from over 100 to over 300. At the moment your material is derived from snippets on the web. I do recommend you contact your local library and order some books on the subject - that way you'll be able to flesh out the snippets with some more substantial content. A quick glance at Google Books does reveal there is some decent material available. Give me a ping in about a month or so, and I'll take a look at the article again then. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 08:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your help though. I will take a look at Google books later on --5 albert square (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Hope all is well, I'm just dropping by to deliver a quick newsflash!

• I now have a whole pile of links with my comments that should help is flesh the article out a little. They're all properly formatted so it's just a quick cut and paste job when they go into the article.
• I've ordered a book The Official history of Sun Hill or something like that from amazon for a fiver- bargain! That should also help add more flesh to the article
• We now have a good sized lead. I completely re-wrote it. Took me til 2AM, but hey, I'm a student- I have the time to spare!
• I'm going to make a start on getting the info I've gathered into the article, but it's gone 4AM so it'll be later on.
• We should deal with the contents table later on, I propose we keep adding in sections and subsections and consolidate them later on unless you object?
• Regarding the number of cites, Judge John Deed is the closest comparable GA I've found and that has a mere 38. Meaning no disrespect to Silk, I think it's quality not quantity. However, almost all of Deed's references are very good sources such as broadsheet newspapers. We have our fair share of those, though and hopefully the tabloid and youtube cites will just be "extra". All the best, HJMitchell You rang? 04:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again for all your help with this HJ. I was going to do some work on this last night but I was way too tired lol. One thing though, if we're going to re-insert the information about Jeff Stewart's attempted suicide, then we could also re-insert the information that was there on the death of Kevin Lloyd. He was a chronic alcoholic, got sacked from the programme because he was apparently disruptive on set and held up filming etc etc. A week after being sacked from the programme he checked himself into a clinic and was given sedatives before he went on another drinking binge. This time though he choked on his own vomit, failed to wake because of the sedatives and drink and died. I removed it before because I felt it possibly wasn't NPOV as the way I was reading it, it sounded like whoever inserted it was trying to blame the programme for his death, when it was actually nothing to do with them. I also felt it more belonged on the actors page than The Bill's page, still if it was re-worded then it might be ok. I will try and put together something for this later tonight. As for the sections and sub-sections, yes I agree to that. I'm also gonna look on Amazon or eBay for any books for the programme.

With regards to rewards, I plan to put together some form of table which clearly explains what they've won, what they've been nominated for etc. So far I can only find that they've been nominated for Best Serial Drama or something 4 times in a row, but I'll try and find out if the actors were nominated for anything. I'm aware that we got told to make the article less list-like, but I honestly feel that this would be the best way to represent this information --5 albert square (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick update before I head off to work, I accidentally came across a link on the Danielle Jones' page which has led me to a TV ratings page on BARB! We might find this useful for getting viewing rating info for The Bill [2] --5 albert square (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's fine. I'm quite enjoying it- I've learned how to format references, installed another tool and learned a hell of a lot about The Bill! When that book gets here, I'll leaf through it and add and reference what I can. As for the stuff on Jeff Stewart, I was planning no more than a single, very neutral sentence with at least one reference. Anything else that's relevant can go in his own article when we get round to it. We've still got a good bit to do on The Bill, but if we focus our efforts on Jeff Stewart Reg Holiss, we can add that sort of thing in there. It is more relevant there, but worthy of a mention in the main article. I haven't heard of the Kevin Lloyd thing. If you have a source for it, it would be worthy of one sentence. The best source would be a broadsheet paper- The Times, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian, their supplements and websites. I'm loathed to be citing the Mail and the Mirror.

Right, the awards. If there's enough to merit a table, go for it, we'll deal with it later. There's some useful information on those at User:HJ Mitchell/Material for The Bill which I've mentioned in the lead. However I'd strongly reccomend we put in some prose like "Over its umpteen years on telly, The Bill has won...". OR you could put the table in History of The Bill and use the {{main|History of The Bill}} template, with a bit of text on the most notable awards. Do whichever you feel is best and we can change it later if it doesn't work as well as we thought. Deed has one small subsection of text, but The Bill has won a LOT more awards (mainly because Deed sends even me to sleep and I'm a Law student!). It's worth a look, since it's already a GA. Have a look at JAG#Awards and nominations, too, they have another way of doing it.

I'll take a look at that link and add it to my subpage if you haven't already put it in the article. I'm a little tied up right now so I can't do much until later tonight. If you'd be good enough to drop me a line to update me on any significant changes you make and I'll do the same when I finish probably in the early hours. I've asked Silk Tork to take a look at the new lead and my thread on Talk:The Bill and I'll probably request advice from Hamiltonstone to make sure there are no major issues arising.

As ever, drop me a lie if you need anything. I might not be able to get into editing until later, but I'll do what I can. Until later, HJMitchell You rang? 18:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, the most I've been able to do tonight is to add an award table. I didn't realise The Bill had been nominated for so many! Am sorry I've not been able to do more tonight, will probably get the chance to do more over the weekend. It's just with a tempremental computer the award table took waaaayyyy longer than I thought --5 albert square (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologise- don't feel you have to do more than you want to. I didn't edit WP for about 2 months until recently because I was on here so much and I got too involved with a massive fuss over bilateral relations articles and minor league baseballers. Besides, it was nice to have the article to myself when I rewrote the lead. The last thing we need is an edit conflict! Major waste of time! Anyway, there are a few bits and bobs I have in my sights- I want to shorten the list of ex-characters to only the very most notable. I've already removed one bloke because he was a minor character for 4 measly months. The other decisions, I might have to leave to you, since you're the expert and I'm just a humble copyeditor. Anyhow, drop us a line when you've got some time. I've got plenty of tasks I can think of that don't require any subject knowledge and a whole pile of references to add in. HJMitchell You rang? 02:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Awards

I've a feeling you're not going to like this but please don't shout at me! I have been nice to you! haha. I am suggesting that we move your table (good effort by the way, I hate those things!) into History of The Bill and I promise I'll copyedit that article beyond recognition to do your table justice (it's what I'm good at!) once we've sorted The Bill (or when I get bored instead of twinkling the recent changes). Ideally, I think we need a prose list of the most notable awards- BAFTA, WG, Inside soap (about as notable as my rear end, but it's won 6 of 'em). If you really strongly object, I'll leave it be.

I've spent most of the night going through the article and adding in the references and information I accumulated in my research. I'll probably be hogging it for another few hours (unless you want it) to try and break the back of the referencing, then I'll go back and clean up the mess I made. Speaking of which, I've been putting my cite notes before the full stops since there seems to be no clear system and that happens to be my preference. WP:FOOT (another thrilling read!) allows both, but it needs to be consistent so when I tidy it up, I'll put them all like that unless you object.

I'll keep you informed as I go along. Btw, next time you're on here at an "ungodly" hour, feel free to say hi. chances are, I'll be around somewhere! And don't worry about the out of date warning, I "welcomed" someone the other day. Turned out they'd been on here for 2 years! HJMitchell You rang? 07:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for that, yeah that's fine to remove the table and put it elsewhere. I wasn't sure where to put it so just stuck it into the main article in a place I thought was reasonable to keep everything together. I'll try nip to my local library at the weekend see if I can pick up any books on The Bill --5 albert square (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, 5 albert square. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Another one! There are also some comments on the review page. HJMitchell You rang? 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

And another. Btw, I've also got a book in the post so we can attack these references when we get them! HJMitchell You rang? 11:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha! Yeah eBay and Amazon be laughing all the way to the bank, literally lol! Btw I reported that anon IP that seems to have some sort of vendetta against anything to do with The Bill, but apparently my report was too old. So I've to report them again if the vandalism resumes. Which I will do without hesitation. I watch most of the pages he edits, so I will notice any vandalism, he won't get away with it! --5 albert square (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you have to get in there straight away with the reports. If you have Twinkle, just whack the vandalism button to revert it, then open up his talk page and whack the "arv" button and fill out your rationale- something along the lines of "this little **** has been f****ing up our hard work and obviously has a SERIOUS problem with The Bill". I'll keep an eye on him as well. I'll be on and off most of the day so if he gets up to any mischief, one of us'll have him! We'll probably get an edit conflict at AIV! HJMitchell You rang? 11:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I do have Twinkle, I just wasn't sure that was the best way to go as he'd only been given 3 warnings instead of 4. Never mind, I am on a day off today so I will also be on and off Wikipedia all day and will be patrolling Neighbours all day as someone who vandalised that page has just come off a block, so I will do the same for The Bill. Beats me why people feel the need to vandalise pages. I guess I'll never understand vandals! By the way, once The Bill is up to GA standard, I might see if I can 'resurrect' it's Wiki Project. Seems a shame if nobody bothers about it now as it could be so helpful --5 albert square (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I can see how someone might find it funny once. But this guy obviously doesn't like The Bill and wants the whole world to know about it. You keep on the vandal patrol if you want and I'll hog The Bill for a little while- I'm working on the impact bit atm. It'll take me an hour or so to do what I'm doing, then I'll have to do some research. I'm in dire need of more references for the awards- the table is a good start but it needs more- eg. the WG- what was it for?? We need better sources on things like the BAFTAs etc. Anything you can dig up would be REALLY appreciated! HJMitchell You rang? 12:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi HG, I've added some more references to the awards table for The Bill. I must admit though, I don't think I can find any references for the earlier awards simply because of the amount of time that has passed. Can't seem to find anything earlier than 2003. --5 albert square (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, the older ones don't matter too much. The successful BAFTAs, the WG and any other very significant, notable awards need references, mainly so we have the details. Btw, your idea about the wikiprject... the members could be very helpful in helping with our GA bid etc, but many of them seem to be inactive these days. It might be worth leaving messages on talk pages etc to see if you can rekindle some interest, but I've had little luck really. Anyway, I'll check back in an hour or two, when I've had a chance to look at The Bill etc. HJMitchell You rang? 14:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I noticed the recent edits and your reversions. I've restored a previous version of the page but I'm not sure if I got the right one. The edits don't seem to have been intended to be vandalism but I was wondering if you knew of a source better than youtube (useful, but not considered an RS) for the stuff about the theme tune that the other user edited? HJMitchell You rang? 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I know they weren't intentional, I'm sure I reverted them as good faith, and that was the reason why, and it was also the reason I didn't warn the editor for their edits. Unfortunately though I was at work when that happened and had only sneaked on to Wikipedia for a quick nosey look! I could only google to a certain degree the changes the user had made because of our firewall at work being so good, from what I could see Graham Cole wasn't in the pilot, his own Wikipedia and another source seem to support that. As for the other names mentioned, am going to google them tonight, see if I can come up with anything. In any case I would've reverted anyway cos I preferred your wording to his! --5 albert square (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right on Stamp. It was the information on the composers etc that raised an eyebrow but we'll need a source one way or t'other and, like I say, preferably not youtube. It's a strange case- I took a look at the user's contributions and he's been on here for a while but made very few edits, most of them little things to The Bill. Anyway, if you can find a reasonable source one way or t'other, put it in and makes sure the article is correct. I'm going to make a few changes now and hopefully continue in the morning. HJMitchell You rang? 01:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it turns out I was wrong about Stamp! The actor who plays him, Graham Cole, gave an interview recently stating that he'd been in The Bill 25 years! So I've changed The Bill's page to read that and also included the interview I found as a reference should anyone dispute this. They can't dispute something coming straight from the actors mouth. I also got references for the composers etc mentioned albeit it is from IMDB. I've also been doing some editing tonight, expanded the ratings section, hope that helped :) --5 albert square (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I believe I've expressed my opinions against the consensus that IMDb is not an RS but they are, alas, only my opinions. But IMDb is better than youtube and better than no ref at all! I noticed your edit. I've not done much because I got sidetracked with an RfA, then a vandal on the recent changes (4 bad faith edits in less than 20 minutes!) and thought "right, matey, your arse is going to AIV! I'm going to watch the outcome of the AIV out of curiosity, then go to bed, as I should have done nearly two hours ago. Damn wikipedia! Always something to do to procrastinate! even at 3AM! Btw, I don't wish to be rude, but could you just leave a message like "reply on my talk page", since there are a lot of bright blue bars across the bottom of my page! Cheers HJMitchell You rang? 02:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

salam

slam alykom

Im sorry I just editing that to experement that i can add on wekipedia thnx for ur advize babe muah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.30.37 (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi :) I thought they might be test edits that Cluebot and I reverted. If you wish to experiment on Wikipedia, then please use Wikipedia:Sandbox. Thanks --5 albert square (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

re:User talk:69.113.79.227

I just reported this IP to WP:AIV. This IP is a chronic IP vandal, and has been more recently turning to vulgar personal attacks on other editors. He had already received four graduated warnings regarding his vandalism and personal attacks in the last 30 days. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I like how he told me that the vandalism I warned him for was carried out a while ago. All of about 2 days ago! In any case I came across it last night, reverted it last night, that's why he was warned then! Lol well at least he's blocked now --5 albert square (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My Talk page:

Hello. I'm Sh6. I'm obviously not an admin cause I started somewhat months ago. I noticed you deleted the message by 69.113.79.227. Please don't do this, cause you're vandalising me page via deletion. I don't care about the attack, I wanted to keep it so I could use it as evidence if he vandalises. Thanks! SH6 06:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sh6, OK first of all I'll point out that I didn't vandalise your page as I was in fact reverting vandalism. Making your page free of vandalism isn't vandalising it! I didn't realise that you wanted the message kept there, but in any case it would've probably been removed by another editor anyway because of it being vandalism. Secondly, you don't need to keep the vandalism on your page as it will be stored in your pages history --5 albert square (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

More The Bill

Hey! I was just in the process of updating you on my progress today (I got sidetracked!). Give me 2 minutes and I'll finish it off and we can talk! HJMitchell You rang? 23:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Right then, I've had some time today to get down to the nitty gritty of the article. It's looking pretty good, it must be said. We have 72 references, citing 77 different points and I've got more to come. Just a quick update:

• I've created a new section for the theme tune and opening titles
• List of awards of The Bill is up and running, with plenty of material and decent references in it which also makes the main article look much more tidy and concise
• I've renamed the broadcasting subsection to make it less UK-oriented. I don't like the wording of the heading, but I can deal with that later
• I like your expansion to the ratings section. I've fiddled around with it a little in order to make it more coherent and in something resembling chronological order. You cited a ref that I'd already used, but no matter, I've sorted it. I've consolidated it a little as well, some of the detail is better placed in other sections within the article, or at Sun Hill fire (2002) (yet another article in dire need of attention! This is getting to be a long list!)
• Impact and legacy is getting there. Ideally, we need to pad this out a bit- this could be where the books come in handy. The Guardian and The Independent occasionally have some useful stuff on this so I'll just have to trawl through their websites until the book gets here. Bloody Royal Mail! Much as I like them, they have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot!

The biggest bollards, in my humble opinion (I'm no expert on GA), to GA status are as follows:

1. The history section is in dire need of some references. It doesn't have a single cite note, let alone anything like an RS. I'll look out for anything good on this while trawling through newspaper sites and some of the material we have could be usefully recited
2. We need refs for the live episodes (just one or two). I saw something on the beeb site that I think I've cited for one of them
3. The cast section is doing my head in. I'm reluctant to just get rid of it but it's taking up far more room than it needs.
4. We need more refs for the overseas broadcasting. For example, the 55 countries- if it can be cited, it should be, if not, it should be obliterated. The Australian stuff shouldn't be hard to cite, as for the rest of it, I don't know
5. Awards section could do with a little expansion, but that's not a big task since we have the hatnote
6. Likewise for impact and legacy- a little more research would be good but I have a few ideas where I can find the material we need
7. The novels section is concerning me, but it's not a big issue- it just needs a cite note or two- something that simply states when they were published would be sufficient imo.

What do you think? HJMitchell You rang? 23:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yep am in agreement with all of that. With the cast tables could we get away with hosting that on another page, a bit like what we've done with the rewards section? Might make things a little tidier --5 albert square (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've considered it, believe me, I've considered it! The number of time I've been looking for somethiing and had to scroll through all of that! The trouble is that, a while back, before I signed up, there seem sto have been a bit of a controversy- someone has obviously made separate articles for every single character there ever was (I got involved in something similar a few months ago with minor league baseballers, then another with bilateral relations!). Anyway, they were all combined into no fewer than 5 different lists! I think we might get into a little trouble if we added a sixth to that! Leave it with me and I'll think of something. As for the rest of it, I'll take most of the research unless you're desperately keen to do it! I'll try and get some of the referencing done, too, but it'll probably take me a while so I'll do it later. Could you sort the awards section? You did the research so you know the sources etc. just a quick sentence or two on the WG, two or three on the BAFTAs, NTA and RTS etc just to pad it out. If you want, just whack the info in there with your refs and I'll make it look pretty later. HJMitchell You rang? 00:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure I don't mind putting that together. Could we even put the cast table as one? I don't see the problem in that as long as we make the ranking of each officer clear --5 albert square (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant. One less obstacle. As for the cast, it's a goood idea, but it's already been done. I'm toying with the idea of taking the whole of the current cast out of the article, possibly adding Jack Meadows and smithy to the list of notable characters and leaving it there or just taking it out altogether and leaving the links to the lists. I might take some further advice on this first. What do you think? HJMitchell You rang? 01:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I certainly wouldn't have any issues with the cast list being taken out. I would run that by hamiltstone first of all though. Also I came across some extra links today about George Galloway suing the makers of The Bill for defamation. They're from reputable newspapers (the Daily Record and I think the second was The Independent). Would you like me to add these to the article or have we got enough references for this already? --5 albert square (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take some advice from other people and see if I can get a hold of Hamiltonstone in the morning. Oh dear, I first read that in the Mirror and it made me laugh! I've got a ref from The Independent so it's probably not worth adding in any more unless, of course, they add something more. Tell you what, why don't you copy them onto my subpage so I can have a look? I want to know what came of it, but I haven't found anything. I might try scouring the specialist law databases. HJMitchell You rang? 02:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've put the links on that page now. Given that the programmes being going 25 years now, I'm sure they've featured more than one bent politician in storylines, wonder what makes Mr Galloway so certain that they based this one on him! Mind you he does have quite a history of suing companies for defamation, well so it would seem going by what I found on Google. I did look to see if I could find out what happened in the end but can't find anything yet. Surely something like that wouldn't take this long to go through a legal process? Still, it did make me laugh reading the articles! --5 albert square (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take a look! Indeed, there must be more than one corrupt politician who was a little too chummy with Sadaam! Maybe it's a publicity stunt to get him onto celebrity big brother again! I'm going to shut up now! He might sue me! He is notoriously litigious. A cynical man might speculate that he had something to hide! HJMitchell You rang? 03:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for those, they were quite handy- The Guardian's article is a great source- always nice to have something reputable to cite (as opposed to having to rely on the Daily bloody Mail!). I'll make a start on the referencing and stuff, but not at 4AM (the disadvantage of working with an editor in the same time zone!), particularly the history section, if we can crack that, then that's almost every challengeable fact referenced, leaving just that cast section and one or two other minor issues to sort out, tidy it up and take it back to the GAR and cross our fingers. And toes. And every other crossable part of our anatomies! I've made 111 revisions in less than a fortnight. Ah well, all in the name of knowledge! HJMitchell You rang? 04:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just to let you know, made some changes just now. OK, ok I know the thing doesn't finish for another 15 minutes or so, but I've removed Graham Cole from the cast list and have put together something about him in the notable cast list as he left tonight --5 albert square (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn! I intended to watch that but I got sidetracked by Dave (Traffic Cops, QI etc!) and browsing ANI and an RfA! Do they repeat it? Btw, that book I ordered came today so I'm going to blitz the history section later on. I think I'm going to get rid of the current cast section. I might create a new article and call it "current cast of The Bill". You're the expert, so can you pick 3 or 4 of the current cast who definitely deserve a mention in the article (I'm thinking Smithy and Meadows, since they were in it when I last watched it- many years ago!) and maybe 1 or 2 others. What do you think? HJMitchell You rang? 22:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's repeated on ITV 3 on Monday at 11pm. You could also try ITV's player, but I'm not sure The Bill is on there, it wasn't when I checked a few months ago when STV pulled the plug on the programme, but Talkback Thames did email me to tell me they were trying to negotiate with ITV to add it to the player. As for the cast section, Smithy and Meadows can join the new article, I was also going to suggest Sergeant Callum Stone and PC Roger Valentine? They have both been in it at least a couple of years and both seem to be very popular characters. Did you see Alex Walkinshaw (Smithy) on the Paul O'Grady show a few weeks ago? Has Hamiltonstone offered his thoughts on this yet? --5 albert square (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My internet connection's not good enough to get it on the player (student flats and shared internet connections....). I'll see if I can catch the repeat. I didn't see it, but that's not surprising considering I make a point of not watching Paul O'Grady. That man irritates me! It's a shame he happens to be on just before The Simpsons! I'd definitely agree with you on Valentine, he was another one who was in it when I watched it. Ideally, we'd have a list of the absolute most famous characters ever to darken the doorway of Sun Hill, but that's where I rely on your expertise! Can I ask you to have a look at it- Ideally, we need a list of about a dozen, maybe a few more of only the very most notable, then one of us (you can do the honours, if you want) can zap the rest of it. Hamiltonstone has not replied to my message, as such, but has, as I requested, taken a look at the article and amde a few changes. HJMitchell You rang? 01:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, ok been looking at the page just now, for your suggestion above, (I take it you're meaning past and present characters) so far I've thought of Smithy, PC Roger Valentine, Frank Burnside (I think he was DC last time I saw him on the programme), Superintendent Chandler, PC Gabriel Kent and WPC Andrea Dunbar. I know Andrea Dunbar was only in it about a year or so, but I was suggesting her because of the type of storyline she had. She was a policewoman with a double life as she was really an undercover journalist posing as a police officer to try and expose the police for being too 'soft' on criminals. Apparently the storyline was thought of after the BBC managed to get one of their journalists working undercover in the Police to expose (I think) racism. It's just I've never ever heard of any other police show doing something like this, might be worth a mention? By the way I came across a very interesting article on Digital Spy just now about Scott Maslen nearly being knocked down on set a couple of years ago! I'll include it in your links page, you can have a look at it and see if it's something that could be included in the main article?

OK, can't find the subpage any longer so here is the article on Scott Maslen [3] --5 albert square (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Woops, edit conflict! Btw, it's User:HJ Mitchell/Material for The Bill. Anyway, as I was saying:

F**k me, it's 2AM! I figured you were the sensible one of the two of us and would be in bed by now! You're the expert, so I'll go along with your choices because I've not watched it in years. I did remove Dunbar a few days ago because she looked out of place among the veterans, but, by all means add her back. The storyline might be article-worthy from what I've heard- the Sun Hill fires have one each (I created the dab a few days ago!), as does the Don Beech Scandal and one or two others. I'll take a look at the link and see if we can find a place for it. HJMitchell You rang? 02:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, am about to go to bed, just had someone vandalise and steal my user page (!) so was making sure everything was working ok on it now. All because I kept reverting this persons vandalisms. I will look into the characters idea more tomorrow and post some ideas to you. Poor Scott nearly getting run down whilst filming. --5 albert square (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. User page vandalism is taken quite seriously, i think you can take it straight to AIV, which I suggest you do- as you find out, the older it gets, the less admins can do about it. I've not read the link yet, I got sidetracked by the Fort Hood shooting- I had news 24 on in the background and... HJMitchell You rang? 02:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw his charming edit summary and was drafting an AIV report, but someone beat me to it and he's blocked now! So much the better! HJMitchell You rang? 02:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't worry I did take it to AIV and they've blocked the person, I think for 71 hours. All because I kept reverting this persons talk page because they kept being offensive to people and shouting. I heard about that shooting today, either BBC News 24 or Metro Newspaper --5 albert square (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice job. I suggest watching his talk page and checking his contribs after the block expires in case he continues his merry little vandal spree. In which case, take his arse directly to AIV, do not pass go, do not collect £200! I believe I'm right in saying you can do that if they vandalise immediately after being unblocked. But why 71? Why not 72? Ah well, I've seen stranger block lengths. HJMitchell You rang? 02:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Evenin'. Will you be on here tonight? I'll try and get something done on The Bill later, but I'm still working on the Fort Hood shooting which (irritatingly) happens to be about the most trafficked article on WP right now! It seems everyone wants their ten pence worth. Anyhow, drop us a line if/when you're on. All the best, HJ HJMitchell You rang? 20:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, yeah am on tonight. I'll have a look at The Bill's article in a bit. Oh yeah don't worry, I've added that IP's page to my watchlist, I'm intending on keeping an eye on my user page very closely from when their ban is up! Any more of that crap of 'stealing' my user page and I'll be right to the AIV page. You're right, if they vandalise within 24 hours of being released from a block, it's usually a straight block again. --5 albert square (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was something like that from my infrequent excursions to AIV/ ANI. I've a feeling that he's not about to start contributing constructively so he'll probably just quietly disappear or he'll be back with a vengeance. We shall see. Btw, I finally got chance to look at that link you provided. I don't think we can make much use of it in the main article, but it might be worth putting it into Scott Maslen and/or Phil Hunter if you get chance. Keep a note of it, it could come in handy. I think we ought to try and blitz every article in category:The Bill once we've finished with the main article. There's no shortage of articles needing attention. HJMitchell You rang? 21:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too, and I seem to have found myself on the receiving end of him, ah well the dangers of being a vandal revert I spose. Btw could you check The Bill later? Just someone vandalised it today, wanna make sure all the vandalism is gone --5 albert square (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Again??? FFS! I'll take a look in a mo. All there is to do is revert, warn, report, rinse and repeat. But user page vandalism is cause enough to go straight to AIV. Keep at it, though, someone has to! HJMitchell You rang? 22:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. It was vandalised twice. Once by an IP and three times by a new account. User:SpK got the account but missed the IP, who apparently found it amusing to revert Hamiltonstone's efforts. I've restored that version now so it's all good. I love Twinkle! HJMitchell You rang? 23:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --5 albert square (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Any time. Bloody vandals. I've warned the IP (another one with a grudge against The Bill) and thanked SpK for his speedy huggling. HJMitchell You rang? 23:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've added a little bit of info about the Writers Guild on the awards page. I'll work at the rest of the stuff over the weekend. I'm hoping my book will arrive tomorrow but I'm not holding my breath because of this damn postal action --5 albert square (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Good job. I've got my book. It's not exactly independent but it should come in handy for referencing a few things, especially that history section. I'll try and get something done on it later on or tomorrow, I just seem to be a little busy at the shooting article. I'll keep an eye on it at least. HJMitchell You rang? 00:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, 5 albert square. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Another one. I've moved it to a new thread because the old one was getting rather long and there are newer messages below it! HJMitchell You rang? 18:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

And another! HJMitchell You rang? 20:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Guess what? "You have mail"! HJMitchell You rang? 21:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet more ramblings! HJMitchell You rang? 22:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And more! HJMitchell You rang? 23:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And more still! HJMitchell You rang? 23:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this and clarify it please. This guy made a few edits which seem useful, but this raised and eyebrow. HJMitchell You rang? 16:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was taking a look at that yesterday but I wasn't sure about it so left it. I've had the chance to look into it now though. I can only find articles saying that the theme tune was used since the series began, and when they're talking about the series they're only mentioning The Bill and not the pilot of it. I actually found Woodentop on Youtube last night and I'm sure it had the original music in it. If it did, it wasn't "Overkill". I think what I'll do is remove this from the article and ask the editor to resubmit it with references --5 albert square (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Good evening. I came to the same conclusion- leave it and try to verify. However, from the look of his other edits to the page (I could be wrong) I got the impression it was a kind of "drive by" edit. Anyway, I did a little bit of work on the article earlier today. I'm bouncing between various articles and talk pages at the minute but when I have an hour or so to really get on to it, I will. Any sign of your book yet btw? HJMitchell You rang? 21:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, OK I'm now as happy as I can be that "Overkill" was NOT used in Woodentop, [4] seems to back this up. I'm still looking into the cops and robbers claim though. Oh, yes my book turned up today! The Official History of The Bill, I shall be reading tonight! --5 albert square (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd go along with that. It would make sense- no point composing a theme tune for a one off is there? It would be nice if we could get a reliable source for it, but I wouldn't hold my breath. As for the title of the first "proper" episode, I've noticed it says one thing in one part of the article and another where the other editor changed it, so perhaps he's been scrutinising the same details we have, though I can't for the life of me remember where I saw it. HJMitchell You rang? 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Does it? Can't see that anywhere myself --5 albert square (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Stone mountain school

Thanks for the heads up, I missed the refs as they were below ELs, have tagge3d for 3rd party RS now. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I know it's not like you to make mistakes, but rather than delete the tag and assume the references were ok, I thought I would double-check it with you :) --5 albert square (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you think you have the power to block me, you are not even an administrator. Stop trying to be smart.