User talk:AnemoneProjectors

Cheryl Cole

Hiya AnemoneProjectors,
Just wanted to say thank you for dealing with it,
Although it's a lesson learnt on my part as I should've started a discussion alot sooner!,
But anyway thanks again - very much appreciated :)
Have a nice day,
Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Discussions are helpful but I expect it would have been ignored by the other person anyway. I'll be back tomorrow to see if the edits continue, and if they do I'll put semi-protection on the articles/templates involved. –anemoneprojectors– 20:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, I have a slight feeling they'll just continue tomorrow but AGF & all that lol, Anyway thanks again :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It said that you were watching me? Why? Because I have opinions and can stand up for myself against admins unlike the rest of these sheep? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braveheart5050 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What said I was watching you? What has this to do with Cheryl Cole? Have you posted this in the wrong place? –anemoneprojectors– 18:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes & it wasn't directed to you anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braveheart5050 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. –anemoneprojectors– 18:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Branning

Suzy was married to a man call Ken he was in that episode where Carol and Alan got married I'm not debating with you I'm just putting his name back on her info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braveheart5050 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well his name certainly wasn't Branning. Where are you getting this information from? Are the episodes on YouTube? I can't find them. –anemoneprojectors– 11:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was on Wikipedia before and they were on YouTube but have been removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braveheart5050 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it was on Wikipedia before doesn't make it accurate. –anemoneprojectors– 13:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting

How do you report someone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braveheart5050 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to report someone for? If it's vandalism, generally you should leave a warning on their user talk page, and if they don't stop, keep giving higher level warnings, and then if it gets to the stage where they've had four warnings but are still editing unconstructively, you can report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. –anemoneprojectors– 19:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Big Brother 14

Hi, just wondering now that the new eye logo has been revealed can the page be started rather than being a redirect? --MSalmon (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah go for it. –anemoneprojectors– 11:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the eye needs to be uploaded somehow --MSalmon (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to do it? –anemoneprojectors– 11:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No --MSalmon (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the article for now but needs more updating --MSalmon (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure someone will upload it now you've done the article. User:Unreal7 and User:Joejohn0505 uploaded the last two logos... –anemoneprojectors– 12:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who Do you Think you Are?

Hi Anemone! How are you? I just wanted to alert you about the changes on the page for Who Do You Think You Are? (UK TV series). Use SolomanMckenzie has started to edit the page and change the episode guide section. He has transformed each series into grids complete with episode descriptions. The problem with that, in my opinion, is that firstly, the descriptions are not written encyclopedically for Wikipedia and secondly, he has not added in the descriptions for all the episodes, but only a couple per series. I believe these descriptions do kind of put the page off balance. This is something that this user does like to do.

Ever since I have visited the page for the past six or seven years, the Episode Guide has always been a multi-column list. I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind reverting the list back to the old version. Thanks. 74.15.186.97 (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)samusek2[reply]

Hi. I'm good thanks :-) I think the article works better in tables, and in fact I might change it to the official episode list template, but I don't think there's much need for episode descriptions. –anemoneprojectors– 08:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anemone. I saw the revert that you did to my edit on the page. I thought as stated above that you were not too keen on episode descriptions? What changed your mind? I saw that they weren't encyclopedical and the ones from the series that have been changed haven't all been filled in, (and don't know if they will be.) Will it clog up the page? I was just getting rid of the episode summaries because of what you sid. I'm sorry if I sound shocked. It's just a bit weird to see this Wikipedia page transformed so drastically in the space of two days and I want it to look nice and clean. I am not certain as to what you and other editors think is best for a page, if you can understand me.74.15.186.97 (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)samusek2[reply]

Sorry, I had second thoughts about it. Having read them I thought it might be worth including at least a short description. I don't think it'll clog up the page, although it's going to be considerably longer than it was anyway. But it's probably worth discussing on the talk page, and if others think the descriptions can go/stay then I'll go with consensus. –anemoneprojectors– 07:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of a redirect

I'm curious why you deleted the redirect Mike Parker (EastEnders). It didn't meet speedy deletion criteria as an "implausible redirect" since it was used at Michael Parker. The once useful link there is now a useless red link. It's really a trivial matter to me, but I'm more curious than anything else - it just comes across as if you were making an extra effort toward a goal that unambiguously detracts from the function of a Wikipedia page. MikeParker (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My reason was that no EastEnders characters link to the list of past characters. The red links on that page should really be left red until the characters are included in a list of characters by year, for example, List of EastEnders characters (2003)#Mike Parker. Disambiguation pages are allowed to have red links, and I linked to the best article for now, but as someone who heavily edits EastEnders articles, I didn't want something to links from List of past EastEnders characters just to redirect back to it - it's red to encourage its creation as an article or section in the 2003 characters article. I hope that explains my reasons! –anemoneprojectors– 19:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the explanation. It still seems like creating one little problem to solve another little problem, but I guess it doesn't matter either way. :) Regards, MikeParker (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]