This article is within the scope of WikiProject Life On Mars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Life On Mars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Surely we should have "was" instead of "is" as he is dead and out of the show, i'll change it any objections please state on this page. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 08:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
We don't use past tense when describing fictional characters, per the guidelines and per common usage in English. (Similarly, we don't say "Life on Mars *was* a series", we say it is a series.) --Ckatzchatspy 08:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
"Appearance" in Ashes to Ashes Series 2, Episode 8
OK vandals, you had your laughs. Now please stop. It's quite obvious that during the opening scenes, while Gene is reading the book, the episode does not "flick" to clips of Gene beating up Sam. Gene is beating up a man named Doyle, whose body is later found scattered in various places in the kitchen. Additionally, there is no reason to believe that Alex is watching the beating take place - otherwise this would have been made clear, with the scenes being displayed on Alex's television. Could those who have not seen the episode please stop reverting the change? Thank you. Mj92 (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
All you had to do was to say that, in an edit summary, with further explanation on the talk page if necessary. It's a lack of communication that leads to edit warring - and it's so easily avoided. Also, please familiarise yourself with the suggestions about how best to deal with vandalism, the way you've worded the above is way to confrontational and makes assumptions about people that simply aren't true. Again, I think this stems from your unwillingness to communicate about your edits. I think the fact that you now have a username will probably help with this, it might also be worth taking a step back and reading about how Wikipedia works, welcome page is a good place to start. In respect of the message above you should definitely look at the eitiquette section, especially the parts about assuming good faith and civility. I appreciate that this was probably a very frustrating experience for you but, in future, that frustration can be avoided if you simply communicate about your edits in a civil way. All the best. Maccy69 (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, given that you've had an account since 2007 I think I've got this wrong. I'm guessing it was someone else who made the IP edits. Hopefully, you still understand that it was the lack of explanation that led to reversions not a desire for "vandals" to "have their laughs". Having been a user for so long, you should really know better. Maccy69 (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I only made the one edit.
Hopefully you might be able to understand why I did not assume good faith because it was very clear that good faith had not been used when making the edits. I don't know if you have seen the episode but it is obvious that Sam does not appear where the edits said he did. Why is incorrect information protected by people who either don't know what they are talking about or are themselves vandalising, and constructive edits reverted? Why is it acceptable to add information without any sort of reason, but not acceptable to remove that information? As you pointed out it is frustrating, but not frustrating enough for me to make unsubstantiated statements out of annoyance. I merely made the post here to avert an edit war that seemed to have been starting, not vent any rage. But thank you for the constructive feedback nonetheless. (Mj92 (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC))