User talk:U-Mos/Archives/2011/July

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Just thought I'd ask if you want the edit summary by User ED drama removed from the public archives? So non-admins won't be able to see what was said?--5 albert square (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I note that you have simplified several instances of "Romana I" to "Romana", as here. It's a fair change, IMHO; but why not simplify "Voice of K-9 Mk. II" to "Voice of K-9" at the same time? After all, the only way that we, the viewer, know that this is a "Mk. II" K-9 (as opposed to the original one overhauled) is by the legend on the side of the box at the end of The Invasion of Time. A new body for Romana is equivalent to a new chassis, shell and mechanism for K-9. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a fair point, and one I have attempted to make in the past at Template:Fourthdoctorcompanions. The rationale given when that was reverted was that the different models of K-9 are indeed different entities: K-9 mark 1 for instance, re-appears in the recent Australian TV series, and K-9 3 has a totally different genesis to Mark 2's departure in the K-9 and Friends spin-off. Also, companions are listed in infoboxes principally by the actor who plays them. The difference in Romana is the actress, and so additionally naming her "Romana I/II" is redundant as we can see who is playing her in the serial in question. K-9 is, excepting season 17, always played by John Leeson and so rather than a different actress playing the same entity it is the same actor playing a different entity. Or something. It's not something I necessarily agree with, but I don't really feel strongly enough about it to push through a change. Incidentally, I'm going to change Template:Fourthdoctorcompanions back to using Romana I/II because there it is not redundant in the way explained above but actually useful for navigation purposes. U-Mos (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems your efforts to improve the Waterloo Road articles are not going to plan AT ALL. Take a look at what some fool has done to the List of Waterloo Road characters article. Its a disgrace. 89.241.8.183 (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

1) Before you send me "warning messages" in future, I would strongly advice you think about who let you know of the WR vandalism. And its customery on here to recieve a fair number of warnings before you issue a final warning. I've read the rules, have you?

2) Before you edit anymore of the waterloo road pages as serie 8 as you seem to have been doing for a while now, id take a look over on the waterloo road twitter account. Its stating that series 7 is to be 30 episodes long, broken down into 3 parts, with dates for parts 2 and 3 yet to be aired.

"@kopitron @FarFLyS There will be 30 eps in total but broken up into 3 parts of 10 episodes. No confirmed return for the next 10." - is what the precise words are. Oh, and this is a twitter account that is most certainly legit.

http://twitter.com/#!/waterloo_rd - here take a look. You may even learn a thing or two. Addios for now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.8.183 (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean the source that directs to the waterloo road website? It doesnt say anything on there about series 8 and the other source doesnt even work. I presume thats the one for radio times you mentioned? Well, good look changing it back to series 7 later on is all I can say ;) Happy editing :) 89.241.8.183 (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

None of them say that has changed. They are presuming, like you and thats the difference. From what im seeing on here, there are a couple of users editing the page to reflect only one side of a two sided account. The waterloo road website has the same synopsis as the bbc press release, not to mention the same website actually lists 20 episodes and not 10 in the episode list for series 7 - not at all in line with the verifiable sources your stating is it? The radio times its self is not a verifianble source either. so it says 10/10 - that means nothing. In fact, in view of whats been announced on the waterloo road twitter today (which for some reason isnt seens as verifiable??) all it does is confirm a block of 10 episodes and not the end of series altogether - and as radio times and the bbc are actually the same (i think), even they have two different views. the bbc site still says 30, the radio times 10. Its all conflicting, yet as i say, the article is only reflecting one side - epic fail. it should be refelecting both, irrespective of sources old or new. Without the, as you put it - 100% confirmation nothing should be left out. But as i say, don't say i didn't tell you. ;) 89.241.8.183 (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My point is just that - just because one site has "changed" its information does not mean other sites and sources are invalid, no matterhow old or new they are, especially if these verfiable sources do not 100% confirm anything, which none of them do (except the real twitter account [but i think we've covered that ;)]. I think you should revert it back to that original form. It's much more sensible and does not show a conflict of opinon and sources 89.241.8.183 (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

User:55tompty55

I see User:55tompty55 has reverted your edit back to Series 8. Could you please revert it back to "future episodes" please 2.100.144.137 (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, User:55tompty55 has again reverted it back to series 8, despite your efforts to explain to him 78.145.120.49 (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, that same user from the other night has vandalised the Series 7 section of the List of Waterloo Road episodes article to the point where its un-revertable by myself. Could you please revert it back to the way it was before he did it please. That user needs a ban on there IP address because its gone beyond a joke. 78.145.120.49 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to have that article proteced too, like the List of Waterloo Road Characters one? 78.145.120.49 (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello there U-Mos. Just to say thank you for the heads up on the WP:3RR. It has been such a long time since I have participated in any lengthy editing on here I had forgotton :). You will probably notice from my previous history, and from the message on my talk page, that I once took an active role in the editing of the Waterloo Road related pages to Wikipedia. However, the frustrating amount of disruptive edits that were being made by users forced me to decide to no longer continue editing them. But, that was over a year ago now and I thought I would take a look to see if the situation has changed...low and behold, it hasn't. However, like yourself, it appears there are still some active users around, and still fighting to keep the vandalizm at bay :) ShedMediaUK (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Both actors have confirmed on twitter that ep10 was their final appearances:

http://twitter.com/#!/celspellman

http://twitter.com/#!/UcancallmePops

89.241.12.93 (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

http://tellymix.co.uk/2011/soaps/36708-william-ash-reveals-his-reasons-for-leaving-behind-his-role-as-chris-mead-in-waterloo-road.html

^^^ Above article confirming Jess and Aiden have left. It also say "Harry Fisher is also expected to leave the show". (although that twitter account is in fact 100% genuine 89.241.12.93 (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries :). Would it be bad of me to ask you to add it? Im useless at adding sources correctly, and I don't want to mess the article up. 89.241.12.93 (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: DG214 on 27 Club maybe he didn't understand the 3 revert rule? Woz2 (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's a bright line rule and he can see what he's violated through the template. U-Mos (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)