User talk:Angmering/Archive4

Verity Lambert article

Hi, Paul. I'd be happy to give the article a once-over, but I'm afraid I probably won't be able to get to it until Tuesday at the earliest; I'm in a show this weekend (matinee and evening), and then I'll be out of town for a few days. I hope that the FAC decision can wait until my return. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood

It's understandable mate, but I think I can call it very early preparation? Wiki-newbie 19:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood (BBC TV series)

What is your view on characters?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 14:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wimbledon history

• Original post here.

Hi! Firstly good luck in your endeavours to find out more about your family history. My first suggestion would have been the Historical Dons website but, as you have found, there is no mention of a Gordon Campbell Emslie - although the results section does list the outcome of the two games you mention, which were as follows:

• 14/10/1922, Amateur Cup (2nd Round) vs Dorking: a 7 - 0 victory.
• 9/12/1922, Amateur Cup (5th Round) vs Northampton Nomads: a 2 - 0 defeat.

The best historical reference book is the Wimbledon FC: 1889 - 1989: Centenary Book (the source for much of the Historical Donsinfo, I understand) however it was published as a limited edition publication in 1989 so may be difficult to get hold of a copy. I'm told they do come up on eBay from time to time but otherwise somewhere like Morden library should have a copy.

I'll try and dig out mine when I'm at home and double check for you, however I've asked people on the Wimbledon fans chat site and I am told that, although Emslie isn't mentioned in the text and there are no pictures from those years, Emslie is mentioned in the appearances section. For the 1921/22 season they show him playing in 35 games scoring 2 goals. There are no appearance stats for the previous two seasons.

Also, "Old Isthmian", a contributor to the historical Dons site, is apparently working on putting the stats from the Centenary book into an online database at his AFC Wimbledon Statistics site. He's only done six seasons so far but by chance the 1922/23 season is one of them! Under the "History" / "Players" / "E", it lists not only the appearance stats for your great-grandfather for the 1922/23, but also lists the games he played in and goals scored - Gordon Emslie, shows that Emslie played 20 games in the 1922/23 season, scoring 3 goals - against Clapton (league), Dorking (FA Amatuer Cup) & Leytonstone (league).

Furthermore, "OI" also recommended that ...

• Morden Library has Wimbledon News archives back to that period
• North Kingston Centre has a Local History resource room with the Surrey Comet back to the mid 19th century.

Both of which may be worth a visit if you are in the area and want to research further. I hope this helps - do get back to me if there's anything else I can do.

Finally, a thank you to you by way of thanking your great-grandfather for his service to the club! Your great-grandfather played for us in our first ever season in the Isthmian League where Wimbledon (now AFC Wimbledon) currenly play once again! Do come down to the club to experience a Wimbledon game if you haven't already - it's a special club.

-- MLD · T · C · @:  11:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews/reception

Sounds like a good idea to me.

And yes, sadly I am woefully ignorant about the world of pop music, and completely missed the Ian Levine connection. Perhaps that's why he was invited to the Torchwood press premiere — they borrowed the title from a song he produced! (I know you heard about the reported exchange between Levine and RTD. Priceless!) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cornell

I have just created a Paul Cornell (Chicago) page. I would propose that you move your Paul Cornell to a parenthetically named page so that we can have a disambigaution page at Paul Cornell. TonyTheTiger 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Tennis

That's amazing! I love it thank you! I never knew it was in such wide use (even just in media circles is better than just me and my mates). I have never seen it anywhere but the Partridge episode. Probably could have done some digging myself really...

Anyway, well done. I like. Monkey Tennis 14:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Tennis vs. Doctor Who

Great, only this morning I was reading about Monkey Tennis as I also am a keen Partridge fan. Now I discover you've also contributed to articles about missing episodes of Doctor Who. Well done that man! --Filthish 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they definately are! I've recently been working on the hit-US sitcom Seinfeld and it's associated characters and cast, as well as the BBC satire show The Day Today after spending a few months tidying up its successor C4 series Brass Eye and Nathan Barley.

Your RD question re 1919 or 1920 cruise liner picture

I posted some additional information to the question you asked the other day at the reference desk. Hope it helps! Newyorkbrad 01:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if your grandfather never visited the United States, if the ship ever travelled to the U.S. it still might have a photo in a book such as I mentioned (though you'd have to do more browsing). Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned public domain images

The following images were uploaded by you, but are currently not in use. These orphaned images may be subject to deletion as orphans. You may wish to add them to an article, or if they are no longer needed, they can be tagged for deletion by you as {{db-author}}. If you have any questions, please leave me a note on my talk page. --Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 22:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Photo of me.JPG
• Image:Jjthecat.JPG
• Image:Wensum.JPG
• Image:The UEA Square.JPG
• Image:Robert Plant UEA.JPG
• Image:Norfolk Terrace.JPG

Allez oop ol' chap

Aye, me computer was bust for about 8 months and I've only just re-appeared in the big old online world. Not entirely sure how much time I'll be on Wikipedia. I've spent the last few computer broken months reading actual paper books.... I think there's a lot to be said for breaking your computer for at least 4 months of the year. I'll be around to some extent though, I think. --bodnotbod 03:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood merge

Yes, you're supposed to do it a particular way to preserve the page histories (see WP:MERGE#How to rename a page and WP:HISTMERGE). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It was an honest mistake on my part. My apologies. --Mhking 23:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bar Mitzvah Boy

When I came to the article, the category said "[[Category:BBC television drama" - i.e. no closing brackets. I checked for a category of BBC television drama, and found there was none. Thank you for putting the right category tag there. Ringbark 19:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalek FARC

Hi, Paul. Are you following the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Dalek? Some folks there have suggested that the article could use a copyedit. I think I've gotten a bit too close to it in the FAR process — would you be willing to take a look at the prose and see if there are any obvious improvements that can or should be made? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking another look at it. I'm really not sure what would satisfy the FARC folks at this point. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Kneale

Thanks for fixing the sentence in the Matthew Kneale bio. It makes more sense now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Perry Middlemiss (talk • contribs) 04:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

British TV miniseries

Hello Paul, thanks for your note. Although the article miniseries agrees with you, I think it's out of date. I'm pretty sure I have read the word mini-series in UK TV guides, and I suspect that it will become more used here even if it did originate in America (wouldn't be the first time). As for the category Category:British television miniseries, I was wondering about adding a definition, at least on the British page, namely series consisting of 3 to 12 programmes. If there's only 2, it's a "two-parter". I just checked Google UK: there are 319,000 hits for "(tv,television) serial" and 123,000 for "(tv,television) mini-series", so it's certainly used here, even if it is mostly used for TV imports and exports.

Also, even if it's not used much in the UK, it is used about our productions, so I think it's a valid category. Evidence: over a dozen British shows were already in Category:Television miniseries before I moved them down. I considered renaming the new one as "British television serials", but that would emcompass longer-running series. So, I'm inclined to keep it.

Do you mind if I copy our discussions onto the category discussion page Category_talk:British_television_miniseries, and we could continue there? Fayenatic london 07:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, continued at Category talk:British television miniseries. Fayenatic london 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Crouch

Thanks for fixing the date on Peter Crouch. My mind still thinks its 2006. JFBurton 20:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fandom, Doctor Who

Sorry if I removed your edits. It was not intentional, to be honest I don't know how I did so as I never went near that paragraph but if it went after my edits then I guess it was me. Sorry!! Really sorry.AlanD 23:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award Angmering the Original Barnstar for his impressive expansion of Peter Fincham from a stub to a well-referenced, comprehensive overview, in only a few hours' work. Bravo! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome — this wasn't your first barnstar, was it? If so, it was long overdue. Now what are we going to do about the Dalek FAR? I haven't been able to find the last two requested citations, and they're still complaining about the prose. :/ —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's really only one editor who seems to be grabbing onto any excuse he can find for rejection. The others seem to be more reasonable, and if we can satisfy one or two of the regulars I suppose they'll overrule the persistent voice.

Do you have a copy of the Complete Seventh Doctor? I own one, but it's in storage somewhere (along with most of my New Adventures and the like). It seems to me that there might be something in that about the Daleks that got blown up for Remembrance, which is the only {{cn}} left in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I don't think they're likely to go after Sydney Newman, because it's not as obvious a fan topic as Dalek or the main Doctor Who article. And you should be proud of your work on that one — you're really responsible for bringing that up to FA standard. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked Shannon's website — nothing there. I suppose I can check the DVD production notes, but it's pretty time-consuming. On the other hand, "Remembrance" is a good story, so maybe I'll use the excuse to watch it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I watched "Remembrance", but there's nothing in the text notes about Dalek shells. I didn't watch the commentary, because it didn't seem like a subject Sylvester McCoy and Sophie Aldred would be likely to reminisce about. So I've commented it out of the article. I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch more citation requests pop up soon, though... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image:Teddy Sheringham.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Teddy Sheringham.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mosmof 20:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think Wikipedia's policy re: fair use has gotten more explicit and stricter since then too. Cheers. Mosmof 20:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FAs

Yeah I was referring to those two articles, and BBC television drama which could do with more cites. If you need me to cast my eyes over any, give me a bell. Just keep me informed really of your intentions as concerns these articles, as I wouldn't wish to see them on FAR if that could be avoided. It's much easier to brush up an article without FAR than when FAR comes along, or so I've found. I wouldn't want you getting worn out or anything like that either, which is another concern of mine. LuciferMorgan 23:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's totally fine. By the way, this isn't me trying to pressurise or bully you into improving the articles, as I'm not that kinda guy. It's just FAR can be a little too stiff and formal at times, and if that can be avoided then great. I'm hoping that the Doctor Who Wikiproject would be willing to enter into a similar arrangement. LuciferMorgan 00:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Sherwin quote

Glad to be of service, Paul. Here's the actual quote:

I went to the BBC's archives and managed to dig out some episodes of The Quatermass Experiment (the writer, Nigel Kneale, was my neighbour at the time!). We screened them, and the production was so appalling that we found them hysterically funny. We rolled about laughing! But what the producers had been trying to do — and what ultimately they achieved in Quatermass and the Pit — was to get some reality into it. So I said that this was the solution: that what we had to do with Doctor Who was to forget wobbly jellies in outer space and create some reason for bringing the stories down to Earth.

And here's the citation:

• Howe, David J. (1992). Doctor Who: The Sixties (paperback ed.). London: Virgin Publishing. pp. p. 156. ISBN 0-86369-707-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I'm actually quite impressed at how well you remembered that. Good luck on avoiding FAR! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Quatermass Experiment

You've probably noticed that I have responded to your request to review The Quatermass Experiment. I just finished up the copy-editing... you may want to note that in the FARC and see if the complaints have finally been exhausted. ;) –Outriggr § 07:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that it was apparently not up to par. I guess that's what I get for putting in a middling effort. :( –Outriggr § 23:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You pegged me - I am definitely one of those people that would astonish you, then! Anyway, thanks, and good job saving your featured article. –Outriggr § 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Quatermass Experiment

I will certainly do my best to copy edit, but give me a day or two. FAR is procedure heavy but informal at the same—if people are actively working, it shouldn't get closed. This one has received some attention and should receive more. Cheers, Marskell 19:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's very true - it's usually inactive FARs that get closed, though when editors make a good faith to improve their FAs, it's all cool. LuciferMorgan 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quatermass and the Pit

A quick look at Quatermass and the Pit suggests the cites are fine - perhaps you can ping someone at FAR about the prose? LuciferMorgan 20:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - if you wait awhile and are bored, you could always try citing up BBC television drama and getting that removed from the list also. LuciferMorgan 20:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - that's warming to hear. It's easier if the FAR page isn't so clogged. LuciferMorgan 20:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference in One Foot in the Grave

Hi, sorry for not replying sooner, I missed the message above another. I've been thinking about your question, and I know exactly the quote you mean, but unfortunately can't remember exactly which episode it's in either. I seem to recall it might be in the episode "Hole in the Sky" in relation to Victor's seafood cooking, but I may be entirely wrong, so probably best not to take my word for it. Sorry. Bob talk 21:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could try asking user:The JPS, or possibly User talk:Berks105. Bob talk 21:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]