Because of Wikipedia's naming conventions and manual of style. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 16:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also every other mention of the show's title used a capital D. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 16:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I haven't really edited many England articles so I think I'll pass. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 22:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for givin me a barnstar-- HW-Barnstar PLS 13:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 14:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where the title Doing It My Way came from, and I don't know why it's listed on the BBC's charts, but please can you note that Ray Quinn's official website refers to it as a self-titled album, for example on this page. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 20:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I had only changed it because more than one news source referred to the album as "Doing It My Way". If that title is not mentioned anywhere on the album packaging, then one of his fans is perfectly entitled to remove any reference to that name. Steveweiser ( talk) 21:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a search and it seems there's lots of references to it being called that, but as far as I can see there's no reference to that name on the packaging (definitely not on the front) and the official website says it's self-titled. Anyway I just thought I'd make it clear that I am not, in any way, a fan of Ray Quinn. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 22:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But AP, wasn't that you I saw at his gig wearing s T-Shirt saying "Ray Quinn's number 1 fan" ? ;) Gungadin 16:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen the pictures! - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 16:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of uploading those pics to wikicommons, to illustrate the article on celebrity fanatics. Gungadin

Well, I managed to find this one! - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 16:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL, OMG that pic has really made me laugh. Gungadin 16:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Gungadin went to a Ray Quinn gig!!!!! — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Took me under a minute on Paint, but I like it! Something tells me Anemone won't though! - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 16:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

...find out which articles I have created without going through my 12000+ contributions? - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 16:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Pass. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I'll have to use the helpme thing... - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 17:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask anyway, in case it is! - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Having looked over your edits i think you are more than deserving... keep up the good work.-- Jamesmh2006 14:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC) ---- feel free to repay the favour anytime ;P

Thanks for that, it's about time I got one from someone different! :) — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping you might take another look at the deletion of Image:A7d65e0e.jpg. You deleted it for not having a copyright tag; however, it looks like it was originally PD-released by the uploader, Rainshine and an anon, 76.173.233.180 simply removed the tag for whatever reason. I wasn't sure if you forgot to check the history or if there was another reason for deleting the image. ShadowHalo 07:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I must have forgotten to check the history. I've undeleted it, but I don't know what page(s) it was used on. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 08:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ben bu topraklarda Şebinkarahisar da yaşıyorum bu topraklada doğdum bu topraklarda büyüdüm ve neler yaşandığını sizlerden daha iyi biliyorum ama benim şehrimin benim yaşadığım yerin tarihinin yanlış taraflı ve lobicilik faaliyetleri içerisinde insalara olmayan bir şeyi sahte, asılsız ve düzmece kaynakları sunarak olmuş gibi göstererek anlatılmasını önleyemiyorum banlanıyorum yada Şebinkarahisar maddesi kilitleriniyor. Sizler bu topraklarda yaşadınızmı da biliyorsunuz ? Ermeni Diasporası tarihi istedikleri gibi yazabilir mi ? Ellerinde yetkileri var diye bu yetkilerini kendi çıkarları için kullanabilirler mi ? Neden tüm Türk sayfalarına sadece asılsız ermeni soykırımı hakkında bilgiler ekliyorlar Vikipedia tarafsız ve özgür ansiklopedi değilmi ? Madem bu admin arkadaşalar çok bilgili neden coğrafi, ekonomik, nüfus bilgilerini insanlar için faydalı olacak bilgileri girmiyorlarda sadece asılsız ermeni soykırımı hakkında bilgiler veriyorlar. BU HAKKI NEREDEN BULUYORLAR ? -- 88.231.200.89 10:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please to be repeating in English? — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 10:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey AnemoneProjectors, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support, and I do intend to run again eventually. Happy editing! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 03:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's just wrong. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 09:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Penis1234-1-.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be done about this? It's clearly Danh90... - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 14:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? (I'm on another break) — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 15:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the "I don't like the image" vandal. He's just admitted to owning 22 sock accounts on my talk page, so I'm reporting him to get him blocked. - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 15:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

ZOMG! Well you'll have to deal with him without me for now :( — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 15:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

He created User:Trampikey/sandbox1 also, and I've reported him, so I am dealing with it! Have fun if you're going on your holidays! - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 15:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it for you! May still come on here when I can! — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 15:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back! :) - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 22:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

lol - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 15:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't funny. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 15:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please point me in the right direction to where I can request a policy to be changed? I really don't think that articles about past characters and TV shows that have ended should be written in present tense, and I want to get the policy on that changed. Could you help me out? - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to request to change a policy, other than on the policy's talk page. I think only shows similar to EastEnders should be written in past tense. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 20:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Elonka helped me out, and the discussions can now be found here and here. - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:KitKatFineDarkUK.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Bkell ( talk) 17:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As recommended in the peer review, could you change the refrences on Pauline Fowler to cite news and cite web ones? I would, but I don't really know how it works... can't see what's wrng with them as they are, but apparently it makes a difference. Also, do you know how to do page references for info from books? - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 22:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I already changed them all the other day and said so in the peer review. Have a look at template:Cite book for help on the book references (just add a thingybob for that says "|pages=36" or whatever the page number is). — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 23:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Are these still semi-protected? If not, could you re-protect them? Danh90 is back. - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 11:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Phil was, I've reprotected Ben. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 11:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. 52 sock puppets and counting. Grr. - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 11:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe nothing is being/can be done about it. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 11:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I was sorely tempted to go on his MySpace and have a go at him, but I can't see what that's achieve apart from another "AntiTrampikeygroup" lol. - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 11:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to go now, but could you take over reverting edits made by (and warning) User:Majormk42, please? - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 21:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll try. Is your Wikipedia clock set to the correct time zone? — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 21:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. I don't tend to look at times anyway. - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 21:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it's a Wikipedia thing. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 21:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please move Bree Van de Kamp Hodge to Bree Hodge? - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 18:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Done — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 18:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way I've not yet seen any of DH series 3 so you're lucky I already knew she's remarried or I wouldn't be too happy lol — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't she remarry in series 2 though? - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 19:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please protect User talk:Oldman50, please? He's falsifying user warnings etc. again. - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 10:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Would it be good if I protected all the sockpuppet's talk pages? — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 10:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Probably, see User talk:Thevandal999 and User talk:Idontliketheimage from the last couple of minuts.... - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 10:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It might prokove him to make more accounts, though... - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 10:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Timewaste and User talk:Nonpayer, also. - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 11:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 11:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll start watching the sockpuppets' talk pages so I can protect others when I see them, but I won't be available after about 7 tonight until tomorrow aftenoon. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 12:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 12:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at User talk:How3, lol - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 20:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I protected that one as well, although I've only just got the message cos I was out at Starkers! last night :) — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 13:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice you added him to the list of minors. is one of these Tony Andrews? [1] [2] Gungadin 19:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The second one is him. Neither Trampikey nor I recognise the other one although he looks familiar. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 21:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks i'll upload. Gungadin 23:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. I changed it up a bit since the Green color seemed a bit random (It was only green because it was the color the person I originally supported's clothing was in the official group photo). I changed it to a neutral gray, but if you'd like to add color these eyes are free for use in the box: Image:GrayscaleEyePink.JPG, Image:GrayscaleEyeGreen.JPG, Image:GrayscaleEyeBlue.JPG, and Image:GrayscaleEyeYellow.JPG. FireSpike 00:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't catch that "Gerry!?" bit at the end. Well, I only started supporting him after Johnny left, and that was only after Shabz was evicted. FireSpike 02:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious to know the source of your information that states this album has been marketed as "self titled" only, as every retailer I have encountered lists it as "Ray Quinn (Doing It My Way)". This includes All Music Guide, Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, Yahoo Music, and a host of others. It seems to me the correct title for the album would be Ray Quinn (Doing It My Way). ( Mind meal 00:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

Quinn's official website refers to it as "self titled" and the official website store links to Tesco.com which lists it as being titled "Ray Quinn". I don't know where "Doing It My Way" came from but it was listed with that title in the chart listings on the BBC website. Doing It My Way redirects to the correct title. I've not seen "Ray Quinn (Doing It My Way)" used anywhere, but then again I'm not really interested in buying the album :) In fact the official website does name the album - http://www.rayquinnmusic.com/news/ray_is_our_number_1.html?page=1 — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 12:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Yougivemesomething.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. BetacommandBot 11:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mr Bot. That's not like me but then again I didn't upload that image originally! Why I'm replying to a bot I do not know. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 12:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your query on WP:AN/I about a possible copyright infringment about http://www.fonejacker.tv taking information from the Wikipedia article Kayvan Novak (and the IMBD entry) and placing a copyright tag on it claiming it is their own. Just letting you know I contacted the owners of the fonejacker.tv website and hopefully this can be resolved. I'll let you know if anything else develops. Cheers! — Moe ε 23:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 08:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just got the reply we were looking for: http://www.fonejacker.tv/Kayvan_Novak.shtml Cheers! — Moe ε 19:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That's excellent. I didn't realise they were a fansite though... but then again an official website wouldn't copy Wikipedia! They'd write their own biography. — AnemoneProjectors ( zomg!) 20:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you keep reverting my very valid edits and have now seen to that the abi branning page is protected. I cannot see why you deleted what I added to the article, since it was all factually accurate. Now I know in the past I've made some less than sensible edits to certain pages but this time i wasn't taking the piss. What's more, that clown freak (User : can't sleep clown will eat me) bloody blocked me. I think my edits should be restored, either fully or at least partially, SINCE THEY ARE TRUE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.102.68 ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not factually accurate, it was your own personal opinion. See WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. — Anemone Projectors (I can't help it if I've got a natural curl to my hair!) 12:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi AnemoneProjectors,

Just messaging you about the 'speculation/guesswork' I put on the article. I'm happy to have anything I've written edited or removed with good reason. I accept that the thing about the managment of the winning act was a bit too speculative and am okay with seeing that go. However the bit about the judges' vote for which act would go home each week was half fact. It is true that there will need to be a change to the format in this respect because with four voters there can be a tie. Speculation aside, it is perfectly permissible to say that the format will change with regard to the judges' vote without saying that bit about the mentor of the act with the lowest vote losing their right etc. May I re-add that bit about the judges' vote...? without the speculation! hehe

Let me know what you think,

Jonny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki edit jonny ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC

The management bit was indeed purely speculative. I think the bit about who goes home was also too speculative. I would simply say that there may not always be a majority and it is not yet known how it will be decided who goes home (without listing any possibilites). If that's ok with you... — Anemone Projectors (I can't help it if I've got a natural curl to my hair!) 15:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, do you think it would be worth making a character specific EE template for Pauline? As well as spouses we could have siblings, parents, children etc. That way we could get rid of the family section, but keep the same amount of info in the article. I thought it might be a good solution as the section is getting criticised quite a bit on the FA. Gungadin 19:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean a template like the family ones we have now, but that has all of Pauline's relatives from her family section? I don't think we should do something like that just for one article. Would it go on all the other pages? It would have to say how each person is related as well to keep the same amount of information which isn't good for a navigation template. — Anemone Projectors (I can't help it if I've got a natural curl to my hair!) 19:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeh that's what I was thinking. To have a line similar to the "spouse" part in the current templates, with "uncles & aunts" "siblings" etc. But I suppose it would get a bit big, and you're right, we'd end up having to do tons for each character, which isnt really practical. Gungadin 19:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep on reverting peoples edits? Wikipedia is a website that can edited by all. Fair enough some edits do need reverting, but not all of them. The EastEnders character page is the page you seem to be focusing on more recently. The situation where the dates are being included, and then you revert them, you say is due to a "project consensus." - by who? Its the first i've heard of it and also alot of people judging by the number of times its being edited. Your excuse of it not being needed due to "individual dates is available in the articles for individual characters" can also be said for the ALL the other soaps but yet they have the date information both on the main page, and on the individual pages. Why should the EastEnders page have to be different. It looks stupid as it is now. It SHOULD be changed to include the dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.214.132 ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You should bring this up on the article's talk page, or on WT:EE. — Anemone Projectors (I can't help it if I've got a natural curl to my hair!) 22:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will, but i though i should bring it up on your talk page before hand...seeing as its you who is making the reverts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.214.132 ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting because of decisions made by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders. — Anemone Projectors (I can't help it if I've got a natural curl to my hair!) 22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Christ, your actually that sad you had to semi-protect the page so that you get your own way, and so that no-one can revert YOUR crap edits to be better - just proves a point doesn't it! Forget it mate, your not all that imprtant- just because your a mod, not exactly God are you. Shows just how much your lot know about "free editing." (oh and if you think i will give a shit about being banned for this, i won't - i won't be coming back on anyway!) Got better things to do with my time than argue with a bunch of muppets (you being number 1) over edits that shouldn't have been reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.209.93.202 ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC

I explained why the previous actors had to be included, you ignored it and I wasn't willing to be involved in another revert war. — Anemone Projectors (I can't help it if I've got a natural curl to my hair!) 22:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would urge you to reinstate Category:Men with unusually large penis and submit it to a regular CfD. The category had more than 50 entries. I do not accept your deletion criteria, and I would like the community (of those who would care) to be able to have its say on this. __ meco 06:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh all right then. — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 11:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The errors you have just reverted were made unwittingly, so it's good that you caught them! __ meco 14:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So I can do good things sometimes ;) — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 15:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor meco has posted a statement at 19:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC), on the talk page for the Human penis size article, that you, the nominator for deletion of, Category:Men with unusually large penis, are now his supporter in his effort to include his silly list, "Men famous for their large penis," in the Human penis size article. He is confusing you with AnonEMouse, who mentioned three names of non-porn stars in the category deletion discussion, which, in his confusion, and despertion for support, he takes as an endorsement for inclusion of his list in that article. 72.76.10.245 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 23:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

YW 72.76.10.245 23:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish to add a photo to Will Young's page but cannot understand the instructions! It is a jpeg photo of Will in concert. Can you help? Oyster24 14:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it's probably easier if I direct you to Wikipedia:Uploading images for the guidelines on what to do. I hope it is helpful. Good luck. — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 16:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Activites of this user Freedomeagle centered around deleting images, I think we have a griefer since he seems to go around indiscriminately tagging each image he finds. Klichka 19:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no such user. Corvus cornix 19:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The activites of user Freedomeagle seem to be centered around deleting images, I think we have a griefer since he seems to go around indiscriminately tagging each image he finds. (Fixed) Klichka 19:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-free images should have fair-use rationales so I believe Freedomeagle is correct to tag them. He should also inform the uploader that the rationale is missing to give them a chance to add one before the image is deleted. Anyway, see Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 21:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why you insist on reverting perfectly accurate edits on this page. It is unnecessary and reduces the accuracy of the article. I don't know what point you are trying to make, but if I decided to constantly revert/delete perfectly true information, you wouldn't be best impressed, would you ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.37.249 ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary to remove personal opinions from Wikipedia articles. They do not belong here. If you want to say that someone is "cute" or whatever, join a fan forum. — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 22:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I do not regard this as purely a personal opinion (although it is true in my opinion). The general concensus of eastenders viewers is that she is cute. The article should include a section on 'popularity' or 'public perception' in order to improve it, whether or not it is 100% "factually accurate". I mean, the page on George Bush contains sections on his perceived image. Surely this is not 100% "factually accurate" , not in the same way as the statement, 'Bush is the president of the USA'. This comparison highlights the hypocrisy involved - if the article on Bush can have such a section why can't this one ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.37.249 ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is this "general consensus of EastEnders viewers" then? Even if true, it doesn't matter if people think she looks cute. Her looks are not important and describing them does not improve the article. — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 23:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If you go on the digital spy forums, a series of chatrooms about various soaps (as you probably know) you will find several threads specifically dedicated to both the character, Abi, and the girl that plays her, Lorna Fitzgerald. Very often the focus of these threads is 'Abi/Lorna is so cute' or a similar sort of statement. The comments made, both in these threads and in other, more general, eastenders threads, almost universally reflect this. Therefore it is safe to say that this is infact the general consensus of eastenders viewers. By saying that she is cute and adorable you are not merely "describing her looks", you are describing her persona. This is clearly a very relevant and important part of the article and obviously does improve it. Also describing her appearence is important since the article should contain as much relevant info as possible - and this is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.37.249 ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

A forum isn't a reliable source, and doesn't make it the general consensus of all EastEnders fans. And it's still not important or relevant, so it will not be added to the article. — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 18:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, what are your thoughts about the comments on the Pauline talk page? Are you still interested in getting it to FA? and do you think we should try and work all the storylines into the development so we can erase the duplicated information? I asked Trampikey, but he doesnt seem to be active here at the moment and I wanted to get your opinons before going ahead with it. I'm not bothered either way, but i'd be willing to do it if everyone thinks it's a good idea. Gungadin 20:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you, I haven't read most of the comments on the talk page (because they're so long and I have a short attention span!) but I would love to see the article reach FA status because we've all (you mostly) worked so hard on getting there, I think we've come too far to give up now. I suppose working the storylines into the development is the best idea, as other fictional characters with FA status don't have storyline sections. I feel a bit guilty though because I don't think I have it in me to do the work. But if you're willing to do it, I'll try to help in what ways I can (probably minor ones). — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 20:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, I dont mind doing it gradually, I was just worried about getting rid of the storyline section without approval, particularly as all the other character pages will still have them. Sometimes when i'm writing all that OOU stuff, I cant help but think what a load of bull-shit i'm writing - who would ever need/want to look that deeply into a soap opera character. I certainly don't and i'm the one writing it, lol. Gungadin 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think we should start our own EastEnders wiki, where every character, shop, house, animal and plotline can have its own article. Then we could write as much plot as we wanted!!! It should be called Wiki-stEnders. Let's not do FA on any other articles, I like to keep them rubbish ;) — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 20:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think an EE wiki would be a good idea actually, particularly as some users are beginning to completely delete all the plot summary from some of the American soap chracater pages and then put them up for AFD. It wont be long til they start on us. It seems to have started after they developed WP:PLOT, which is the deletionists wet dream come true, :o) Gungadin 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the picture on the Andy Hunter page, but it was taken of. Why? The picture I put on is so much better then the one there is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rune Thandy ( talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Because your image doesn't have a corrct fair use rationale. Check the description page for your image, and Wikipedia:Non-free content, for more information on this. — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In actual fact, a forum is a perfectly reliable source and is of course the consesus of Eastenders viewers since a wide variety of people comment on these forums. Hence it is a representitive sample of the population of Eastenders viewers and is therefore a reliable source. Seeing as I have 9A*s at GCSE, including subjects where you need to use sources, I think I know what I'm talking about, matey.

And WHY THE HELL isn't it important. It is clearly very important and relevant info to be included in the article. You have not justified why it isn't important, you have merely stated it, thinking that just because you are an "administrator" (ie: you spend more time on the internet than most other people) that gives you a right to do whatever you want. How exciting for you !! You don't seem to be able to come up with a logical reason as to why it cannot be inluded, or a logical response to any of my arguments, you just vaguely state, 'it is not important'.

I also noticed you protected the article. How very immature of you. Doing this means you get your own way just because you're a poxy administrator. I noticed on another wikipedia page (about protected pages) it says administrators should NEVER protect pages in an edit war witha non established user, but instead should resolve the issue on a user talk page. You are unable to do this, since you are unable to reasonably justify why my edits can't be included so you resort to the petty action of protecting the page. Well, seeing as you have gone against wikipedia policy by protecting the page in an edit war, I may have to report this to someone higher up, unless you include my edits in some shape or form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.19.169 ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not the consensus of EastEnders viewers. The majority do not post to forums. It's not important because it's not important. I protected the article against vandalism (i.e. yours). It is not an edit war. That is all I have to say on the subject and I will not respond to threats. — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

'It's not important because it's not important'. Wow, what a great justification. What the FUCK do you mean ? It IS an edit war, and I was not vandalising the page, I was adding factually accurate info, you retard. Just beacause you're pansexual and you're probably in love with a turtle or something. Just because you want to lift up its tail and sniff its little bottom, you gaylord. Just because your bisexual and enjoy sodomy you spaz. Fine don't respond to my "threat" (I think it was pretty generous of me to give you a warning you dickhead) but I WILL report this dogma. I don't care if this is all you have to say on the subject, I am most certainly not finished. Just because you didn't get 9A*s you are obviously very jealous and want to ruin my edits. So fuck you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.19.169 ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll unprotect the page and let you add what you want to say about Lorna's cuteness. Just because you've made me laugh. Who cares about Wikipedia guidelines and policies anyway? — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 21:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What vile, offensive comments. Find a published source that says she's cute and you can quote it in the article. A forum topic does not count by the way and would not be seen as a reliable source. Some reporter may have described her as cute and complimented her acting in a review of Eastenders. If you are desperate to say she's cute then including it in the article that way would be acceptable. Gungadin 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just reverted an edit to Cambridge made in your name, stating that "Many cyclists in Cambridge prefer to do so naked". I must say I've never witnessed this phenomenon! I notice you are an administrator, so I assume good faith - I just hope someone doesn't have unauthorised access to your account. All the best, -- Malfidus ~ (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have found a news article about 1 person riding through Cambridge nude, although I don't think that this is enough to be included in the article.  Tiddly Tom  17:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There is one person who is quite well known for doing it, and there are two local news articles about him that I have seen. Apparently there are other people who cycle in Cambridge naked, but I haven't seen them for myself. I just wondered if it was mentioned at all on the article and it wasn't so I decided to add it (I should have sourced it but I was feeling lazy). Feel free to remove it if you don't think it should be there. — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 18:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are infact several people that have done it, it should be kept. I think the statement should be well sourced though. After a quick Google search, I can only find one instance [3]. If you could find more, it should be kept, if not, in my opinion, it should go.  Tiddly Tom  18:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The only other source I can find is this, which just mentions that Richard cycles nude. Richard was also organising a World Naked Bike Ride in Cambridge [4], but it was cancelled. Now that could probably be sourced and added. — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 18:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So far, we have one nudist cyclist, whose exploits on one particular day were uncommon enough to spark a news article. Nude cycle protests and nudist bike events have taken place in other cities (eg. York), without being mentioned in those articles. As it stands, the disputed statement is misleading, as it sounds as though a number of Cambridge residents regularly cycle around nude, which just isn't true. If you believe it to be notable and relevant content for an encyclopaedia article (which I honestly do not), please qualify and source the statement. -- Malfidus ~ (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it now because I can't source it. — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding a few of your edits such as [5], [6], and [7], please take the time to read when a redirect should be properly categorized. Categories of trivial matters are unnecessary, the redirects become italised in the category page and further clutters it. I'm no expert on this guideline (just following protocal) but if you have any questions, please leave a message at WT:CAT-RD instead of my talk page if you still feel that they should be categorized the way you desire them to. Thank you, Lord Sesshomaru 22:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of List of minor EastEnders characters 1990, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mind42.com/wiki/Joan_Garwood. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 17:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bot. That is a copy of a Wikipedia page. Duh! — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 17:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Sister, Sister twins in EastEnders... strange casting! - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 12:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking how bizarre it is when I saw it added! — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a funny storyline though! — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

They must have taken a leaf outta Joseph Marcell's book! I guess EE is the place where Ex-US sitcom actors crash. I suppose If Michael Palin can make a cameo in Home and Away and Emma Bunton can appear in Neighbours, what's wrong w/ the Mowry twins in EE? ( User:Conquistador2k6) 00:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did not know Aubrey Valentine was from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air! — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 12:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh, the rumour's been trashed, they'll be played by twins from Essex... on a brighter not, Shouty Man Kevin and his kids are leaving, but Diane Parish is going on maternity leave :( - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 14:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, I checked my Google News alerts before I checked my Wikipedia user talk page :-P — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 14:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What, the Wickses are going? Fine, sling Deano and Carly but at least keep Kevin! He and Denise probably have the best chemistry on the show right now. Conquistador2k6 ( talk) 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Phil Daniels has decided not to renew his contract, so Kellie and Matt have also been axed. Kevin Wicks is rubbish anyway. — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 22:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess it looks like Shirley's prediction will come true; Kevin and Denise's marriage won't last a year. I don't see how they're gonna keep them together if Phil Daniels is leaving and Diane Parrish is returning. Conquistador2k6 ( talk) 12:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably not CSD material, but do you think Paulo da costa should be taken to AfD? - WarthogDemon 21:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows that it's a copy of http://www.attlc-ltac.org/Costa.htm — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 21:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. =O I probably should've caught that. Oh well, thanks. :) - WarthogDemon 21:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm always suspicious of unwikified pages with indented text! — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 21:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You beat me correcting you by an edit conflict. =) I was going to jokingly point that out and add that pages without intended text would probably be marked {{db-empty}} or {{db-test}}. :P Heh, cheers and happy editing! - WarthogDemon 21:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on merging past babies/young children into the minor lists, such as Jack Evans and Joe dimarco? I know they appeared over many years, but most of them had no real storylines of their own, so expansion wont ever be possible. There isnt much OOU info that can be included in their articles either. The only exception I can think of is Hassan Osman and maybe Tomas Covelenco (but he's been merged anyway). Gung adin ♦

Yeah I agree with that. Trampikey was supposed to add the crying stuff for Tomas but never did... — AnemoneProjectors ( ?) 20:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I can always include it in the Dot OOU section when I get round to writing it. I wrote a sentence in my sandbox months ago and then got bored :) Gung adin ♦ 20:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought that screenshots were pictures taken through a didital camera of a television screen of the subject of an article. Could you please tell me how to make a proper screenshot? Kkbhe 07:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You will need to do it on your computer with some kind of software, though I don't know the details. The best person I know to ask is User:Gungadin, if you leave a message on her user talk page, I'm sure she'd be happy to help. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 08:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you have any objections to me including a bullet point list of supporting characters within the list of minor characters? I'd like to make our lists as comprehensive as possible, but some of the minor characters dont merit their own sections with infoboxes in my opinion, because there's very little to say about them, but I would still like to list them somewhere.

Each bullet would have a small sentence about the character and possibly their appearance dates. I think this would be a good way to include them without clogging up the page with tons of infoboxes and barely any writing. Another reason for this is to keep fairuse images on the pages down - I'm not sure if it matters for character lists, but I noticed that the pages were listed at a 'fairuse overuse' page before we split them. Some minor characters have bigger roles than others and this way we could keep the infoboxes with images for the more important ones. What do you think? Gung adin ♦ 19:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead :) — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 21:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it is necessary have the section about the X Factor promotional trailer? To me, it seems a little pointless because it doesn't include anything anyone needs to know. It is also a bit out of date because we're now in the middle of the series, with the promotional trailer long gone. Let me know what you think. Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 20:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's necessary, I agree with you. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 21:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• FROM YOUR FRIEND:

 ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I know you already have one birthday greeting, but I'm feeling full of Wikilove today, and I thought I'd give you another! Happy Birthday!
→ jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 04:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to see naked men on my birthday! — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 13:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! I know how old you are! - Trampikey^{( talk)( contribs)} 15:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does say in my userspace! — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 15:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wheres your proof that Darren is still an EastEnders character? Tonights episode said he's gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeipedia ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The quote I changed it to was in fact accurate of what Simon Cowell said - I'll get a reference to prove it. Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 15:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Did he say it on Xtra Factor or somewhere like that? The quote I used is, I presume, what he told the newspaper that printed it, but they could have just got it from the TV and reported it wrong. If you have another source (not YouTube!) please add it. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 15:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He said it straight after her performance during the judges' comments. Added references now. Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 15:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough. The only problem I have is that the references are a blog and a forum. But I won't remove them. I'm also going to reinstate the original reference as a backup and to confirm that Cowell believed Quinn would win. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 15:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. I'm afraid I could only find blog and forum entries, sorry about that. But on YouTube (pardon my French) you can see Cowell say it. Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 16:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it wouldn't hurt to also add a citation for the episode... I'll do that as well. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 16:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at this recently Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). They have completely changed the guideline on minor character lists. This is a quote from the talk page

"The idea is to indeed draw the notability standard upward, because as it stands right now, too many all-in-universe subarticles/lists are around (most of which created as temporary "dams" for this info; right now, WP:FICT is defensive and not authoritative); these are full of excessive plot summary without any real-world material to balance it out. If an article/list cannot be transformed into a complete encyclopedia article, then it shouldn't be notable enough for Wikipedia; instead, it belongs on specific wikis. After all, even though we aren't paper, we are still a general purpose encyclopedia"

It used to say non-notable characters should be merged into a list, as we did, but now they are saying that these lists should not exist if notability cant be proven. This confuses me, because if notability can be proven then surely they would be entitled to their own page anyway! The lists also have to be written OOU perspective now. I've noticed that some character lists have already been nominated for deletion. I cant believe they can just change the rules like this! Sources for the 80s and 90s characters will be impossible to find. Do you think there's any point in continuing to extend our lists now? Gung adin ♦ 20:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with those changes. I don't see why we should give up. Don't let those deletionists get you down. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 20:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, but the constant rule changes here are beginning to make me lose interest in this project. It seems that a small minority of forceful individuals make all the policy and guideline chages.

You know when you mentioned making an EE wikia a while ago, were you just joking? Because i'm starting to like the thought of it. It would mean that we could save wikipedia for just the main characters and never have to worry about threat of deletion again. For characters like Pauline, all the in-universe stuff can be moved to the wikia and linked to within the Wikipedia article, meaning FAs would be much easier to pass too. Ive noticed this done on some other projects (smallville I think it was). Gung adin ♦ 16:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't joking but I wouldn't know how to do it. But it would be great to have our own EastEnders Wiki. Then every character, no matter how minor, and every pet and every house and every shop and every bench and war memorial and shed could have their own separate page. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 16:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

and no OOU bullshit to write and no AFDs! sounds great. Seems an EE wiki already exists [8] it was started in Dec 2006, but there doesnt appear to be anything on it yet :) Gung adin ♦ 17:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Great! What do we do next? — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We can just begin creating articles and personalising the project any way we want to apparently. You can type the article name (ie Jane Beale) into the search bar on the wiki page, and it will take you to an edit page just like Wikipedia. I might go and include a Pauline one, using the detailed plot summary we had before the cuts. What do you think? it's not necessary to even be logged in by the look of it. Gung adin ♦ 17:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good although I'm not sure I can be bothered with more Wikis :( — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 18:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ah well, it's always there as an option if we need it. It's only worth doing it if everyone is on board anyway. I like the idea of dumping Pauline's storylines there and linking to it. That way we could keep the content instead of rewriting it all for the FA. Gung adin ♦ 19:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop deleting my valid edits. This may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohcahtoa...baby ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice way to bring an admin's attention to yourself. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 17:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself mate. I just wish that my edits wouldn't get your attention and you'd just leave them alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobydick ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the only person who has noticed your edits. At least four people have removed your edits, that must tell you something. If you made more constructive edits, instead of giving your personal opinion on a particular 11-year-old girl all the time, maybe you wouldn't keep getting yourself blocked. If you want to stick around, please read Wikipedia:Five pillars, especially the pages about neutral points of view and codes of conduct. And actually follow them! — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 20:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You and I seem to have attracted a particularly devious little ilk... thanks for the reverts and blocks. - Philippe | Talk 22:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The 5 pillars say that multiple points of view can be represented. 'Lorna is cute', is 1 point of view. Therefore it can be represented (and has been again). The fact that the Eiffel Tower is a major landmark of Paris is technically opinion, but is so widely thought that it makes no sense to not include that corollory in the relevant article. See the parallel with Lorna/Abi's cuteness ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starburst41 ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your point of view is not worthy of mention in this encyclopaedia. Blocked. Again. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)" - your views are neither significant, nor published by reliable sources. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 21:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"article should have no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately". My point of view is one point of view. You could write another point of view if that makes you happy. Then we'd have multiple points of view !! You simply stating that my point of view is not worthy (without any justification) is immature. Just because you say something doesn't make it true. My view is in fact shared by a significant number of other people and should therefore be included to improve the accuracy of the article. So it is worthy to be included. Also I don't understand why you keep blocking my account indefinitly without warning. Others (including myself in the past) have received several warnings and are then blocked for 24 hrs. In particular, since I haven't used this account to edit ANY other page other than your user page, it would seem unfair and unjustified for you to block this account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calculus dude ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 5 September 2007

You are being blocked for sockpuppetry. I believe you were originally blocked for a short period of time yet you still attempted to evade the block, therefore you were blocked indefinitely. Blocked users are not allowed to edit. As you have been indefinitely blocked, you are not welcome here. Ever. Don't even bother replying. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 22:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that you're being a little unreasonable? After all, all this user wants to do is insert some commentary about a little girl's adorableness into a few articles. Wants it desperately... urgently... could even be called obsessed with the adorable little girl. Becomes irrationally angry when thwarted in his pursuit of the little girl. Thinks about the sweetness of this little girl many times every day... Actually, that's extremely creepy, now that I come to think about it. Never mind; carry on. - FisherQueen ( Talk) 00:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this person may have finally got the message. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 10:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi i'd appreciate your opinions on this OOU Pauline rewrite that i've started. I was unsure whether or not to make the information chronological, but I decided to go with themes instead, otherwise i'd have to break up the Arthur section and that works as a stand alone segment. This is not complete yet, but I wasnt planning to add anymore titled sections, I will just work the rest of the storylines into the ones there. Feel free to let me know if you have any ideas for changes or inclusions. I'm not keen on the title 'early storylines', but I dont know where else to put this information, the stuff about fibroids and her being axed in 1989 isnt relevant to the other segments is it? Gung adin ♦ 17:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Having just briefly looked it over it seems fine to me. Is this your way of eliminating the storylines section completely? That's a good idea! See what Trampikey thinks - I think he prefers things in chronological order. I certainly have no objections. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 17:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, i'm trying to include all the bits from the storyline section into the development section so nobody will be able to complain about repetition. I dont think Trampikey's interested in doing another FA. I did ask him when the FA failed what he thought about me rewriting it, but he didn't reply so I assumed he didn't care either way. Gung adin ♦ 18:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you're obviously interested and I'd love to see the article reach FA standard. I think the themes thing is fine, maybe actually better than chronological order. So go for it. The best I can do to help is check for spelling, grammar, punctuation and wikification (one day that'll be added to GCSE exams!), but every little helps, right? — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, it certainly does and it's good to be able to talk through decisions with someone too. I'm very indecisive :) Gung adin ♦ 21:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is near enough complete now. I've tried to include all the plot details. I hope it's ok, let me know what you think, and feel free to edit the sandbox if you want to change anything. Gung adin ♦ 17:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is mostly an FYI to you as an admin who still uses the old, templated method for salting pages. That method of salting pages is depricated, and the template is now up for deletion. While things can still change, the current discussion definitely looks headed towards deletion. Assuming that this happens, you will no longer be able to salt pages with the old method, and will need to begin using the newer salting method that involves cascading protection on the title, and allows recreation to be blocked while still having no article at the name, leaving it as a red link. This new method of salting is centered at WP:PT, and the instructions for how to make it work are there as well. - TexasAndroid 13:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I never salted before (until recently), but I'll try to do it the new way in future. Or not at all if it turns out that it looks too complicated. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 14:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not too complicated. For me, I mostly just find the current month's page, and on it I duplicate an existing listing and then edit the duplicate to show the correct information for the newly protected page. As for you not doing it much, I gave the notice to all admins who used the old salting template in the last month or so, to get it to all who have used it. You used it, so you got the notice. :) - TexasAndroid 15:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Chances are I'll never need to do it again. But you can blame Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages because I just did what it said to do first. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 15:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost 100% sure User:Abi is very cuddly is a sockpuppet similar to one you recently banned. → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 23:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you were quick to it :) → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 23:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the number of sockpuppets? Something is wrong with this person. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 23:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, somebody needs to find something better to do with their time. It doesn't seem much gets past you, so their attempts are pointless ;) → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 23:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Another one, User:Abi is very very cuddly. → jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 23:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of doing something to counter the numerous edits we've had which state the judges' categories on the main X Factor page. Do you know the template that directs readers to the talk page? It appears on the page in superscript and reads 'see discussion', or something like that. Thanks. Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I've seen one of those. Hehe, everytime someone adds the judges to the categories, it's different! I'll put a comment on the page that might help but probably won't. I think we know that Louis hasn't got the groups this year... — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 17:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tee-hee, I know what you mean. It somehow confirms that what their saying is utter speculation when they can't all read from the same hymn sheet! Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 21:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, on the show they seem to be referring to the lower age groups as "Boys" and "Girls". What do you think about changing it to just that? — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 17:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a ploy to differentiate the younger category from the older category and to make it seem somewhat 'hip'. I'm not keen on the idea of calling it boys and girls because A). It is incorrect - there are people in that category who are as old as 24. B). Those kinds of terms never look good in an encyclopedia article. But it is a fair consideration :-) Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 21:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Seen the comments on the edit page - it's a good idea. Hopefully it will have an effect! Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes technically it is incorrect, perhaps where we talk about the splitting of the younger age group we could say that they are referred to as "boys" and "girls" on the show. And I doubt the comments will work!!! — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 21:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds absolutely sound (pardon the terrible English) :-) Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 21:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh it already says that!! Never mind then! — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 21:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

They're too efficient for us! Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 21:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I was warning User:Mrs trueman Jr when I noticed that it appeared they had a vendetta against reverting you. When I checked further I discovered that they were actually a sock puppet of User:Mrs Trueman31 (which was apparently a sock of User:Trueman31). The latter two were blocked, with Mrs Trueman31 getting an indefinite block from you. I just thought I'd let you know what was going on in case you didn't notice the reverting.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am so fed up of sockpuppets. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 13:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a new discussion topic. So far, no-ones replied to it but it's still early days. Jonny - Wiki edit Jonny 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you tell me why you think the pic of Lewis at the showcase is unnecessary please? Thanks. Wiki edit Jonny 18:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't add anything to the article that isn't mentioned in the text. It's just a picture of her singing. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 18:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You could say that about all pictures that are added to Wikipedia articles. In any case, images are used to help a reader visualize what they have just read. I think it is important to include it because it is the only pic in the article of her post-X Factor. It is also symbolic on a more abstract level that an artist from a talent show in the UK is signed by major US music executive; the image illustrates this event. Bear in mind that this event was international - all major record execs. around the world attended. Wiki edit Jonny 19:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

From WP:FU: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function." — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 19:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; it doens't need to be so rigid. I can tell you that images make text read a whole lot easier. Without sufficient images, an article reads like a slab of black and white text that the reader has to wade through. I know wiki-purists would disagree, but I think if a picture has a point, makes the article more engaging and has been added with the correct copyright, then there is no reason why it shouldn't be included. Wiki edit Jonny 19:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I shan't list it for deletion, but if someone else does, I won't be opposing its deletion. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 21:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Wiki edit Jonny 10:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect Treueman 31 VS AnemoneProjectors ( talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Trueman31 ( talk · contribs). Just informing you incase you didn't see :p — jacĸrм ( talk | sign ) 15:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:New ee web.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, can you semi-protect this page please? Some anon keeps removing the disambig to Michael French (actor) for no apparent reason. Gung adin ♦ 17:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I warned the user for now, it it being vandalised by lots of different users? — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 17:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done. I see that is is, I have semi-protected the page. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 17:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Gung adin ♦ 17:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the "Bleeding Love" review from the album but there are some comments about the album that you might like to add, such as "Good things are worth waiting for and this is no exception. The debut album is likely to surprise critics." I was going to do it myself but am too tired at the moment to put it into the right words! — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 23:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine, seeing as the comments are about the single and not the album. I'll add the ones about the album tomorrow, got to go to bed now. Wiki edit Jonny 23:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What about this review of " Bleeding Love"? I know it's a bad one but a) it would keep the article balanced and b) I love the line "it sounds as much like Gwen Stefani's "Hollaback Girl" as a ballad can." :) — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 14:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw that earlier and it made me laugh lol. Yeah, it's good that it provides a different opinion. I'll get working on it now... Wiki edit Jonny 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Should I include the comment saying: 'Lewis wisely restrains her vocals, never devolving into those vocal acrobatics that have historically plagued Christina Aguilera.'? It's highly relevant because Christina and Mariah (Carey) have received criticism for their 'vocal acrobatics' that makes their work 'more impressive than expressive'. However, the comment isn't neutral because it is defamatory of Aguilera. Wiki edit Jonny 17:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I never liked Aguilera so I say go ahead ;) — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 18:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering whether to include that vocal coach, Mark Hudson (the one with the colourful beard), will not be returning for the fourth series. He's a pretty minor character, but a character nonetheless. The story can be seen here [9] Merci beaucoup. Wiki edit Jonny 13:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. To be honest it was such old news that I assumed it was already there. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 13:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why have you added the "Critical reception" bit to Leona's album page? The article you are linking it to is a review of the single "Bleeding Love" and not the album, hence the title of the article "Leona Lewis is back with Bleeding Love". There have been no reviews of the album yet.

Oh and can I also ask why you changed the single cover of "Bleeding Love" back to a lower quality version where the text is smaller? The new one I got from her official site and that's why I uploaded it. As it stands, the cover on the article now is wrong and not the proper one. Adi39 20:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add the critical reception section but parts of that article are about the album, not just the single. I didn't check which parts so some of it may be wrong, but it shouldn't be removed in its entirety. The single cover already uploaded was fine. Until the single is out, we don't know the size of the text, it seems that they haven't really decided on the final cover yet. I suggest leaving it as it is until there are more images. However, it's just as easy to upload a new version of the same image, i.e. keep the same image name on Wikipedia, rather than upload with a new name. That way the article doesn't need to be changed and the old image doesn't end up tagged for deletion. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 15:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but that article isn't a review of the album so the sentence - "The first reviews of the album gave a mixture of opinions." is false as there haven't been any reviews of the album. This part - "One described it as "leaving you wanting to hear more", saying, "...from the moment she opens her mouth we are instantly reminded about her amazing voice, capable of heart stopping intensity and a playful light touch..." is all about Bleeding Love and not the album. The only part about her album is "Good things are worth waiting for and this is no exception." And sorry, I didn't know you could upload a new image with an identical file name to another. I assumed they all had to be different names. Adi39 19:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I didn't add that section. But sure, go ahead and remove it as just that one sentence doesn't add anything. I think the originally uploaded image of the cover actually looks more professional than the one with larger text, so I hope they actually use that one. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 13:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok will do! Yeah I prefer the smaller text but the quality of the pic is better in the larger text cover. I think they just want the title to stand out. Adi39 13:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I uploaded the image from the latest email, which is more similar to the one you uploaded. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 15:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the recent Trueman31 sockpuppets, but please note that User:Ln of x is a different sockpuppet to User:Trueman31. Ln of x always mentions Abi Branning, Lorna Fitzgerald or me, whereas Trueman31 is into more random vandalism or adding false information to articles. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 18:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, I didn't realize they were different socks. I just assumed from this user, this one, this sock, and this sockpuppet that they were all the same person. Thanks for clarifying. Acalamari 18:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they've both used "VS AnemoneProjectors", so they could be the same, but they make distinctly different edits, and have left each other messages (though not uncommon for socks). I haven't seen any other evidence to suggest they are the same person, and I still believe they are different people. By the way, is there anything we can do to stop them coming back all the time? — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 19:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

One way is to keep blocking them and hope they go away (which, most of the time, does work, but not always), though another way is to list all the socks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check and have a checkuser find and block the underlying IP is it's possible to. However, it seems that Mr.Z-man has listed the Trueman31 socks there at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#User:Trueman31 already. I hope that helps. :) Acalamari 19:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) - Philippe | Talk 19:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's ok. P.S. Abi is sparkly and magical ;-) — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 19:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This matter was debated earlier, and was moved to Spears's. I am surprised that you felt it correct to move it and change all the Spears's references. Wiki style guides indicate that Spears's is the correct form and the move was originally done by an admin. I suggest you revert the move. Thanks 15:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added s sound, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by The Guardian, Emory University's writing center, and The American Heritage Book of English Usage." Spears's is not the correct form and I will not revert the move. It doesn't take an admin to move a page and if I wasn't an admin I would have moved it anyway. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 15:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits to Quinn's debut album? I don't think it is an album of covers, as all the songs on the album are known in many versions by many artists, not just one off renderings. Gareth E Kegg 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

They're not original Ray Quinn songs, so I think that makes it a covers album. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 19:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about this! :) I mistakenly did a similar thing on someone else's user page. Sometimes the mouse button gets stuck or something, and I end up clicking on "rollback" by mistake! :) Acalamari 20:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't worried ;) — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 20:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

its a redirect, relax its hardly a big deal. -- Cloveious 12:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still annoying and the page history is in the wrong place. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 12:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

How did you get the finalists all correct only half-way through the airing of the show? Jordan hatch 18:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone else already posted them but I reverted it because it wasn't from a reliable source. But when it seemed that it was right half way through I couldn't be bothered to wait and just did it. I know it was naughty... — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 18:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if you were watching the discussion, so I just thought I should let you know I had a new idea, if you want to take a look at the talk page. Taric25 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, as you are an admin and have more power than I, would you be able do something about the crap mini-biographies some people have done for the Girls and the Over 25s in the X Factor 4 article? They've just copied and pasted it straight from the X Factor website with little editing at all. Not only this, they don't provide the information we need, like their age, their occupation etc. And, they haven't referenced it. All the best Wiki edit Jonny 18:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do as an admin that you can't! But if it's copied and pasted from the X Factor website then it's a copyright violation and can't be used. It should be written from scratch. I'll take a look when I'm free. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 19:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the intervention though. I'll bear in mind what you said. I'm having to do the bios in my spare time as I'm in my final year at uni atm and have a lot of work. I'll get them done eventually, they're just a bit time-consuming. Wiki edit Jonny 20:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey AP, can you give your opinion/advice on this User talk:Gungadin#Advice on proof (Letitia Dean official fan site) Does Wiki have a way for checking whether so-called official sites are genuine? It seems genuine to me, but it keeps getting removed with no explanation. Gung adin ♦ 21:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at that myself. It probably is official but it shouldn't be listed as a fan site or it will be removed. If it's her offical website it should just say "Official website" and not "Official fan site". I'm just changing it now and removing the actual fansite and forum. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 21:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeh, I hadnt noticed that it was saying fansite. So is it right that no fansites are allowed to be listed whatsoever? I'm sure the rules for external links used to say explicitly, but they seem to have been altered since I last looked at them. Gung adin ♦ 21:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate it when rules change after you've learnt them. I'll read them tomorrow as I'm too tired. My understanding is that no fansites should be listed unless they're mentioned in the actual text of the article and therefore are important. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 23:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen this? It's disgusting! I always knew that Icaro was plain crazy. [10] Wiki edit Jonny 19:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm surprised she didn't divorce him after that. He didn't even cook it first! If I was going to eat a placenta, that would be my first question: how do you prepare it?! — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

With a chianti and some fava beans F-F-F-F-F-F-F lol Wiki edit Jonny 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, how can I stop that persistent user who keeps making this [11] edit? I've reverted it something like three times now and I'm getting tired of it. Cheers - Wiki edit Jonny 11:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fed up of it too. I've reverted it more times than I can remember. All I can do is semi-protect the page. It seems pointless warning the person as they use a different IP address each time. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 13:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this [12]. Do you think it's reliable? Seeing as Leona's perfoming at the first show the theme, Number 1s, would seem apt. Wiki edit Jonny 11:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's probably right but it's not the most reliable source we could get. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 11:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

ANEMONE! THEY'VE REALEASED THE SONG CHOICES FOR THE FIRST LIVE SHOW [13]. Argh, I don't know what to do with all the information! Can you do one of your funky tables with all the live show details? Muchas thanks :-) — Wiki edit Jonny 18:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I can get it all ready to add but until we know the order I can't put the completed table in the article. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 12:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. It's obvious Simon's favouring Hope over Futureproof as he's given the girl band contemporary hit, Umbrella, whilst the boys have got 90s mediocre song, She's the One. Can't wait to see Sharon's reaction to Rhydian, maybe he's grown on her. I have a feeling Same Difference are going tonight — they're singing Tragedy... need I say more? lol Wiki edit Jonny 12:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

They've been favourites to go first for ages but a lot of them are singing pretty dire songs. I'm quite disappointed. From that list I'm only really happy with Alisha's, Niki's and Emily's songs, maybe Leon's too. Kimberley, Beverley and Same Difference have the worst choices. I also hate that Meatloaf song but I think it could suit Rhydian. I'm working on getting it all ready now, all wikilinked and such... — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 13:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and if Daniel's is the Bryan Adams song then that's a good choice too :) — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 13:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Same Difference were surprisingly okay. I think Kimberley was definitely the right choice as there's no way she could have won the competition (and she just looked plain odd with the Christina thing going on). WHAT HAPPENED WITH LEON?! Poor thing, he's got an amazing voice but his performance tonight was just a mess! Niki, Beverley, Rhydian and Hope stood out for me though (although ITV's gonna get a tonne of complaints for Raquelle's slapper top). What about you? Wiki edit Jonny 22:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I wanted Leon to go. I've never liked him. Out of the two though, I'm glad it was Kimberley. She was in my bottom four. Daniel's was actually a bad choice. Same Difference weren't bad, and I think they will have a market, Louis is wrong. Niki, Futureproof, Hope and Beverley stood out for me. Actually, Leona stood out the most! Hehehe! Was Sharon drunk by the time Rhydian was on stage? And did you see Kimberley mouth the word "fuck" at the end of her second performance? lol — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 23:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

She so did! She wasn't particularly professional either as she forgot the words in the first performance and broke down in the second. Yeah, Daniel wasn't as good as I was hoping, not particularly distinctive. Totally, Leona was great, definitely had a boob job but it was good to finally silence all those journalists wondering where she's been the past 9 months! Did you notice that Sharon's got considerably more bitchy this time round with the whole 'Mama' thing? Scary. And, how bad were Sharon's song choices? She is my favourite judge but this position is becoming questionable Wiki edit Jonny 23:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You think Leona's had a boob job? I doubt it! Sharon's starting to scare me. She'll probably quit now. I still think she was drunk. And I can totally understand why Louis was sacked before. His comments (even his nice comments) really infuriate me. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 23:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't even get me started on Louis, he's always been the most contemptable judge! I've definitely noticed a change in his judging style - he's more ruth/reckless. Probably because Simon and the producers sat him down and told him why they sacked him... cos he's rubbish! Upping his performance sealed the bargain really. I think Sharon was certainly drunk though, nothing new there then! She said that Rhydian was 'completely barmy'. Coming from Sharon Osbourne I'm not quite sure what to make of that. Dannii's judging was good though — constructive and critical. Wiki edit Jonny 23:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Louis Walsh has just turned nasty really. Simon has got better. Louis just has no tact really. Yeah Dannii's good too. I like Sharon but I think she seemed a bit depressed. Her song choices were weird. If she's not careful, she'll have no acts left soon. — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 23:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just think, all the people fuelling American pop culture will soon be looking at the Leona Lewis article to investigate who she is—can't wait! They're gonna prick up their ears when they hear Leona debuting on American media and we (in Britain) will be sitting looking pretty smug lol Wiki edit Jonny 19:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I know. I will especially, cos I a) started the article from a redirect and b) expanded it from a stub and c) spent a long time finding sources and adding new stuff all the time. In fact I take credit for the whole thing. The rest of you can go to hell. I own that artice, it's all MINE!!!! Just kidding, your edits are appreciated too ;) — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 19:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Wiki edit Jonny 23:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You know what though, thanks to Perez Hilton, she's already pretty well known in the States, so lots of people have probably already had a look. What makes me laugh though is when you see news articles about her and you know they got the info from here. It's so "Bleeding" obvious! — AnemoneProjectors ( 会話) 23:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY! Isn't it brilliant when you see so many articles in trashy magazines that have the info directly from one of our articles? There were loads leading up to the first episode of The X Factor - most of it was from the old 'Changes to the format' section. Very rewarding though. P.S. Have a look at the discussion page for the Series 4 article. :) Wiki edit Jonny 23:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Big Brother UK contestants

I have nominated Category:Big Brother UK contestants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Number1spygirl 12:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Fame Academy participants

I have nominated Category:Fame Academy participants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Number1spygirl 12:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Pop Idol contestants

I have nominated Category:Pop Idol contestants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Number1spygirl 12:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:The X Factor contestants

I have nominated Category:The X Factor contestants ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Number1spygirl 12:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the songs for this week? [14] Personally I think Daniel's is a disaster and I don't know why Sharon's got Alisha singing a song that's 40 years old. All the others I'm happy with though. Wiki edit Jonny 09:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Andy and Daniel = terrible choices. Leon and Same Difference = I don't know the songs but I can see " Breaking Free" is from HSM. Emily = very good choice. Futureproof = absolutely brilliant choice. Oh and please can you send me the link every week so I can prepare the table for the Saturday (as I don't check the website very often)? It's really helpful to know in advance. Thanks. ^anemone| _projectors 11:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What did I say? :P Alisha's song was a terrible choice and so was Daniel's so am not too bothered they were in the bottom two. The groups were pretty good tonight and I thought Niki was very good (even though the top notes were very strained). I think Rhydian sank to an all-new level of unothordoxy with his performance, very dramatic and odd! What did you think? Wiki edit Jonny 20:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I blame the judges. Both very bad choices. I can't stand Rhydian but then I don't like operatic pop music. I know he's good and I'd understand if he won but I don't want him to. I agree that he could be world class though, and that's what they want. For me, Futureproof were the best tonight. ^anemone| _projectors 21:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Futureproof were fantastic. Their performance was slick, un-boy-bandish i.e. non-cheesy, it was powerful and the harmonies were tight... I loved it. Louis seriously pissed me off tonight with the way he disagreed with Simon for the sake of it. Daniel's song was crap and he wasn't man enough to admit it. He also forgets that even though he doesn't like 'kitsch' or 'cheesy', as he puts it, he needs to admit that there is a substantial market for acts like Same Difference. Ironically, he said that, then he had Daniel singing Build Me Up Buttercup... sorry but I'm seeing double standards. And if he doesn't like 'kitsch' what the hell was he doing with Eton Road?! It's so obvious he's slamming Same Difference because Simon gave him a hard time over the MacDonald Brothers. I wish he'd stop being incompetent and just do his job. Wiki edit Jonny 22:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I want Futureproof to win now. I don't care if their second single flops and they never release an album, they just deserve to win. Yeah Louis pisses me off every week. I totally understand why he was sacked and I hope they sack him for good if he doesn't stop being at twat. You're totally right about Eton Road. I can see Same Difference doing Eurovision next year, if they don't win, that is. Which they won't, because Futureproof is going to... ^anemone| _projectors 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I sent a list to the series producer when they were trying to find a new judge. Top of it were Jack Black, David Bowie and Bob Geldof, who, I think would be a vast improvement over that useless leprechaun! He replied saying that they were considerable suggestions and that I'd have to wait and see... unfortunately we got Brian Friedman and then got landed with Louis Walsh again. Oh dear. Wiki edit Jonny 01:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Jack Black, David Bowie and Bob Geldof are terrible choices, what the hell were you thinking?!?!?!?!?! I think they should bring back Pete Waterman but he hates The X Factor so it would never happen. ^anemone| _projectors 12:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah woteva ;) Wiki edit Jonny 12:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. Please see my comment at Talk:2007 in British music re: sortable tables. violet/riga (t) 14:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Come on MSN and I'll explain to you. Majorly ( talk) 19:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As you're an admin, I thought I'd ask you... I'm looking to put one of those things to say that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards and/or it's under review at the top of the Spice Girls article. Have you seen the article?! It's terrible! It's been written by a load of non-registered users who don't know how to spell, write objectively or just write anything coherent at all! lol Wiki edit Jonny 23:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not as bad as I described, there are some pretty dodgy bits but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's 'terrible' lol. I based that opinion on this edit [15] I had to sort out. Wiki edit Jonny 23:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan, so no, I haven't seen it. At a glance, it seems ok, but if you think it needs cleaning up, try one of the templates at WP:TMC. P.S. please stop edit conflicting me on my own talk page ;) ^anemone| _projectors 23:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Neither am I a fan I'm afraid; I happened to notice the shoddiness on trying to find out whether they're actually making a full comeback like Take That have (as they said the never would but it seems the money was all too tempting). Thanks once again tho :-) Wiki edit Jonny 23:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I notice when you make a comment, you then edit it several times. This causes edit conflicts. Can I suggest using the preview button before saving? ^anemone| _projectors 10:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Why have you edited my page when you don't know me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.212.46.184 ( talk) 17:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What page? ^anemone| _projectors 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it's necessary to have the results summary showing the bottom two? As the same information is given in the live show details. Wiki edit Jonny 20:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do. ^anemone| _projectors 21:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion on this? You know what annoys me the most? The same people were commenting on the article both before and during the peer review, and none of this tense crap was brought up then. It seems like they wait til it gets to FAC to do it, just to be contrary. Gung adin ♦ 22:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, because it's in OOU context, it should be past tense. Isn't that what the guidelines say? It would be nice if these people could actually make changes themselves, it would save a lot of time if they did. Is it forbidden or something? ^anemone| _projectors 22:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I have been thinking. If I was into reviewing for FA, I would happily make corrections for people where I could, and I know that's what you would do too. I just think that some people enjoy criticising, and i'm also noticing a dictatorial trend, which I refuse to tolerate anymore. I'm about 1000 times more argumentative now than when I first started editing here, lol Gung adin ♦ 23:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed! I just want to tell these people to {{ sofixit}} sometimes! ^anemone| _projectors 23:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not too keen on Futureproof's song, but there are quite a few I've never even heard of - what's "Hanky Panky"?! Emily and Alisha finally have appropriate songs though. Never thought 'Reach' by S-Club 7 was a big band number! I like the fact that I haven't heard of a few of them, it's more original. [16] Wiki edit Jonny 12:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Turns out "Hanky Panky" is by Madonna, in her 1990 album I'm Breathless Wiki edit Jonny 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hardly any of them are big band this year so it's hardly a theme... Emily won't do her song justice. I know the Madonna song, could be good. Rhydian should do well again. Niki isn't sexy enough to pull off her song. Really looking forward to Same Difference this week! I'm starting to really like them! Not as much as Futureproof but I'm a bit disappointed by their song, but they should do it well. Leon's is predictable. Andy's I hadn't heard of. Beverley's is a good song but not sure she can pull it off. Alisha's is a good choice, and I think she will be able to perform it well. Is that everyone? :) ^anemone| _projectors 14:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, well they've got Boyz II Men as coaches for a Big Band theme when they're actually an RnB group. Beautifully incoherent. Wiki edit Jonny 14:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's vote for Same Difference just to piss off Louis! Wiki edit Jonny 14:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't vote, but if I did, I would vote for them. I still favour Futureproof though. Have you seen the userbox I have on my userpage? :) Yeah I thought Boyz II Men coaching them for Big Band week was very weird. Oh well. ^anemone| _projectors 15:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Which box am I looking for? The 'This user reserves the right to completely screw up his edits' or, the Futureproof one?? Wiki edit Jonny 17:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Tsk! The Futureproof one! It was originally created for Big Brother but it works for anything. Have you thought about putting something on your userpage? ^anemone| _projectors 18:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to. I am computer literate but completely useless with remembering HTML codes/whatnot or anything in general that isn't written in continuous prose. Would love to though. Wiki edit Jonny 20:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to know HTML, you just need to know how to type, and obviously a bit of wiki knowledge might be handy, and I'm sure you have that... ^anemone| _projectors 21:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll look it up and get started on it when I get a free moment. Thanks for the nudge :-) Wiki edit Jonny 23:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:USER for some guidelines. Just a bit of un-wikified text would be fine. Some people might like to know a bit about you :) ^anemone| _projectors 23:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it'll be a double elimination night on Saturday seeing as they've already lost Emily. Who'd have thought it eh? Scandalous! I wouldn't be surprised if Sharon asks for one of the girls from her visit to judge's home round to be allowed into the live shows to replace Nakanda Wiki edit Jonny 15:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's why I removed the double elimination stuff. Shame, cos even though I didn't like her much, I was looking forward to her song. Oh well. Who should come back then? I can hardly remember them now!! I don't think it's fair to replace Emily now but a huge shame that Sharon only has one act left, who's been in the bottom two every week so far!!! ^anemone| _projectors 15:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I wrote some of this tonight. It's not complete yet. I want to add sections for some other prisoners and then do some brief descriptions about the firm characters and police/prison officers. Do you think that would be ok? and also can you reinstate the deleted images please ? :) Gung adin ♦ 22:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes that sounds ok to me. Images are restored. ^anemone| _projectors 22:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, I noticed you closed this AFD as "nomination withdrawn" which is definitely accurate - I'm not an expert on closing AFDs, but I get the feeling some sort of record ought to be left of this decision at the talk page Talk:Wank Week? I think it involves applying {{ Oldafdfull}} but I may be wrong! Ta, TheGrappler 02:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot about that bit, thanks. I'm not an expert either but as I was watching that one I thought I'd close it. ^anemone| _projectors 10:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not good news then? It should have been Andy in my opinion Wiki edit Jonny 22:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the bottom two, Hope should have gone, and Dermot O'Leary agrees. Futureproof have been the best for the past two weeks, so I have no idea what the public are thinking. Andy should have gone. He doesn't deserve to be there. Also Kimberley doesn't deserve to come back. I hope Futureproof get a record deal, because they are the only ones whose album I'd be interested in buying (well, maybe Same Difference...) ^anemone| _projectors 22:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you feel the need to undo my changes? Do you want me to GIVE you the acapella of it so you can see for yourself my friend?

"this original research is worse than the other original research, it also contains a personal interpretation of the meaning - this needs a source if it to be readded"

I will personally pitch down the acapella and add just the sample of the chorus for you just to make you happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extremador ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That whole section is based on original research, but your additions especially so. Original research is not allowed, and uploading it yourself is still original research, so should not be done. Find a website that mentions it (not one you created), and you can add it to the article. ^anemone| _projectors 03:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Why don't you fucking check the a capella for yourself and see that it says I'M BLUE IF I WOULD BLEED I WOULD DIE? Jesus some people in this world just shouldn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extremador ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I did. Read WP:OR. ^anemone| _projectors 19:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And what does it say? I'M BLUE IF I WOULD BLEED I WOULD DIE. Stop editing the page and let people see for themselves jackass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extremador ( talk • contribs) 20:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:OR and WP:V. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you continue to add original research after you have been asked not to, you will be blocked from editing. ^anemone| _projectors 20:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The information *CAN* be verified. LISTEN TO THE A CAPELLA OF IT AND YOU WILL SEE WHAT IT SAYS. Extremador 21:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

But it is still original research and it can't be verified by reliable sources. ^anemone| _projectors 21:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There has been some problems with adding unsourced, and/or unreliable information to the List of Smallville episodes page. Robinepowell continually adds episode titles and airdates to the page without providing any source, or providing sources that completely fail Wikipedia's reliable sourcing guideline. As you can see on on her talk page, I have continued to try and explain to her the problems with each of the sources she's claiming to get the information from. First she pulled from Kryptonsite, which is a fansite. Then she pulled from spoilerfix, episode world, episode list, and scifistream.com. All appear to get their information from Kryptonsite, some explicitly saying so. The key to the majority of those sources she cites is that any registered person can edit and add more episodes on their pages. When I reviewed each sources "About us" page, it was clear that they were all fansites. You can see the sources on my talk page. She has since been claiming that a TV Guide source that says Smallville has enough scripts for 16 episodes is a translation that all the titles and airdates on those fansites is fair game to use--even though TV Guide does not mention any title or airdate for any episode in their article. This is become such a stupid edit war, and I'm only trying to preserve the integrity of the featured list. Am I wrong in this? I'm sorry to bug you with it, but you're one of the few Admins I know that appears around television related articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not wrong. They're not reliable sources, especially as one of them says "Airing order is estimated until the official U.S. air dates are announced." Would you like me to do something about it? :-S ^anemone| _projectors 22:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Right now, maybe just say something to her. I'm hoping to avoid a lot of combativeness with this, and maybe she'll respect the advice of an admin over a regular editor. I mean, she's saying that this source confirms that "Siren" will be January 10, when it only confirms an episode title of "Siren", and not what number that episode will air. And that this source confirms all the titles and airdates. I don't know, maybe explain that she cannot use the synthesis of the TV Guide articles with the Kryptonsite titles to confirms titles and airdates.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the first link says "Black Canary will make her first appearance on the CW series in the Jan. 10 episode" and then "where there’s Black Canary, the Green Arrow can’t be far behind. Indeed, the episode, titled “Siren,” will feature the return of the Emerald Archer" so I think it's safe to say the January 10 episode will be called "Siren". But then again, you don't know which number episode will be on that date (right?). The other source doesn't give anything, at least that I can see. If Kryptonsite is unreliable (which it is) then it can't be used, even in conjunction with the other source, something to do with WP:SYN, maybe. ^anemone| _projectors 23:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what, I kept searching "January" on the page, but I didn't think to look for "Jan.". Thanks for pointing that out. I'll just add that to Smallville (season 7), where we have the other general prose information. I can't see a way to add it to the LOE page, since we don't know where Jan. 10 will fall.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it helps to read everything ;) I hope that helps with what Robinepowell is doing but if not then I'll try to help, but I'm a bit of a rubbish admin so I can't promise anythin! ^anemone| _projectors 23:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I apologized to her for missing that part, and explained where I put it. But, if you read her talk page, you'll see that I have repeatedly explained that the sources she's using do not meet WP:RS, but she continues to add the information back in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's still a problem tomorrow, I'll try to do something about it then... as for now, it's gone midnight so I must sleep :) ^anemone| _projectors 00:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you hearing me out. Hopefully it won't be an issue any longer, but I'll know by tomorrow morning, based on her edit history. Have a good night.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Robin has continued reverting on the page, believing that Spoilerfix is a reliable source and that TV Guide article confirms the existence of those other episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left a comment on her user talk page and added the article in question to my watchlist. ^anemone| _projectors 22:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain your revert of my edit, if not please self revert. Thank you and regards.-- Vintagekits 23:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing in the article to suggest that he belongs in that category. ^anemone| _projectors 23:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[17], hope this helps. regards.-- Vintagekits 23:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So add it to the article with the source and then you can add the category back. ^anemone| _projectors 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty happy with all of them, although they could have found a better song for Rhydian. [18] Wiki edit Jonny 11:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Alisha's is the right song for her but probably won't win her votes. Andy's is a good song but he's just bland, should have gone weeks ago. Beverley will probably steal the show. Hope will probably be a disaster. Leon will be rubbish, boring song. Which Because of You is Niki doing? Rhydian's is a rubbish song but no doubt everyone will love him. Same Difference could be bad cos it's a hard song to do but I hope they do it well. Futureproof will be the best. ^anemone| _projectors 12:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not pessimistic then are we? haha I think Niki's doing the Kelly Clarkson version. Wiki edit Jonny 14:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

She probably is. I don't know it. Most of the remaining people do good performances but none of them really excite me anymore. I just want Andy and Leon to go. Andy was Heat magazine's torso of the week, he's got a really weird body ;) ^anemone| _projectors 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to say this last week but my internet cut out. Personally, I'm losing faith in the whole show. None of this year's contestants are remarkable, none of them would make an impact if they were in the music industry. They've tried too hard with this series to make it 'dazzling' and I feel that they're getting a bit cocky. It's all gone a bit nasty with the constant bickering between the judges which deviates from what the show's really about. The controversy as well pisses me off and it just reminds me of what a yobbish, ugly society we live it. I just feel that it's lost its charm; which is why I haven't been that involved in the article recently. Wiki edit Jonny 19:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, AnemoneProjectors! Thanks for signing my signature book! I love your signature, its exquisite. Anyway, its a little late for this, but:

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from The X Factor (UK series 4). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as the text has been restored from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Elanthiel 20:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you but please don't patronise me. I messed up due to an edit conflict and was trying to self-revert but you caused a second edit conflict. Plus, you reverted to the wrong revision. I'm an admin here so I don't need welcoming to Wikipedia and I know all about edit summaries - I provided one each time. Thank you. ^anemone| _projectors 20:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably another sockpuppet of User:Ln of x (my personal stalker). ^anemone| _projectors 14:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So I had guessed... but might as well play it out just in case he isn't. But with his most recent revert, it seems that he is. Ah well... what does he have against you, anyways? Gscshoyru 14:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just waiting for evidence. I have no idea what's wrong with that person but look at the number of sockpuppets! ^anemone| _projectors 14:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if you could clarify something for me. When editing wiki articles, am I correct in thinking that it is inappropriate to include external links to fansites? I was under the impression that if people are contributing to an article about a singer or actor for example, then only their official website should be included as well as any relevant published sources (such as newspaper articles, interviews, IMDb page, etc). I have come across a few pages recently that have links to fan websites and always thought that this was considered to be inappropriate linkage to Wiki articles as they are not technically official sources - regardless of how well made they are. Thank you. 79.69.45.4 23:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are correct, however, on reviewing WP:EL, it doesn't specifically mention fansites. If it helps, I always remove fansites when I see them listed. ^anemone| _projectors 23:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Although I can see that there is no specific mention of fansites on WP:EL I believe that they are covered sufficiently in Personal Web Pages (in the "links to be avoided" section) and therefore contravene Wiki policy. Can you also offer your thoughts on the use of MYspace page links. In the same "links to be avoided" section, there appears to be a blanket policy on MYspace page links, regardless of whether it is a celebrity's own MYspace page. Should these too therefore also be avoided as a rule? 79.69.45.4 06:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't spot that "personal websites" bit. As for MySpace, my personal opinion is that official MySpace pages should be allowed. It does say at the top: "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject" — my opinion is that official MySpaces are covered by that. I think #11 probably refers to fan-made MySpace pages, but it's not clear. ^anemone| _projectors 10:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case I finally have a source that says Lorna Fitzgerald is cute. Go onto her official bebo page and there it is. You said that a myspace page counts, and so therefore does a bebo page. Since I now have a source to state that Lorna Fitzgerald is cute, this has to be included in the article. Modulo 12 03:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh piss off. ^anemone| _projectors 09:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What on earth have they done for Rydian? That song is horrific! [19] Wiki edit Jonny 11:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OMG. But Disco is a rubbish theme anyway... Alisha & Beverley = predictable again. Someone I work with thinks Rhydian will do that really well. I think Same Diff will be the best again. ^anemone| _projectors 16:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems TWINKLE isn't very helpful when reporting sockpuppets! Sorry for the confusion in tags added to various user pages - it was the first time I'd used TWINKLE for reporting sockpuppets and I don't think I will again! Stephenb (Talk) 19:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think you should! Did it create all those suspected sockpuppet pages too? ^anemone| _projectors 19:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes :( It makes multiple pages for every report, and seems to mix up the puppet and the puppeteer. I'll report it at some point, but have to sign off now. Stephenb (Talk) 19:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for taking some photos of Stevenage. I wanted to (and it would be easy as I live there), but I don't own a camera. Did you come on a Sunday? It's a shame, because the place looks empty and it's not typical. A busy Saturday afternoon would have been better! You'll have to come back! ^anemone| _projectors 23:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on the photographs. They were taken just after sun-rise during the week. The intention was to take photos of the buildings without people but I do agree with you they need to be complemented by images of a living town. I will keep it in mind, but it may be some time before I am in that part of the world again, particularly during shopping hours.

Traveler100 ( talk) 09:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I guessed it was either early morning or a Sunday. Maybe I'll buy myself a decent camera and take some photos myself. ^anemone| _projectors 11:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, guess that's what having to play commercial disco music on a Friday night does to me - definitely a good fact for pub quiz trivia though :) Cheers, Richsage ( talk) 20:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No probs. And probably not many people know that. I didn't until tonight! ^anemone| _projectors 20:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, yep I made the same mistake as well, you learn something new everyday. That tried your patience didn't it? Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 21:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've only changed it about 70 thousand times! It wasn't you though, it was the person before you! At least now there's someone else who will revert on my behalf ;) ^anemoneI _projectors 21:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why you got rid of the table that I created for next weeks show?-- Hiltonhampton ( talk) 20:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Becuase it's too early. Add it next Saturday. It's pointless having an empty table in the article for a week. ^anemone| _projectors 21:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There has been three empty tables for the past three weeks.-- Hiltonhampton ( talk) 21:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

None of them were added until at least Friday. ^anemone| _projectors 22:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! Jack ?! 00:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started on my user page but I don't know how to liven it up into a better format. Any pointers? :) Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to know some stuff about you! I guess the best way is to look at other userpages for inspiration. ^anemoneI _projectors 13:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at the userbox article and I know how to type the template into my user page. But, I'm guessing there's a database of all the userbox templates from which we quote to place a desired userbox on our page? Is this the case? Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you go to the bottom of the page Wikipedia:Userboxes there's a navigational template (or click that link) with links to all the subpages that contain lists of userboxes and their codes. There's your database. They're split into subjects like languages, food, films, etc, to make it easier to find what you want. Userboxes are probably the simplest thing to bring some colour to your page, although a few people tend to ignore them. There's some really good looking userpages around but I have no idea how they do it. Mine is pretty simple too, I think. I also have a subpage with more userboxes, if you're interested. ^anemoneI _projectors 22:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant! There's no stopping me now, I'm hooked! Where did you get the template for the 'supporting Same Difference' one? Thanking you copiously :) Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 22:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a userbox that someone created and probably isn't listed in those pages I mentioned. Lots of userboxes are in the user space rather than the template space, and many aren't listed there, but there are also users who have large colletions of userboxes with their own lists. If you see a userbox on a page you like, you can click the "edit this page" tab to view the source and get the code for that userbox. The one you mentioned is {{User:T/UBX/BigBroSupport|SD|Same Difference|The X Factor (UK series 4)}}. It was created for Big Brother but works for anything! ^anemoneI _projectors 22:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you undelete these for me when youy get the chance please? :)

Image:Devcorrie.jpg Image:Doreenfenwick.jpg Image:Yana corrie.jpg Gung adin ♦ 18:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. ^anemoneI _projectors 18:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ta Gung adin ♦ 18:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who the original artists are of Leon and Hope's songs. But I think it's good to see Rhydian doing a straight-up vocal performance rather than prancing around on stage. There's no way Beverley can pull off that number, her voice is no way near good enough. Niki's is likely to sound dated. Same Difference will probably pull that one off because they did it at their judges' homes audition. [20] Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 11:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Hope are doing the Christina Aguilera version and Leon is doing the one by Eddy Arnold. Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 11:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you'll find it's Christina and Eddie Arnold. I'm seeing a great week for Rhydian and Same Difference. All the rest will probably be disasters. Oh well! ^anemoneI _projectors 12:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL ARE HOPE STILL DOING IN THE COMPETITION?!?! It's so obvious that the public don't like them because they've been in the bottom two three times now. It doesn't matter how bloody good you are, if no-one likes you then no-one's gonna buy your singles! Beverly sounded a lot worse over the TV than what the judges were hearing — they loved her performance when it sounded terrible from where I was sitting. On a firmly positive note, Same Difference were seriously good tonight! I have finally been won-over by those two because they actually delivered a decent vocal performace rather than larked around with props on stage. Rhydian was so-so tonight in my opinion; he can do a lot better than that because his performance wasn't original. Niki as well lost it halfway through her song and it sounded rough. I'm starting to like Leon a lot now. He's a better jazz-singer than a pop singer, hopefully we won't have another Ray Quinn on our hands! I've got to say though, I loved the whole deadlock thing, it was so dramatic and the suspense was way better than the normal voting. Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 21:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol! Hope are in because they got more public votes. Sharon did the right thing but voting for Beverley. I happen to like Hope, and I admit they had a bad week but they've been excellent in the past. Beverley did sound terrible, I knew she wouldn't pull off that song. Same Difference have been seriously good every week. Rhydian was a bit so-so, I wonder if he's peaked, or the audience is starting to go off him. Niki was off key, I thought. But she was miles better than Beverley. I still don't like Leon, I don't see the appeal at all. I'm surprised Beverley went though, even when it came to public votes, but I'm glad it wasn't Hope. I'd have preferred Leon to go instead. ^anemoneI _projectors 21:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad Beverley isn't going to win though, it would be a nightmare to market somebody named Trotman... ^anemoneI _projectors 21:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I'm with you on that one, she would definitely have to be a stage-name job. There was someone in the last series called Richard Handcock which the judges found amusing. He got to bootcamp but his voice held him back (as well as his name!). Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 22:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There's always one... I think they might have had the same problem with Leona Lewis if she had been married when she auditioned. ^anemoneI _projectors 22:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Leona Al-Chamaa", what ring. It's like an American waitress married to someone from Al-Qaeda. Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 22:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I just think it would have been difficult to market the name. However if she does get married, she'll probably become Leona Lewis Al-Chamaa which isn't so bad, and release material under the name Leona Lewis. Lou Al-Chamaa is hot, by the way. ^anemoneI _projectors 22:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 22:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you know Lou gets stopped at airports in America because of his name? At least that's what Leona said. ^anemoneI _projectors 22:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of births, marriages and deaths in EastEnders during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. AnmaFinotera ( talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Heylo, do you think we could get away with unprotecting the article now? Hopefully that idiot who kept making the Jacksons edit will have made a much-needed exit lol. Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 15:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but if it carries on, I'll have to protect it again! ^anemoneI _projectors 16:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest removing the "Michael Vincent" altogether until a source better than The Sun reports it, unless it was mentioned live on the programme. Brad ( talk) 00:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Have just repied on the article's talk page. ^anemoneI _projectors 00:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi AnemoneProjectors. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/ c 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I quite like most of the songs they've chosen; not because I like the songs individually, but because they're different. That is all apart from Louis who yet again, has chosen safe and somewhat dated songs for Niki. GRRGH [21] Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 12:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am LOVING Hope's choices, and Leon's are good too. I might actually like him for the first time ever. Why is Niki doing two slow songs? I AM NOT HAPPY WITH SAME DIFFERENCE'S SONGS!!!!!!!!! But I really hope they pull it off this week! ^anemoneI _projectors 12:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I take that back ;) ^anemoneI _projectors 21:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's happened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor EastEnders characters. This person must be trying to get adminship or something, upping their involvement in AFDs to up their stats. I'm getting really pissed off with this whole project. Gung adin ♦ 21:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That is the last thing I ever expected to happen. Can we do anything right? ^anemoneI _projectors 21:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

clearly not. They dont give a shit how much time has gone into these things either. They went and changed the minor character list rule, and now we dont have a guideline or policy to back up our argument to keep. Gung adin ♦ 21:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is this rule? ^anemoneI _projectors 21:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It used to say here, that non-notable characters should be merged into a list, but they have now changed it. Here's a past edit of the page that said it [22] Gung adin ♦ 21:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember that it used to say that. There should be a rule against changing guidelines. At least the spin-offs characters could be merged into the spin-offs article (messy!). They'll be nominating all the characters with no OOU perspectve next. I'm actually devastated by this. ^anemoneI _projectors 21:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about that. It's just that there are so many characters. Ask to have the pages userfied, and then work on them. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just a shock to see so many articles being tagged at once. A few of the recent deletions are in my userspace. ^anemoneI _projectors 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what i have been dreading. They may regret it when they have to do hundreds of AFDs for all the minor characters who will probably get their own page if there's no list to put them in. The fact that we had to merge so many should be an indication to them. But that's a good idea about the spin offs. Gung adin ♦ 22:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

At least Elonka is on our side :) I wish AFD was a vote though. ^anemoneI _projectors 22:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

this dude is just nasty. Gung adin ♦ 23:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Anything with a PROD, just remove the PROD. Anything else doesn't mean it's up for deletion, we just need to fix it. Remember, THERE IS NO DEADLINE TO DO THIS. They ARE notable so we can removed notability tags. ^anemoneI _projectors 23:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Anything we de-prod will just go to AFD. The time to move to Wikia is now. ^anemoneI _projectors 23:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

all the minor characters who will probably get their own page if there's no list to put them in - I can understand your frustration, particularly when your efforts are focused on improving current article standards, which as you mentioned due to recent policy amendments, now classify them as sub-standard. Although I haven't had any involvement in Eastenders (and do not plan to), I have (as I noted on my comment in the AfD), had substantial contributions to issues of a similar nature on Emmerdale/Coronation Street, which of course may now also be at threat of falling victim to a similar fate as this soap's minor character articles. I do understand why some editors feel the need to make their efforts at cleaning up articles (to the point of non-existance, as I am totally against individual articles for small characters, and against excessive articles which no real value), but I feel stronger for a cleanup in the way of how they're organised and general tidying up, which is the route you are trying to take. As for moving on, it's unfortunate some editors have made you feel like that, although in most cases the most rewarding outcome from actions with your project in particular are often those you need to fight your corner on. Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 11:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said to Gungadin, I'm laying off EastEnders for now. But the two of you should be able to find sources, or not, for the three characters I already nominated. I hope you noticed I left Wellard and Willy alone, since they seem to be notable. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[23] you should read this, shame we can't use any of it. Gung adin ♦ 20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's absolutely brilliant. Do we know who wrote it? One could argue that as it's from an actual scriptwriter, we should be able to use it. A shame there's no mention of Santer, he's really brought the show to life, it hasn't been this good for a hell of a long time. ^anemoneI _projectors 22:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeh I like Santer's stuff, I hadnt really been watching EE with much interest until he came on board (which is why I only used to work on past characters). It seems to be an anonymous post on there. I was amused by the stuff he was saying about Shannis. I was never a fan of that storyline, preferred Sharon with Grant. Hutchinson seems like a right bitch. Gung adin ♦ 23:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Shannis confused me, and whoever decided to kill off Dennis when he was leaving the country anyway was an idiot. It didn't make for good television, it just made me angry at the writers/whoever. Then again, Dennis's death had a part to play in "Get Johnny Week"... but that was another pointless storyline if you ask me. Isn't it funny how Sharon lost the "love of her life" and then found another one? ^anemoneI _projectors 23:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeh, Get Johnny week was shit. Apparently Dennis was killed because Letitia Dean was due to return to EE in 2006, but her marriage broke down, so she moved to France for a year to get over it instead of returning to EE. So, in hindsight Dennis' death was pointless, but I guess at the time they had to have a plausible way for Sharon to return without Dennis. You mean losing Tom Banks and finding Dennis Rickman? I think she just forgot that Tom was meant to be the love of her life when she upgraded to the much sexier Dennis :) Gung adin ♦ 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe being the love of Sharon's life is a curse that always ends in death... She's lucky to have had two though! Some characters don't even get one. ^anemoneI _projectors 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you come to that talk page to discuss please? Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 17:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Which one? ^anemoneI _projectors 17:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you knew. :) The userbox. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥ ♫ 17:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I checked your contributions to find the one you meant. I have commented. ^anemoneI _projectors 17:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit predictable but should be a good show [24]. Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 12:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Niki doing an Oasis cover??? I wish she was but I guess it's the Fleetwood Mac one, covered by Eva Cassidy. Same Difference = good. The rest = meh. Although "Bridge over Troubled Water" is one of my favourite songs. I'll probably hate it after Saturday! ^anemone│ _projectors 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Which of Niki's songs? I'm almost certain " Songbird" is the one by Eva Cassidy from her album of the same title. " One Moment in Time" is almost certainly the one by Whitney. Bridge Over Troubled Water should be good, sorry to harp on about Eva Cassidy, but have you heard her version of the song? It's amazing. Leona's version is still astonishing though. I would like to see Same Difference go tomorrow (even though I quite like them I think the final would be better with Rhydian, Leon and Niki). Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 11:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

" Songbird" is also a song by Oasis, but yes it'll be the Fleetwood Mac song covered by Eva Cassidy. It has no article on Wikipedia. "Songbird" is the only Oasis song I like. I haven't heard many Eva Cassidy songs, I'm not into her. I love Hear'Say's version of "Bridge over Troubled Water" and as I said, it's one of my all-time favourite songs. Same Difference are the favourites to go but everyone I speak to still can't see the appeal of Leon and they all agree he should go next (and every week they say he should have gone and I always agree). He appears to have genu varum and always looks ashamed of himself. Not to mention that his voice and style aren't very good, and the way he moves is like he's been possessed by something. He's just strange. ^anemone│ _projectors 12:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

He does have genu varum now you come to mention it! For me, something clicked last week when he sang "Long and Winding Road". His inversion of some of the cadences made the performance remarkable and from the heart. I was supporting Rhydian up to that point but I think he's peaked in the competition. True, Leon was diabolical in the earlier stages — he held the mic at a weird angle and was as wooden as a plank, but he's growing substantially. I think there's more to Leon than meets the eye. Same Difference certainly have a market out there but I wouldn't want to see them win — it's a vocal talent competition at the end of the day. You can't have Leona Lewis win one year and then Same Difference the next! Niki is pretty much the opposite, with a decent enough voice but absolutely no place in the real world. I think it's gonna be one of the boys this year. Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 15:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thingy from Doctor Who said Leon hasn't been on a long and winding road, as he wasn't feeling that song at all. It wasn't from the heart at all. None of his performances have been remarkable. Same Difference CAN win and should! There's no reason why they couldn't. I agree about Niki. I wouldn't mind Rhydian winning although I'd never buy any of his music. But Leon winning would be a disaster. ^anemone│ _projectors 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We'll agree to disagree (on SD and Leon anyway) lol. Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 17:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So who actually is your favourite? ^anemone│ _projectors 18:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as crazy about any of them as much as I was Leona last year, but I guess Leon or Same Difference. I'm bored with Rhydian's operatic and camp performaces now and Niki isn't remarkable. If Same Difference went down the Scissor Sisters/glam route I think they'd have a decent niche. The cheesy kids' pop isn't my kinda thing but I can see there's a market for it. Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 21:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad Niki went. Ironically, she gave her best performance on her last one... at least she went out with a bang! Personally I thought the performances this week was seriously dreary! The first half was all slow funeral songs that barely had a melody. It got better in the second half but it wasn't great. What on earth was going on with those dancers during Rhydian's "Bridge Over Troubled Water"?! Leon had a pretty bad week but the public love him, as they do Same Difference. I really don't care about what Louis says at all now, he's sunk so far in my estimation that just don't care if he exists (harsh, I know). At least he won't be back for series 5. What a pathetic man, he better give SD their due in the final next week. Although, it won't make any difference because the public obviously haven't been listening to what he says about them anyway. Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 22:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. loved the 'haha you were wrong' comment about "Go West" lol. Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 22:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Niki's last performance after being eliminated was her best? Everyone does better when they perform in the results show, it's been like that since series 2 (I didn't watch series 1). Yes the first half was very dreary, but the second half was better. Then again, only Same Difference stood out for me in the second half. Rhydian's dancers were very odd and one of them nearly fell over near the edge of the stage. I'm surprised the judges didn't mention them. How do you know Louis won't be back for series 5? I've now got to come to terms with the fact that Leon might win. My "haha you were wrong" was because someone put in Same Difference and Rhydian as singing next but it was the other way around. I protected the page for 2 hours because of the Go West thing. I don't want edit wars during the live show when I'm trying to edit every 5 minutes. Surprisingly, when I checked the article after the results, there wasn't much that needed changing or reverting! ^anemone│ _projectors 22:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, yeah her one in the results show was great because she made it a proper live performance by personalising it and addressing it to particular people. Louis won't be back because he said explicitly that he wouldn't return because he wanted to focus on the artists he manages... and also that he's 'not a TV-loving diva like Simon Cowell'. Also, I don't think he wants to run the risk of being sacked again... because he will. They brought him back for this series through gritted teeth because no-one wanted the job at such short notice and Cowell had to find someone QUICK to replace Friedman. I doubt Sharon will return for series 5 either because she was so determined to win this year and not even getting close she seems to have taken personally. I think she feels a bit of a side-show act with Dannii now on board and whether there's animosity between her and Dannii or not, Sharon's no longer exclusively the female panelist on the show. I can just feel that she won't want to return. Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 23:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want Louis back, he's not very nice sometimes. I said before I could see why he was sacked. I don't want Sharon to go too, though she said she would if she didn't win. I don't think she will go. ^anemone│ _projectors 23:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you just expain to me what fair use images are and why they are not allowed on my page. Thanks In23065 ( talk) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the last time we'll do this! [25] Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 12:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. I'm really looking forward to seeing SD do Mariah! Bit unfair that Leon is the only one doing two songs he hasn't already done. ^anemone│ _projectors 14:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd simply like to mention that your signature is unique and asthetically pleasing. нмŵוτн τ 17:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It took ages to perfect, caused me loads of problems when I used | instead of │ and won't let me link the │ to my contributions because I don't have enough space left but never mind! ^anemone│ _projectors 20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I don't like that it's a bit uneven. ^anemone│ _projectors 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WHAT DID I TELL YOU?! WHAT DID I F**KING TELL YOU?!?!?! MAYBE I SHOULD TURN OFF CAPS LOCK haha Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 22:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What did you fucking (just say it, it's not censored!) tell me? I forget. ^anemone│ _projectors 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Am well glad Leon won. It was a win-win situation for me when Rhydian and Leon went into the second round because I didn't mind which of them won. Commiserations to you about SD though... Dannii's done pretty well this year I'd say Wiki edit Jonny ( talk) 23:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm glad Leon won. After he sang with Kylie, I came to terms with the fact he might win, and then I wanted him to beat Rhydian, so when Same Difference didn't get through, I wanted Leon to win. I didn't expect Same Difference to win really. But after the result was announced, all I could do was laugh, and laugh, and laugh, for about 20 minutes :P ^anemone│ _projectors 23:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. In23065 ( talk) 15:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Touché. ^anemone│ _projectors 15:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah that does look like Rhydian. But actually Futureproof should have won. Leon's better than Rhydian anyway. ^anemone│ _projectors 22:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)