Talk:Ian Beale

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

"He plans to leave the soap when his current contract runs out in september he says "The past 21 years have been brilliant, but i need something new to do. I want to thank Eastenders for everything and to the fans" The door will be left open for a return"

I have deleted this information as extensive research seems to suggest that this is incorrect.(StudentSteve 01:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

What needs cleaning? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the separate sections need to be combined and cleaned up, they look (for want of a better word) choppy... Trampikey 22:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know what. I started to edit, and got as far as Jane, but then I realised I like the sections as they are. I don't think they look "choppy". I do agree that the "children" section is unnecessary, but I like the "relationships" and "enemies" sections as they are. The "other storylines" section can be expanded. The article doesn't need to be in chronological order. Thoughts? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be in chronological order, and I think it does look choppy. I'll make it look better tomorrow. Trampikey 23:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go on then :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trophy Wives[edit]

I have deleted this line "Ian's three marriages to trophy wives have brought little happiness" as it is a POV.


The whole article is badly written! seriously... can we have someone with a modicum of intelligence rewrite it please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.105.52 (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage[edit]

Should there be a 'Fourth Marriage' part made to follow up from the other sections or will we just add the bit about the wedding to the end? Sparhelda 20:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of his "Relationship with Jane" and should be in that section. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 23:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Teenage daughter Lucy"[edit]

Is this section needed? It's only really about Lucy and Craig, not Ian. If it stays, it needs to be updated. I was about to update it when I realised it might not be needed. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it is needed either, I was going to trim it when I did a cut on this article the other week, but I decided to leave it until the storyline finished. I know ive been a fan of detail in the past, but some of the current character articles are becoming ridiculously long.
We should merge the Lucy section with the gost section, rename it to somethhing like "Paternal issues; Cindy's ghost", then the Lucy section can be summarised in just a line or two. Such as:
"Ian despaired in 2007 when his duaghter, Lucy, became surly & rebellious. Problems esculated when she started seeing Craig Dixon. When Ian found out that 13 yr old Lucy was about to have sex with 18yr old Craig, he did everything he could to split them up, and althouh Lucy came to realsie the hard way that Craig was no good, she resented Ian's interference. She began speaking to a mysterious person via the Internet, who claimed to be her dead mother Cindy, then began stalking Ian.... etc etc." Gungadin♦ 18:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds excellent. You're so good at this! — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok it's done :) Gungadin♦ 20:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Not too long and not too short! — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 20:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ianandphilfight.jpg[edit]

Image:Ianandphilfight.jpg is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

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 insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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 06:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:IanjiltsJane.jpg[edit]

Image:IanjiltsJane.jpg is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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.

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 insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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 06:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Eastenders storyline is a cautionary tale AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I'm pretty sure someone has vandalized this article, the end of his story arch summary says he gets shot and dies this year. ;p 82.22.243.71 (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In need of much work[edit]

This article constantly irritates me, but I always shy away from trying to do something with it because it's so immense. I wonder if anyone else is on for giving it a makeover with me? The storylines are in need of cutting, tense fluctuates and the OOU stuff is sparse for a character of 25 odd years. Love to getit up to scratch but think i'll need some help.GunGagdinMoan 23:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked it for a copyedit, it would be good for the article to get the once over by one of the copy editors. I'll also help tidy up the article if I can :) --5 albert square (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, a 3.5k plot summary? This one looks like fun, I'm in :) Frickative 00:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, good to know!!The plot is ridiculous; I have tried in the past to get it down. It was enormous a couple of years ago but Ian seems to attract a LOT of plot edits.GunGagdinMoan 00:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's because he has a lot of plots! Probably down to him being in the programme for donkeys years! :p--5 albert square (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but be interesting to see how many of these plots remain after Frick's condensing, that'll separate the wheat from the chaff :p GunGagdinMoan 00:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, it's going to be a heck of a task! Just wondering, do you know how the eras for separating storylines were decided? I've copied it into a sandbox because it could take a while to whittle down, but I've noticed the 1999-2004 section starts in 1998, and the 2005 onwards section in 1995. Frickative 00:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, when the article first was created, Ian's storylines were done in sections i.e Romances, Feuds, Businesses etc. There was a push to make them chronological, but it proved difficult as there were a lot of repetition and bitty storylines all over the place. It's probably a result of that.GunGagdinMoan 00:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just gonna say that. Most of the older articles were split up by storyline and weren't chronological. Most of the (what we called) "silly headings" have been removed from the other articles now. AnemoneProjectors 00:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense, cheers. I might try and split it up by decade instead, then (or cut it down enough that it doesn't need subsections, but I don't know if that's a feasible goal for 25 years of storylines!) Frickative 02:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love how brutal you are with storylines, Frick! But all the main points are there, so it's perfect! AnemoneProjectors 14:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AP! I didn't think I'd be able to cut it down that far, but a dozen revisions later it seems to have worked out :D I think if I'd gone any further, there'd have been nothing left except "Ian Beale is a businessman with a lot of ex-wives and some unruly children." haha. Frickative 17:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! well done.GunGagdinMoan 18:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

OK, I'm opening this discussion to try and prevent the page from being locked for an edit war.

Someone has changed one of the paragraphs in the article to read the following:

"Phil blackmails Ian over his affair with Glenda but when Ian brings Phil the money, he walks in on Phil having a heart attack while with Glenda, so Ian takes revenge by not calling for an ambulance and leaving Phil to die. However, when he hears Ben asking where Phil is, he changes his mind and calls an ambulance. "

I've read the article from an outside point of view and I think that this should be changed to the previous revision that read:

"Phil blackmails Ian over his affair with Glenda but when Ian brings Phil the money, he walks in on Phil having a heart attack while with Glenda, so Ian takes revenge by allowing Phil to suffer and not calling an ambulance. However, when he hears Ben asking where Phil is, he changes his mind. "

The reason I think that it should go with the previous revision is because the previous revision makes it clear that Phil did not die. The revision that the IP wants to change it to does not make this clear, just because someone calls an ambulance does not mean that Phil did not die. Wikipedia is available worldwide and my concern with the revision that the IP wants to change it to is that people reading the article who are maybe not familiar with the character or with EastEnders would wrongly understand that Phil had died.

Please stop the edit war on the article, if it continues the page will be locked. Instead please discuss it here.--5 albert square (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What we need is some kind of wording that shows Ian's intention but that doesn't imply that Phil died. I did think "how do we know this was Ian's intention?" but the episode on BBC Programmes uses the same wording - "Ian leaves Phil to die". –AnemoneProjectors– 21:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake! How many times?? He left Phil to DIE! He HOPED that he would die from the heart attack, but CHANGED his mind after hearing Ben talking about Phil, and decided to save him. He left him for dead. Why can't you understand that? What is so difficult for you to grasp about this? 92.26.201.184 (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does it need to be mentioned at all? We don't know whether this particular incident will have any far-reaching impact, and if we wanted to pick out any particular episodes to highlight Phil and Ian's enmity, earlier ones such as Phil flushing the toilet with Ian's head in it, or forcing him to beg when he was going bankrupt and then refusing to help anyway, would tend less towards recentism. Frickative 21:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Because readers might assume that "he left Phil to die" means "he left Phil and Phil died". It just needs to be written differently. –AnemoneProjectors– 21:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frickative, I think this is quite important because Ian had the upper hand for the first time. –AnemoneProjectors– 21:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see a development section on Ian and Phil's relationship though. –AnemoneProjectors– 21:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does deserve some sort of mention, the two are arch enemies and like AP says Ian did have the upper hand for the first time. The thing is to make it clear that Phil didn't die as well as mentioning Ian's feelings towards the whole thing.--5 albert square (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's surely not the first time ever, in over twenty years? Wasn't it only last Christmas that Ian double-crossed Phil and helped Archie have the Mitchells evicted from The Vic? :p A development section on their squabbles would indeed be a very good addition though. Frickative 21:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't Ian being blackmailed by Archie over that recording of him with Janine though? I don't think Ian did that to spite Phil but more to save his own marriage. –AnemoneProjectors– 22:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beats me, just an example - I'm sure there must be one or two others from the past 20 years though. If it must be kept, I'd shorten it to something like 'Blackmailed over his affair by Phil, Ian considers leaving him to die when he has a heart attack, but does not go through with it.' Frickative 22:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly is wrong with the description "Ian takes revenge by not calling for an ambulance and leaving Phil for dead. However, when he hears Ben asking where Phil is, he changes his mind and calls an ambulance, saving Phil's life."? 92.26.201.184 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In-universe storyline/plot sections should be as concise as possible. Giving over 60 words (including the "Phil blackmails Ian over his affair with Glenda but when Ian brings Phil the money, he walks in on Phil having a heart attack while with Glenda, so...") to the events of two episodes, when, for instance, Ian's entire relationship with Mel takes only 70 words, gives the incident undue weight. Frickative 22:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, reading the storylines I don't think this is actually necessasry to mention at all. We can just stop with Peter leaving for now. It's not one of Ian's main storylines - the affair with Glenda is mentioned but the thing with Phil isn't that necessary. I would really love to try to get a development section for it though. –AnemoneProjectors– 22:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It IS necessary! He left a man for dead! It should be noted.92.26.201.184 (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what we're saying is in the whole context of things, it's not that important to Ian. It's more important to Phil than it is to Ian because it happened to Phil and has had much more severe consequences for him. It's not affected Ian that much, if at all. I'd be happy with a small mention of it in a development section.--5 albert square (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just remove the "leaves him to suffer" part and let it end with "Ian takes revenge by not calling for an ambulance" because he didn't leave Phil to suffer, he left him to slowly die of his heart attack. 92.26.201.184 (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it's been mentioned, but it's actually the 2nd time Ian left Phil to die. He discovered his body during the who shot Phil plot and left him....GunGagdinMoan 03:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't, and yes you're right. I don't think we need to include this part. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I demand that the "allowing him to suffer" part be removed and I won't rest until it is deleted. I will fight to ensure that this part is removed as Ian DID NOT leave Phil to merely suffer, he hoped that he would die from the heart attack, that's why he refused to do anything for him. 78.145.121.132 (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You demand? We'll do whatever consensus is reached, not what you demand. –AnemoneProjectors– 12:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest "Ian left Phil, hoping the latter would die"? That would get rid of the possible misreading of "left Phil to die" (because strictly speaking, in English, he didn't, as Phil didn't die. Ian merely hoped he would.) Stephenb (Talk) 15:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with the idea of a development section for the article where this could be touched upon very briefly along the lines of what Stephenb has suggested.
IPs, I would suggest that you read WP:3RR. If you edit war on the article then either you'll be blocked so you can't edit it or the article will be locked, so again you can't edit it. Please accept the consensus and contribute constructively to the article.--5 albert square (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although they haven't commented here before editing, I agree with Zepp900's edit. And yes, Ian did send the paramedics away. Though I still think this part will get removed in the future. –AnemoneProjectors– 08:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I merely felt the need to help come to a solution in this debate but wherever or not my edits are accepted even after explaining why I made them isn't up to me, I just hope that this is good enough for the administrators to accept. Zepp900 (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You were being bold, which is good. What you wrote is factually accurate, shows Ian's intent and there's no implication that anybody died. –AnemoneProjectors– 13:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage to Jane[edit]

Does tonight's episode mean their divorce was 100% finalised? Or is there still a decree absolut to come? –AnemoneProjectors– 19:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the decree already came. Jane talks about owning the cafe, and usually you only get what you sue for in a divorce after the completion. Arjoccolenty (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that way yeah. Normally in EastEnders they get a piece of paper, but they don't normally go to court like that. –AnemoneProjectors– 09:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm wondering is what her name is going to be afterwards. Her name before was Collins but she referred to herself as Clarke. Arjoccolenty (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beale? –AnemoneProjectors– 10:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would she use her ex-husband's name? Arjoccolenty (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because unless she legally changes it, that's her name. This is completely normal. –AnemoneProjectors– 11:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday[edit]

Did his passport say 1 February, or did you (GSorby) just catch that it said February? Because this year he celebrated his birthday in the episode broadcast on 1 March - and he obviously has done so in the past because I checked and it already said 1 March. –AnemoneProjectors– 09:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching it on iPlayer and I paused it on the passport to see if I could get any info from it and it said February. GeorgePing! 09:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see what date in February? It can't be 1 Feb if it's been broadcast on 1 March, but it could be 28 Feb. –AnemoneProjectors– 10:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go photogrpahic proof! :) GeorgePing! 19:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That can't be possible, because he celebrated his birthday on 1 March, and has done so before. I think the prop is a misprint. I love the "passport" photo! An old headshot :-) –AnemoneProjectors– 12:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mental illness[edit]

This article could really do with a section on Ian's 2012 mental breakdown. Anyway, he talks about it a bit in this video. And we get to mention the beard. –AnemoneProjectors– 09:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stealing money from Lucy[edit]

I think Ian stole money from Lucy when he was trying to start up the restaurant but I can't really remember the conclusion of this. Is it worth mentioning this in the storylines? –AnemoneProjectors– 12:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im sure he stole money from her before he conned her into signing over the businesses to him, though I guess that is the main point. Bleaney (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think so too. He stole a cheque, then she got a letter to say a cheque bounced, that she didn't write, then she told Ian, then she found out he forged her signature, then Peter arrived. Somewhere in that time, he tricked her too. Maybe change "He also gets Janine to invest in the restaurant, and eventually tricks Lucy into signing over all of the businesses to him." to "He also gets Janine to invest in the restaurant, steals money from Lucy, and eventually tricks her into signing over all of the businesses to him." It's only four words. –AnemoneProjectors– 20:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ian Beale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relatives[edit]

Are the follwing relatives really relevant to Ian Beale?:

  • Albert Beale
  • Harry Beale
  • Ronnie Beale
  • Joe Wicks
  • Lexi Pearce

SamLaws81101 (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, in my opinion. Albert, Harry and Ronnie are all from the Civvy Street spin-off episode, so are only relevant to others from that episode. Joe's storylines didn't really involve his extended family other than his grandmother Pat and second cousin Mary. Lexi was only involved with the Mitchells. anemoneprojectors 17:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even convinced about Ian and Bianca being relevant to each other. I just don't think of Ian's line and David's line as having much to do with each other or seeing each other as "family". How about Ted, Tony and Sarah? anemoneprojectors 17:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I remember him interacting with Tony, Ted and Sarah during the 90s, but I don't remember them having any storylines together. As for Bianca, I don't think Ian and David even acknowledge each other as siblings, as David never really knew Pete and was brought up by Pat and Brian. Ian and Bianca have shared scenes but I don't think they ever acknowledged each other as uncle and niece. The same goes for Liam, Tiffany and Morgan.

SamLaws81101 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought about Bianca (and her kids). Yeah Bobby and Tiffany were friends, but it was as school mates, not relatives. Ted etc was a long time ago, so I don't really remember it that well! But certainly, none of them are mentioned in Ian's storylines here and he's not mentioned in theirs. anemoneprojectors 09:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ian Beale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ian Beale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Woodyatt[edit]

No sources have stated that Woodyatt has completely left Eastenders. Yet tons of IPs believe he has permanently left without providing any valid sources or information stating that it’s true. A source I found states he won’t return until May 2022, yet people lgnored that. WikiFlame50 (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In I’m a celebrity, he did not say he permanently left. He said they needed him to take a break, and the break got longer. WikiFlame50 (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruh does nobody even care?! WikiFlame50 (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you haven't been banned yet continues to infuriate me. Swearing and attacking MULTIPLE people who try to tell you that you're wrong is way out of line! The OFFICIAL EastEnders cast list has removed Ian Beale, they ONLY do this for characters who have LEFT and not for characters on a break. I have told you this a thousand times but still you continue to vandalise the site! Connorguy99 (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Beale&oldid=1207685715"