User talk:This is Paul/Archive4

Jenny Frost
If response to your message, what if I have photographic evidence regarding the rumoured kissing by Jenny Frost

3/4/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howesymd (talk • contribs) 15:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction and your use of my monobook script
Hi,

I am pleased to see that you have used my monobook script to remove the autoformatting or linking of dates or other functions; I hope you have found it useful.

This is to let you know that ArbCom has announced a temporary injunction against the "mass delinking of dates". You can still delink dates on an occasional basis; however, you may wish to be cautious and use the script only for its non-date functions until the issue is resolved by an RFC poll. You may wish to express your view on autoformatting and date linking in the RFC at: Date_formatting_and_linking_poll.

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Clare Balding
Thanks for editing the article to give the Liam Treadwell incident more of a mention; now there will definately be no need for a seperate section and therefore no more page rollbacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.161.7 (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. I am glad we agree. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Years in British television
Hey there! Cool idea. Can't wait till you reach the 1960s and mention all those wonderful ITC productions like The Avengers, The Saint and Randall and Hopkirk Deceased. I LOVE 60s cult TV. Not forget to mention Randall and Hopkirk Deceased for 1969! Dr. Blofeld       White cat 15:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm like you I am a huge fan of retro tv series and music, I was a child of the 80s. Programme s like Rainbow, T-Bag, Button Moon and Knightmare and of course shows like the Avengers, Randall and Hopkirk Deceased and The A-Team etc. Those were the days before childrne's TV got taken over by squeaky nonsense speaking puppets (of course Zippy and Bungle spoke loads of sense). I added Knightmare to 1987. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 19:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Joanna Gosling
No probs. Easy mistake to make. :) Paul Largo (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi
I did use a neutral point of view. They will flood the country. It will put pressure on our welfare system. How wont it? --Campcoreec (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I love you. --Campcoreec (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A question
Archived from here

In what part of the UK do you reside? Rammer (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sinitta.
Hi there. i know for a fact she was born in 1968.... can we just keep it like that as i wishto not exoplain why i know it? but i can tell you thatthe reason i keep change it is becouse Sinitta herself asks me to do so... thanks x —Preceding unsigned comment added by DiscoIgor (talk • contribs) 12:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Peach
I see you've rightly blocked the Andrew Peach page. This was beginning to get a little stressful, as someone (and I have a n idea who!) kept adding he was "best known" for his appearance on the Chris Evans and Jonathan Ross Show.

As an employee by the BBC, I know for a fact that Andrew is NOT the regular reader for these presenters. He is only a freelance cover news reader, along with the likes or Ricky Salmon etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.197.232 (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I had an idea you probably worked for the BBC, but didn't want to say anything in case I was wrong. It was actually someone else who blocked the article, although I filed the request for a third opinion because the whole thing was getting ridiculous. Incidentally, though myself and a lot of other UK editors will know Andrew Peach as a presenter/newsreader, apart from his BBC biography and a brief mention in the Times from 2007, there's not a lot of information online regarding him or his work, and I did Google him several times. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for the problems I was causing by deleting it, but it was causing so many issues. I was just thinking of Wiki in most cases, as it obviously needs to be pretty much ALL fact. Andrew is only fulltime at BBC Berkshire, and works as bothe Breakfast Presenter and Ass. Editor, but only he's only a freelancer for BBC Radio 2. I've just Googled him, and you're right in saying that theres not much about him or his work! I never know there could be such a debate over a newsreader, lol !!

re: Mrs. T
Replied on the bot's user talk, won't happen again :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Jo Whiley
Not sure if it's true or not, but I removed it because the section was badly worded and sloppily punctuated, and didn't seem to fit the context of the section it was in. And if something's that insulting, then it should at least be verified first.

(Wowser (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

No worries!

Wowser (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jennifer Eccles
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jennifer Eccles, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails notability.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Becky Sayles (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hope you don't mind, but I redirected for you. No sense in losing your work and it can always be undone if we find more information. Paul Largo (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to say someone reverted my edit and found a reference. Paul Largo (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of BBC News (8:00pm Summary)
A tag has been placed on BBC News (8:00pm Summary), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 05:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC) 05:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Andrew Peach


The article Andrew Peach has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * no third party content about the subject, just one quote by the subject

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- The Red Pen of Doom  05:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

C Smith
It is rude and academically incorrect to repeatedly insert information you know to be wrong. She was elected but not seated - so she is in reality NOT the incumbent. Please DO NOT CHANGE THIS AGAIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.244.164 (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Chloe Smith
With all due consideration, you are in no place to lecture on the subject of politeness, sir. Even the Conservative Party website says she is NOT an MP and will not be until the HOC resumes its sitting. I will continue to edit your incorrect information and have already reported your repeated actions 98.206.244.164 (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Chloe Smith
You are being arrogant in not admitting you have repeatedly and knowingly put information you know to be incorrect. I will continue to correct the information you have placed there. I've cited to you information that proves you to be wrong, yet you pridefully continue in your behaviour Rohrflote (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Chloe Smith
Again, with this several - 2 doesn't make several. I just wrote you with a suggestion that will clarify the situation. At the time of a General Election there are no MP's - you are correct - HM has dissolved the house. But this seems to be a different matter, don't you think? When several reputable sources make it clear that your assertion is not correct, well it speaks for itself.Rohrflote (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't referring at all to the Sinn Fein guys - I think we'd both agree that's a completely different case. Like I said, when the HOC and the party sites as well as several news sources all agree that she's not a member - I tend to listen. That's all. I put that in the article, and so far it looks like people are ok with it, so, as Emperor Joseph said "Well, there it is."Rohrflote (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If Rohrflote is the same person as this ip then I get the impression he was editing from the US where I know the system of election and assuming office is slightly different. If that is the case then I understand why he was changing the article and apologise for not assuming as much good faith as I perhaps should have done. But he should have been less confrontational. Still, all sorted out now and nothing's broken. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

New College Worcester
Hi ! An article you have been involved with has many  issues and urgently  needs urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:New College Worcester, address the different points if you  can, and leave any  comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What you  were seeing  was probably what  I  spent  several  hours this evening (Thai  time)  rewriting. Nevertheless, even i'm  not  perfect ;) Thanks for your help and your  rapid response.--Kudpung (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Pershore College
Hi ! An article you have created, contributed to,  or edited has been proposed for merging. Please see the discussion at  Talk:Pershore College,  and leave your comments there. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

GCE Advanced Level in the United Kingdom and GCE Advanced Level
Fair enough point, but it seems to me that the former page seems to, in actual fact, consider the A level with regards to the whole world. The fourth and final paragraph in the lead clearly tries to internationalise it. I'm assuming the qualifications taken in other countries are largely similar, and I'd be interested to know if there are any that are radically different, but with the same name. It is my belief that GCE Advanced Level in the United Kingdom should be merged into GCE Advanced Level, which should approach a worldwide view of the subject. At the moment, the latter is a merely worse, and no more international, version of the first.

In order to justify a "in the United Kingdom" page, there would have to be substantial differences that couldn't be approached in a single article, and I just don't think that's the case. If you disagree with this, I'd at least like a change of the lead to clearly reflect the fact there are two pages. Then the page can be moved, if there is consensus to do that, to a more common name. I'd like to hear your thoughts. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 14:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Peach
i may be wrong because i'm not experienced in wiki but you seem to have deleted an article relating to bbc radio's andrew peach and i'm not sure why thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.122 (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

UK
My only really problem with the article is that it is incredibly long, and its only August. Now I have no objection to it being long, but there needs to be some consolidation. I mean, do we need to mention every single swine flu development, or company profits? I don't know. Gran2 14:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a plan. We seem to be the only two users who are actually regularly updating the article, so we may as well assess each thing in turn for its inclusion (Thorneloe's death being a certain inclusion). Gran2 19:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)