User talk:Trampikey/Archive 8

Phil Mitchell
Do you think we should just give up on trying to get this up to GA? It will mean we have to delete most of the plot descriptions. I think It was a fluke that Pauline passed to be honest, as her plot summary is just as long. I will look into deleting the plot summaries if you think we should though. Gungadin 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * lol, you're right. I think their policy on storylines is silly. Most readers are only interested in that part and dont give a toss about critical analysis. Storylines are the only factual thing about fictional character articles, the rest is all jazzed up pseudo-intellectual rubbish (in my opinion). The only other thing I can think of doing is to transfer the storylines to its own page i.e. "Phil Mitchell Storylines", and link to it from the main article. Then we can have a brief plot summary on the Phil page. It may be worth while considering this for some of the longer articles like this anyway. So that we dont have to worry about the page getting too long. What do you think? Gungadin 19:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On a personal level I agree with you, but the article is already getting way too long and will contine to grow and grow, which will mean it will either need to be reduced or split at some stage in the future. I never liked the idea until I saw what you'd done with the history of EE article in the main article. It's something to consider for the future anyway.Gungadin 20:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to butt in. Not sure if you've noticed, but I left a comment on the article discussion page. Regards, PeaceNT 12:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol seems the article is getting more criticism. Kind of makes me wonder why we bother. Do you think I should scrap the Grant one I was working on? as I was gonna do it in a similar fashion.Gungadin 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, don't let them get you down. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't, I just don't know if it's worth extending it if we are just gonna be told to get rid of all the info :) Gungadin 17:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well we won't nominate it for GA then - as long as we know we're doing a good job! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way I think the person who passed GA said we should cut down the storylines if we wanted the article to be featured. I think the reviewers of the Phil Mitchell article are being too strict. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 19:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Jones Pic
Please update the copyright and source info on the pic of charlie jones as ben mitchell. (Ben_Mitchell_ee.jpg) thanks. Image:Ben_mitchell_ee.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.209.132.185 (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Bianca Jackson
Hey, can you check the accuracy of the Ricky and Bianca special I've included in her article. I only pieced this together from reading various reviews on line, but cant be sure if it's right because I didnt pay much attention to it when it aired. When R+B ran from the police, were they bringing back the package of stolen money, or doing a delivery for them? Gungadin 20:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, sorry, I can't remember it! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So called danh90 sockpuppet == == Just thought i should let you know about marking my sock accounts as sockpuppets of danh90 well all i can say is you are wrong i have nothing to do with danh90 thats not my account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MUNCH0000 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Not true what i said about danh90 was a edit in good faith yes i admit i did vandalise the articles but like i said Danh90 is not my account.

And as for the other accounts you have marked you are correct on marking them but lou22 is another account that does not belong to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUNCH0000 (talk • contribs)


 * You've just contradicted yourself, and thus shown that you indeed are Danh90. The sentences "Danh90 is not my account" and "you are correct on marking them but lou22 is another account that does not belong to me" contradict each other, as you are saying that I have marked accounts as sock puppets of you (Danh90). -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No i am not contradicting myself i swear down that Danh90 and Lou22 are not my accounts and i said that you where right on marking the other accounts expect for Lou22 and Danh90 because well because like i said those two accounts are not mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUNCH0000 (talk • contribs)


 * There you go again... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There i go again? you still don't believe me do you? Ok i was hoping not to say this but here i go remember when the articles where semi-protected? well if you remember when somebodys Danh90 account decided to copy what i got upto in the history for phil mitchell well he did copy me but if you remember the ben mitchell and sonia fowler articles they where never vandalised when he decided to vanadlised.

And when i vandalise i edit the ben mitchell article, the sonia fowler and the phil mitchell all at once. Remember that?

And that proves Danh90 is NOT my account because he did not vandalise sonia fowler and ben mitchell either did he. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.157.207 (talk • contribs)


 * All of the sock puppet accounts of Danh90, including Lou22 and MUNCH0000, have vandalised Phil Mitchell, Ben Mitchell (EastEnders) and Sonia Fowler. You're digging yourself into a bigger hole by admitting to vandalism, and then contradicting yourself many, many times by using the words "me" and then "Danh90" for the same thing... As far as I'm concerned, you are Danh90, as your edits reflect. "He" didn't copy "you", because the vandalism happened way before MUNCH0000 and Lou22 came onto the scene... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not contradicting myself Danh90 is NOT my account i don't care if you don't believe me at the end of the day i know that Danh90 is not my account and i also have no connections to that account apart from the user coping my edits as he can't think of another article to vandalise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUNCH0000 (talk • contribs)


 * Whatever, I still don't believe you. Also, if you vandalise again, be sure that you will be warned and/or blocked as soon as I notice. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I know you don't believe me no matter how i try to prove danh90 has nothing to do with me you are wishing thats my account so you get the big slice of the cake and prove something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUNCH0000 (talk • contribs)


 * Well excuse me for thinking that, but you have made one edit other than the ones to my talk page, to Sonia Fowler, which mimicks the edits of Danh90 exactly. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Like i said i have nothing to do with danh90, hes just a different user who copied my edits. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUNCH0000 (talk • contribs)


 * And like I said, your edits occurred after the Danh90 ones, so either you copied him, or you are indeed a sock puppet of Danh90. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah now we are getting someware actualy i copied myself not danh90 which means i am not a sock of him :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUNCH0000 (talk • contribs)


 * No, you either copied him or you are him - he vandalised those pages before you. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Na i am not Danh90 but the sock accounts belong to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUNCH0000 (talk • contribs)


 * OK, if you're admitting that, consider yourself reported. I still believe that you are Danh90, but that is irrelevant if you're admitting to owning 22 vandalism accounts. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 15:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
please stop deleting my edits as it is considered vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.209.144 (talk • contribs)


 * Note to any readers: this is a vandal whose edits I have been reverting, the above is also vandalism. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You know you can just remove the vandalism from your talk page. Nobody would think you were vandalising just because a vandal said you were. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like removing things from talk pages, though, I like them to serve their purpose as an accurate archive of everything that has been discussed, vandalism or not... just my pickiness I guess. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well just so you know, vandalism should be removed from talk pages in general although it's up to you what you leave on your user talk page. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 22:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock
-Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've contacted the blocking admin. Part Deux 14:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In the blocking message its says "please unblock" - surely you can? -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will unblock. I mus thave messed up the block, i wanted to block anons only. GIve me a sec. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you edit now? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's okay, mistakes happen! -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A question...
Why did you remove the link that I had added in?

Surely that link (admittedly to a page on my own website) is to a page that has stuff that would be of interest to persons interested in the Tony Hills character.

Please would you explain why you removed that link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.101.90.29 (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC).


 * It is a fansite. Please see WP:EL. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Vlcsnap-268151.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Vlcsnap-268151.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

MILF
why did you delete the statement that tanya branning was MILF ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.105.93 (talk • contribs)


 * Because it was vandalism. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

MILF
why, is it not true ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.105.93 (talk • contribs)


 * It is a non-encyclopedic opinion. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

British Soap Awards
What you doing??

Alot of the info on the British Soap Awards is wrong

see this page to see who won the best storyline award in 2000: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/767530.stm

and can you add up, ee won 3 in 2003 not 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mansoor1989 (talk • contribs)


 * I reverted an IP edit I presumed to be vandalism. Also, I presume you mean "can't you add up?", in which case I find that offensive, especially coming from someone who can't spell "a lot" or "can't". -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say you cant add.

It just there was alot of error on that page and to have someone to undo it was p*ss taking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.23.183 (talk • contribs)


 * I used the information already on the page to add up the totals, so don't blame me. I undid it as I thought it was a Coronation Street biased vandal. I admit I was wrong to undo it without checking the contributions of the IP contibutor, but I am not deserving of your rudeness. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 21:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have said sorry. Mansoor1989

MILF CONT.
Why is she not MILF, i'd have thought it's pretty factual and unanimous. Is you gay ??!!

Is your mum MILF ?

Your Mum ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.201.120 (talk • contribs)

RE: Eastenders Articles
Thanks for that. You're probably right about copying and pasting onto word, it is easy to make spelling mistakes when typing long articles and then not spot them. As far as the lengths concerned i always thought i did stick to the point of the character but yes you're right that i did make them quite big. Could you maybe give me an example of where i should have written less so i can be clearer for the future? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparhelda (talk • contribs) 23:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Interference.
What's it to you if the Dreamgirls reference in "Evolution of the Daleks" is included in the cultural refernces? Knock it off, okay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AvatarMN (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC).


 * It was irrelevant to the article. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 17:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant? That's what trivia is!  It's the kind of trivia that's all over Doctor Who episode recaps, including this one.  How's it less relevant than The Prince and the Showgirl, or "New York New York (So Good They Named it Twice)" in the previous episode?  Do you just get off on arbitrarily undoing peoples' work? AvatarMN 17:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The "So Good They Named it Twice" is relevant because the episode referred to it. The coincidence of a line of dialogue being the name of an obscure song is not a cultural reference, it is just a coincidence. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When this episode was in production, the Dreamgirls film was pretty big. Getting major international award nominations and wins, and the subject of a lot of pop culture chatter.  Especially Jennifer Hudson, the singer of the song in question.  Martha hit the long title of the song exactly.  She addressed it to the Doctor, who she has a crush on, and the song is addressed to someone who's rebuffing Effie's love.  Plus, this episode has musical theater as a theme.  The episode was written by a woman.  And look at Martha's face, she's amused when she delivers the line.  If you choose to think of it as a coincidence, that's your right.  I think there's sufficient enough reason to wonder for it to be an acceptable note.  What's the harm?  If you don't agree... so what?  Why not try making contributions instead of screwing around with other peoples' input.  AvatarMN 05:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dreamgirls wasn't that big in Britain, so why would they refer to it in a British show? Also, what significance does it have that the episode was written by a woman? I is just a coincidence, hence the reason I removed it, which isn't "screwing around with other peoples' input", it's cleaning up articles - if everyone left other peoples' "input" on Wikipedia, it would be vandalism-ridden. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 14:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dreamgirls debuted at #1 in the UK. http://www.allocine.co.uk/article/fichearticle_gen_carticle=18398386.html  I can find many more UK-originated articles hyping it.  I threw in the fact that the episode was written by a woman so that I could laugh when you addressed the weakest argument I posed, and ignored all the good ones.  It's even funnier that you compare my note to vandalism.  Trivia on Doctor Who episode pages are often speculative, and there's easily enough reason to think a stupid little bit of trivia is worthy of note.  You're acting like this is a scholarly article, and you're some kind of authority.  It's trivia on a TV show, and you're a self-important bully.  AvatarMN 06:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that you're finding this "funny" somewhat makes this argument less valid. Also, calling me a bully is neither a good way to put across a point, or verifiable. I'm fed up of arguing over a coincidence in a television show now. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 23:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My god, kid. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, to name two of millions of examples, is regularily an hour of funny valid arguments and observations.  I'll admit I was hasty to call you a bully, per se, but you removed a trivia addition because it's your opinion that it's just a coincidence, and then you followed it up by refusing to address any of my arguments why you can't be so sure, or any of my verifiable demonstrations that you've made new dubious statements.  Have you ever considered that you might be a 16-year-old who doesn't know everything and should be more careful about removing contributions that just may have been made by someone who knows something you don't?  I'm just saying it's bad form to cut something like trivia, which is commonly speculative to some degree, on the basis that it's something you don't know a lot about.  If you knew more about Dreamgirls, you wouldn't have been so quick to say Evolution of the Daleks couldn't have referenced it.  AvatarMN 09:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't aprreciate being called "kid" or my personal information being refered to, it is disrespectful, as I have been an editor of Wikipedia for 2 years, with over 10,000 contributions, and I know how Wikipedia works, so I know what should be cut and what shouldn't. Trivia is not commonly speculative, and if it is, it shouldn't be in articles, which is why I removed your contribution. If I had seen any others like it I would have removed them also. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 11:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm getting frustrated by your lack of addressing my points, and certain examples of dubious reasoning on your part, and so you're leaving me to guess at what's on your mind and try to get answers in creative ways. But if you didn't want people to know your age and be informed by it in their relations to you, you shouldn't have disclosed it.


 * Anyway, you're an experienced and accomplished Wikipedia editor, but not infallable. Your scope of knowledge demonstrably doesn't include Dreamgirls.  It appears to be unwritten, but my experience as a Wikipedia reader is that in common practice there's less of a burden of verifiability on fictional subjects, and especially in trivia, which is always more for fun than hard information.  You really can't hold an encyclopedia that differs so fundamentally from classical encyclopedias as to include pop culture fiction up to the same standards of schollarly, stuffy integrity and verifiable facts.  Not in the pop culture fictional articles, anyhow.  I'm arguing that the Dreamgirls reference is verifiable enough, though I can't source someone like Russel T. Davies or Freema Agyeman confirming it, and that if you knew about Dreamgirls you wouldn't be so skeptical.  I don't know Are You Being Served?, so I wouldn't remove the reference that's now listed in Evolution of the Daleks's cultural notes.  It may be verifiable, but not by me, and so I leave it.  It's verifiable that the signature song of Dreamgirls has the title "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going", that Martha hit the long title exactly, that the episode has musical theater as an element, that the subject of the song relates to Martha and the Doctor, and that the movie was big in Britain during and right before the episode's production.  Trivia that's this verifiable is all over the Doctor Who episode articles, and I believe that when you've seen them, you've passed them by because your scope of knowledge included the subject and you accepted it, and you didn't this time because you're not familiar with the reference source.  And maybe those days you weren't on a formalist tear, and holding Wikipedia's articles on fictional entertainment to classical encyclopedic standards.  AvatarMN 18:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The only Doctor Who episode article to which I have contributed is Evolution of the Daleks, and the references to popular culture on there are all verifiable beyond coincidence. Two of the bullet points are actual songs that can be heard in the episode, the lift/elevator point is language-related, and the The Prince and the Showgirl and Are You Being Served? references are, I agree, speculative, but again are verifiable beyond a coincidental line of dialogue being the title of a song in film that was big at the time of production of the episode, whereas Are You Being Served? and The Prince and the Showgirl are older productions that have had a substantial effect on popular culture throughout time. I don't doubt that Dreamgirls has had some effect on popular culture, but I just don't believe it to be enough to merit a mention in Doctor Who, especially if it was big at the time of production. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Martha simply said that Laszlo and Tallulah were "the pig and the showgirl", and the Doctor laughed and repeated "the pig and the showgirl". The only thing it leaves you to go on is if you have personal knowledge where the fragment term "-and the showgirl" comes up prominently somewhere in popular culture.  I agree that this is almost certainly what they were thinking of, but this pop cultural and partial phrasal example is the only semi-verifiable source one can use to demonstrate that this is probably what they meant.  As far as I know.  I can list many possible reasons for the probability that Martha made a Dreamgirls reference; including pop cultural, exact phrasal, character, storytelling, and thematic reasons and examples.  Surely, the number of reasons makes my note stronger?  I don't think that the fact that the other other productions are old reduces the probability that my noted reference was intentional.  Pop culture impact can endure, but current culture can certainly be more in the forefront of the mind of its observers.  But if it came down to a choice between citing a current and more obscure source vs. a classic and more famous source to cite the same reference, I'd put my faith more in the latter.  But that's not what this comes down to, they're seperate references.  Thanks very much for a detailed response, though.  AvatarMN 20:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Family Tree
Hey, i was thinking of maybe doing the other family articles of EastEnders that need to be done. So I was wondering if you could tell me how you did The Beale/Fowler family family tree as i have no idea how to make them myself. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparhelda (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC).


 * What were you thinking of doing? I can make you a family tree. The Branning/Jackson and Mitchell family trees are already on Wikipedia somewhere. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah Branning/Jackson and Mitchell were the ones i was thinking of doing. I was thinking of doing others at some point but behind Beale/Fowler they're probably the biggest families so if there are already family trees of them that would be great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparhelda (talk • contribs) 14:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Julia's theme
Hey, I just noticed that you reverted a users contribution on this article because no episode aired on this day. I havent seen the episode to confirm whether it was used or not, but an episode did air on this date apparently, just thought I should let you know.Gungadin 00:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, I'll revert myself. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 01:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Holby
Hiya Trampikey! I've noticed your edits to various Casualty/Holby City/Blue articles, and wondered whether you'd like to set up with me a WikiProject to direct everyone's efforts - what say you? DBD 20:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tra la la
What do you think we should do when minor characters fall into two lists, like Christine Pretis, who started in 1989, but last appeared in 1992. Should I put her in the list for when she first appeared?Gungadin
 * Oh god... the first one she appeared in, as they're by first appearance. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 22:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

re
well pesonally i though that was a better picture. it was very stunning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveshilpa!!! (talk • contribs)

Image:Andy1985.jpg
Hello, Trampikey. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Andy1985.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Trampikey/sandbox2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Den1985.jpg
Hello, Trampikey. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Den1985.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Trampikey/sandbox2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dot Cotton (television character).jpg
Hello, Trampikey. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Dot Cotton (television character).jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Trampikey/sandbox2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ethel1985.jpg
Hello, Trampikey. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Ethel1985.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Trampikey/sandbox2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ian1985.jpg
Hello, Trampikey. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Ian1985.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Trampikey/sandbox2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kathy1985.jpg
Hello, Trampikey. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Kathy1985.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Trampikey/sandbox2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 16:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Legg1985.jpg
Hello, Trampikey. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Legg1985.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Trampikey/sandbox2. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 17:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lofty Holloway 2.jpg
Hello, Trampikey. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Lofty Holloway 2.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Trampikey/sandbox2. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 18:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lou1985.jpg
Hello, Trampikey. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Lou1985.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Trampikey/sandbox2. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 19:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Lucy Beale
Hey can you help with this page. I added a new image onto the page, pressed save and now its showing up as this. I dont know what happened.Gungadin 20:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems you've sorted it now... I'll re-add the image. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * phew! I must have pressed a redirect link somehow without noticing.Gungadin 20:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you redirected it to Insert text, lol. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 20:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, what an idiot I am at times :) Gungadin 21:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh God!!
Have you seen? all the EE articles are being tagged. We're going to have to delete most of the plot summary.

All that work for nothing :( Gungadin 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Add ons to Cornation street & Eastenders
Sorry, for adding Friends etc, I am new to this! Can you suggest pieces that I can add to these subjects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curly23 (talk • contribs)