User talk:David the Wavid

Archive

Articles for deletion
Please leave requests for article deletion under this message.

Please could you delete the page entry for Zoë Henry? There is already a page for Zoe Henry and I want to move this to "Zoë Henry" when you've carried out the deletion. Thanks.--Jtomlin1uk 09:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you deleted the wrong one. It was the page with the umlaut over I needed deleted - can it be retrieved?--Jtomlin1uk 10:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please can you delete the page for GM1 as it has been replaced by the one for MM0? Thanks.--Jtomlin1uk 15:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please can you delete the page for Barry Keagan? There is another page for Barry Keegan and IMDb agrees with the latter spelling. Thanks--Jtomlin1uk 13:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A few things
David,
 * 1) I’m starting to collate together repeat data for the programme for those episodes which saw a regular repeat either for Classic Coronation Street or the Omnibus editions. The former is relatively easy as it’s mostly on Corrienet whereas the latter will take a bit of time because of schedule changes. There were special theme nights in 1996 on Granada Plus and they’re proving difficult to find details of (although I have confirmed that they repeated the first 16 episodes of the programme in one block on Christmas Day 1996! Wish I had those on tape for eps 13, 14 and 15!) Are you interested in putting all this on the site – bearing in mind its ‘mission statement’ is to have "the most definitive, accurate, and accessible encyclopedia and reference database for everything related to Coronation Street"? If so, do you mind if I copy what you did on Episode 1 and remove repeat data from the notes and give it its own separate section? Secondly, could you start to add the ITV2 repeat data to the newest episode listings from tv listings on the web and make my task a bit easier – as it is, I’ve got some 20 years worth of data to collect (gulp!) As regards special one-off repeats, I think they’re now all on the site with the exception of a repeat of a 1962 episode shown in tribute to Arthur Lowe on Saturday 17th April 1982 at 10.00pm – trouble is I don’t know which damn episode it was!
 * 2) Also, could you do as you said you’d do and archive the past on your talk page please? Large pages seem to be very slow in ‘reacting’ when typing on them and yours must now be the largest on the site! Its performance is so bad now, compared to other pages, that for some time past I’ve had to type what I want to say in word and then copy and paste onto your talk page when I’m finished.
 * 3) I agree with TellyFan’s excellent suggestion that you change the article of the week name to featured article. I’ve given your request of the other week some thought regarding the new-look of this page. I’m no design specialist (or technically competent) so I’m not sure I can help there but I do think we ought to expand the link to the episodes, characters and cast pages, especially the former and explain quickly what the interested reader is going to see. I also think you ought to link directly to your terrific History of Coronation Street article and its sister article titled Coronation Street. Interested first-timers would find what they’re looking for here. I know you also want to do a lot of work on the categories but some expansion of those (an index up front, if you like) would help. I know I get frustrated on other wikis when I find it hard to find the “chapters” of what I’m looking for. Finally, don’t you think we ought to say up-front on the site exactly what CS is? You may think this is daft but not everyone (especially in the US) would have heard of it, or its longevity and the current format of the page gives no clue to what the site if really about!
 * 4) Could you delete the article on director Ian Wright? I think it should be Ian White and he already has his own page.
 * 5) Could you do your magic and create an episode template for me for The Brothers McGregor? I’m think I’m in a position to do an entry for each episode and a short intro article although info is very thin on the ground. Each time I did my own episode template I buggered it up. I think we agreed the colour orange for it many month’s ago. Cheers!--Jtomlin1uk 17:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A few more things
Firstly I thought I'd summarise some of my recent points for this new page.
 * Can we somehow do a screencapture, or speak to someone at corrie.net to get hold of their picture of Connie Rathbone?
 * Any chance you could answer my querry on the help forum re: linking to categories.

Sorry for categorising Connie's page as AotW instead of Rita's - how dumb of me! :o I'll also say at this point that although I've indicated that I want to spend less time on here in the short term, I will make it my personal reponsibility to make sure I keep Connie's page up to date :)

Now I shall move on to my thoughts on John's points, and your replies.

1) John suggested removing repeat data from individual episode note pages. I don't think there is anything wrong with duplication with things like this. If I was looking at an episode I would expect to see details of special repeats on that page. So removing, I'd say no. But there's nothing wrong with having an all-in-one version either: "List of special repeats". If you decide that you would like ITV2 repeats listed, let me know and I'll undertake that responsibility myself. It wouldn't be too much of a diversion for me to do that. Like you though I wonder if its going a little too far. I suppose technically yes, if this place is going to be as complete and comprehensive as possible it SHOULD be there, but on the other hand, maybe it's a little too anal? Only 'maybe', though. There's certainly no harm in it being there. As I say I'm perfectly happy to collate this data myself if you would like me too :) There are two more special repeats that I know of, though I haven't got round to checking exact dates/times yet (my own TV Times/Radio Times collection is currently pretty much inaccessible). I was going to do these myself as and when I could but I'll have a word with John about them...

2) John said: "Large pages seem to be very slow in ‘reacting’ when typing on them". Ah, so thats why I was having problems! I thought it was just my computer being slow! I hadn't contributed enough to your page to put two and two together!

3) Wow! I love the new left hand navigation thingy. A couple of minor quibbles though. Before, we had about half a dozen Articles of the Week listed on the arrow, now we don't have any. Shouldn't at least the current one be on the arrow? Or else remove the arrow all-together. I was going to say about the forums no longer being arrowed but I think its probably better like that - you can then see if either has been added to recently rather than having to click on both. Did you forget to add actors, or decide not to bother? It was (and still is) one of the three you picked for your 'main entry points' on the homepage. So I was surprised to see it absent. We've had a lot of new actor pages added recently as well thanks to our mystery over-enthusiastic linker (I meant to put enthusiastic rather tnan excitable the other day by the way). I was wondering actually should we have a separate category for guest actors? Our linking friend picks so many obscure names that most people have never heard of (Joost Buitenweg anyone?) that the well known actors aren't so easy to find. As for a 'what is CS' section, well the first thing perhaps to ask is, if you don't already know, would you care? But there's no harm in a short summary explaining why CS is so notable. Say something about it being one of the longest running shows on British TV, and by far the longest on commercial TV (next oldest on ITV is Emmerdale commencing October '72), and about it rarely being out of the Top 2 most watched programmes here. And maybe something about it reflecting typical (ish) lives of the ordinary working class people of Britain or something like that. Something fairly short and snappy I think, and then direct them to the main Coronation Street article to learn more.

4) I have a suggestion for your talk page. Why not have a special 'articles that need deleting' heading at the top. Quite a few of your 90 sections on the first talk page were for this and I thought it might be easier if they were all together?? You said to John corrie.net is full of errors. I must confess I got my 'Rita May appeared in every episode of Children's Ward' from there, so I hope its true! I do know for certain that she lasted the entire run of the show though.

5) Orange...my favourite colour. I'm liking it already! I'll be buying Pardon the Expression too I should think though I don't know when I'd get round to watching it - I haven't watched the Corrie box sets yet! But these sort of releases need to be supported to encourage them to release more. On that note - PLEASE buy Emmerdale Farm Volume 1 - there's no sign of a volume 2 and there's so much good stuff I've read about that would be coming in the next batch! Also we want to encourage them to think more Corrie is viable. I think they should go at least to episode 24 - but preferably as long as it remains viable. Hopefully we'll see them start releasing them in time for the 50th next year. I'm currently working my way through the first 10 volumes of the Crossroads Archive. They say apparantly sales were dipping significantly by volume 14 which I find sad as I specifically bought volume 15 as an extra one as it covered the christmas episoedes. I want to see all the christmas corrie! If people stop buying Crossroads just before it gets to christmas, what hope have we got?!! Rant over :) As for Classic Who - weirdly I watched The Visitation for the first time on the same day that Graeme started impersonating Fred! Checking how he spelt his name I just noticed he seems to be missing from current characters. I see John's made the most recent changes. John your slacking! :p I'm off to have words!... :) TellyFan 01:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we somehow do a screencapture, or speak to someone at corrie.net to get hold of their picture of Connie Rathbone?
 * Do you mean the one that's on their front page right now? It's just a publicity picture, and not the property of corrie.net, so a screencapture is all thats needed.
 * I wasn't suggesting that they held the copyright to the picture! As I'd previously explained, I don't know how to do screencaptures (unless its from a DVD). Didn't I read somewhere that you or someone here has a contact at Granada? Don't they get sent publicity photos as well? We should be getting support from Granada for this site, don't you think? Anyway, that's another matter. I don't care how we get hold of the picture, just so long as we get a copy.
 * I've found a picture now. Clicking pictures and then clicking 'Save Target As' isn't the same thing as a screen capture though, is it?


 * Any chance you could answer my querry on the help forum re: linking to categories.
 * Done.
 * Seen. Thank you.


 * John's point 1)
 * I think he has agreed ITV2 repeats on individual pages is possibly a bit much. I will collect data which can go on an ITV2 page showing general trends. Of course we have to have a limit somewhere, or else we'd have to note dates episodes were broadcast abroad as well. I think its currently only Ireland, Canada and New Zealand that show it (I expect Ireland are basically in synch anyway, are they??) so you might say thats not an unreasonable or especially difficult thing to add, but of course in the past it used to be shown in all sorts of places - would we really want to list all those broadcast dates? I do think Granada Plus airdates are quite notable though - and the information is already available on corrie.net.
 * Of course overviews of what country showed which batch of episodes and when they started and ceased showings would be of interest. Dunno how we'd find out though!


 * John's point 3)
 * Regarding a 'what is CS section' you might like to note also that Corrie is the UK's fourth longest running show after Panorama (November '53), The Sky at Night (Apr '57) and Blue Peter (October '58).

End of Part One! --TellyFan 17:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Part Two: Daaaaa Daa Daa Daa Daa Daa, Daaaaa...

In the ad break lol not only have I found a picture I was able to download, but I found Rita May's agent page too so I've been able to make her page even better :)

Just another quick word about Emmerdale - don't be put off by modern Emmerdale. You don't look old enough to have seen it back in '72, though you might perhaps remember the 80s. But even by then the cast was growing and the emphasis was changing. It was very much focused on the lives of the Sugden family when it started, with only Amos at the pub and the new rich townie from Bradford and his daughter as other major characters, though there were some interesting minor characters too. Jack Sugden as written by creator Kevin Laffan had some great witty lines. I really would recommend it.

Have I come from the DWF? If your asking if I ever go there the answer is infrequently. I'm registered, but under my present name I've only posted on the 'request to change your username' forum. If your asking if I found this site via DWF the answer is no. If I'd ever visited DWF it was strictly for something to do with Who (though I have peeked at the CS thread twice I think since joining here). If you were asking how did I find this place, I can't say for certain cos I lurked for a while, but it was quite possibly via the link on wikipedia, or else it was probably google. Btw as of now I've just had three looks at the Corrie thread. Last time was sometime before post #448 (7-12 April). And the first time was the day I joined here, as I saw an article talk post where you mentioned said thread. (Not only did I see the post, I replied - though you never seemed to notice :. I might pop in to the Corrie thread on DWF and say 'hello' sometime. You should recognise me ;)

Speaking of things you never replied to (this'll be on Forum talk:Momo1 page), did you used to frequent the Restoration Team forum? Even Steve Roberts admitted he was surprised how many lurkers there were who sudenly announced how sad they were it was closing (I was one of those lurkers). It makes me wonder how many lurkers there are here? I joined a) cos I could answer your query (I'd been trying to find visual evidence myself and IIRC had only recently found it), b) I could answer the First Episode Transcript query someone had, but most of all c) I generally felt guilty enjoying the excellent information available on the site and basically just leeching off of you. There MUST be lurkers on here. If only one in a million viewers had found this site that would still be more people than are currently contributing. I saw just now John subtly advertising the place over on DWF, for what I am sure was not the first time. They must know about it by now. Why is everybody hiding? Do you not find it a little infuriating? People on the RTforum explained they lurked cos they had nothing worthwhile to contribute. But anyone who watches the show and has decent gramatical skills and the like can do SOMETHING to help, and you don't have to watch the show at all to be able to help editing Mr Linky's(!) posts. So there's no such excuse here. Wel it makes me cross anyway!

(Btw, should you go hunting me out on DWF, the post I said I was going to make was to none other than Steve Roberts pleading not to delete the whole thing just yet, but it became redundant when I decided to just get on and finish it that night.)

Right well I think I've gone on quite long enough. Once I get going there's no stopping me lol! #Da Da Daaaaaa, Dum-di-di-dum. Da (OK you get the idea) :D --TellyFan 02:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes
Thanks for the quick implementation of what I asked for or suggested. I take you point re the repeats and will hold fire until I get more data and then we can see how the info patterns out over the years - an overall article might be better. If Tellyfan could start assembling present day data for future use that would be a help. I take your point over the McGregor template colour - please change it if you wish. Cheers!--Jtomlin1uk 08:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Delinking
David, Is it possible to restrict updates to this site to registered users only? I ask because I'm getting heartily sick and tired of our delinking friend in New Zealand. I applaud his (or her) efforts to contribute to this site but it has now reached the stage where their contributions are so minimalistic that I cannot feel that we'd be better off without them. Yesterday I went over several of their efforts and realized that they'd put in no research at all, even on this site, before creating their entries. One actor was stated as having played a single role but a quick link on "what links here" and they actually had four roles against them and several more parts on IMDB. I suddenly realized the damage that this person has been doing: they have created pages which are semi-complete at best and we have no way of easily finding out and going back over what they have done because they've all been created by a series of different IP addresses (all registered in Canterbury, New Zealand) which would take hours to plod through and change. I've signed on today, with various intentions as to what I'm going to do, and am being forced to research and correct another raft of entries created during the night, otherwise they get lost in the morass of pages.--Jtomlin1uk 07:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Edited to add (now I've got my rant out of the way) that if we force this person to create a profile then we can communicate with them more easily and guide them as to the minimum standards to follow when creating a page.--Jtomlin1uk 08:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of balance
My first thought on seeing John's message this morning was 'hear, hear'. Believe it or not however, I actually have a few things to say in defence of New Zealink as I shall now call them! Yes, the posts our damn annoying, and John has more right than the rest of us to get annoyed as he ends up correcting most of them. But doesn't todays Zoe Henry issue for example, show why Zealink is serving a purpose in terms of quality control? We have now realised that the original entry is spelt incorrectly. We now have a correct page for Zoë Henry with an umlaut on and I've learnt a new word! Also, I was having a look on the Orphaned Pages page tonight and wondered why 'Beatrice Kelley' was an orphan. A check on IMDb confirms this spelling is correct, but on the (thankfully few) episodes she appeared in she was only credited on our episode pages as 'Beatrice Kelly'. This is another issue that probably would have remained unnoticed. Some of Zealinks' pages do occasionally give off a slightly interesting piece of information. Yes 99% have an annoying English, but this penchant for listing nationalities occasionally throws up something interesting such as Edward de Souza (Colin Grimshaw) being a "British actor of Portuguese descent". Another was Harvey Virdi (Nina Mandal) who apparantly has Italian descent. (Edit: The other one I was thinking of was Doctor Anwar (Jerry Mortons' Dr), played by someone who is "English/Burmese". (Billy Walker also went out with a chineese person once, and that actor is apparantly actually American) TellyFan 03:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC) ) Information like this shows a (small) degree of research. I'd agree that lists of programmes actors have been in seems limited to what they've watched (a partcilar favourite would seem to be Hetty Wainthrop Investigates!). I must agree about not researching other roles they have payed in the show. Though it was good for me - my heart sunk when I saw an entry had been submitted for Rita May when I already had one largely written. To my delight though Zealink had only mentioned Brenda Kelly and not her previous three roles. This was the day after I'd done entries for them all so it shows they're not reading whats going on, but they come up with such random actor biogs that I honestly think it was just a coincidence. (A shame though as I'd been (mildly) looking forward to seeing Rita ascend up the bottom of the Most Wanted Pages list as I entered the rest of my pages!) I'd also like to say in Zealinks' defence that you can't use 'what links here' until after you have submitted a page (unless I am much mistaken), though they could always do an edit to add more afterwards, of course.

Of course, overlinking aside, many many of Zealinks pages are TOTALLY substandard and are a waste of space. I understand that two overriding principles of wiki-ing are that all pages should have a category and all pages should link somewhere else. After delinking, many are left with only 'Coronation Street' (surely we shouldn't count this on a Corrie wiki!) and (though occasionally not(!)), the name of a character. But character and actor are already 'married' on the episode pages. If we want to see who played what, we can just use search and it'll soon tell us. So really we're left with pages that don't really do anything linkwise. If the same appraoach was adopted to the characters they played we'd be left with (Coronation Street) aside) a circular link basically. When you look at it like this it only serves to highlight how near-worthless many of Zealinks contributions are. Of course I realise I am preaching to the converted here.

What perhaps we should do is change our approach to Zealinks entries. Instead of taking time to laboriously delink etc, we should just put a 'stub' tag on them so that we can easily find them another time (John mentioned having 'no way of easily finding out and going back over what they have done').One of the cleanup tags could go on as well, but making it a stub of course puts it in Category:Articles Stubs.

From your last comment on my talk page David I can tell you're not aware that IP addresses do sometimes change (I shall personally demonstrate this myself over on the 'Forum talk:Momo1' page after I have finished writing to you). The only way, therefore, that we are going to atract Zealink's attention is if we manage to talk to them while they are in the middle of their contributions. I see when you attempted to speak to them yesterday you suggested they create a user page. This in itself isn't a problem: Hopeless20 manages fine without one afterall. I think that you should be clear that you are asking them to registr a Username. But then of course they might just think to themselves 'no thanks, I'm happy as I am', which presumably they are or they would have registered by now. So I think really, as John has attmepted a couple of times in the past, we need to highlight at the time that we are having problems with they're contributions, rather than wait until they have registered to do it.

I think that's all I've got to say on the subject for now! 'Tis getting late anyway.

Tildes >>>TellyFan 02:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OMG! How stupid of me not to realise that the entry for 'Harvey Virdi' must be a mistake. No mention in it of her having Indian descent. Zealink must have put Italian by mistake! I forgot of course also that if a clean-up tag is put on you can see a list of all articles that have one, so no need to make them all stubs. One more thing before I must go: speaking of orphaned articles, I may be un-orphaning some of them tonight ;). Watch this space. :) Gotta go for now.

1960s casts
You'll have noticed that I have added a lot of cast lists to the 1965 pages over the past two days and have just completed that year. Like your earlier entries I got them from the TV Times, from the British Library when I was checking non-networked transmissions of Pardon the Expression. I did a couple of checks yesterday against Daran Little's 40th anniversary book where he lists the "top twenty" appearances for cast members by year and, to my great surprise, we tally exactly on two cast members that I checked – Ena Sharples who was in 56 episodes in 1965 and David Barlow who was in 62. I did, as you know, treat the TV Times entries with great caution but I now think that I was mistaken. 1961 is vague, incomplete and of little use but from the actor's strike onwards until 1968/9 it appears to be very accurate for the regular cast members but has various guest cast missing – Channel TV Times could fill in the gaps thereafter. I have a list of four guests who are mentioned in the synopsis for 1965 episodes but TV Times doesn't credit them – for future investigation! – and there could be other guest cast members who neither the synopsis nor TV Times mentions, such as Steve in Episode 521. Nevertheless I think we could assemble an episode cast list for the overall decade which is over 80-85% complete and accurate, which is some going.--Jtomlin1uk 13:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing
Just a note to advise you that I'm off for a long weekend tomorrow and won't be signing back on until Tuesday, possibly Wednesday – don't take my absence as a sign that I've given up – far from it!--Jtomlin1uk 11:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Your user page
Hi David. Just a brief visit for now, though I may come back for a wee while tonight too. I've gotta clear this up though cos its been bugging me...

What's the deal with the sudden change to your user page a while back? It feels like reading about a completley different fan! Did you suddenly realise in February that the Deidre Barlow you'd been watching since the Hillman stuff was the same Deidre from the programme where you'd seen her put on trial in the 90s(!), or what? TellyFan 17:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's just confusion to be honest David. You did quite clearly previously state that your "first encounter" was in 2003 for your Media Studies work. To then see you completley change tack, do you not think that looks somewhat odd/suspicious? In some ways it doesn't really matter. These days, you are clearly a corrie fan who is dedicated enough to set up a wiki and clearly puts a lot of effort into the site - for that you deserve respect. But seriously, compare again your current version with the previous version - don't you think it sounds like a different person?

Perhaps I should explain a bit more why I felt the need to ask. I'll come to 'why now' later. Myself I joined this wiki on February 4th. I'd forgotten myself until a couple of weeks ago that all my first lot of posts were made in the space of one week. In fact I ended where I began - leaving a comment for you in the same place I had a week earlier, only this time with tildes! I had indicated elsewhere on Talk:William Roach that I intended to stick around adding 'litle (sic) bits here and there'. It turned out I didn't make another contribution for one day short of six weeks. I did in that time keep on top of the 'recent changes' page, which is usually my first port of call. Just six days after I disappeared I noticed that you'd changed your profile and I was like WTF? Not only had our lord and master (lol) not noticed I'd been trying to attract his attention, but now he seemed to be fabricating a new past corrie viewing history. If I'm honest it made me somewhat wary of our leader. As and when I was to return I was always intending to raise this with you. My return initially was mainly to ask for help moving that Forum:Mono1 page, which I knew wasn't where it should be but I realised it was beyond my beginners capabilities to move it myself. Then I did what I thought would be a quick clean-up which led to me posting the 'linking to categories' forum post. If I hadn't thought 'who the hell is Joost Buitenweg' I wouldn't even have opened the page and known it needed cleaning up! Then I heard someone (Rita May!) was joining the cast as a regular after four previouses and I felt strongly she should have the new article of the week becaue of that fact, so I got on with that and before I knew it I was involved far more than I had intended to be in the short term. Once I was in the thick of it I'd say I almost even forgot about my reservations.

I've made a brief (for the moment) return for one main reason in particular, though I think I'll leave that till tomorrow now, but I wanted to raise this with you first and get it out of the way. I think stepping back out of the site as it were made me remember 'oh yeah, don't forget you wanted to ask David about that'. So I have done. Who knows, maybe other lurkers noticed and it put them off contributing? Perhaps unlikely, but you never know. I think calling you a liar would be too strong (afterall, what would be the point? EDIT: in lying, I mean TellyFan 07:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)). You do seem like a decent chap, and as I say, you're hard work here surely deserves respect, but I DO think the current page contradicts the previous version, and hopefully you'll see this as a chance to clear this up not just for me but for anyone else who's noticed or may in the future.

I hope you see why I felt the need to ask about it?? :)

That's all form me for now. Hopefully I'll be back for a bit tomorrow night. TellyFan 00:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I guess I was being over-optimistic when I said I wasn't accusing you of lying, but I try not to jump to conclusions on these things. I appreciate you admitting this was, in fact, what you were doing. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence though, does it? I don't to be honest even understand your reason for doing it. I suppose I can see your point that it sounded a more interesting story, but I'd have thought the more knowledge of the programme you can admit to having the better. Imagine someone else had started the wiki and put on their page: 'I watched Coronation Street for the first time tonight and thought I'd create a wiki for it'. You'd think 'you've watched ONE episode, and you're in charge of a wiki for it???!!' Take it to its logical conclusion and the more you've seen, the better. I guess you could say as long as your editors are knowledgable thats all that really matters, but I think its better to know your host understands the programme too. Assuming the network dvds are all you have in the way of archive clips (and what you might find on youtube etc), then with your original version it would mean you'd have no recollection of classic 90s only characters such as Des, Raquel, Vicky and Fiona. With your infrequent viewing back then perhaps you still don't lol, but those extra 5+ years still, IMO, sound better than an interesting but innaccurate story. Anyway, you did what you did, and you've apologised for it, so I'll draw a line under it:


 * :D. So, not a fan of the Connors' then eh? Can't say I miss the brothers either. How do you find Michelle? Pleased she split up with Steve?


 * Right, I've actually got a couple of other things to talk about but I shall do my best to get them both done tomorrow. 'Tis getting late and it's my mum's birthday today so I really should be getting to bed! 'Birthday' might be a clue to one of the topics by the way ;) Enjoy your bank holiday! TellyFan 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)