Mcdowb01

Welcome!

Hello, Mcdowb01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sunday Night at 10

No problems with that. I have been using the press releases as a guideline, and am interested in getting the facts as accurate as possible - and ultimately writing a balanced article. I was just concerned that people were deleting information without giving a valid reason (as happens often on Wikipedia), and that particular IP address has been involved in several instances of what is considered not to be good editing. Anyway, hopefully the BBC will issue some sort of press release on this subject which we can add to the article. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Sunday Night at 10, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sunday Night at 10

I've had a quick look at the material you removed from the above article, and there seems to be no reason why it should not be there, as it is attributed to reliable sources. Just because something is on a different page, doesn't mean it is also relevent to another one. In this case, the coverage is definitely about the programme as well as the presenter, so there does not seem to be any reason to remove. If you feel strongly about this, I suggest you discuss on the talkpage of the article. Please also note that you should not edit war to keep your preferred version. It appears that you are the same person as the IP who has been editing the page (purely judging by the contributions of both of you, and that you have immediately carried on editing in the same vein), and have so far reverted the page 4 times. This could lead to you getting blocked for edit warring. Please do not make further reverts, otherwise I will have to report the issue to the edit warring noticeboard. Sorry if this appears heavy handed, but editors reverting each other almost always raises tensions, and never ends well. Quantpole (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. If you're unhappy with something in the article then you should discuss it rather than simply removing referenced information - and you should at least provide an edit summary. I have taken care to write the article using a neutral point of view and using reliable third party sources so there shouldn't be anything offensive about it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Perhaps what you need to do is discuss this on the article's talk page. As you removed the information that said Teal was standing in until a permenant presenter could be found then I assumed she had been confirmed as Laycock's replacement. That can always been reverted though. And I've also kept the link to the programme. See you on the talk page. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

lesson of the day - don't make assumptions!Bob McDowall (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)mcdowb01

Fair enough, but please try to stay calm. I know it's frustrating, but with your assistance we'll hopefully get this sorted out. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Further to my comments yesterday you appear to be involved in some kind of dispute/disagreement with Malcolm Laycock regarding this programme, so it's probably best you don't edit the articles Sunday Night at 10 and Malcolm Laycock from this account or anonymously. You are welcome, however, to air your feelings on the talk page. Please don't think I am taking sides in this - I would say the same thing to Malcolm Laycock if he were to start making edits here. As for the articles, if the information they're giving is wrong then you should take it up with the organisations concerned. If the information is found to be wrong then I'm happy to look at the articles again. Thank you. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)