Talk:Thomas & Sarah

message: Why does some nutty bloke keep putting back the stuff about Sarah's baby's disapperance not being explained.  It's clearly explained in the first ep.  He has obviously got a cut copy, or is just plain mad.
And yes, I know what I am talking about.  I run this website: www.updown.org.uk
Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambda (talk • contribs) 16:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:CIVIL before making further posts, and sign them as well please. As explained, it is referenced. Regardless, as a fan of www.updown.org.uk I have noticed many mistakes in that so just because you run a fanwesbite doesn't make you the authority on it.--UpDown (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Again your really could be a bit more civil, but that aside, I have spotted several mistakes on www.updown.org.uk, and I say above just because you are the owner of a fan website doesn't mean you can never be wrong on that subject. Your website is greatly lacking in detailed episode & character information, so why not improve this rather than make uncivl remarks on Wikipedia. You also do need to read up on Wikipedia policies. --UpDown (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As you may notice from the tag I have inserted at the top, this talk page is for discussing improvements for this article, so I am not going to have a debate about your website. I frankly have better things to do than e-mail you with your mistakes, which they're many. Your website while useful is not a gospel source on UpDown, and actually has very little character and plot information. It is therefore very high-handed of you to assume you know everything about the programme and make uncivil comments like "nutty bloke" and "just plain mad" --UpDown (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have not inserted the edit as I do wish to start an edit war, another Wiki policy to read up on. I would also advise you not to correct other's user's grammar (unless on an article of course), it comes across as rude and is unnecessary. --UpDown (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your apology. As I said I have not the time or inclination to email you your mistakes. As Wikipedia frowns on pages without real-world notablity (see the current tags on Hazel Bellamy), I am actually going to give up creating UpDown pages on Wikipedia, and instead will create my own "Word" documents on the characters (I would like an article like James Bellamy's for each main character) and episodes, and one day I may even create create my own website to put them on!!--UpDown (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh yes more than happy for this to stop! I have just redirected Hazel Bellamy, to save it being AfD for lacking "real-world information", and have copy and pasted the info onto a word document, which I'm now working on. Once I've done this for all main characters I'll email them to you to see what you think.--UpDown (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Baby

message: Has anyone else noticed that in the last few episodes that the same sets from Upstairs Downstairs were recycled?  The front hall was very slightly altered and the morning room was given a new paint job and new furniture.  If only the writing and characters were up to the same standard.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.139.224 (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, i'm not sure whether i'm supposed to write here but in response to another poster, I too noticed that the se for Upstairs, Downstairs had been recylced. Everything was just re-painted and the furniture was moved around. E.g. I noticed the cabinet that was next to Mr Hudson's pantry was now next to the cooker and the long brown seat that was in the morning room was now in the equivalent of the drawing room. It was exactly the same set, did they use Eaton Place?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.24.249 (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Furniture