Downton Abbey Wiki


aka cillydnaF

Wikia Star Admin
2,460 Edits since joining this wiki
February 22, 2012
  • I live in San Francisco Bay Area
  • My occupation is Software QA
  • I am sometimes a pain in the...


Fandyllic's talk page Edit


Hi, welcome to Downton Abbey Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Patrick Crawley page.

If you need help, and there are no local admins here, you may want to visit the forums on the Community Central Wiki. Looking for live help? Then join us for an upcoming webinar to chat with staff and other Wikia editors. You can also check our Staff blog to keep up-to-date with the latest news and events around Wikia.

Happy editing, LexiLexi@Wikia (help forum | blog)


I really just randomly edit here and there so thanks for the compliment. It's very nice of you and I honestly appreciate it. I am not an admin of any other Wikia project. Unsure exactly that is? CestWhat 02:08, March 19, 2012 (UTC)


Why would there not be a Duke of Crowborough? There are Dukes of Marlborough and Marlborough is an even small town. CestWhat 02:08, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

True, the granting of peerages could be pretty arbitrary, but Marlborough has alot more going on than Crowborough. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Mar 2012 7:29 PM Pacific

Pictures for the home page?Edit

Wouldn't Dr. Richard Clarkson belong with the middle class pictures on the home page? -- CocoaZen 00:04, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Do you think Clarkson should be added to the main page? "The Middle" section is pretty scant. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Mar 2012 7:29 PM Pacific


I would like CestWhat blocked; over the last two days he/she has removed lots of canon information and everytime I re-add the information (which has been confirmed on the show/can be worked out from people's words) he/she keeps re-removing it.

I would kindly liked him/her blocked FOREVER/INDEFINITELY. Thank you HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:39, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

  • I disagree. User using assumptions and lack of understanding of genealogy and title inheritance as well as this being a television series where information changed (Rosamund originally suppose to have two children in the press kit released before the final episodes of S1 were filmed, but now Rosamund is childress on-screen). Tried to explain, but User either ignores, disregards or changes rational (i.e. "Robert's died in 1898 because press kit stated it" changed to "it's implied" when press kit had no such information in it). I could go into more detail, but I'm just trying to have a good Wiki for fans, both new and old, to DA.CestWhat (talk) 04:44, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm not an admin so asking me to block someone is irrelevant. However, I have encouraged CestWhat to adopt this wiki and support CestWhat's position. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2 Sep 2012 9:08 PM Pacific
If he/she adopts this wiki, then I am leaving this wiki. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 15:06, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
Well, you could try to adopt it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3 Sep 2012 8:50 AM Pacific
Who does one adopt a Wiki anyhow?CestWhat (talk) 17:32, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
I have tried to adopt this wiki, but have no reply yet. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:27, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
Adoption requests. You both seem to already know about it. You should try to settle your differences, otherwise neither of you is likely to be able to adopt this wiki. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4 Sep 2012 6:46 AM Pacific
I am willing to put aside the differences as long as CestWhat is willing to STOP removing confirmed and known canon information which is WHY the arguments started in the first place. All of the pages were fine until he/she (I don't know his/her gender) came along and ALTERED them all, by removing canon information.HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:17, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • This thing that we don't agree on "cannon" and "confirmed" information (i.e. the source of Violet's year of birth is a twitter account that isn't affilated with anything and Martha Levinson's year of birth is based on "looking around the same age as Violet"). Or just making up stuff like the press package for Series 1 mentioning Robert and Rosamund's father's first name as Patrick when it's nowhere in it. I could go through each and every edit, but don't want to bore you even more with this nonsense. Tried in good faith to explain CestWhat (talk) 23:11, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
Well you'll have to settle it somehow. By the way, it's "canon". HarryPotterRules1 has good intentions, but is a little loose on what a good citation is. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5 Sep 2012 10:00 AM Pacific
Fandyllic: In the 2011 Christmas Special Violet says that the vase Matthew broke was a wedding present and that she had hated it for half a century; this places her marriage to Patrick in 1969 (as it is half a century before 1919), and places Patrick's death in 1899, as Violet says "'I did not run Downton for 30 years to see it go, lock, stock and barrel, to a stranger from God knows where!"; since they were married in 1869, this confirms his death was in 1899. Agreed? Last time I added this to the page, with this EXACT REFERENCE, CestWhat removed it, that is why I disagree with him/her becoming admin; well known confirmed canon information is removed by him/her all the time.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 05:30, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
Very thorough, but your reasoning has an initial flaw. Just because Violet says "half a century" does not mean definitively 50 years. It could mean 48 or 52 or 46 or 54. You need to understand the difference between interpretation and direct evidence. If you need to interpret a fact, it becomes much less of a fact.
Give me another example. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 18 Oct 2012 9:53 AM Pacific
Violet is thorough with dates; she said Robert married Cora "twenty four years ago"; she's not rounding there, so why would she round off the years she was in charge? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:10, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
Again, this is your interpretation ("Violet is thorough with dates"). Now if you found an article of some sort that basically agreed with you that she meant exactly 50 years, then that would be a proper citation. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 18 Oct 2012 12:20 PM Pacific


Hello. I requested that the higher-ups at Wiki make me an admin and just needed some other contributors to support it. Just wondering if you wouldn't mind adding your name?User_blog:CestWhat/Admin_request CestWhat (talk) 13:02, September 21, 2012 (UTC)


I've written up my case again for being admin. Does that mean you'll lend me your support? CestWhat (talk) 18:48, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering if you were going to vote on the Admin question? CestWhat (talk) 04:09, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

I will eventually. I'm hoping for more feedback. Even if you or HarryPotterRules1 gets more votes, this wiki will never run smoothly until you two can figure out how to get along. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 19 Oct 2012 4:06 PM Pacific
I'm too annoyed with CestWhat at the moment to actually share secrets/information/important things with him/her, but I will be civil, but that is IT. Until I get apologies for things he/she removed that I have now proved to be canon, I will never be anything but civil. Apology... or nothing. That is the only compromise I am willing to make at the moment. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:54, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Temporary Bureaucrat Power? Edit

Hi Fandyllic. Given the ongoing arguments between CestWhat and Harry Potter Rules, I am unwilling to grant admin rights to either one at this time. The Forum:Adminship does not seem to have attracted input from very many of the users here, even though Special:ListUsers shows quite a few recent contributors. I feel that there is no "right answer" at the moment.

Given your experience on other wikis and evident interest in this one, I was wondering if you would like to step up and be a temporary bureaucrat here. Once the situation is more stable, and perhaps some basic community guidelines on acceptable sources for articles have been established, you could help the community choose a more permanent wiki leadership team that the entire community can agree about. -- Wendy (talk)@Wikia 23:28, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

I'm too annoyed with CestWhat at the moment to actually share secrets/information/important things with him/her, but I will be civil, but that is IT. Until I get apologies for things he/she removed that I have now proved to be canon, I will never be anything but civil. Apology... or nothing. That is the only compromise I am willing to make at the moment. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:54, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Fandyllic you are now temporary bureaucrat :). I understand about Wowwiki, and appreciate that you are willing to invest some time here as well. I will reiterate that it seems worth looking at the other contributors here to see if any might be more neutral, and yes, agreeing to some basic rules would be an excellent first step. Let me know if I can help out with anything! -- Wendy (talk)@Wikia 01:15, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

HarryPotterRuels1 - I'm glad you want to be civil; but I think that is a good goal for any interaction on a wiki and should be basic behavior, not a compromise. It is certainly good for anybody who wishes to be an admin. Wikis mean finding a way to work together with people, even when you disagree. -- Wendy (talk)@Wikia 01:15, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
Do we have to go over again that this isn't cannon information by stretch that I removed. In fact, User:HarryPotterRules has removed cannon information (i.e. Matthew saying that his great-great grandfather was a younger son of the 3rd Earl). To rehash this a bit, I disagree with the facts HPR wrote, he ignored anything showing why this information wasn't accurate and then asked User:Fandyllic to block to me. Rather then just "I shouldn't be block, but block User:HarryPotterRules" or get upset at the contributor, I just pointed again why the information (who is Great Aunt Roberta, relationship between the Earls of Granthams, etc...) was inaccurate. If there was a better way to do this, I'm all ears, but I really don't know to deal with a contributor is adding inaccurate information (or at least unconfirmed information) and unwilling to listen when this is explained without personal attacks. CestWhat (talk) 22:41, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
Read this message ( I got from User:HarryPotterRules after the Series 3 premiere episode. It's incredibly negative and personal. We disagreed about how the Earls of Granthams are related to each other. HPR maintains that it must be from father to son each time and I pointed out that we don't know since it would be any other possible rather (the 2nd Ear is the brother/grandson/nephew/first cousin/whatever of the 1st Earl). I didn't use any personal attacks or insult HPR (which I certainly got), but then on the premiere I got that message and then I watched the episode and HPR wasn't even accurate. HRP told me that Matthew said his great-great grandfather was a younger son of the 2nd Earl (which would fit into each time a father to son inheritance of the Earldom), but Matthew didn't even say that (his great-great grandfather was the younger of the 3rd Earl). I pointed this out (without any mention of the mean message I got or making it personal about us), and User:HarryPotterRules told me that the show was wrong. Again, I didn't make it personal, but I do find it hard to "work things out" when the information in the show itself is ignore to help prove me wrong in HPR's mind. What was I suppose to do? CestWhat (talk) 23:09, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
Well, given that, as far as we knew, it went father to son, as Earldoms/Dukedoms and Viscounts tend to do, it would have been First Earl, Second Earl, Third Earl, Fourth Earl, Patrick, Robert, which WOULD make Matthew's comment wrong: Now, of course, we know that the child of either the third earl or the fourth earl had to have died before becoming Earl, so that the CORRECT relationship between Matthew and Robert could be created on their Family Tree.
As for removing Canon information, I can safely say that you did. On The page of "Susan MacClare, Marchioness of Flintshire." I wrote that Susan visited Downton at least once, which we KNOW she did. (The Dowager herself says "I wondered about that, well, obviously she's forgotten the distance between the girls's rooms and the bachelors corridor" meaning that Susan DID come to Downton. You of course, in your high-handed arrogance, removed it under the "I know best" perogative. Trust me, you are ANYTHING but innocent, man/woman (can someone PLEASE tell me your gender?!) As for what you were supposed to do, well. Play the episode with subtitles on, take a PICTURE and upload it as proof. That would have worked. K? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:15, October 25, 2012 (UTC)


Beyond the speculative "source" for 1889, I have been threaten by another user in a way I have never even come close to doing. "I will hurt you." is very upsetting to me.,_Marquess_of_Flintshire?diff=14386&oldid=14381 CestWhat (talk) 02:48, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Still upset on this, but if User:HPR is going to be a [fill in the blank], I'll alive, although it's distressing. User:HPR is making this all about me and wish put that energy into explaining the bad edits. It's scary that User:HPR isn't realizing how wrong threatening to hurt people that bugs them over edits. CestWhat (talk) 03:54, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

It is usually about you: I do not mind you removing edits that are wrong - but on several occasions you have removed canon information: threatening you seems to be the only way that worked - since the canon information, now discussed between me and Seth Cooper, is still there. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 14:47, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

I was shocked and near tears when I read that threat, but was willing to let it go, but seriously STOP IT! I know User:Fandyllic doesn't like to take sides or ignore one side over the other (I appreciated that during the first time User:HPR demanded I be permantly blocked from contributing), but I am asking you to step up here for a least a temporary block for 2 or 3 days to get across that treats are not the answer. It's only fair at this point when I am being blamed for a treat made against me. CestWhat (talk) 16:48, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

I do understand that threats are not the answer - but so far I've been unable to come to an agreement with you since YOU are not prepared to compromise with me either - so threatening you WAS the only way to get the information to stay there. And, given that the information still remains - and the evidence behind the information is on the wall of either me or Seth Cooper - it has, evidently, worked. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:56, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

HarryPotterRules1, you just don't get it. Threats are never the answer. If you think I can even begin to support anything you propose before you apologize, you are dead wrong. Keep that in mind. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Nov 2012 7:29 AM Pacific
I will keep it in mind, but now see it from MY point of view. I discuss something with Seth (it's on either my talk page or his) and we come to an agreement that we should state in the article that Patrick died between 1899 and 1912, but the ABSOLUTE date is unknown - and we also agreed that the whole "married for thirty years" thing should be there too. As well as this, the information about Susan visiting - which is where the threat began - was discussed and agreed. This is fine - Seth and I have come to an agreement: I add it to the article. MINUTES (AND I MEAN MINUTES!) later, CestWhat has removed it, claiming it's wrong, WHEN THE EVIDENCE IS ON ONE OF THE PAGES OF THE PEOPLE WHO DISCUSSED IT. THREE TIMES I told CestWhat about that, but it was still removed. So, the ONLY other option (as rational discussion where I direct CestWhat to a page with evidence has failed) is to threaten. It worked, the evidence is still there. I KNOW that it was wrong - but there were no other options other than an edit war starting, which was something nobody on the wiki needed again. So, threatening was the last option I'd been reduced to. I DID ask for CestWhat to be blocked, so that the evidence couldn't be removed, but you did nothing. Thus, the threat had to happen to keep the information there. That, as thus explained, keeps me in the "innocent and having to defend my edits which had been agreed on with A major important editor on this site" category and places CestWhat in the "I am a troll who removes Edits" category. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:17, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Getting Seth to agree does not solve anything. Seth is no more an authority than you. I do see CestWhat's over-zealous propensity to remove content and will issue a warning. But you will need to apologize first, despite your belief that you need to stand your ground and wait for CestWhat's apology. This is my condition as current acting admin and will go along way to you proving you are willing to negotiate and move beyond the belief that threats work.

It is up to you to decide. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Nov 2012 1:57 PM Pacific

I do not believe threats work ALL the time - just when neccessary after there are no remaining options (given that I showed valid references, a discussion page and wished for the perpetrator to be blocked so that an Edit war could be avoided) left that can be acted on. In this case, there were none. At the time, you were not an admin, and the WIKI COMMUNITY people weren't helping, so we had no way, apart from me threatening, since I was not willing to compromise on KNOWN CANON INFORMATION and allow CestWhat to get away with removing it and ruining the wiki. Given that nothing was done, and he/she still removed it several times, and threat was the option I was left with. Next time, maybe if someone would honor my request to block said editor, this could be avoided. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:32, November 1, 2012 (UTC)
I guess you'd rather be banned than apologize. I'll give you a couple days before I act. Please study the idea of canon. You obviously don't understand what it is. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Nov 2012 2:37 PM Pacific
Canon Information: Information that is outright stated on the show/in the book (if we refer to literature); information that is confirmed by WORDOFGOD (e.g. Dumbledore being gay revealed by J.K. Rowling despite not being mentioned in the books AT ALL); information released in side articles (e.g. press packs). Trust me, I do know what it is. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:54, November 1, 2012 (UTC)
Then you also know that circuitous chains of reasoning from canon sources does not make the conclusion canon. However, you have repeatedly acted as if derived info is canon. It is not and you have not used original sources for your references. The whole reason for canon is that we don't need to trust you, but for what you use as "canon" we do, so it isn't. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Nov 2012 3:18 PM Pacific


Hi, any way to delete this useless article CestWhat (talk) 23:27, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Done. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Oct 2012 3:31 PM Pacific

Roberta againEdit

Article to delete: Mr Gordon

When Maj. Gordon arrives at Downton Abbey, he claims to be related and have a connection to the house. Edith tells him about an aunt in 1860s who married a Gordon. Again the same situation where HarryPotterRules insists that must be Roberta and therefore types it into the article as fact even if there is nothing even close that proves this is true. CestWhat (talk) 03:52, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

Not going to delete Roberta Gordon or Mr Gordon, but put an ominous {{Accuracy}} tag at the top of each and moved non-refs to Notes sections. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 29 Oct 2012 12:53 PM Pacific

Thank you, Fandyllic.

I changed Roberta to Roberta Gordon because Edith notes that her father discovered "a great aunt in the 1860s" correct? Correct. We know Robert has one aunt - James Crawley's mother - so the only other great-aunt that could possibly be the woman who "married a Gordon" is the sister that Violet mentions - namely Roberta. Speaking of which, I have a question about her article. The article says that she "loaded the guns" for the East India Company - but we only know she loaded the guns, we do not know if it was for the English. Should that be removed? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:11, October 29, 2012 (UTC)
Why you changed it is never the answer we need. We need to know if the "why" is supported by primary sources, which it often is not. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 30 Oct 2012 9:57 AM Pacific
In fitting with User:HPR's pattern, there is a misrepresentation going on here. User:HPR claims to be discussing this with User:Seth_Cooper implying support. While User:HPR has written on his wall, User:SC hasn't responded let alone agreed. I would that note a month ago, when I was discussing this and every other specific issue I had, User:AvatarRokusGhost supported me and I quote, "Yes, you have a point regarding all of this. Regarding canon information, we should go with what's confirmed, not speculation about what's likely." I get that adding "possibly" or "perhaps" seems like a compromise, but User:HPR or any other contributors has so many avenues for speculation (the comment section, the blogging forum, fanfic websites), that we ought to keep the articles themselves are must sticking to sourced material. I would note that I noticed this was then I was reading Robert's entry and a comment about how did we get 1869 as his year and the flimsy response of "it fits." The real compromise would be for User:HRP and myself and others who have speculative and "it fits"-type information to have it the comment section rather then the article itself.CestWhat (talk) 17:07, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

If you two could compromise on anything, that would be a major victory. My preference is to either put speculation in a "Speculation" section (I'll make a section template for it) if the speculation is based on piecing together vague statements in the show, put it in a "Notes" section if there is some trail of evidence to support it, or in Comments if it is merely musing by a viewer with little or no evidence at all to support it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 30 Oct 2012 9:57 AM Pacific
I have stated before that once CestWhat apologises for removing information that has now been agreed on - e.g. Violet's husband dying between 1899 and 1911 - then I will compromise with him/her: until then, as far as I am concerned, he/she is nothing more than an insignificant little ass to me. K? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:52, October 31, 2012 (UTC)
Will you apologize for threatening CestWhat? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Nov 2012 7:27 AM Pacific
When I've had my apology, yes, but not even so much as 1/6,0000000000000th of a second before. That is my ONE condition. I've been waiting for that apology for WEEKS - once I have it, I'll apologise. —This unsigned comment is by HarryPotterRules1 (talkcontribs) 14:11, November 1, 2012‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
Well, you may never get your apology, because if I were CestWhat, I would not apologize. You made a threat. CestWhat just changed some content. This all further demonstrates your inability to understand the difference between the two acts. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Nov 2012 1:27 PM Pacific
As I've explained before: I shall apologise (I do not mind doing so) once CestWhat apologises for removing the information - even after the best way to write it since ABSOLUTE DATES were not given and the closest possible dates had been discussed. Given that it was CestWhat's constant "Oh, it was written by him, it MUST be wrong." attitude that started this, there will be no apology from me until I've had mine. I WILL apologise, once I've received HIS, but not before. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:40, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Time to play Edit

Hey, I tried to start a quick conversation about time to play via a blog, and was just trying to make sure people on the wiki here saw it and had the chance to participate if they were interested. I'd love it if you could help drum up some conversation around it. I think this is a great show, and a great wiki, so I wanted to make sure you guys were added to the list if you wanted to be. you can see my blog here: thanks for your help with this, I hope you guys decide to participate :D Sena@Wikia 00:21, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Apology Done.Edit

My apology is done. I shall be expecting CestWhat's apology soon. If I do not get one, then I shall be retracting mine - PERMANENTLY, as I do deserve an apology. I know I was in the wrong, but you yourself have said that CestWhat will have to apologise, for they were not entirely in the right either.

Hope I receive an apology soon, so that this wiki can come back up to scratch. Thank you. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:44, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Help please?Edit

Hello, I'm not sure where to ask for help so I hope this is the right place. I'm having a little difficulty in a discussion in the comments on this page: And I wondered where you go when you seem to have reached an impass with someone? Who finally decidedes on an issue? Becaue I'm finding it hard to continue discussing it when the other user seems incapable of bending the least little bit. I'm more than willing to admit if I'm wrong, but some back up would be nice if I'm correct in my arguments. I hope this doesn't seem petty, and thanks for your time. Bluebellanon (talk) 22:39, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

As I have proven Robert DOES know his own family - he knew Matthew was the next heir after James and Patrick, knew that Reginald, his third cousin was a Doctor - and I have linked the page that shows where I got the REFORMATION information from. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:56, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
This wiki IS NOT AN INFO DUMP. HarryPotterRules1 is wrong. If it is not clearly directly related to Downton Abbey, it doesn't belong. I will edit the page accordingly and add a comment. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 15 Nov 2012 3:11 PM Pacific
I never said THIS WIKI is an info dump - I said the SITE I GOT THE INFORMATION AOUT THE REFORMATION FROM was an info dump. READ STUFF RIGHT PLEASE! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:12, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
And you dumped it into this wiki even though it only had relevance due to a strained inference. See how I edited the page to get an idea of how you should go about your changes.
You do know you're riding a fine line, so try adapt some perspective besides your own. You're very lucky to not already be banned and I challenge you to find any Wikia user who disagrees. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 15 Nov 2012 3:24 PM Pacific
It had reference because, as you've stated, there's an ANTI CATHOLIC bit (meaning that NONE of them after Catholic) and Robert EXPLICITELY state that there has NOT been a Catholic Crawley since the reformation; 1648 is the end of the reformation, so EVERY SINGLE CRAWLEY SINCE 1648 IS PROTESTANT - AS I WROTE IN THE ARTICLE. I use VALID and KNOWN information (as the show says it) and still someone's goes freaking ape-shit! Is there NO POSSIBLE WAY TO WIN WITH YOU PEOPLE?! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:28, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
You don't get it. You are not a source. No one who says they watched the show and meticulously noted every bit of dialogue (but never published their notes anywhere for someone to check) is not a source. You can say that you're using what the character Robert Crawley said in the show as a reference, but without some citation to a published work, IT IS NOT A REFERENCE! Please go read my forum post again. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 15 Nov 2012 3:36 PM Pacific
The show states it (Robert said it) and Jullian Fellowes said it and WROTE THE SHOW - so it's WORDOFGOD and canon - which means it belongs.
I have read your forum. You say "This includes the transcripts of the Downton Abbey show" - this episode, when TRANSCRIPTED, will have that line in, so THAT LINE IS CANON which is why I ADDED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE! SEE?! You people just hate me, and I am sure, now, that it is just biased. I haven't even received an apology from CestWhat (which CestWhat said I would get) and it's been nearly 2 weeks! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:40, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
But what you're not taking into account is that your interpretation of the show/dialogue is not canon. You take that line to be 100% accurate and derive dates from it, but that isn't canon - that's just your interpretation of it. Robert could be exagerating (or just plain wrong or lying even) or he could be correct - we don't know. Bluebellanon (talk) 23:46, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and I meant to say - thanks so much for your help with this Fandyllic - I really appreciate it. Bluebellanon (talk) 23:49, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
True, but Jullian Fellowes has stated that is an ANTI-CATHOLIC vibe to the Crawleys, meaning that NONE OF THEM could have been Catholic, which backs up Robert's comment of there not being single Catholic Crawley since the Reformation, see? Also, completely off topic, but could you, Fandyllic check out the page I made: it's; is it ok? Have I got the notes bit right? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:51, November 15, 2012 (UTC)
I too appreciate the help to other people - even if it IS mostly biased and against me - for it's being a good admin. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:51, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

Changing Heading on Page? Edit

It was assumed by some contributors that Robert's father's name was Patrick; HarryPotterRules1 said s/he got the m=name from these lines in Violet's bio in the Series 1 press pack: "Publicly, Violet supports the arrangements made by her late husband. But in reality, once Patrick is dead, she favours her granddaughter Mary over some distant stranger." I can see how people would think that Patrick was the name of the 6th Earl, but a more careful reading show that the quoted section actually refers to James' son and Mary's fiance, which leaves Violet's husband's name unknown. Should the page be renamed to "6th Earl of Grantham" until the prequel series(if Fellowes goes ahead with it) gives a solid answer as to his name? —This unsigned comment is by Dragonrider2 (talkcontribs) 15:10, November 16, 2012‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Without seeing the actual text of the press pack, I can't comment, but also it would help if I knew the specific article you are referring to. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 16 Nov 2012 3:15 PM Pacific This is a working link to the press pack. Violet's bio is at the very top of page 7, so you can read it for yourself. And the page I'm asking about changing is "Patrick Crawley, 6th Earl of Grantham" Dragonrider2 (talk) 23:20, November 16, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, reading the line "But in reality, once Patrick is dead, she favours her grand daughter, Mary, over some distant stranger." The "Patrick" that Violet refers to is clearly Robert's second cousin Patrick, son of his cousin James Crawley (see Page 5) and not his father. I would rewrite the article that suggests Robert's father is named Patrick if it were based on the press pack.
I will upload the press pack to the wiki, but in the mean time you can use the following wiki code (need to use Source mode of the editor) to add any references:
Use for first ref: <ref name="itvDowntonPressPackPg7"> [ ''Downton Abbey Press Pack''] (PDF), Page 7</ref>
Later refs: <ref name="itvDowntonPressPackPg7" />
If you refer a different page number other than 7, change the 7's to the page number. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 17 Nov 2012 9:14 AM Pacific

Not sure if this helps or not, but with you talking about uploading the series 1 press pack I thought I'd mention it. Series 2 press pack is here: and there's a link to the series 3 press pack on this page: . Wasn't sure if this is helpful to anyone or not, but thought I'd leave you the links in case it is! :) Bluebellanon (talk) 19:23, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

Forum for Show Timeline?Edit

I've been wondering lately if it might not by helpful to have a forum regarding the show timeline. Only a few of the epsiodes actually have title cards, and in some (though not all) of the others, it is obvious that there is a time jump either between or within episodes. The internal clues provided aren't always helpful and could lead to differences of opinion as to when a particular episode is set. Just a thought. Dragonrider2 (talk) 20:11, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with a FORUM: a PAGE, called "Timeline" is a good idea though. If Fandyllic wants, I'll set up a page called TIMELINE. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:57, November 17, 2012 (UTC)
Either is fine. There could be a Timeline page, a timeline for each season, and a forum to discuss what should be in the timeline. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 17 Nov 2012 1:53 PM Pacific
I've started a Timeline page, but it's in the very rough stages right now. The information I've put in so far is from memory; I don't have time to do much else right now. Once I get some time to rewatch the episodes and take notes, though, I will add more. In the meantime, anyone who wants can feel free to add or correct what I've got. Dragonrider2 (talk) 01:55, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with something on the Timeline page - I don't think it should be "Episode 1.02" etc, but rather years e.g. "1912", "1913", and so on. That way, we can add stuff from the press pack - which states Cora and Robert years of marriage and Mrs Hughes age, etc. We can also add death dates and marriages them - it'll be a true timeline. Can I alter it, Fandyllic? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:35, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've got to disagree with HPR because I think the Timeline page would be best left in the form it is at the moment. If it's changed we'll be moving towards adding more speculative dates (births, deaths, marriages) rather than just trying to establish when the episodes take place based on information we see actually in the show. Also, the form that it's in now is - I think - what most people will be looking for from a Timeline. People will refer to it when they want to know when a particular episode/event in an episode took place. Knowing the dates of deaths and marriages is unimportant imo, it's the dates of things that occur in the show that people will want to know. Bluebellanon (talk) 20:39, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
We'll leave it for Fandyllic to decide, otherwise you and I will end up like CestWhat and I have - on non speaking terms. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:50, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I've offended you in some way, but why would we end up not speaking? I'd like to think I'm able to get along with people even when I have a difference of opinion with them. After all, we're only talking about changes made to a wiki that we both participate in for fun. It's not the end of the world if things aren't aranged exactly as I would wish them, and I hope other people feel the same. Otherwise it's not going to be much fun at all - nothing ever goes exactly as you would wish them to. Especially when you're taking part in a community like this where everyone gets a say. Bluebellanon (talk) 20:58, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
Oh, no, no. You misunderstand - no, you haven't offended me. I said leave it to Fandyllic because Cestwhat and I didn't and now we're not on speaking terms anymore; I don't want to end up that way with you as well. That was what I meant. You haven't offedned me in anyway, don't worry. But in this case, with Fandyllic being in the admin, it would be better to let him decide then we both have to accept his ruling. It's just easier that way. His ruling is, after all, as admin, law. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:04, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
HPR, what Bluebellanon said is what I was angling for in asking about a timeline page - trying to resonably determine the dates of the episodes. That's the reason what I set it up the way I did. If Fandyllic agrees, I would have no objection to sorting the timeline by year to add stuff from the PP and other official sources, but I think that should come later.
Now, I've got a question about 1.03. There seems to be some confusion about 1.03's date, with Wikipedia saying December 1912 and the 1.03 page here saying March 1913.
The dialogue from 1.03 makes it clear that Pamuk was in Britain for the Albanian talks, Turkey;'s signature is vital, and Cora invities both Napier and Pamuk up for the York and Ainsty Hunt. I did some searching on the Internet last night and today about the York and Ainsty. Today there are two hunts, York and Ainsty South and York and Ainsty North. According to the York and Ainsty North website's history page:, the hunt split into the present North and South Hunts in 1929, so in 1912 the two branches were still a single hunt. The website also says that hounds gather every Wednesday and Saturday from September to March, so I think it possible that the original York and Ainsty met at the same times.
The London Conference of 1912-1913 officially began in September 1912 with preliminary talks; further sessions started on December 16th and ended on January 23rd, 1913 when the Coup of 1913 took place. The Treaty of London was signed on May 30th.
In other words, either December or March could be plausible for 1.03. I'm more inclined to go with December 1912 since the continuing of the talks was apparently effective nulled by the coup, but I'd like to know what others think. Dragonrider2 (talk) 21:32, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
If wikipedia says that it was in December, then it was December, as the ones from Wikipedia are the OFFICIAL synopsis from which shows the dates. That's how we KNOW Sybil died in Autumn 1920; it said so on when the synopsis was released. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:46, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

Delete please.Edit

Someone has made this page Mr. Patmore when Mrs Patmore is not actually married; she is merely a "Mrs" by courtesy. Could you remove it please? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:36, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

Done. Maybe you could add a note that the "Mrs." is a matter of convention on the Beryl Patmore page. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 20 Nov 2012 3:02 PM Pacific

Mr. PatmoreEdit

If you were curious, found this off a Google search CestWhat (talk) 23:08, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

Mrs Patmore and Mrs Hughes are both unmarried: the "Mrs" is a courtsey title due to their jobs. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:20, November 20, 2012 (UTC)
I suppose it is a form of managerial title, but it would be interesting to know how it came about. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 20 Nov 2012 5:21 PM Pacific
Found an interesting document at Working Papers in Economic and Social History at Cambridge U.'s web site. Mistresses and marriage: or, a short history of the Mrs (PDF) (or [1]) by Amy Louise Erickson. She says, "In the middle of the eighteenth century, 'Mrs' did not describe a married woman: it described a woman who governed subjects (i.e., employees or servants or apprentices) or a woman who was skilled or who taught." That seems to cover the issue. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 20 Nov 2012 5:33 PM Pacific


I may be clutching at straws here, but Branson's surname being an ENGLISH surname along with Tom's words of "My daughter is Irish and she'll be Catholic, like her father." that made me think of this.

We know Tom is Irish - and so is his brother judging by the accent - but is his father? Tom doesn't say that his parents are Irish, only that he and his daughter are Irish - and we know Kieran is - so could it be possible or am I just clutching at straws? Or maybe only is mother is Irish and his father is English? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:04, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

It's possible Tom Branson's father is not Irish by birth or that the family was originally not from Ireland, but without some supporting evidence beyond a name, it is pure speculation. Julian Fellowes probably had some reason for choosing the name "Branson" and knowing it was not an Irish name, but unless he or one of the show's creators/collaborators gives a hint as to why, we don't know.
Please don't put this in the article about Tom Branson (or a speculative father article), but your thoughts are fine for a comment or a forum post. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 24 Nov 2012 6:15 PM Pacific
Oh, I'm not going to put it in the article; I just thought I'd ask. It just truck me as odd due to tom saying "like her father" instead of "like my family." HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:18, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
Well, I read "like her father" as in contrast to her mother, Sybil, who was almost certainly Anglican, which is no mystery. A single sentence really is poor context to draw anything more out of. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 24 Nov 2012 6:23 PM Pacific
Yeah, I did say I was probably clutching at straws - it just intrigued me, that's all. Between you and me, do you think Mr Branson is dead? We never hear him mentions; cousins, siblings, mother, but not father. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:04, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I think Mr. Branson is dead. Perhaps his death is related to why Tom went to England to work. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 24 Nov 2012 8:08 PM Pacific
I think Tom came over to work because Kieran, a drunken baboon, squandered any money he made - which was meant to be sent to the family - on beer, so Tom had to come over too. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:53, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

A couple of questions.Edit

Hello. I hope it's okay that I ask you a couple of questions here? One thing I was wondering was if it might be useful to have a sandbox type page - where people can practice making edits - it might encourage new people to have a go and take part and give people a place where it's not important if you make mistakes at first. I think I've seen something like this at a different wiki but I could be wrong, so appologies if it's not a do-able idea.
I was also wondering if there was a set template or style we should be following when making/editing pages - is the prefered style to have it in different headings like this: Biography, Personality, Relationships, Quotes, Behind the Scenes and then References - or some are set out with a biography and then headings for each series - and yet some others have no seperate headings at all. Is it just up to whoever makes/edits the page what headings if any they use? If there isn't a suggested template/style to follow might it be helpful to have one? Bluebellanon (talk) 20:27, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

An excellent set of ideas. Making a sandbox page is easily done. Boilerplate pages are a bit more work, but I can start some. If you have time to work on some proposals for these types of pages that would be even better.
I've been trying to slowly add infrastructure to this wiki, but I don't have a ton of time. However, I'll stub out some of the things you've mentioned. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Nov 2012 2:14 PM Pacific
Oh, cool, I'm glad you think so. :) I'm new so I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the term boilerplate. Would a post in the watercooler section be a good place to make a post about possible template/style to follow for making pages? That way it's open for everyone to make suggestions/improvements. Bluebellanon (talk) 22:27, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
Please do start a forum post about style guidelines or article templates to follow. On many wikis the term "boilerplate" is used for a template article with the details left out.
Sandbox is created, so please take a look. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Nov 2012 2:32 PM Pacific
I'll give that a think and make a forum post about it later then. I saw the sandbox! Thanks for that. :)
Another thing I was just thinking about was whether it might be helpful to have a list of useful links/helpful info on the front page. For instance I only just found this page: That could because I missed a really obvious link xD, but if not I more obvious link to it somewhere might be helpful? It seems like a page that would be helpful for new users. It could maybe also have a list of places to ask for help, a link to the sandox etc? Bluebellanon (talk) 22:56, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

Duneagle CastleEdit

Until the Christmas Special broadcasts, should we use a picture of Inverary Castle (the filming location for Duneagle Castle) to add a picture onto the page, since it is, technically, Duneagle castle since that was where they filmed. Would this be alright, as Highclere Castle didn't change appearance in the show, so it's unlikely that Inverary Castle will too? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:51, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean "Inveraray Castle"? Otherwise, seems like an okay idea. If something changes, we can change the picture. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Nov 2012 2:59 PM Pacific

I did mean that, yes. I'll add in a picture. Thank you! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:51, November 26, 2012 (UTC)


I've accidentally created a category called "ar" at this page: Albert C. and wasn't sure how to go about deleting it. Sorry about that! Not even sure how it happened! Bluebellanon (talk) 11:28, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

Opinion please? Edit

Hello, sorry to bother you again so soon. I'm having a little difference off opinion with HarryPotterRules1 about this page: Lady Agatha MacClare which they have edited from Lady Agatha to include a last name. I say the second name is only speculation at this point, not canon information. I don't want to start an edit war or anything and we're not getting anywhere with our disscussion so I thought a second opinion might be helpful. Thanks! Bluebellanon (talk) 01:23, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Page renamed to Lady Agatha and edited with MacClare moved to notes. It's not a matter of opinion. If you can't prove something, it should change to support that which is unproved. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Nov 2012 7:07 PM Pacific
Thank, I tried saying as much to HPR1, but I found them very hard to talk to. Bluebellanon (talk) 08:43, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Could you please look at this.Edit

The three reference links below show that the marriage age before 1829 is 16; could you read them for me, and answer the question as to whether this means that the 6th Earl of Grantham's birthdate, along with that of Violet's could not be any later than 1854 (since they'd have to be 16 to be married by January 1870 as Violet's words of hating the vase for "half a century" in January 1920 state)?

Thank you. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:08, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

You're getting better, but your reference is still derivative and not direct. Also, presumes she was married in Scotland (various "states" like Scotland and Wales may have different marital laws than England proper) and is a little suspect, since it isn't a government source.
Lastly, this source from the UK Parliament says: "In 1929, in response to a campaign by the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship, Parliament raised the age limit to 16 for both sexes in the Ages of Marriage Act. This is still the minimum age." This implies that somewhere the age limit was lower than 16 prior to 1929 and most likely for women (because men have historically tried to marry girls as young as possible). -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 29 Nov 2012 9:09 AM Pacific

I just picked the three reference links from wikipedia; I did know one was Scotland, but she DOES have Scottish relatives, so it's not ENTIRELY impossible. I'm glad I'm getting better. I was looking for "marriage age before 1929", which is where I found those references (as my search took me to wikipedia - and they were three reference links on there. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:01, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

It's okay not to have perfect references, if you note what you know is missing or speculative. However, a solid reference is likely to prevent the statement it supports from getting edited, rewritten, or removed. You clearly think alot about the various things you write down, you just to need to be more careful about putting stuff down as solidly supported facts when they are more like deduced information that has a good chance of being true, but rests on assumptions that will make the statement false if they are proven wrong.
Just keep looking for better references and go back and improve them as much as possible. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 29 Nov 2012 6:07 PM Pacific
Gotcha. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 07:28, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

I have a question Edit

In Episode 3.03, was the Crawley Family are getting into the cars to go to Edith's wedding, we can hear Robert say "He was a cousin of Granny's".

That line confused me. Does Robert mean that the person was "a cousin of his grandmother" or "a cousin of Violet's"? I want to be sure when I make the page. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:20, December 7, 2012 (UTC)

You would need to know who Robert speaking to at minimum. Without that info, there isn't enough context. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7 Dec 2012 1:41 PM Pacific

Note, it's not Edith's wedding, actually. It's the trip to "Downton Place". Matthew exits, followed by Mary, who invites Edith to go with them - Edith agrees; Robert then exits, putting on his hat, and Cora follows. Then Carson stops her to tell her about Mrs Hughes being ill.

Robert's exact words are "This is Banning: he was a cousin of Granny's." The image of the scene is below: 12345533

So... it's Cora, I think, that he's speaking to. D'you think he means Violet or His (Robert's) grandmother? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:01, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Granny" be Violet? Especially, if as you say that Sir Anthony is taking "Granny and Isobel". Robert appears to be talking to either Edith or Mary or both. Either way, Granny to Edith and Mary would be Violet. So, "Banning" would be Violet's cousin. Unfortunately, we don't know if the cousin is named Banning Crawley or Something Banning, so that also remains a little ambiguous. Also, the problem here is that sometimes people refer to second cousins as cousins, so there is a chance that Banning is not a first cousin to Violet. However, if you noted these ambiguities, this scene as a reference would be ok. Again, a reference to a transcript would be best. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8 Dec 2012 2:17 PM Pacific
It's Something Banning; a cousin of Violet's would NOT be a Crawley; a cousin of Robert's father would be a Crawley (unless it's related through the 6th earl's mother, of course, but that's not up for discussion here.)
Yes; Isobel goes with Violet and Anthony. Edith, Mary and Matthew go together, Cora and Robert go together, and presumably Tom and Sybil go with them.
So, if I was to state that "Banning" may be a first or second cousin of Violet - and in turn, Roberta, who is Violet's (apparently elder) sister -  it would be ok? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:43, December 9, 2012 (UTC)
Go for it. Mention the stuff that is uncertain in a "Notes" section. Yeah, I wasn't thinking too deeply about it, but Violet's cousin would likely not be a Crawley. Also, Banning is very unlikely to be a first name. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8 Dec 2012 4:53 PM Pacific
Is Banning ok? Yes, Banning is a HORRIBLE first name, and Violet's cousins would not be Crawleys. Check the page out, tell me if it's ok. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:03, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

Did some editing, but it looks good. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9 Dec 2012 11:45 AM Pacific
That's good! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:28, December 10, 2012 (UTC)

Cousin FreddieEdit

The "Cousin Freddie" mentioned in Episode 2 by Sybil; I want your opinion on a theory I have concerning him. I think he might be Rosamund's child - for these reasons. 1) in Episode 3.02 Mary says "There's only Mama and Uncle Harold to inherit it when she's gone"; if Freddie was Harold's son, Mary would have mentioned that Freddie would have inherited it after Harold. 2) Freddie is studying in Bath; Bath is in the UK - not America, which would make it highly impractical for someone from America to study there. As well as this, we know he's not staying at Downton, since Mary says they don't "have to eat with him", which they would if he was staying at Downton. As far as I am concerned (I won't add anything to the article unless I have your agreement) this makes Freddie Rosamund's son.

Your thoughts? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:57, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

You're missing a few things in your convoluted logic, but there is probably enough to hang a notes inclusion on. Again we have the cousin vs. second cousin issue. If Freddie were actually a close second cousin, then the possibilities of his parents could be much larger. However, as the only sibling of Robert known so far is Rosamund, any first cousins from that side would have to be Rosamund's children. Unfortunately, you have given no good evidence that Freddie is not American besides your case that he's supposed to be studying in Bath. Many American students came to study in England, especially the wealthy ones. For the wealthy, the impracticality is no more or less than a boarding school. Also, if Freddie is studying in Bath in southern England, that is quite far from where Downton is supposed to be in Yorkshire, so he would be highly unlikely to live there and commute to college. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11 Dec 2012 3:54 PM Pacific
Ok. On a side note: I believe it's the Series 1 press pack that confirms Rosamund is Robert's ONLY sibling - that and Isobel and Violet's words in Episode 3.08 too.
Surely, given the perillous situation of Downton, Mary would have said if Harold had someone to succeed him; she didn't. She just said "Mama and Uncle Harold"; this to me, means Harold has NO children. So, as Freddie is a cousin, the ONLY solution - since we're assuming he's a first cousin (there's no other possible relations, since the 2012 Christmas Special shows Rose is the ONLY child of the Flintshire's) - is that he is Rosamund's son. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:07, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
Tenuous, but you could add to the notes that Freddie is likely Rosamund's son based on no evidence that Harold has children and that Cora has only Harold for a sibling. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11 Dec 2012 4:22 PM Pacific
Take a look at the page: tell me if that's alright? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:42, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
Fill in the series # and episode # in the ref and it will be good. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11 Dec 2012 4:48 PM Pacific
Filled in. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:08, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
Also, should I add "Rosamund Painswick", "Marmaduke Painswick", "Cyril Painswick", "Lavinia Painswick", "Lavinia's Husband", "Violet" and "The 6th Earl" into Freddie's family infobox?HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:08, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
Relatives should only be put into the infobox when a character's family has been definitively established. Otherwise, you have to go about undoing stuff when you find out you're wrong. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11 Dec 2012 5:33 PM Pacific
Ok. Thanks anyway. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:44, December 12, 2012 (UTC)

Coding help.Edit

Hello, I wondered if you could help me. I noticed that when you edit the cast section on the Downton Abbey (Programme) page, you are taken to the cast page to do so. Does this means that if anyone edits the cast page it automatically appears in the cast section of the Downton Abbey (Programme) page? If so could you tell me the code/how you do this if that's not too much trouble? I just think it's a really niffty thing and it'd be useful to know how to do for another wiki that I've joined. Bluebellanon (talk) 12:37, December 13, 2012 (UTC)

Series 3, Christmas SpecialEdit

Going from the CS picture of Carson with little Sybil that has been leaked, I think it possible that the CS is set is September 1921 instead of 1920. It is speculation and not directly confirmed, so would you note that on the page?

My reasoning is as follows: Sybil was born somwhere around June/July/August 1920, apparently. If the CS was set that September she would only be, at most, three months old. In the picture with Carson, she looks more like she's a year old. Also the Radio Times article from November 22 and the Press Release on SpoilerTV from last week, while they do confrim that the CS is set in September, no specific mention is made of the year.

However, if you think that the year should be removed from the page until the CS airs then I will accept it. Dragonrider2 (talk) 14:39, December 14, 2012 (UTC)

You can always add a section called "Speculation" and put your speculations there. If they turn out to be true you could move them into the "Notes" section or other parts of the article. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 14 Dec 2012 8:48 AM Pacific

Molesley's name Edit

The Chronicles of Downton Abbey states his name is Alfred, yet his page says "Joseph"; can I change it because The Chronicles of Downton Abbey comes above everything (except the show, which hasn't said a name and Jullian Fellowes himself.) HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:28, December 14, 2012 (UTC)

Make a citation with the page number and a fragment from the book where it says his name from the The Chronicles of Downton Abbey and you can change it. The Joseph appears to come only from IMDB which is not a fully reliable source. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 14 Dec 2012 2:51 PM Pacific
Woot! Thanks! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 07:05, December 15, 2012 (UTC)
If this was a real person, it would be either Joseph or Alfred. But it's a TV series that makes this small mistakes. I don't believe it's a clear cut as just being Alfred. The person who actually wrote the sited sourced doesn't actually know if it's Alfred so think that ought to be given some weight ( Also nowhere on any part of is he called Alfred, but does credit Kevin Doyle as Joseph Molesley ( Also no cast interview ever call him Alfred Molesley, but Siobhan Finneran does call him Joseph Molesley. ( Plus it's been taken down, Kevin Doyle's agent's company's website had him as Joseph Molesley. The South African broadcaster of DA has him as Joseph Molesley (  Again one source stating Alfred isn't that clear cut. CestWhat (talk) 06:09, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
All I know is all the sources you just dug up weren't in the article, so if you want to add them to the article, that's fine. However, none of the sources you named has actually been touched by Julian Fellowes where as The Chronicles... at least had him involved. Jessica's tweet does not support Joseph or Alfred. The two other sources come from secondary sources. I will say Jessica's tweet makes me think she may have had the book ghost-written and she is less trustworthy because of her ignorance.
Feel free to add the controversy to the article, but it stays Alfred Molesley until you can get a better contravening source. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 16 Dec 2012 4:49 PM Pacific

Can you check this?Edit

The image enclosed states that the Christmas Special, set in September 1921 "starts nine months after we last saw the Crawleys and their staff, still grieving Sybil's death." (I've underlined it in the image included here Fandyllic for Wiki - the image is this webpage:

If I've read it right, it's saying that the Crawleys -in September 1921 - are still mourning Sybil nine months after her death. So... that means Sybil was born in JANUARY 1921 (as that is NINE MONTHS BEFORE September 1921). I've added it to both pages as a reference, but thought I'd ask here too.

Do you agree--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:50, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's what the article says. It says: "The episode starts nine months after we last saw the Crawleys and their staff, still grieving Sybil's death." I read that as meaning that the Christmas Special is set 9 months after series 3 ended, not nine months after Sybil died. Sybil died in episode 3.05 - there are 3 more episodes after that one and we don't know exactly how much time passed in the meantime. --Bluebellanon (talk) 01:13, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
It's a few weeks, I think; baby Sybbie is still in blankets and a pram. Episode 3.06 starts after Sybil's funeral - that might have been HOURS later, as the men come to take her body at the end of episode 3.05. I thought I'd ask Fandyllic anyway - his word is law. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:19, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Babies are in prams for more than a few weeks, that's evidence of nothing. Beside which, your reasoning is still only calculation. And it's calculation using a secondary source. Bluebellanon (talk) 01:24, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
We have to use secondary sources, I'm afraid. There's no primary source since apart from Episode 3.01 we get no indication of how long there is between episodes. Apart from 2 small hints. Mary and Matthew were on their honeymoon for two months (Martha says "two months") and a month later, Edith is jilted at the altar (she says: "I can have it all prepared in a month.)
I know babies are in a pram for more than a few weeks, but Sybil's body is taken in Episode 3.05 and the funeral is just before Episode 3.06 and the men arrived at the end of Episode 3.05 - that means there's days (maybe a week, two at most) between the episodes. Whatever the case, I'm going by Fandyllic's judgement. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:31, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
My point was that using calculation is not a good reference - and it's especially not a good reference when it's using a secondary source. Bluebellanon (talk) 01:42, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
I didn't disagreee with you - I was merely stating that we have no idea, except for a few dates where we HAVE to use calculation, to know when Series 3 is set (apart from it being AFTER Spring 1920, as that is when Series 3 Episode 1 is). HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:44, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
We don't have to use calculation. If you agree that using calculation is a bad reference then why do you do it? If we don't know something for definite then saying nothing is preferable. Bluebellanon (talk) 01:47, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
We want to be accurate, on this wiki, do we not? So, the ONLY way to do this - on occasions where no dates are provided on screen - is to use secondary sources and calculations from the words people say on screen. There's NO OTHER OPTIONS in those cases. This is one of those cases. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:49, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
But but . . . the whole point of not using calculation is that it's not exactly accurate. There is another option, and that is not to give out information that may be incorrect. Saying nothing and not giving a date has the advantage of being completely accurate. I just- *gives up and goes off to have a drink* Bluebellanon (talk) 01:57, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but not giving dates leads to arguments - calculation provides the dates (when there are no on screen titles) by using information said on screen - and prevents any arguments by settling the fact. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:00, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes. Look at us right now. Avoiding arguments. I can see what you mean. It works so well. That's what we're doing right now alright, avoiding arguments.
But the thing is, it feels like what you want to do is settle the fact forever in your favour - that you want your pov, your opinion, to win. This is a community wikia. When dates are in question people should be able to decide for themselves when they think a thing is set using the information given in the show - that's if they even think it is important at all. Giving dates that are hotly debated doesn't do that. And it in no way shape or form avoids arguments. If anything it creates more. Bluebellanon (talk) 02:07, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
The only arguments I usually have are when You - or CestWhat - remove the references I've added by what we're able to work out from a) what we can SEE on screen, b) what we're able to work out (dates, ages, etc) and c) from what we get from other references, such as the one I began this section with. I have NO other arguments apart from that. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:11, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Given the low number of active members at this wikia, the fact that you have regular issues with two of them hardly speaks highly of yourself. I'm also pretty sure that other people disagree with some of your edits at times.
And we're also back to the fact that calculation is not a good reference. You shouldn't be using anything you've "worked out" as a reference. Bluebellanon (talk) 02:17, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Other people disagree yes, but they discuss rationally (rather than creating edit wars, like you and CestWhat do) when changing/disagreeing with things I write.
Since you are, frankly, being an incorrigible little *ahem*, I shall be going to bed, and leaving you for tonight. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:23, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
I think other people disagree and then give up talking to you in the face of your ability to talk in circles, not listen to points that are made to you again and again, and the way you ignore certain things to suit yourself. Talking to you is exhausting. The only difference is that I'm not going to let you talk me down the way you do everyone else. Bluebellanon (talk) 02:31, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Then consider yourself on the same terms with me as CestWhat. Non speaking. He and I have an agreement now - I don't meddle with his, and he doesn't meddle with mine (I'm still waiting for an apology from him too) so we're able to be civil. It seems we've ended up the same way. Without the "civil" part, that is. Bext time, just agree with me, it's easier. And, this wasn't even directed at you - it was directed at Fandyllic! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:38, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to just agree with you to avoid you arguing with me. That's kind of my whole point. Bluebellanon (talk) 02:42, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Yet, you choosing to "disagree" with me, caused this argument. Next time, don't intefere with my things posted on walls that are not yours. Ok? I won't have to officially strike you onto my "People I Am No Longer Civil With" list, if you agree with me. Pathetic, but I've provided references many times, asked for stuff not to be removed until I can ask Fandyllic about it (as his word is law here) but you STILL kept removing it. It makes you, officially, just as bad. Got it? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:47, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
That's not how a community works, hun. In a community everyone gets a say. Bluebellanon (talk) 02:55, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Never disagreed with that. But when an edit war starts (which it had with you and me) the person who started the edit war - in this case you, by removing the bit on "Mrs Branson" should have no right to speak for the rest of their tenure on the wiki. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:59, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
You do realise that an edit war takes two people right?
I had a perfectly valid reason for removing that information and stated it. More than once. Bluebellanon (talk) 03:08, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and though I can see WHY you removed it, I stated that I would ask Fandyllic for his opinion as he is ADMIN;  thus, in removing it, even after I did the whole < ! - - - please do not remove this until Fandyllic has stated whether it deserves to be here - - - > bit, makes YOU in the wrong and me in the right by ADDING IT BACK IN. See? If you disagree, you're just arguing for arguments sake. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:16, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Well, there's no winning against "logic" like that is there. Bluebellanon (talk) 03:24, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
No. No, there isn't. Glad you see it my way. For once. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:26, December 22, 2012 (UTC)
Ugh. I will try to read all this later. ...and then archive it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 21 Dec 2012 9:35 PM Pacific

I'm sorry, HPR, but you're way off base in using that article for Sybil's death date. You're forgetting that she was already pregnant in December 1919. The only scenario where that date could possibly work is if she had a miscarriage before returning to Downton in 3x01 and later became pregnant with little Sybil - which is clearly not the case. Nine months backwards doesn't necessarily mean January in any case, more like December. I don't trust the Daily Mail anyway since 3x08 in clearly set in spring or summer. Dragonrider2 (talk) 17:14, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dragonrider2 and Bluebellanon here, sorry. As you said HarryPotterRules1, "We want to be accurate, on this wiki, do we not?" With that in mind, using secondary sources and calculated dates does not increase the accuracy of the wiki. I will edit the Sybbie page so that the calculation is still part of the page and adds info, but does not mislead users into thinking the date is well established. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 22 Dec 2012 10:29 AM Pacific
I'm confused by having (b. January 1921) at all even with the "or before" qualifier. It's on the show itself that Cora learns from Sybil that she's pregnant which she got in December 1919. Plus the Cora tells Robert that Sybil's pregnancy was probably part of the reason she declined to come to Downton Abbey for Christmas which shows Cora thinks knew she was pregnant for some time before she wrote to her. Sybil would have to be at least a month to three months pregnant to know (no home pregnancy test in those days). There's no way at all she'd be born in January 1921.CestWhat (talk) 19:29, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

Well, adjust the article then with that information. I was never definitively attached to Jan 1921. However, citations for when Sybil reports her pregnancy would help bolster the change. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 22 Dec 2012 1:53 PM Pacific
I am glad we're getting somewhere (apart from the blatent favouritism between you three, of course). I think the bit about Sybbie's birthdate - and the article I found - should remain, with, as Fandyllic suggested, the note bit added in. It shows that we have a) done our research and b) are not trying to confuse people. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:54, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

2012 Christmas SpecialEdit

In the 2012 Christmas Special, Susan says that Violet is "my mother's sister"; does this mean we can add a piece into NOTES on Roberta's page stating that it is LIKELY that she is Susan's mother; also, does this mean we can CONFIRM Roberta "married a Gordon", as neither Susan nor Violet say anything about other siblings of Violet. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:30, December 25, 2012 (UTC)

We don't know definitively how many brothers and sisters Violet has or had, but it is likely that Roberta is Susan's mother until we find out about another sister. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Dec 2012 1:32 PM Pacific

Sybbie's BirthdateEdit

Sorry for two messages in one day (the other one is directly above this if you haven't already seen it) but I want your opinion on something.

I think Sybbie's birthdate can also be narrowed down further to specific months - namely between April and July 1920 - because Sybil had to be between one and four months pregnant:

If Sybil was:

  • Four months pregnant in December 1919 then Sybbie was born in April.
  • Three months pregnant in December 1919 then Sybbie was born in May.
  • Two months pregnant in December 1919 then Sybbie was born in June.
  • One months pregnant in December 1919 then Sybbie was born in July.

These are the only dates that can fit, as Sybil could not be any further along in her pregnancy; Episode 3.01 is set in SPRING 1920, and Mary and Matthew's honeymoon was two months longa, making Sybil at least six months along, this, combined with Edith saying she could her the wedding of her and Sir Anthony Strallan ready in "a month" leaves a matter of two months - in which Episode 3.04 and the gap in between that episode and Episode 3.05 - occur; we know there is a big gap, as in Episode 3.04 Sybil is barely showing and in Episode 3.05 she is about to have Sybbie.

Could you edit this into somekind of "NOTE" to go into the "NOTES" section - if you agree, that is. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:54, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

When I get time, I will work on it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Dec 2012 1:26 PM Pacific

Sybbie's Birthdate notes Edit

  • a Mary says that no-one could spend "two months in that heat" thus stating that her honeymoon was two months long.


I think we may have a troll: Some things they alter seem goood edits and others just seem to be silly jokes/rudeness so I'm not sure if I'm over reacting or not. I'm not sure if there is a way to ban ip addresses but thought I'd mention it. Perhaps if it gets worse we could protect the pages they seem to keep going back to? Isn't there a way to restrict editing to logged in users?

Also, have you seen the replies to this page? I wouldn't mind knowing if we can just delete things that have been established - by whatever process is proper - to be innaccurate/misleading/bad reference/speculation and if not why not. Thanks. Bluebellanon (talk) 23:19, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen some of the recent pages that have been created? Specifically: Reginald Crawley's Manchester House, Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham's Father, Gordon, Rosamund and Marmaduke's House On Eaton Square, James MacClare, Earl of Newtonmore, Lady Annabelle's Husband and Lady Annabelle. Most of these are either off screen characters or contain dates that are speculative and derived/calculated from passing mentions.
Although I'd like to correct some of this or mark the pages for deletion, I don't feel there's any point as HPR1 will just put back the information or remove the markers for deletion as they have been doing consistently in the past.
What should be done? It's just ridiculous. I enjoy taking part in this wikia, I enjoy making edits and helping improving the place - but I want to get away from arguing with one specific user. Yes, some of it was probably my fault for letting myself get dragged into arguments when they are unable to change or see/admit points of view than their own. But do we have to carry on like this indefinitely?
I feel like there is no point to making changes to their edits as they just change them back and make it into a huge argument. But on the other hand, this just means that their tactic of being argumentative/unchangeable has worked. Which doesn't seem fair.
Sorry to lay all this at your feet when I know you didn't even want the job, but someone has to sort this out. This wikia is becoming a place I'm not sure I want to visit anymore. Is that the impression you want to leave people with? --Bluebellanon (talk) 15:07, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
It is pretty awful. Especially a central characters have maybe two paragraphs written up about then but any Crawley relations get his or her own article. I get that it's different with the Crawley. If Mrs. Hughes is mentioned to have a sister, one can just put it on her article. But if Mary mentions a relative, that relative is also related to Edith, Sybil, her parents, etc... and seems a bit much to mention him or her on every single article. Still, it isn't helpful to somebody reading here. Maybe start "List" article where all these Crawley one-line-of-dialogue mentions can go? CestWhat (talk) 17:42, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
I will look through these pages... Try not to be too free with the delete tags unless there is no basis for the article at all. Deductive speculations are not all bad. HPR1 is kind of crazy about the relatives thing and I do plan to rename most of the character pages at some point to comply with this forum post. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 9:45 AM Pacific
Please do fill out a List of minor off screen characters. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 9:47 AM Pacific
I was thinking more of a List of Crawley relatives and if it's a major character like Rose, just have a see Main Article. And while we are at it, maybe a list of servant relations since beyond the himing and hawing about insignificance or speculation or inaccuracy, something that irritated me about these HRP relative article was majority was solely Grantham relatives rather then servants (not that's trying to be a class warrior about it).
Also inaccuracy is not the sole reason for deletion (not at least nominating an article for deletion). Redundancy should be valid ie Mr Bromidge's mother just repeats exactly what in the article for Mr Bromidge. 18:01, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
I think you've put your finger on one of the reasons why these types of articles bug me, CestWhat - the difference between the focus on the upper and lower classes. I mean poor Mr Carson hardly has any page at all and as you say, every Crawley relative mentioned via one throwaway line gets their own page.
But to go back to the point, would this List of minor off screen characters be replacing them having individual pages? If so I'm in favour, but I don't mind if it's for all off screen characters or only Crawley relatives.
I also agree that redundant articles should be deleted and I LOVE the renaming the character pages idea. Listing the entire title of characters bugs the hell out of me, it's so pointless and seems to be another way of placing upper class characters above the lower - marking them out as different, special and seperate and it really has no place in a wikia. WE don't live in the past. Thank god. /rant 21:40, December 27, 2012 (UTC)Bluebellanon (talk)
Once again, CestWhat IMMEDIATELY shoots me down (there is a reason I dislike him - that is it). I won't even bother defending my actions - you'll all just gang up on me anyway. Do whatever the hell you like - I don't care anymore. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:45, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
All we're doing is discussing what we think would be beneficial changes to the wikia. Bluebellanon (talk) 21:56, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
In the words of Vera Bates "As if". HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:58, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
I'm opposed to List of Crawley relatives, since it is too vague. List of off screen Crawley relatives would be better. However, I think there is a general lack of trying to work together on this wiki, but we are making progress. The more we polarize, the worse it will get. If you see something you don't like and it follows the general rules we've talked about (originally sourced info can stay in the main article, but valid deduction and speculation needs to go in a properly labelled section), please make the change. However, if you just want to remove something because you have some exclusionist agenda, I won't support it. HPR1 has gone to a great deal of effort to try to work within a system and should be recognized for that effort.
HPR1's fanatical devotion to the subject may go off track (adding titles to character articles unnecessarily and overblown listings of relatives), but the value of having so much content will pay off. If we can mold all the contributions into a useful whole, we can make this wiki THE definitive info source.
Division only leads to disaster. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 2:30 PM Pacific
Finally, someone on my side. I am willing to work with anyone on this wiki who is willing to work with me - CestWhat is not one of those people (still not had that apology, btw); if you were to look at all the edits CestWhat has made since I arrived, you will find that 99.999999999999999999 (to the power of infinity)% of them are cancelling (or altering) the changes I have made to suit him. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:38, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
Would the List of minor off screen characters page be replacing the individual pages so that they would eventually be deleted, or would it be in addition to them? Bluebellanon (talk) 22:42, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
Improving them, most likely - as minor as the characters are, they are still characters: thus that warrants them a page: it'd just be a list of them all in one place to make it easier to find them. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:57, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to differ then, as I feel that them being only mentioned in the show and not actual appearing characters means that they don't warrant their own individual page. Bluebellanon (talk) 23:06, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Bluebellanon here. Unless a minor offscreen character is mentioned more than 3 times or so, they would unlikely warrant a full article. Some exceptions would be if a major character had a detailed monologue or discussion about an off screen character. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 4:11 PM Pacific
That's the point - Cora's brother Harold is a "minor off screen character" but could appear on screen; we know he's alive as of 1920, Martha's words confirm that, so if his page is deleted and stuck into the "minor off screen characters" page, it would have to be re-created if he did appear on the show - it's best to leave the actual pages as well: we do not know if Violet's sister, Roberta, is dead - she could easily show up next series (it's highly unlikely, but she still could), thus the page needs to remain. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:17, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
They could appear on screen but they also might not (and most probably wont). If they do appear we can easily make them a page. If they don't we've got countless pointless pages on the wikia when all off screen characters could be neatly contained on one page. Bluebellanon (talk) 23:41, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
While I can see that is a good idea, we cannot do it until the show is done as an OFFSCREEN character now, may become an on screen character - that just makes it a waste of time delete premade pages and remaking then when the character appears. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:44, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
Sorry HarryPotterRules1, deleting pages is not a waste of time if they misrepresent the importance of the character to the show and the story. I don't want this to get like Wikipedia with Star Wars characters where because a few fanatical editors want to raise the importance of minor characters, they get content out of proportion to their appearance in the show.
For now most pages for minor characters will remain, but if a listing in single page of a paragraph covers their involvement in the show, their individual page will get deleted. Lists of relatives do not count as meaningful content. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 4:11 PM Pacific
Thank you. In that case I'll start on the page. Should it be "List of minor off screen characters" or "List of off screen Crawley relatives"? Personally I think the first is more inclusive. Bluebellanon (talk) 00:20, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
List of minor off screen characters to begin with. If the Crawley folks part of the list gets too big we can make List of off screen Crawley relatives and point to it. Please leave the page deletion to me. Use the {{delete}} template at the top, if you think an article should be deleted.
HarryPotterRules1, please do not remove {{delete}} tags. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 4:23 PM Pacific
Once again, I am outnumbered - you, Fandyllic, are meant to be unbiased: ever since becoming admind you have sided with me on THREE occasions - three. No more, no less. As for deleting the {{delete}} tags, some of them, I believe, do not belong there, which is WHY they are being deleted. Naturally of course CestWhat (King of the F***s) won't agree, and nor will Bluebellanon (Prince/Princess of the F***s). I can see, given your words, that you definitely don't. Why I even both writing stuff on this wiki, I really don't know, because either you, CestWhat or Bluebellanon will just remove it. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:27, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
With that kind of attitude, you can count yourself lucky that I ever side with you. You claim I'm biased whenever you don't get your way. I'm used to it, but it does get tiresome. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 4:46 PM Pacific
Done! I'll be refering to the Category:Off-screen_characters for characters to place there.
Also, I don't think I've done or said anything that warrants being sworn at and called names. Bluebellanon (talk) 00:38, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to point out, that ultimately, List of minor off screen characters will represent a consolidation of existing info and very little actual removal. If one were to think a bit before reacting, one might see this. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 4:48 PM Pacific

As it happens, I was thinking: I was thinking how tired I am of the three of you being biased against me and ganging up on me to remove information that you, I and EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS EVER WATCHED THE SHOW, knows to be correct. That is why I am in a very fowl mood. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:52, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

But the information wont be removed, it'll be moved. --Bluebellanon (talk) 00:54, December 28, 2012 (UTC)
At least you're not in a foul mood. ;-) -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 4:56 PM Pacific

Moved, Blueballon, is fine - as long as it's not removed. Don't try and be funny, Fandyllic, for in my present mood it just makes me want to hit you and is very unbecoming of an admin. Got that? Yes? No? No, tough shit. Yes, good. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:01, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Minor Character ListEdit

Just thinking instead of one major long list (there a lot of these characters), perhaps organize them a bit more ie list of servants or list of Crawley relatives or list of Downton villagers. Just so it isn't as confusing.CestWhat (talk) 02:20, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this, but first let's actually get all of the minor characters in ONE PLACE before we start dividing them up. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:21, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

It's easy to make sections with characters being subsections. I'll edit the page if necessary to give an example of how it could be done when more characters get on to it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Dec 2012 7:27 PM Pacific
I've added a few new subsections to the minor off screen character page - hopefully this makes it a bit easier to navigate. Bluebellanon (talk) 13:35, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you've seen thisEdit

Hello, I wondered if you had seen this page and some of the language (swearing shouting and verging on threatening) that HPR1 uses here:

I wouldn't normally butt into things like this where I haven't been involved in the specific argument but I don't know if you regularly check other pages or recent activity and I just think HPR1's attitude and behaviour is unacceptable. I'm by no means whiter than white and probably argue with them at times when I should let things drop, but I never resort to bad language, shouting, or threats - and I haven't seen that from anyone else here either. As a community I think we should perhaps set some rules for how we interact with each other if none exist, as I feel this is unacceptable and looks very bad for anybody new coming to the wikia. Bluebellanon (talk) 12:55, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

As usually CestWhat and HPR1 are edit warring. I will likely ban them both for a month to cool them down. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 28 Dec 2012 8:55 AM Pacific

To be honest, I think swearing and shouting and saying things like "Change it, again, and I will sorely make you regret it!" are a bit more serious than simply edit warring. Especially when HPR1 has a history of such behaviour and has made a threat in the past. Bluebellanon (talk) 02:05, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
I know, in this case, that I was in the right with my edits. Robert has one maternal aunt - James Crawley's mother - so Gordon must have been married to a maternal aunt, namely a sibling of Violet: whether it's Roberta or not and whether or not he is Susan's father is totally unknown, I admit to that bit; I never stated they were her parents. CestWhat - as usual - disagrees with the fact that Gordon has to be a maternal uncle by marriage; we know there's no other way. And, like before, I had explained to CestWhat - you can see my explaination on the talk page of CestWhat - but was ignored, so the way I acted was the only other option left as you weren't here at the time Fandyllic, and the pages were all being moved.
Also, Bluebellanon, you are not an Admin; it's not your job to inform Fandyllic as to what it going on - Fandyllic already does there job well enough and does not need your help. Consider this action against me as the second strike on the "people I do not like" box against you. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:41, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
What I'm concerned about isn't your edit - it's your attitude, your bad language and the line that verges on a threat. Yes, this is a small example of it, but you're like this quite often when in disagreement with anyone. There's no excuse for this, I don't care what anyone else does, swearing and shouting and threatening language is not acceptable. I'm not an admin no, but as a member of this community I'm entitled to bring to an admin's attention anything that concerns and worries me. Bluebellanon (talk) 03:04, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
"entitled to bring to an admin's attention anything that concerns and worries me." Oh? Maybe I should find EVERY SINGLE edit that you and CestWhat have made to MY correct information? Hmm? That "concerns and worries" me since it's deliberately done, and it's only ever my information.
Do not forget, I can chuck your words back in your face - since I cannot actually hit you, I have no idea where you are, after all - just as easily as you can. Don't test me. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:09, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
"Since I cannot actually hit you" - way to prove my point for me, HPR1.
You're more than welcome to try and find an example of me being abusive, threatening or swearing. Bluebellanon (talk) 03:14, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
I won't find any of those, but I will find several cases of deliberate removal of information where you've gone "Oh, HPR1 edited that, it must be wrong. REMOVE!" - I can find many cases of that from you and CestWhat. You're not in the clear, dear. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:31, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
Do you really think that telling someone you'd like to hit them if you knew where they were compares to edits on a wikia??? Bluebellanon (talk) 03:33, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
In this case, yes. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:48, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Help with somethingEdit

Since I want to avoid an edit war with Bluebellanon (which will, naturally, occur if I make the changes without asking you) I trhought I'd ask you.

The edits to Rose MacClare, Susan and Hugh all have the references for their names taken out. As it happens we NEED those references as Susan and Hugh are, in the 2012 special called "Shrimpie Flintshire" and "Susan Flintshire" in the credits, and Rose's surname is never uttered onscreen, so could you please RE ADD the references for their names, as they are needed. Bluebellanon will just ignore me and remove them if I do it. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:31, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
I will take a look, but no promises. I'm getting annoyed that people can't seem to follow instructions (move refs to notes rather than just removal). -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 28 Dec 2012 6:42 PM Pacific
The reason I removed them was that I thought they were only there because people were disputing their name before they became established cast members. Now that they are the references seemed a bit surplus to requirements. Also, could you not make assumptions on how I'm going to behave please, HPR1. Bluebellanon (talk) 02:43, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Fandyllic.
Bluebellanon - I know you well enough to state what you will, most likely, do. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:50, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
The reason for preserving info, even if it doesn't belong as a reference is that it is still useful background and helps the reader if it is presented in its proper context. Removing the info prevents it from being of value and basically places your judgement as supreme without even allowing other users to comment (because the info is effectively gone to the novice reader). -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 28 Dec 2012 6:56 PM Pacific
Okay, it future I'll move things like that rather than deleting. Sorry about that. --Bluebellanon (talk) 02:59, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
If you'll allow me to do this, but "Ha ha ha ha ha! You got in trouble!" (for once!) Woot! For once, I was right and the info needed to be there. In. Your. Face! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:10, December 29, 2012 (UTC)
(facepalm) -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 28 Dec 2012 8:17 PM Pacific
That would look better if there was a smiley to do the facepalm. But, I was happy, so was allowed to gloat... for once. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:49, December 29, 2012 (UTC)


Can I ask what is going to be done about HPR1's words to me last night, further up this page?

"Do not forget, I can chuck your words back in your face - since I cannot actually hit you, I have no idea where you are, after all - just as easily as you can. Don't test me."

Please don't tell me that you think - as HPR1 seems to do - that threatening language compares to people making edits here. I don't come here to be told that if someone knew where I was they'd be hitting me.

I don't make threats, I don't shout, I don't swear. If that is actually acceptable behaviour around here I'm sure I can manage to adjust my language accordingly.

HPR1 threatened someone before and they haven't changed - they don't even seem to think what they did was wrong. Please, please tell me that some action is going to be taken on this, it's beginning to feel like they can say anything and all you'll concentrate on is the edits. Bluebellanon (talk) 10:57, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Yup sorry. I will apply a 1 week ban and see if he learns his lesson. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 29 Dec 2012 10:00 AM Pacific
See User_talk:HarryPotterRules1#You.27ve_been_blocked_for_1_week. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 29 Dec 2012 10:06 AM Pacific
Wow, thanks so much. That was quick! I've been seconded guessing myself so much since that happened. Wondering if I was over reacting or misinterpreting, so it's nice to be backed up in this. Hopefully, they 'll change their language/behaviour a bit after this, but I won't be holding my breath. Bluebellanon (talk) 20:07, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Cora's MisscarriageEdit

I was just wondering how we should deal with this page: Cora's Miscarriage? I know the page was originally created as a character page but I don't think it really fits on the List of minor off screen characters page. Perhaps it would be better to put the information that is currently on the page into Cora's and Roberts page and the page for the episode in question before deleting the page? I'm not sure that the issue warrants a page of it's own. Thought I'd better ask before I did anything as it seemed like a big change. Bluebellanon (talk) 12:40, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

That page should just be a section on Cora's page. Not sure it even needs to be on Robert's. If you want to move it and tag the page for delete, go ahead. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 31 Dec 2012 9:06 AM Pacific
Thanks. I've moved it to Cora's page, the Episode in question already had the info. Bluebellanon (talk) 22:48, December 31, 2012 (UTC)

To Do ListEdit

Not sure if this is a good idea or not so I thought I'd ask. I was thinking of making a post in the forums of a sort of to-do-list that anybody could add to with improvements they would like to see done to the wiki - whether it's as a reminder to themselves to come back and do it later or for other people to look at when they're looking for something to do.

The sort of thing I was thinking of adding to it to start it off would be: making sure the entire cast is listed on the cast page, making sure all actors have a page, making sure actors pages are as complete as possible, making sure episode pages all have complete summaries, making sure main characters have as complete pages as possible etc

What do you think? Bluebellanon (talk) 20:31, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

This is a standard thing at most mature wikis, so it is definitely a good idea. You can also add the post to Category:Things to do. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Jan 2013 12:41 PM Pacific
Done: Forum:To Do List But I'm not sure how to add a category to a forum post? Bluebellanon (talk) 22:05, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
FYI, you can link to wiki pages by enclosing in double square brackets, i.e. [[Forum:To Do List]] (works in source editor mode, not sure about visual). Much faster and the link will turn red if there is a misspelling or the link does not go to a real page. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Jan 2013 2:35 PM Pacific

Question about wikipedia synopsis in the Timeline Edit

I'm not sure if you've seen my recent comment to the Timeline page, but I wondered if it would be okay to replace the wikipedia synopsis that were placed there with the ITV synopsis which I have just realised are still at at the ITV player where you can rent all the episodes and it looks like brief synopsis of all episodes are there. The itv link I'm talking about is here. Bluebellanon (talk) 22:04, January 4, 2013 (UTC)

The ITV synopses would be preferred and even better, if you can provide ref links. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4 Jan 2013 2:24 PM Pacific
So should I remove the wikipedia info and replace it with the ITV info, or just add it to what's already there? --Bluebellanon (talk) 22:31, January 4, 2013 (UTC)
Well, the best case would be to write something based on the ITV version, but you can use the ITV version, if you identify it as an exact quote in the ref. Stuff copied directly from Wikipedia should at least be preceded with "From Wikipedia:". -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4 Jan 2013 2:34 PM Pacific

As you can seeEdit

As you can see, I am back - and intend to be here for the forseeable future - whether CestWhat and Bluebellanon want me to - or not. Now... what has changed in my absence? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:45, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

See User_talk:HarryPotterRules1#Glad_you.27re_back. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7 Jan 2013 11:12 AM Pacific

Some EditsEdit

I've made a couple of edits, and want to know your opinion on them.

I found several sights - which I have added to both Cora Crawley, Countess of Grantham and List of minor off screen characters - that state that Cora's fortune was $1.1 billion dollars, and, having looked on Scriptline, I have seen that Sybil said that Cousin Freddie was studying "at the bar" not "up at Bath"; that's why she used him as an example to say that he was like Matthew - he was studying to be a lawyer as well. I have added this in to the respective sections too. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:44, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Another threatEdit

Just wanted to make sure you saw this:,_Countess_of_Grantham?diff=18736&oldid=18735 --Bluebellanon (talk) 00:30, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

As it happens, Bluebellanon, I HAVEN'T threatened. I've said "IF there WAS" then I "should and would" use it; there ISN'T one, thus I cannot use it, thus there is no threat. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:31, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Saying that if you met someone you would "smack the crap" out of them, is a threat. The very fact that you are justifying yourself rather than appologising makes me very sad. Bluebellanon (talk) 00:36, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
I justify myself since my sites are valid, as is the wording in my references, but CestWhat is insistent on remving them (as are you by agreeing with him); thus, *I* having valid references and wording, am in the clear, making this all the fault of CestWhat and you. If you had just agreed with me at the time, then I would not need to threaten. Besides, CestWhat and I will never likely meet in real life, so I'd never be able to "smack the crap" out of him anyway.
Until he admits he's doing it deliberately to annoy me (and trust me, he will) there will be no apology from me - even if Fandyllic asks - until then. End of. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:43, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
There is never any justification for making threats of violence to another person. Even if you are in the right with your edits making threats is still wrong. Please tell me you see that?
Also, I can't believe you just said that if no one disagreed with you then you wouldn't need to threathen anyone. There is NEVER any NEED to threaten anyone. There is reasonable mature discussion, and if you can't discuss things with someone then leave it to the admin.
The fact that you're placing the blame for your threats at the door of myself and CestWhat is completley wrong - you are responsible for your own actions. You're an adult. That's what being an adult means. Taking responsibilty. Bluebellanon (talk) 00:52, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
I am in the right, and I see it's wrong,l but nothing else has worked.
If you look at some of my edits, you will see that I DID write that I had asked Fandyllic about them (and, admittedly, I did - they're above). Thus, that makes CestWhat - and you for agreeing with him - wrong, as the admin has not decided yet. Thus, I am in the right.
End of. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:55, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
The content of the edits is irrelevant. HarryPotterRules1, you will apologize and state categorically that you won't "smack the crap" out of anyone. Whether you make a threat in past, present, or future tense is irrelevant.
I'll give you 1 day to apologize, meaning by roughly 9 PM PST on Jan 8, 2013, just to be precise. Otherwise, I'll be keeping to the predicted schedule of a 1 month ban. If you thought a week was bad, a month should feel 4x worse.
To repeat, threats are not acceptable. You are being given more chances than you deserve. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7 Jan 2013 4:57 PM Pacific
Can I inquire - 9pm PST time? What IS PST time, and what time would it be in relation to Great Britain?
Here, this good enough - even if it's not, it's all he's getting. I've had it up to here (and here is currently the moon) with him. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:03, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
That is roughly 1 PM GMT. And it needs to be on Bluebellanon's talk page. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7 Jan 2013 5:06 PM Pacific
Why? The threat was to CESTWHAT, it was just Bluebellanon who reported it. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:08, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
Oops. CestWhat's talk page then. To be honest it doesn't matter. You can apologize to the whole wiki in a blog, if you want. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7 Jan 2013 5:10 PM Pacific
I have apologised: it's here
That's all he's getting, whether you deem it good enough or not. I've done what you asked, and apologised. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:13, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
I saw it. I will actually be placing a warning on CestWhat's talk page about reversions. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7 Jan 2013 5:15 PM Pacific
Thank you, but it won't do anything. I DID - and you can check the section to prove it - ask him to look at the section where you said not to remove stuff but to shift it to notes (I have actually done that now) but he totally ignored it. He always does when it's me. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:19, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
Does that really count as an apology? HPR1 says that they're not sure that CestWhat deserves the apology, says "Don't make me have to apologise again" and threatens to retract the appology if CestWhat doesn't agree with them. That's not an apology imo. Bluebellanon (talk) 01:37, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
I was saying that I wanted CestWhat to agree with me that we should ask Fandyllic (which, if you look in the section above, I actually DID!) before making the edits - that's all the "threatening to retract the apology" was for. As for the bit about not being sure that they deserved it, they have, in all fairness, been warned by Fandyllic before about changing my edits and to move it to the notes section if it's a reference - they totally ignored it, so I'm not entirely sure they deserve the apology, since I'm sure they'll just do it again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, thus making me angry and starting it all of again. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:43, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
No one else is responsible for your unreasonable anger. That is for you to learn to control yourself. Bluebellanon (talk) 01:46, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
I had it under control - then I met CestWhat. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:51, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

it hurtsEdit

When two contributor disagree on an edit, then the proper way to resolve it is to put it up to the entire community, not just the admin. I put the recent edits on the forum discussion, and got votes from other contributor agreeing with me. This has happen time and time again where the community agrees with me and not User:HPR1. Even you have pointed out that User:HPR1 version of "cannon information" isn't correct. Today, I removed that Violet was at least 12 years old when she got married since that's kind of dumb information and a link to a article was joke. I put it up to the forum when User:HPR1 disputed and got more votes then User:HRP1 agreeing with me. You have stated you only want to be a caretaker admin. Removing inaccurate (not in 'in my opinion" inaccurate, but simply inaccurate) information isn't negative. I thought a person can edit as he or she likes. What exactly in the each edit was wrong rather then just the number of them. Plus, besides the violence threats, User:HPR1 is just plain mean to me and I admit it, hurts my feelings (I'm stupid liar and a moron according to User:HPR1 and I think that stuff is pretty awful and hurtful on top of the violence threats I get here). So when I recieve that kind of real negativity here, it doesn't make me feel all the jazzed up to write up articles which I usually love to do. And I feel (again just my feeling so I keep it to myself), that I get no credit for not engaging or name-calling User:HPR1, but get just as much of the blame for him/her getting angry at me because I stand up to him or her (you can see it isn't easy since violence threat being lobbed at me and then the admin saying "I'm just as bad"). To sum me, it hurts. CestWhat (talk) 01:33, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

I take your constant removal of edits rather than moving them to where they belong, I take the edit wars you create, I take the "Oh, it's HPR1, their edit must be wrong - REMOVE!" from you, I take the "always siding with Bluebellanon over HPR1 when HPR1 is in the right" from you, but *I* am still here. I grin and bear it - with the occasional snap at you - which (in my opinion, at least) you deserve. Now, I have apologised time and time again, and still haven't received the last apology from you (I knew I wasn't going to get it, but still!). So, in my opinion, when you've been blocked - and I can actually go to Fandyllic and have them look over the sites I'm using to see whether they are valid or not to be used as references - then the wiki will be a happier place.

Yours, Mr "I am now fed up and cannot take much more from you." HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:56, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the putting things to the community vote idea. Otherwise the "a wikia is a website that anyone can edit" thing doesn't really count for much if an admin is making all the final decisions. It means that things might take a little longer to get decided but in the long run I think it'd be a good thing. People would have time to put together proper arguments and actually discuss things.

I also think we need some guidelines on not using abusive language, including swearing, shouting (typing in all caps), and insults. (Isn't that already in the TOS?) We should all be able to act like adults here and no one deserves to be spoken to like that. You just can't compare getting into an edit war with abusive language, HPR1 is also involved in the edit war, but they're the only one who uses abusive language. Bluebellanon (talk) 02:16, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

While I do agree on having a forum for people to vote on, I think we should have it that you vote for a week and the admin makes the final decision - they are in charge after all - and we go with that decision, whether we like it or not, as that makes it fair, after all, all the people  - namely you Bluebellanon, CestWhat, Dragonrider2 and AvatarRokusGhost - who agree with each other will gang up on the others - namely Me, HarryPotterRules1 - while Fandyllic is impartial and unbiased - after the week, the forum can then be closed, and that answer is final. I won't use language if people don't give me reason to. I asked CestWhat, nicely, to see the bit Fandyllic wrote about not removing stuff and just moving it - they didn't look at it or even acknowledge me - and also asked him, nicely, to wait until the admin had given their POV too - they didn't do that either - so, as I was being ignored and shunned, they can face the language; It wasn't right from me, I admit, but I was not the only one to blame. If CestWhat had done as I - and Fandyllic - had asked, this is one argument that could have been avoided. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:31, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

I've been in this situation before at WoWWiki. The difference here is that the folks ganging up were all admins against me, so I lost. In many ways it was the beginning of the end for WoWWiki. When I stop seeing passive aggressive disregard (CestWhat) and undisciplined, semi-unproductive enthusiasm (HPR1), then I will stop "interfering" with the community (which is what I see myself doing, in some ways). Why? I do it because these situations will come up again and again and if the community can't learn how to deal with it in a productive way, the community will collapse, just as it seemed about to before I stepped in.
I won't say things are perfect, they are far from, but unless users can give a good argument in disagreement with my actions, I will continue to make them. All users have the opportunity to ask Wikia to de-admin me. If that's what they want, and Wikia asks me to step aside, I will. I have more stuff than imaginable that I could be doing at WoWWiki, but I want to see this wiki settle down and grow before I give up. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8 Jan 2013 12:17 PM Pacific
I do disagree with you on this and have many times. The community is active and clearly made the case that User:HPR1 is wrong (about Great Aunt Roberta, about the ages of characters, about Cora's fortune). You have decided to ignore it. CestWhat (talk) 20:44, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
Your option is simple, ask Wikia to de-admin me. You clearly don't want to follow my advice and you seem not to want me to be an admin if I disagree with you. Do what you have to do.
As for an active community, a bunch of anonymous edits and maybe 3 different users making up a bulk of all the edits is not an active community. It it is an active anonymous community and a very small set of active editors — one of which you want to remove. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8 Jan 2013 2:49 PM Pacific
I'm sorry if you feel like you're being ganged up on Fandyllic, that's never a nice feeling (apologies if I'm misreading what you said). But I think one of the big reasons you're getting so much dissatisfaction around here is that people feel that the basic issue hasn't been addressed.
Faults and mistakes with how people edit the wikia, what changes they make, etc, can be changed or improved upon. I'm not sure that someone who has proved on countless occasions that they can't work with others can be helped.
HPR1 has threatened two different people on three separate occasions. They use abusive language, they shout, they insult. They even insult you - the one person they seem to show a tiny bit of respect (and that's only because they have the threat of a ban hanging over them).
You set in place a series of consequences for HPR1 if they should threaten again and you haven't stuck to it. You allowed them to apologise for the last time rather than receive the months ban. That would be bad enough but the "apology" they gave really wasn't one at all but yet it was allowed to stand.
Today it seems we've sadly lost a user due to this situation (Leaving Permanently) and we've had someone join purely to say that they oppose HPR1 as admin(Oppose HarryPotterRules1 - to which HPR1 immediately jumped on them to say they'd be watching them! What sort of a welcome is that for a new user?!). I myself am getting to the point where I feel like saying there isn't any point in continuing to make edits - as long as HPR1 stays here we will have issues like this.
I hate to speak so plainly singling out one person but they have been given chance after chance and haven't changed. In my opinion threatening someone should be met with a permanent ban. There are no excuses for threats of violence against someone, I don't care what the other person has done. The very fact that they continue to place the blame for their angry reactions at the feet of others speaks volumes for how little they are able to see this issue clearly or change their ways. --Bluebellanon (talk) 21:35, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
The edits you make Bluebellanon, I have no quarrel with (unless the edits are plainly wrong, then I have a quarrel with you, as will all users) it's the "always siding with CW (CestWhat) on 99.99999999999999∞% of the time that causes the arguments - on the times that I actually am right, I have to go over your heads, show it to Fandyllic and get him to add it to the article, otherwise it is immediately removed. THAT is the main problem here - once the constant removal of my edits, even when they're right, stops, then things will be fine again. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:50, January 8, 2013 (UTC) 
As when this all started, it is mostly CestWhat vs. HPR1. I may have appeared to have sided with HPR1, but it is mostly because I view CestWhat's actions as disingenuous and uncooperative. Remember, I was asked to be an admin, but perhaps the situation is just untenable. I don't believe banning HPR1 will solve this problem, but maybe I'm wrong.
I gave a choice to CestWhat to ask Wikia to de-admin me and I give that choice to any other user. I might even welcome it. I gave it a try and perhaps I failed, but I won't change my philosophy because of two users who won't get along. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8 Jan 2013 2:49 PM Pacific
No, you're a good admin, Fandyllic. No-one will boot you out - if they do, I shall ask for you to be reinstated as this place will go to hell without you. It's either that or I become admin (very unlikely) HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:57, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
I think you're a good admin in other respects and I think it's admirable that you'll try to help HPR1 to improve - I just don't think it will work and I think it's unfair to other users. Whilst this arguing is going on we will never grow - very few new members are going to want to step into this. I think I will ask wikia for advice but I wouldn't like to see you de-admin'd. IDK, it's a horrible situation. This place could be such a good community, I'm sure it could. Bluebellanon (talk) 23:10, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
This place is a good community, though I do believe it is best for both of us if CestWhat - since it was his return that started the arguments - left this wiki for good - there'd be no arguing then. As for new members, well, they don't have to get involved in our arguments. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:15, January 8, 2013 (UTC)


SO?!? One thing is that User:Fandyllic tells me things about myself and my actions then I respond and never get a response back. I think that's kind of unfair. Shouldn't we try to encourage community. I've had disagreements about content with other contributor and they have disagreed with me about. I don't think this wiki should bend over backwards to have crappy information. See the discussions. Forum:Confirmed_information_that_keeps_being_removed and Forum:What_is_canon_and_good_citations/references where User:HPR1 is voted down yet ignores it, treat me and others like a jerk because we don't listen to him/her (of course I ignore User:HPR1, he/she been nothing but a totally jerk and threaten me and also demanded I not talk to him/her).

I saw yesterday that Violet's page had she was at least 12 years old when she got married. It seemed pretty dumb information to add since it doesn't really help to narrow her actually age (i.e. Cora being 20 in 1888).  I put it up to the community, I got more votes. I toke it off. There was a post which was just made-up by the author (see last paragraph "Final valuations are calculated with a grain of salt, and a willingness to break our own rules." Again, it seems pretty obvious that Cora wasn't a billionaire, but I put it up to community, and got more votes to remove. I don't do this to hurt User:HPR1's feeling and malice towards him or her. It's just dumb information and unhelp to people wanting to know more about DA. CestWhat (talk) 18:24, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Whatever your reasons, you fail to see that removal is not the only option. You know removal will piss off HPR1 and you also know you can move it to a Speculation or Notes section, but you are either too lazy or too set on removal to do it. Your excuses and pretense of making forum posts for actions do not change this situation. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8 Jan 2013 12:07 PM Pacific
Any questioning whatsoever of his/her edits pissed User:HPR1 off. That isn't my concern nor should it. That one (YES, one contributor) who has had fights with multiple contributors (including youself if you read your talk page). FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, User:HPR1 threaten violence repeatedly and I don't agree that mine editing this junk information is at least in part to blame.
As to notes sections, if information is junk, than it's junk in any part of the article. I'm not too lazy to add it and resent that from you. Multiple users, as I have shown, point on that User:HPR1 gives non-cannon information. The community might not be the most active, but I think it's unfair that so much of it gets ignored simply to this false sense of balance (I must be as bad as User:HPR1 because I edit war). I think it's unfair to say to I simply do this simply to get UserHPR1 upset. I've said at length why I've been each edit. Great-Aunt Roberta is never said to Robert's one and only aunt and therefore it's silly and misleading to act as if she has. The ages of the characters by legal consent isn't helpful since it's doesn't even narrow their ages to within a decade and so way too vague to be clarifying.
I am not acting as if my opinion matters the most. I've put it up to the community multiple times and not only got a positive response, but been encouraged by it. CestWhat (talk) 20:55, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

As you disagreed with me, I have to disagree with you. You are acting EXACTLY as if your opinion matters most. If you weren't you would be more cooperative. Your false sense of balance is similar to HPR1's, since it appears largely based on you not getting your way. HPR1 has made strides, but you are as exclusionist and uncooperative as ever. You like to pretend I have given HPR1 too many chances, but YOU are the one who has NEVER apologized to HPR1, even after you agreed you would respond to HPR1 with an apology after HPR1 apologized to you. I like how you conveniently forgot about that side of the bargain. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8 Jan 2013 2:58 PM Pacific
If you'll allow me to kindly voice my thoughts. I want you, Fandyllic, to look back over the edit history I have made since joining this wiki. For the first two months (I think it was that long, it might have been just a month) that I was here, I had no problems at all - then CestWhat returned - from where, I really don't care - and all hell broke loose. I do not mind having you in charge at all: you have no interest in arguing with us and are unbiased, so stay.
As I was saying, until CestWhat returned, things were perfectly fine between me and the other people on this wiki... so, personally, I think it was CestWhat's return that started things off - until that happened, things were perfectly fine between me and everyone else, but then biasedness (is that a word, if not can you correct me for the proper word?) on behalf of some people, and CestWhat's attitude made it all go to pot; admittedly, my actions haven't been brilliant, but they aren't needed on any other wiki since CestWhat never interferes with my actions on any other wikis, so that, in my view, makes it the fault of CestWhat. I do know, however, that I am not totally innocent, but there were no problems until CestWhat returned. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:42, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

New section from anonymous commentatorEdit

I wish there was a Who Are You In Downton Abbey sort of thing. 23:17, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

Sort of like a quiz that will pick a Downton Abbey character that matches you most? I'll see what I can get to work. --

It still hurtsEdit

I was going to apologize until I read what you were asking me to apologize for, that I didn't explain my edits, that I didn't ask why the information was there in the first place and that I was too unwilling to see other points' of view or just use information that was support by dialogue within the show. I answered that all on my talk page and never got a response.

I do think it's a bit messed to say that my opinion is the only one I listen to when you are telling the entire community that we must defer to you and you alone on questions off content to be included or not. I was thinking of being a jerk (well, more of one) and just adding useless information (i.e. Mrs. Hughes has two nostrils) to prove a dumb point about removing content isn't a negative and adding content isn't a positive, but figured it would be more productive and mean-sprited to just type it out.

Also why it is that User:HPR1 was banned when he/she threaten somebody, but it given time to apologize when he/she threaten me. Nobody "asks for it" when it comes to violence threats. Also, I do keep my opinions to myself. I didn't like the message of "welcome back" and "minus the threats, you've been good." The apologizes I get always make it clear that User:HPR1 blames me for being threaten with violence and that they are totally insincere and usually also let me know that User:HPR1 will threaten violence again (which is weird). I didn't even bother to point out this threat nor did I bother telling you about this threat,_Countess_of_Grantham?curid=2060&diff=18736&oldid=18735 (it was another contributor who brought it to your attention). CestWhat (talk) 03:49, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

It's like this, CestWhat; before you returned in July, I had no problems with anyone. Then you returned and started meddling in my edits and things went down hill - THAT is why it is your fault, see? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 05:22, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

"You started it" is rather flimsy and isn't a defense plus it's just the latest in a long list you've created on why you are never to blame for your actions. Also you've been blocked for something that didn't have to do with me. CestWhat (talk) 05:26, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
"I was going to apologize until..." is not an apology and you sound very much like HPR1 did before his first apology. You're too proud and too stubborn. Have I banned you? Not yet and maybe that was my mistake. You thought that made you special. You still have a ban hanging over you, because I can at any time invoke the deal I made about the apology which you have failed to meet. However, I'm not banning you to watch your edits to see if you have also improved. So far the results are not encouraging. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9 Jan 2013 12:20 PM Pacific

I have a questionEdit

James and Patrick Crawley and both called Mister - surely this would be Lord?

James's father, the 6th Earl's brother would have "Lord" as a title, because he's the son of the 5th Earl - but, doesn't a son of a Lord also have "Lord"? If so wouldn't that mean that James and Patrick would be "Lord James Crawley" and "Lord Patrick Crawley"?

Am I going down the right lines, or am I just going off on a complete wrong route? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 05:18, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Or take two seconds on any internet search engine and find out that the younger son of an earl is Mr. ----. Also (even User:Fandyllic agreed previously on this) that it has been been established that Robert's grandfather ever held the title of Earl of Grantham. CestWhat (talk) 05:32, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
It was established when Robert was thought to be the 6TH Earl - with Robert being the seventh earl it's likely - and very probable - that Robert's grandfather was Earl, which is why I asked the question. But, thnk you for the reply, even if it was a bit snippy! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:05, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Enough Edit

CestWhat complained to me about the situation here on my central talk page. After reading various talk pages, edit histories, etc. here is my response.

I have blocked both CestWhat and HPR1 for 3 days for fighting. You both need to cool down.

When you return, I expect you both to stop arguing.

CestWhat -- the next time you revert one of HPR1's edits for any reason you will be blocked again. If you have an issue with one of his edits you need to talk to Fandyllic and he can undo or fix it as needed. If HPR1 writes that Cora went to Jupiter you will leave it until somebody else can fix it.

HPR1 -- the next time you talk about hitting people or otherwise threaten anybody you will be blocked again. Reconsider what you have said each time before you click publish.

Is that very clear?

Fandyllic, I apologize for stepping in like this. You have amazing patience. -- Wendy (talk)@Wikia 02:46, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize. I fully endorse and support your action. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9 Jan 2013 8:56 PM Pacific

Help with coding please?Edit

I'm not sure if you check/follow the forums so I thought I'd just mention that I've asked a brief question here: Forum:Transclusion of non-templates Thanks! Bluebellanon (talk) 13:47, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Wiki work Edit

Dear Master/Mrs Fandyllic,

As i [harrybellamy] have been following the wiki Downton Abbey since March 2011. May i please be assigned a job in the wiki

Thankyou, Regards

Harry —This unsigned comment is by Harrybellamy (talkcontribs) 20:23, January 11, 2013‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

See User_talk:Harrybellamy#Things_to_do. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12 Jan 2013 12:34 AM Pacific

Affiliate Edit

Hi, I am from the Once Upon a Time wiki located at I was wondering if the Downton Abbey allows affiliation, and if possible, the Once wiki would like to affiliate. Let me know what you think. Thank you for your time. --Applegirl (talk) 19:50, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to an affiliation, but I'm not sure what the basis would be. Once Upon A Time is an American show based on fairy tales and Downton Abbey is a British show based on circa early 20th century class society. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 13 Jan 2013 6:07 PM Pacific

Appearances SectionEdit

I was wondering if we should make an "appearances" section for the bottom of main character pages. By "appearances" section, I mean like this (note, this is from the Once Upon a Time wiki); would it be alright if you made one for this wiki? We could put it on the bottom of all the main pages then.

For wiki
HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 09:57, January 24, 2013 (UTC)
I'll see if I can make a cleaner template than the example you gave. Downton has alot fewer episodes. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 24 Jan 2013 9:40 AM Pacific

Yes, I know that. I used the once upon a time one as an example; could you inform me when it is done and post what I nee to type to make it appear? I'll add it to pages then. It will, I belive, need "Absent", "Appears" and "Mentioned" all as ones that can be added. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:03, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

The template may support showing which episodes a character was absent in, but my intention will be for it look okay when showing just episodes the character appears or is mentioned in. I will leave a message on your talk page when I'm done.-- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 24 Jan 2013 1:10 PM Pacific
Ok, thank you. Good luck. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:01, January 24, 2013 (UTC)
I finish work for a week tomorrow - I'll start adding it to main character pages Sunday morning! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:35, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

I will probably add support for hiding specific rows for a series, since some characters only appear in a specific season, so the others can be hidden. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Jan 2013 10:39 AM Pacific
Yeah, like Rose - she didn't appear until Series 3 and wasn't mentioned before that. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 05:18, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

HPR1 and CestWhat Edit

Dear Fandyllic

I'm only want to tell HPR1 of my support to Cestwhat out of Respect.I know how Cestwhat acted but, they apologised unlike HPR1.

hbellamy 03:38, January 26, 2013 (UTC)   (  Talk )

You are wrong. As far as I know, CestWhat never apologized to HPR1, but HPR1 has apologized at least twice (maybe not enough, but more than zero). CestWhat was actually banned by MerryStar (Wikia staff) for not apologizing. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Jan 2013 11:34 AM Pacific
That's not actually true. You can read it yourself and it didn't have to do with apologizing or not. I think it's sad how many contributor will be bullied out off this wiki (see: CestWhat (talk) 22:40, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
You were banned for several things, not apologizing being part of the deal. If MerryStar hadn't done it, I would have. As for bullying, you were as complicit in the situation as anyone.
Like I keep saying, ask Wikia to find another admin and if they find one, I will quickly step down. Until then, you will just have to deal with me. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Jan 2013 4:30 PM Pacific
They won't find a new wiki admin - the adoption requests on the Community Central were denied because we "have an active admin"; if you were to go on Holiday for six months - DON'T! PLEASE! - and not do anything, then a new admin would be appointed, but only then. So, unfortunately - or fortunately - CestWhat has to put up with you. Personally, I rather enjoy having an admin who is not all "high and mighty" like most admins are. If you don't want contributors bullied out of this wiki, CestWhat, then don't meddle in things that ought not be meddled in, in the first place - we'd all be happier and this wiki can get back up to the standard it was at when I first arrived, before you started meddling with the stuff I posted. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 05:22, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
FINE, I'M SORRY I EVEN EXIST. Although nobody is addressing the issues of bullying going on here outside of my clicking undo too much. I don't mind who is admin (well, except for somebody who states that he/she sole reason is to block me and which I never did and again, isn't fostering good will), but if one doesn't want to be admin, then don't. If one do, then do it. You were asked, but you can say "no." Or you can try to find other admin who aren't myself or User:HPR1. Maybe I go too far, but I think I brought up some fair points that were never addressed (how come when threaten violence against me, he/she is given time to apology, but when User:HRP1 does it somebody else, he/she is block immediately. That you wrote I never explain my edits, try to discuss with User:HRP1 to see the reasoning behind that info, don't comprise on information that can directly sited to the show yet I write a whole post giving tons of example showing that to be false and no comment or reaction.
Meddling and disagreeing with a contributor are not the same thing and are allowed in good faith (I admit my faith is somewhat shattered in User:HPR1 after that Matthew's great-great grandfather stuff on my talk page where he/she outright lies, I point it and then User:HRP1 the show must be wrong which isn't what he/she wrote at first). You or I don't write these article on stone tablets with lightning so of course it's up for debate and questioning. Of course when you have multiple editors, we'll not see eye to eye on everything. I've been questioned on edits I've made and don't freak out and insult people. You can tell me I only rely on myself on the sole authority, but that doesn't make it true. I gotten User and User to agree with me including User:Fandyllic when we were on better terms. I admit it that I think User:Fandyllic over values a false sense of balance and that each side is right and wrong at the same time. I click undo, then User:HPR1 clicks undo. That seems pretty such a tick for tack move and it's lame (but I'm lame), but I think what comes next (the threats and insults) are not balanced. The idea that I have a part in it kind of seems like I should be threaten User:HRP1 for undoing my edits expect that's dumb and conterproductive. While dumb and counterproductive actions are within my wheelhouse, the meaness I will say isn't. But as I type this, I realize that User:Fandyllic wanting to even handed (although I think a bit too much) isn't a terrible quality nor does it come a place of malice.
Plus you are going to call people out for immaturity, it's REALLY immature to use "he/she started it." or "He/she made me do." I upset you, fine. But going wacko (you can say wacko in an insult, but what else you call going crazy anybody who questions you). You bullied and threaten other users so the simple thing of just being me isn't playing as well as it used. CestWhat (talk) 19:27, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
It would be amazing how much might get done if the two of you (HPR1 and CestWhat) would spend even half the amount of time contributing to the wiki as you spend going at each other. Sadly, that doesn't appear to be what you want to do here. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Jan 2013 2:15 PM Pacific
Except that User:HPR1 gets into fights with people aren't me. I get the sense of balance, but that seems a bit pat. If I threaten to hurt to you a bunch of times and see how much you are willing to forgive and forget. [[Special:Contributions/|CestWhat (talk) 23:40, January 27, 2013 (UTC)]]
HPR1 also doesn't stick to exclusively complaints on my talk page. When was the last time you put something actually wiki contribution related on my talk page?
I also think HPR1 is still waiting for that apology. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Jan 2013 3:44 PM Pacific
As it happens, I am still waiting for the apology; I've apologised twice - for two different things - but haven't received one in reply yet. Not, you can call crazy people "nutters", "bonkers", "loop-de-loop", "wacko" and a whole host of other names. And, as it happens, CestWhat, when I wrote the stuff with Matthew's great-great-grandfather, we were working under the indication that Robert was the 6th Earl (that would have made Matthew wrong, you see? He would have been Mary's 4th cousin once removed instead of fourth cousin) but now we know that Robert is the 7th earl, making Matthew's statement correct, so that makes me innocent of any problem there. Anyway, if you're so annoyed at things, then take a leaf out of Bluebellanon's book and make like a tree and leave. I won't stop you. That's not my place. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:56, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
Why can't you write what you apologized for, threaten violence. Plus none of your apologizes were real ones so I don't know why you act like you should be getting credit. Plus you know you lied about what the dialogue in the show was and then I call you out on it and you wrote the show was wrong. That's just sad and crazy. One can't be dead right about how the Earls are related to each other when one was dead certain Robert was 6th Earl a few months ago and now one is dead certain that Robert is the 7th Earl.
Also really, really sad that User:HRP1 is proud of his/her threats of violence worked (the other contributor left the wiki). If this isn't evidence that User:Fandyllic's idea that User:HRP1 is learning a lesson and behaving well is so, so wrong and worrying. CestWhat (talk) 01:05, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Your attempts to deflect attention from your promise to apologize that still goes unfulfilled still fail. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 28 Jan 2013 10:23 AM Pacific
The book "The Chronicles of Downton Abbey" confirms Robert is the 7th Earl; that means, at the time, that when I said Matthew's words were wrong - as it would make him Robert's 3rd cousin twice removed and Mary's 4th cousin once removed - I was right. Now, I know I was wrong, but at the time - as we thought Robert was the 6th Earl - I was right. So, in the words of Violet, stick that in your pipe and smoke it! Thus, that clears me of all problems involving that.
Both my apologies were apologies; I've done them, now I expect one from you - you'll get nowhere unless you do. So, again, that makes me the better man; not necessarily in the clear, but the better man nonetheless. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:50, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
 :: Expect you were telling me how Robert had to be the 6th Earl just a few months ago and dumb. I think it's rich that User:Fandyllic is accusing me of deflection since I'm taking on point by point what I'm being accused of and yet NO RESPONSE. I written before that I was going to apology for the sake of harmony until I saw that User:Fandyllic wanted me to apologize (that I didn't ask the reasoning behind User:HRP1's edits, that I didn't discuss them and that I wasn't open to info that was 100% supported in the show). I repeatedly shown that wasn't true yet it's deflected into this silly "you must apologize to the person who has repeatedly threaten violence against you since he/she can't be totally to blame for his/her own actions. I'm upset for this, but guess what, if I threaten violence (which I wouldn't since that's awful), I don't blame you for it. CestWhat (talk) 23:39, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
A few months ago, when I was saying it, The Chronicles of Downton Abbey had not been released; that meant Robert was Earl 6 and Matthew's words were wrong. Thus, I WAS RIGHT at the time. Of course, when the book confirmed he was the 7th Earl, Matthew's words made sense. See? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 10:59, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Goodbye Edit

Dear HPR1 and Fandyllic,

Im leaving until HPR1 and Fandyllic aplologize for bullying and rudness

Thank you  Cestwhat for your kindness


hbellamy 04:17, January 29, 2013 (UTC) ( Talk  )

It's your choice. I will not apologize for something I've not done. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 28 Jan 2013 8:51 PM Pacific
Weird, since you ask me to apologize for things I didn't do. I think it's a community issue that 2 contributor in a short period of time have left this wiki and unambitiously stated it has been because of harrassment and bullying from User:HRP1 and User:Fandyllic still maintain that everything is fine. CestWhat (talk) 23:38, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to go over all that again. You can deny removing content repeatedly after a warning, but the wiki history says otherwise. Like I keep saying, I'm an admin at Wikia's request. Get them to tell me to step down if you don't want me to be an admin. Foment rebellion as much as you like. Your efforts are weak and transparent.
Maybe you could match each complaint on my talk page with a positive wiki contribution. Then you could complain all you want. I'd even welcome it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 31 Jan 2013 3:46 PM Pacific
It's much much to write "I'm not going to go over all that again" after accusing me of deflection. Also the point about "positive contributions" is a bit weird since you often don't edit for days if not weeks. Also one person at Central Wiki simply asked and you accepted. Should matter if it's my first edit or my 1000th edit. Also, you've never ask or told me to apology over edit warring since I can't edit war with myself and User:HRP1 would also have to apology and the "apologies" (since they are weak and transparent in blaming me) were over threats of violence which is something I've never done to User:HRP1 or anybody else on the DA Wiki. I edit war since there isn't much of an alternative, but again you are changing and deflecting since you were asking to apology to a bully who have run several contributors off this wiki for reasons I didn't concur with and I expressed it. If you don't want to be an admin, that's one. I assume you do since you accepted without much of any pressure and can quit if you like. But I'm not leading a "rebellion." Disagreement isn't a rebellion. Nor is removing speculative, misleading or outright inaccurate information a "negative edit." I think it's fair to point that two contributors have left this wiki over bullying, right? It's not a rebellion.  CestWhat (talk) 01:01, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is. You clearly want me to step down as an admin, but you don't seem willing to just come out and say it. You don't want to apologize because you think you did nothing wrong. We disagree. Very simple. I think you did do something wrong and you don't. However, Wikia clearly supports my position more than yours, otherwise they would have removed me or asked me to step down, but instead they chose to give you a short (in my opinion) ban which despite what you may say is almost unprecedented. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 31 Jan 2013 5:08 PM Pacific

Again, I'm inferring that you must or should step down as admin. I don't think it's fair to say "Wiki" supports you. Wendy Merrystar supports (one person) and Central Wiki support her. I've gotten contributorS to agree with me, but this is getting us nowhere. Fine, I'm a jerk and this is type so that might seem like being sacrasic, but I'm not. I think I've been accused of a lot of things that are unfair and I'm let it go and I'm sorry that I'm making your job as admin more unpleasant. I think it's fair to point out that User:HPR1 has directly lead to two contributors leaving this DA Wiki just recently and that User:HPR1 is massively proud of it. I'm not proud that I'm not getting along as well as I would like with User:Fandyllic. I think User:HPR1 isn't that valuable to this wiki since a lot of these when this character was born stuff isn't really that important (yes, I know, that just my dump opinion) especially when it's leading to such of shitty community here. You and I might be jerks, but User:HPR1 is a mean jerk. CestWhat (talk) 01:27, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Whether all you say is true or not, it is not helpful, productive, or making the wiki better. Your comments generally only serve to inflame HPR1 and you have made almost no effort to work with him (besides less reverting which doesn't count). I will not admit to being a jerk and your comments have the reverse effect of encouraging me to step down.
Regardless, I still think you would make a bad admin and your behavior only underscores it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 31 Jan 2013 5:45 PM Pacific
So true doesn't matter? That's weird. I think it's also weird that not causing User:HPR1 is get inflamed is what I and apparently everybody else on this wiki has to concern themselves with since I figured the articles themselves would matter more. And if not inflaming somebody is so important, why is he/she allowed to insult me? That I don't go crazy about it on his/her TalkPage means he or she is right to do it.
I've made the effort over months and months. My talk and his/her is filled with me discussing it and dealing with a stone wall. One example of so many would be how the Earls are related to each other. I pointed out that we don't know if the 3rd Earl was the 2nd Earl's son, brother, grandson, nephew, etc... User:HRP1 offer Violet's dialogue "I didn't run Downton for 30 years to see it go, lock stock and barrel, to a stranger from God knows where." means that father and son inheritance was the sole way. I point out on the TalkPage that didn't make sense since Violet and Matthew are strangers because they've never meet while grandsons, younger brothers, nephews, etc... are strangers and that Violet isn't talking about what happen in generations before she was born. I was insulted for being dumb. I think the truth matters there. CestWhat (talk) 02:10, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

As far as we know, since it's never been mentioned, it's father to son inheritence; after all, given the actions and words of the characters, it seems likely that James - and in turn Patrick - was the first ever break in the "father to son" chain. Made an effort? Ever since I have known you you have made NOTHING of an effort, apart from snitching about me, disagreeing with me, more snitching and generally being a nuisance. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 11:03, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I am male; I noticed earlier you said "him/her" for me. Just thought I'd say and make things easier. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 11:14, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
You complain about me ALL THE TIME so sue me if I do it too. "As far as we know" is another way of saying "we don't know" and nothing even close to evidence. "actions and words" is about a vague as you can get. These are things that happen a century before the events in DA take place. You were the one from the very start that insulted me and when you can't prove you edits, you just go nuts or ignore it or play dumb. You are the nuisance and get into fight after fight with people are not me so it's not just me you can blame. CestWhat (talk) 20:15, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
But we do know - from the 1st Earl to the 7th -  it has to be father to son for Matthew's relationship with Robert (third cousin once removed) to work. And, just so you know, I never said it was all you. I've been blocked and apologised; you've been blocked, now I want your apologies - I'm owed two as it happens. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:14, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
You wrote it was all my fault all the time and then that everybody here (including User:Fandyllic) was biased towards you and we should all burn in hell. You apologized (rather insincerely) for threats of violence which I don't have to since I didn't threat violence against you or anybody else. You've never apologized for edit warring or being unwilling/unable to prove your edits. Again, you've been shown multiple family trees that showed how Robert and Matthew can be third cousins, once removed with a father to son inheritance of the Earldom of Grantham taking place each time. CestWhat (talk) 23:21, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

I did apologise for the threats - I gave my apology; irregardless of whether it's insincere or not, it's still an apology - so I require one from you. The edit warring, which started because of your actions in changing something - which I have also apologised for - require another apology too. You know as well as I do, that, from Earl 1 to Earl 7 it has to be father to son  for the relationship between Matthew and Robert to be correct; any other way, and it becomes incorrect. Please, leaarn that, before I get frustrated with you and ask the Wiki - and MerryStar - to block you again. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:51, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
You dismiss other critism when they mispell words so I guess I might as well point out that "learn" only has one "a" in it. Uncle to nephew is one generation apart so I still having shown any proof or logic that father-to-son stuff yet and what's worst, you seem to know this and basically saying to "trust" you because you are so much smarter then me or anybody else which is weird since it's something you've accused me of so many times. You can ask all you like. I was never blocked because you requested it. Also, since you and User:Fandyllic both pointed out that other contributor need to be more mature, it's super immmature to blame others for you own reaction. You are incorrect that there is any proof about how the Earls are related to them. If that fustrates you, tought beans. It's important not to let your own speculation give misleading and false information on the article. They could be, but they can easily not be. Again, I've writing about how I try to deal with User:HPR1 on specific information that can easily be shown isn't true or at least too speculative to be helpful and then I get this stonewalled "I'll repeat my vague points and assumptions and tell you to back off since I'm angry at being question and questioning me means you'll get block or I'll threaten you, forced to apologize where I'll threaten you within the apology." CestWhat (talk) 00:04, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
Learn was a typo, my bad. Uncle to Nephew is one Generation apart, but we definitely know it was Father to son - Robert says that Downton Place, which belongs to the Earl's of Grantham, came with his great-grandmother; this means that the 3rd Earl had a son who married Robert's great-grandmother; they then had a son who married Robert's grandmother; they then had two sons - Earl 6 and James Crawley's father; James Crawley's father had James (he in turn then had Patrick) and Earl 6 married Violet and had Robert, thus, we can be about 95% percent sure that it went Father to son, at least for 5 generations of it.
While information may be speculative, it can be put into the article for the sake of completion where the article is concerned; that is what you don't understand - it may not be a reference, but it can go into the Notes section to complete the article. See?
You've been stonewalled for that reason - you just remove the information. You don't think "Hmm, this is a bit speculative - can it go in the Notes or Behind the Scenes section instead?" which would be better; the information remains there but in a place that lets people know that, while it's likely to be true, it's unconfirmed, but is in the article for completion. When you learn that, then the two of us will get along like bees and honey. I assume you disagree with the reasoning behind the dates on the Miss Sybil Branson page too, you usually do!? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:44, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
Why not assume that contributor after contributor lamenting your presence here might not be because they are all "bias" towards you. You don't know that it was father to son. Again and again and again, you've got no proof. Downton Place, which isn't even the name of that house but just a name Cora made-up, is said to belong to Robert through his great-grandmother, never stating which one or that she was married to the Earl rather then the Earl's younger brother and their son inherited the title since that Earl had no sons of his own. That's speculative, but I don't put it. You don't get that speculative isn't just your own ideas, but a bizillion and one different possibilities (Roberta is Violet's sister, Violet's brother's wife, Violet's husband's sister, etc). You just pick the one you like of those possibilities and state "that's the best because I say so" and fustrated that others don't automatically defer to you. That's why it's best to avoid speculation that is so weak. So what anyway since it's got nothing to do with how It isn't a note or a behind the scenes if it's speculative, it's misleading, not informative. You love unconfirmed information for some unknown reason, and I don't really care. "Likely" doesn't mean whatever you like goes into the article and even by speculative standards, it's so low. 02:11, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
The great-grandmother of Robert that brought Downton Place with her must have been his father's grandmother. If it wasn't, then Downton Place would not belong to the Earl's of Grantham - it passed into the family by her marriage to the 4th Earl, you see, so cannot be in Robert's possession any other way.
If, as you suggest - wrongly, may I add - that she was married to the 4th Earl's brother, and the fourth Earl inherited the title after his brother's death, then Downton Place - which would belong to the offspring of the woman married to the 4th Earl's brother - would not belong to Robert, as he would be a "great-nephew" of her and not a descendant. See? Thus, she must have married the 4th Earl, be mother of the 5th Earl, grandmother of the 6th Earl - Robert's father - and the great-grandmother of Robert. The title can pass to nephew/uncle/cousin, so on, but Downton Place belongs solely to the offspring - and descedants - of the wife of the 4th Earl of Grantham - that's why Robert has it, and Violet, in Episode 3.03, confirms that her husband owned it too: "we used to have Luncheon in the house" while her husband "took the shooting there".
Based on that, we also know that, from the 3rd Earl, at least, the title did pass from father to son, as the 4th Earl was married to the woman who brought Downton Place with her; this makes her and the 4th Earl Robert's great-grandparents; thus the title must have passed from the 3rd Earl to the 4th, then to his son the 5th Earl, then to Robert's father and in turn Robert.
As for Roberta, well, we know she's Violet's sister; she is the great-aunt of Mary, Edith and Sybil. The only great-aunt they have on Robert's father's side is James Crawley's mother, and she was already dead, so Roberta was Violet's sister - we do not know if she is Susan's mother, but this is likely, if not confirmed.
See? Your comment was, mostly, inaccurate. I, as you can see above, have used all the valid references and information that we know, to prove myself right. Again. So, if you would kindly apologise for correcting me - when I have shown here that I am in the right - I would be very grateful. Thank you. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:46, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
You don't apology for correcting people when they are wrong and adding must into your statements doesn't make them any more accurate. The heiress of that estate marries the younger brother of the Earl of Grantham, that Earl has no children, her son would inherit both the estate and Downton Abbey and the title without having to be the son of an Earl. Nowhere can you site anything that says anything close to Violet saying she had one sister and only one sister. The idea that if you did, she'd mention it doesn't hold up since Violet never mentions Susan's daughter until 25 episodes into the series so by your logic, Rose can't exist and Susan must be childless. And Rose must be an only child until the Christmas Special by your logic. That's the problem with speculation, you may be right or wrong. You've having proven anything (again, typing must isn't proof) nor addressed any counter points. It's annoying since it's really easily to prove that you are just speculating and guessing or ignoring a lack of evidence.CestWhat (talk) 07:10, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
If the heiress married the earl and had no children, meaning her brother-in-law became earl, he would not get Downton Place, that belongs to the heiress and her heirs; she had none, so the estate would pass to a cousin or next heir of the person she inherited it from. Violet has one sister, Roberta, and at least one other sister; this woman is either a) Susan's mother - if that's not Roberta, or b) the woman that married Mr Gordon.
Until the Christmas Special Rose WAS an only child, as we didn't know the other's existed. See? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 07:27, February 2, 2013 (UTC)


For the infoboxes - which I notice are a new colour by the way - should we have a different colour for each family? E.g. Crawleys red, Bransons blue, green for Levinsons, pink for MacClares and so on and so forth? Or would this just make things complicated? The templates could be under "[Family Name] Family Member Infobox". HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 05:25, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Too complicated. Also, it might sound good in the mind's eye, but it might look silly in practice. Besides, what would you do for characters who were part of more than one family? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Jan 2013 9:29 PM Pacific
Like Sybil Crawley for example? You'd put her as the colour combination of Red and Blue to signify she's from both; but I can see where you're coming from, and it was, after all, only a suggestion. That's what this wiki is for; suggesting things. In this case I can see it doesn't work. No problem. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:46, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
I'm open to ideas, but color-coding infoboxes is low on the priority list. Once we get all the characters with good infoboxes, then we can worry about stuff like that. I'd like to see pages for Downton related books on the site, so I worked a little on {{Infobox book}} so it would match the current color-scheme. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Jan 2013 3:59 PM Pacific
Good idea! Yes, it will be good to get all the infoboxes up. Will we be adding infoboxes to the "minor offescreen characters" that we know are related to the Crawleys, like Roberta, Patrick, James, Banning and so on? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:40, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
We'll probably want a special limited infobox for minor offscreen characters... I'll think about that one. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 28 Jan 2013 3:58 PM Pacific
Yeah, that can wait until later, can't it? The main pages are the most important now. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:20, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Date of Episode 3.05Edit

In Episode 3.04 - the episode where Branson arrives after fleeing Downton - Robert says "Tennessee is going to ratify the 19th Amendment."; this happened in August 1920.

Is this enough information to confirm that Sybbie was born in September 1920 (the next episode) and that Sybil died on that date? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:48, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Unless you can establish the time between the ratification and Sybbie's birth, it could be August or September. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 30 Jan 2013 11:58 AM Pacific
Well, it has to be either one or the other; August - based on "Tennessee is going to ratify the 19th Amendment." in Episode 3.04 - or September - as the 2012 Christmas Special is set in September 1921. So, can we state that Sybbie was born in "August or September 1920"? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:24, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm... why would the 2012 Christmas Special be set in September 1921? That seems very odd. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 30 Jan 2013 3:30 PM Pacific
The 2012 Christmas Special is set in September 1921 (this has already been confirmed) as they go to Duneagle for the "grouse" - the shooting season which begins in September. It's 1 year after 1920, so that makes it 1921 as well. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:06, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
I haven't seen it yet, but that must mean that this "Christmas Special" isn't about Christmas like the previous one, unless they stay at Duneagle for several months. It will be interesting to find out what all the servants do during this time. Some of the spoilers in this wiki are unavoidable, but I'm trying not to go out of my way to find out what happens in the episodes I haven't seen yet. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 30 Jan 2013 4:22 PM Pacific
It's 10 days they intend to stay at Duneagle - they stay for about 7. I won't say why. It's September and 10 days they stay at Duneagle. So, can I add "August or September" to Sybil's page? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:01, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
If you put the detail in your ref, it should be okay to say August or September, 1921. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 30 Jan 2013 7:18 PM Pacific
Will this do?: Sybil was born in August or September 1920; we can infer this from Robert's words of "Tennessee is going to ratify the 19th Amendment." in Episode 3.04; this happened in August 1920 meaning that Episode 3.04 is set before August. This means, as the 2012 Christmas Special is set in September 1921, that Sybil must have been born in August - as this is after 3.04 - or September 1920 - which is a year before the events of the 2012 Christmas Special.
Hope it's alright. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 06:04, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, this only works if you have evidence baby Sybil is around 1 year old at the time of the 2012 Christmas Special... do you have evidence of that? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 30 Jan 2013 10:13 PM Pacific
I don't, but as they're *SPOLIER* playing cricket *END SPOILER* in 3.08, and the cricket season ends in September, it places it between 18th August (the ratification of the ammendment Robert mentioned) and 30th September, which was the end of the season that year.
Sybil was born in August or September 1920; we can infer this from Robert's words of "Tennessee is going to ratify the 19th Amendment." in Episode 3.04. The ratification of the ammendment happened on August 18th, 1920. This means that Episode 3.04 is set before August 18th when the Ammendment was ratified. This also means, as the 2012 Christmas Special is set in September 1921, that Sybil must have been born after the 18th of August - as that is after 3.04 and the ratification of the ammendment - and on or before the 30th of September 1920 - which is a year before the events of the 2012 Christmas Special. As well as this, September is the end of the cricket season - which spans from May to September in the UK - and Cricket is played in Episode 3.08, thus it cannot be after September.
How about that for the reference? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 06:30, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
Reviewing all the evidence, you don't need anything besides the info about the ratification happening in Episode 3.04, but without any good time references in Episode 3.05 and no age of Sybbie mentioned in later episodes, there is a possibility of her being born after September. I can't figure out how you get Sep 30, 1920 as a known to be after Sybbie's birth. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 31 Jan 2013 10:48 AM Pacific
In Episode 3.08 the Crawley Family play Cricket; the end of the cricket season is the end of September which was Spetember 30th that year; as Sybbie is in episode 3.08, we can state that she was born between 18th August - the ratification of the ammendment - and September 30th - the end of the cricket season; that also fits with the "one year later" of the 2012 Christmas Special. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:31, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I see. That should be good enough. I missed the Episode 3.08 mention farther up. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 31 Jan 2013 12:37 PM Pacific
It's all mentioned in the reference. That is the only time she can be born; it's definitely after the 18th of August - because of Robert's words in episode 3.04 - and before September 30th 1920 as that is when the Cricket Season ends; she is at the cricket match with Mary (and looks so adorable you just want to pinch her chubby cheeks!) so she must have been born before the end of September. Glad I finally got something right. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:43, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
You're right alot, but having a direct original source is easier. Some of your references hurt my brain. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 31 Jan 2013 1:02 PM Pacific
I am sorry *rubs Fandyllic's brain* I'll try and make my references easier. How much do I want to bet CestWhat will disagree with it? Speaking of which... he's been quiet recently... HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:41, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Added Appearances and Mentions BoxEdit

I have added an "Appearances and Mentions" box - you know, the one you made - to these pages: Kieran, Sybbie, Tom, Rosamund, Rose, Martha, Shrimpie, Susan, Violet, Edith, Mary, Cora, Sybil, Isobel, Robert and Matthew.

Thought you ought to know. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 12:22, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Cool. If you think of any other templates you might like, tell me and I can work on them. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Feb 2013 11:58 AM Pacific
Thanks, I will. There's nothing else at the moment, but I will let you know. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:14, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Earl's relations to eachEdit

Moved to Forum:Earl's relations to each. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2 Feb 2013 11:16 PM Pacific

I'd like to edit the information about how the previous Earls of Granthams are related to other. CestWhat (talk) 21:45, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you would, but if you're expecting some kind of strange blanket permission without knowing the specifics... Please discuss it at the forum page. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5 Feb 2013 3:39 PM Pacific
Again? It's been discussed (making my case and countering case against it) a lot. Waiting on you. I've asked in that discussion what else is need or is misunderstood about the position I've made? CestWhat (talk) 23:47, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

It's been discussed for over a week and wondering if you have any questions before moving forward? CestWhat (talk) 20:35, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

I'd like some specific recommendations under the actual sections, aka "1st Earl of Grantham" with a signature. I don't want to read all these side arguments and try to figure out what person they refer back to. This is why I made these sections.
Personally, I don't see this forum page helping much and is just a rehash of the dispute between you and HPR1.
Here's what I'll do, I'm going to go through List of minor off screen characters and {{fact}} tag all the stuff that doesn't have a good reference. I will wait a week and everything without good references will be commented out (but left in the article, in case a good reference is found soon after). After a month, the commented out stuff will get removed. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11 Feb 2013 2:06 PM Pacific
I did, but by article. CestWhat (talk) 22:19, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
This is a good idea - it will prove me right and CestWhat wrong, thus, I like this. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:35, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
The articles are going away, so re-hashing by article is the wrong organization. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11 Feb 2013 3:34 PM Pacific
Outside of organizing and whichever section, what about the content? CestWhat (talk) 23:47, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
What content specifically? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11 Feb 2013 9:30 PM Pacific
The specific articles mentioned and three or four sentences stating what ought to be changed i.e. what is known and unknown about how the Earls of Grantham are related to respective predecessors.
So with this fact tag. User:HPR1 is taking them off and putting information and I disagree with the reasoning behind it (i.e. obviously there can be two or more Countesses of Grantham live at the same time since we got Cora and Violet as main characters). What do I do? CestWhat (talk) 16:04, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
Actually, since you like pedantics, CestWhat, there cannot be two Countesses; There can be the Countess and the Dowager - they are two different things. One is a Countess, the other is a former Countess. As for adding the information, I am adding valid information; I have added the press pack in to Violet and one (possibly 2) of the required sections. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 16:25, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
Articles that duplicate sections in List of minor off screen characters will be deleted unless they actually show up in the show (which would be gross because they're all dead). So arguing about what is in them is pointless. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12 Feb 2013 8:31 AM Pacific
We're arguing about the List of minor off screen characters, Fandyllic. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 17:04, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
It's hard to tell, but I will be reviewing and correcting references at List of minor off screen characters. Sometimes I will be putting {{fact|<Reason for fact tag.>}} back for references that are not up to snuff. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12 Feb 2013 9:38 AM Pacific

Actually Violet's title is still Countess of Grantham, even with Cora around. She referred as the Dowager Countess or Countess of Grantham. i.e. When Matthew thinks Cora is visiting him after his co-worker says the Countess of Grantham is here and it turns out to be Violet. There are ton more within the show where Violet is called "Countess of Grantham" or when Cora is called "Countess of Grantham" and is confused for Violet.

Either way, I just like to point out that I don't want to be part of an edit war again if it doesn't get the wiki anywhere.

Also, there are "technically accurate" stuff that is either more confusing or far from clarifying. If I wrote, "Robert is man therefore he has a penis." I'm not being inaccurate, but I'm not really clarifying or telling readers something they didn't already know. Sorry if that was too lewd for an example. Another would be, "Thomas kissed Jimmy in his bedroom which has four walls, a floor and a ceiling." i.e. The 6th Earl being at least twelve when he got married. Was anybody thinking he was eleven? It doesn't narrow down his age at all since he could have been 43 years old when he got married for all we know. The other stuff I pointed out, (Roberta, Earls relations, Robert's year of birth, etc...) have been factual disagreements on bad sourcing (if any sourcing). I admit this is more about style. CestWhat (talk) 16:37, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Don't want to be part of an edit war? Good. Nor me. I know I'm right - even if you constantly disagree and that's enough for me. As for the Cora and Violet thing, while it is true, there cannot be wo Countesses at a time; there can be the Dowager Countess - who has already been a Countess - and a Countess - who is married to the Earl - so they are, with technicalities included, two different things; there is a former Countess and the Current Countess, not two Dowagers or two current Countesses. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:01, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

There can have more then one dowager countess. If applied to DA universe, if Mary had accepted Matthew's first proposal, married him, Robert died for whatever reason afterwards, Violet and Cora are dowagers and Mary is the countess. I googled it, and in those cases which of course have actually happen in the real world, Violet's the senior dowager.
I admit this is getting into a repeative thing "You suck"/"No I don't because you suck" nonsense. I appreciate the fact tag is a step towards ending it. Just stating that it isn't very magnanimous to write you don't want to be part of an edit (it's a safe bet he'd feel differently if the articles current read the way he didn't agree with and he'd be clicking "undo" as much as anyone). User:HPR1 has been editing whatever he likes (99.whoever-many-9s-he-can-make-up% correct) and others like me don't edit it and let it stand while the process sorted out is "not taking part" in an edit war. CestWhat (talk) 23:10, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
While you are right, Violet will highly likely be dead before Robert is, she is an old woman who is nearly in her eighties, after all.
As it happens, if an article didn't read how I wanted it to read - e.g. if you, like usual, have added/removed wrong information - I would get Fandyllic's permission and then change it.
The edit war has been averted this time, let's leave it at that. There's no need to start one. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:33, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

Fact tagEdit

CestWhat (talk) 22:13, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

I will start re-directing articles tagged for deletion today, so you can stop worrying about them. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 14 Feb 2013 2:42 PM Pacific

Now, you are being picky! Why would Mary, a baby, play with someone many years older than her? She wouldn't, so he has to be around her age. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:51, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

The Billy Russell thing is not a reference, but a note. See User_talk:HarryPotterRules1#References_to_notes.2Fspeculation for how to make notes.
The Roberta/Susan thing could be worded better, but is not particularly bad. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 15 Feb 2013 5:17 PM Pacific
Except the note itself is inaccurate and the note is used as a reference for information within the main section (born in 1890's isn't in the note section). The only two lines are Robert saying, "She's been going to that house since she was a girl in a party dress." and "When Billy was killed, it knocked the stuffing out of them completely." Party dress is just clothing and the same way you don't have to drink a cocktail to wear a cocktail dress, you don't have to party in a party dress. And even if she did, that has nothing to do with Billy's age since he never said anything about playing with Billy. Billy could have been a baby or all-grown up when Mary was a girl. Haxby Hall is the neighboring estate so they visit. If User:HPR1 wants to make inference about why the Crawleys were there for a play date for Billy Russell, that's what FanFic is for. The note claims they played together yet that's nowhere in the episode. He could have had sisters for Mary to play with or not. Also why "1890s" since 1889 is must closer to Mary's year birth then 1899. We don't know Billy's age and no hints to it (he could have been 18 or 38 when he was killed in WWI). CestWhat (talk) 18:03, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
I'll take that under advisement. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 16 Feb 2013 10:18 AM Pacific
Advisement for how long? Remove (b. 1890s) or not. CestWhat (talk) 19:07, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
Billy is hinted to be young - after all, if he was older and married and had a child, it wouldn't have knocked the stuffing out of his parents since He'd have a kid to inherit Haxby, thus he's not married and still young; this also means that, since Mary seems fond of him, they were around the same age, meaning he was born in the late 1880s or early 1890s and is around Mary's age HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:23, February 16, 2013 (UTC).
There's nothing to say that Billy was unmarried or childless. Anybody can infer it if he or she like's but that it isn't the same as using it as a source. 39 is still young enough to still have children. Mary seems fond of him therefore he's the same age since you can't be fond of people not born 1890s? All she did was acknowledge the impact of somebody's else on his family and she, like anybody, can do this without having to be the same age. This seems too obvious to have to type, but there it is. She fond of Sybil, they aren't the same age. Plus this ignoring that "played together" part was just made-up. ~CestWhat (talk)
No, but if Billy was married or had a child, there would be no need to sell Haxby; they could have passed it to their grandchild and left. Thus, he's very likely to be unmarried, thus the reason they sold it. And yes, while it is true that 39 is still young enough to have children, as seen by the reaction to Cora's pregnancy, people who are older - in their 30s and 40s (Cora was 46, after all) - are less likely to have children. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:29, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Menopause? Fertility and age are different for women then they are for men. A 39 year-old first time father is much less odd in 1917 then a 40-something women being pregnant for the first time in 18 years. Note the oddness was that Cora was pregnant, not that Robert got her. Also it makes all the more sense then that he was younger then Mary since 18 year-old are generally childless. Yet again,being childless doesn't mean he was the same age as Mary (one can't make that connection no matter how you come at it).
All Mary did was acknowledge that his family was selling Haxby Hall because they're devastated by Billy's death. That isn't fondness, but a reality of how the Russells feel. She never says anything along the lines, "I liked Billy." And even if she did, people can know people who aren't the same age. This seems so simple.
Unlike User:HPR1 calling me a dumb person (with I wish he would stop), if he would like to infer Billy was the same age as Mary, go for it. I'm not saying it doesn't make sense. I just think if somebody wants to infer he wasn't, he or she has just as much right. This wiki is a reference.
At very least, the part about playing together or born in 1890s can be removed.
Also, remember, in Season 2, Mary was a heartless bitch who cared for no-one except those people she knew. True, she and Sybil aren't the same age, but Sybil is kind and can see the goodness in Mary, and Mary can see the same in her. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:05, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Despite editEdit

User:HPR1 is editing to make me upset with non-productive edits about Roberta and Gordon aunt. I'd note that you have already ruled that the Gordon aunt stuff a while ago wasn't to be put in outside of her being Robert's aunt and User:HPR1 ignored it. CestWhat (talk) 20:22, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Without specifics, your characterization as "non-productive" doesn't hold much weight. As I've pointed out elsewhere, you aren't the shining example of productive edits yourself. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 18 Feb 2013 1:13 PM Pacific
Well, not to throw stone, but I didn't run three contributors to leave this wiki just recent over my bullying behavior. Also I was more active, writing article after article until I got into this swamp of "I KNOW AND IF I'M QUESTIONED, I THREATEN" and would love nothing more then to move on since his arguements are so inconsistant and ever changing when the fact he's presents aren't true (i.e. Mary "played with" Billy Russell or Violet's husband was named Patrick)
This edit,_Dowager_Countess_of_Grantham?diff=20943&oldid=20942 that he made the same day I wrote that. We were both told not edit disputed information. It's been a week on that FactTag stuff. We discussed the Aunt Gordon stuff months ago and you told him it wasn't correct (dispite bring Mahatma Gandhi into for whatever reason). CestWhat (talk) 21:23, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
I'll give you a choice CestWhat: butt out and let me and Fandyllic deal with it instead of constantly watching my edits and attempt to improve your own or leave this wiki and never return if you're going to be such a critic. Those are the choices. Choose. Make the right one. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:56, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
Or you could just add some {{fact}} tags which I have done. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 18 Feb 2013 8:04 PM Pacific

Leave or stay, I don't care. All I pointed out what pretty simple stuff i.e. Aunt Gordon. It was dealt with months ago with you were told you were wrong. You've ignored it today to just prove a point about you don't listen. I'd love to move on, but won't let a bully win simply be bullying people off this wiki. He can't back up his claims (even User:Fandyllic has pointed this out). User:URP1 was happy before I came along. Well I and a lot of others felt the same way about him. The unanimous feeling from this wiki is that User:HPR1 shouldn't have anything close to admin powers. Considering User:HPR1 history of violent threats, feel comfortable since "make the right one" nonsense. CestWhat (talk) 03:01, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

I am not leaving - the choice was for you to stay or go. I have already given up the amibition of being admin - especially with you here; I'd never have a day off. Ever. Actually, you;ll find that if you use your brain and look further up, it was never actually discussed. The only thing we discussed was Roberta being Violet's sister; none of the other two were discussed. Trust me when I say that until you turned up - after what appears to be a break - I had no problems with anyone. Then you returned, changed things on the articles that turned out to actually be correct, turned everyone against, meddled in things that ought not to be meddled in, became persnicketty and a nuisance - and now this wiki is more of a battle ground between us.

You may have won the battle this time, but I shall win the war, even if I have to forcibly hound you from this wiki to do it.

Yours, I am right and you are wrong, HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:14, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now I have about had it with you. I am now working with this principle: For Wiki possibly 2

You can do the same, or get lost - I am using that to avoid swearing. I KNOW I am right, and that you may try to put me down. I may be the minority, but I am in the right and will not apologise for it.

End of. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:41, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

I thought User:HPR1 told everybody who contributes to this wiki including User:Fandyllic to go to hell and was starting his own wiki. Believe it when I see it. Casing of words doesn't make one more or less WRONG or RIGHT. You can know whatever you like, doesn't change inference isn't the same thing as stating a fact. Also you are ignoring that User:Fandyllic also told you were wrong on this Aunt Gordon stuff (or the way you are writing it at least) and you ignore it to focus on me (which isn't a new thing either). I'd like to move on as much as anybody, but if User:HPR1 is going to ignore everybody because "I'M RIGHT" as a source. CestWhat (talk) 01:49, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
I was starting my own wiki - I was convinced that staying on this one would prevent conflicting information from being on other sites and chose to stay: beginning to regret that now, especially where you are involved. No, you are correct - casing of words doesn't change anything, and actually, you will find that i have worded the page as "may have" not "does", thus, as it is the only current option - we know Robert has one aunt, James Crawley's mother - it is most likely right, if not outright stated, as there is no other possible options we can have; Violet has 2 (possibly 3 if Roberta or the Gordon Aunt isn't Susan's mother) sisters.
On one last note, Fandyllic never actually stated that I was wrong on it. I would abuse you, but I'm above that and frankly you'll never learn, never be trusted and be defeated by me - or others - on every turn. So, I will end this conversation with the following GIF.
This, is what I think of you - and your opinion - at the moment: File:Tumblr m7qm4chWDa1qgs9y7.gif

Yours, in the right, HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:58, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

Threaten againEdit

User:HPR1 has been warned and warned again about theats of physical violence. If reaction to User:Fandyllic adding a fact-tag as my request, he threaten physical violence against me. Quote: "even if I have to forcibly hound you from this wiki to do it." He has been warned about this and told he would blocked if he did it again. Quote from user:Merrystar: "HPR1 -- the next time you talk about hitting people or otherwise threaten anybody you will be blocked again." CestWhat (talk) 03:19, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Note, I did say "if I have to," not "I will", so it wasn't actually a threat; it was a turn of phrase. Besides, the admin's can do their job; maybe if you dealt with problems related to you - like your edits, for example - they could do their jobs! Let Fandyllic and whoever else is in charge deal with me; you, fix your edits, or leave and make us all a damn sight happier - got it? This, currently, is how much I give to your opinions, thoughts, feelings and frankly annoying and meaningless existence that is an nuisance that should never have been in the first place, you parafin headed pea-brain!:

File:Tumblr m7qm4chWDa1qgs9y7.gif

Can you tell, Fandyllic, Merrystar, that I am - if you'll pardon this language since it's not "abusing" anyone, though CestWhat in his useless, twatlike ways will claim it is - getting very fucked off with CestWhat at the moment? Get rid of him, or I tell everyone on the other wikis to ignore this one just to spite CestWhat and ruin him forever more. It was a damn sight more bloody peaceful when I first arrived and he wasn't here! (Around the time Martha was announced to be in Series 3, for references sake).

Do us all one big favour - as you can actually check his edits and see that it is his fault this started - and get rid of him. Thank you. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:56, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

As usual you are both behaving badly. What HPR1 says is not quite a threat, but should not have been said. As I said before, "don't engage" either of you. Both of you always have the option of going to Wikia staff. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 21 Feb 2013 9:21 PM Pacific
One, it is a threat of violence. He writes he'll forcibly removed if I don't do what he wants. User:HPR1 states it isn't because I have to choice to agree with his bullying (that was a theat is).
Two, it wasn't my behavior that got this threat, it was User:Fandyllic. When User:Fandyllic put a fact-tag on that, I got insulted.
Three, I have received about a gizillion and one personal insults right now. I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that all I did was engage in a discussion of what should and shouldn't be in the article. That's allowed and encouraged. I didn't single out User:HPR1. I did that with User:Fandyllic over Crowborough having a dukedom for example. No threats or being mean.
Fine, I'll try to be more productive and helpful in edits beyond fact-checking. It's a fair critique. But that doesn't mean one cancels out the other either.
Again, I don't think my behavior in this situation (simply pointing out a factual dispute that User:Fandyllic agreed was unsourced) deserved so many personal attacks and a threat of violence (which of couse it is despite User:HPR1 claiming it). Again, it was User:Fandyllic's action of simply agreeing with me in just the slightest way of just putting a fact-tag that caused this. I'd note he claimed that other threats of violence weren't "really threats" either.
I never told "don't talk me" like he so often does to me. If he wants to make this or that claim, that's fine with me. I've never called him dumb for doing it. It's a bit of drama to point who this isn't wrong and I admit I don't have to engage when he writes back, but that doesn't mean I don't have the expectation of being treated like I have no feelings or can't be scared or hurt by personal attacks or threats of violence just because I've questioned over and over again about this or that article. CestWhat (talk) 06:17, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
yes i have been following this filth for months and this is in australia Abuse and CyberBullying,in which you would be jailed for.
Fandyllic and HPR1 are bullying Cestwaht and others of this wikia, Fandyllic ,you support HPR1,
I SAY REVOLTION NOW 10:22, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
LOL. Good luck, anonymous coward. Please complain to Wikia. That option is always open to you. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Feb 2013 3:12 PM Pacific


Just in case you didn't notice it already, does this seem like spam? CestWhat (talk) 01:04, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's spam. It will be deleted and I'll leave a message on the user's page. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 21 Feb 2013 9:16 PM Pacific

Downton Abbey Edit

I have recently started watching Downton Abbey and I am almost caught up. Once I am, I will be able to edit more on the Wiki. I am trying to steer clear for now, so I won't get any spoilers :) QueenBuffy February 28, 2013

I'm going work on a system to hide spoilers (if you have Javascript turned on in your browser, which most people do), so hopefully future readers who want to avoid spoilers will be able to do that. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 28 Feb 2013 5:46 PM Pacific

I thought that I would...Edit to say that I am back. Hello! What's gone on in my absence? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:18, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I've been really busy on WoWWiki, so I don't really know. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 28 Feb 2013 5:47 PM Pacific
Ah, ok. Could you please check the references on Sybil and Matthew's pages? I found images of their graves. Matthew's confirms he was born in 1885 and that his middle name is Reginald, and Sybil's (though it is a little blurry) confirms her birthdate is 1895 (the 5 can be seen if you go down from the ON in her surname) and confirms that her middle name is Cora.
Can you check to make sure they are alright - and edit them if need be? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:27, March 1, 2013 (UTC)


The reference things (you know the < references / >) isn't working on the LIST OF MINOR OFFSCREEN CHARACTERS page - can you fix it? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:31, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. You need to follow every <ref> with a </ref>. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Mar 2013 2:00 PM Pacific
Thanks. Can you check the references on Sybil Branson (Lady) page, as well as the ones on Matthew Crawley, Robert and Earl of Grantham pages, please?--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:12, March 1, 2013 (UTC)
I looked at the references, but I'm not sure what I was supposed to fix. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Mar 2013 3:47 PM Pacific
You misunderstood - I just wanted you to check them, to make sure they were valid and correct. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:18, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

Ok. That will take longer. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1 Mar 2013 5:17 PM Pacific

Detailed Summary Edit

Hello, I have been meaning to come and thank you for welcoming me when I first came here, but I didn't want to bother you until I had a question. I have been doing these detailed summaries of the episodes, which have gotten increasingly more detailed until they cannot truly continue to be called summaries. The one for Episode 3.03 in particular. I was thinking of renaming it "Complete Description" instead. They probably are too large to be on the Episode page which should contain things like cast lists and production notes. Right now the pages are empty and it doesn't matter, but when the episode pages do get completed , I can move them. I can write an actual detailed summary and link it to another page where I can put the complete description, for people who want to see "all" the details.

I love all the little details, like the rules the servants have to follow and the historical references. Maybe later I'll do pages on these. There are several books about Downton Abbey dealing with the prodution of the show that I am going to be ordering, so I will be able to help out with the production notes.

I have been having this annoying problem when editing. I can go through the website in Wikia mode, but when I want to edit I have to go to preferences and change to monobook . If I try to edit in wikia, It only gives me a continually cycling "loading editor" screen. And editing in monobook is very difficult as the type is very small. If you could please find out why this is happening, I would greatly appreciate it. Looking forward to hearing from you and thanks again. AbbessAbbess (talk) 15:58, March 2, 2013 (UTC)

I was very happy to hear from you, and I totally agree about the episode. I'll change this "complete episode description" or "complete episode analysis" or whatever it ends up being called, and all the ones I do in the future, to break it up by scenes so that people can find the part that they are looking for. I'm still worried that it is too long for an Episode page and should be moved and linked, with a shorter detailed summary on the actual episode page.

Anyway, I have had the problem of only being able to edit in monobook most of today, but it just seemed to have cleared up for now. Do you have any idea what caused this, and if it will happen again? I lost several hours of editing when it happened the first time, when I hit publish and it stuck me on that "loading editor" screen. However, it seems to be OK for now, but I'm copying my work just in case. AbbessAbbess (talk) 00:08, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Preferred Outline for Character ArticlesEdit

I was going to add some season 3 information for Sarah O'Brien, but I just couldn't find a way to fit it into her article without reorganizing the whole thing. Is there one standard structure for the character articles, because I have found a variety. There are articles that don't break up the information at all; it's all in one section. Most articles break it up into three seasons. Tom Branson's article breaks it up further by episode. Other articles have a background section and then discuss various relationships that person has with other people. While others have both seasons and relationships. Is there a preferred outline? Abbess. Abbess (talk) 18:22, March 4, 2013 (UTC) P.S. I added a cast list for Episode 3.05.

I know I'm not an admin, but really the Lady Sybil Branson page is how they all should be. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:14, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
We do need something like Downton Abbey Wiki:Boilerplates or Help:New character articles, but we don't have anything yet. I'm not sure how much time I'll have to work on something like this, but I will try to start.
If you have any recommendations of good examples (like HarryPotterRules1's example) to base a bolierplate off of, I could use that as a guideline. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4 Mar 2013 11:43 AM Pacific
I saw the character template that you have under construction. The "Vocation" section could be changed to "Background" and the "Major Event" section could be "Seasons One, Two, and Three". Let me know when it is out of construction so I can start adapting articles to fit the model. I mentioned the cast list that I put in for Episode 3.05, I brought that template over from another wikia. Do I need to post it somewhere. It would be easier for someone to take it from the episode I did rather than get it empty and have to fill all the names in themselves, as most of them will stay the same and changes can can just be added or deleted. Abbess.Abbess (talk) 22:06, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
You don't need to wait for the help article to be finished. It is only a guideline. I will try to integrate any suggestions you have. Also feel free to add or correct the help pages. It's about collaboration. No one dictates formatting. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4 Mar 2013 2:44 PM Pacific

Admin Edit

Finished and now all caught up with Downton. I can't believe the ending of Season 3! Anyway, I also threw my name in for Adminship. I don't have too much time with Game of Thrones getting ready to start back, but If I get awarded the spot, I will definitely keep an eye out on here. QueenBuffy March 7, 2013

I noticed a few of them lol. No worries, I've dealt with people like that plenty of times.. unfortunately ;) QueenBuffy March 7, 2013

Favorite character Edit

Who is your favorite downton abbey character? —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) 12:01, March 9, 2013‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

I probably don't have a favorite, but I like Violet and Daisy for different reasons. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9 Mar 2013 12:44 PM Pacific

Worrying MessagesEdit

Hello, just noticed messages from this user: Special:Contributions/ I'm guessing it's just someone trying to scare users by mentioning copyright and payment to them, but thought it was worth bringing to your attention in case anyone takes it seriously. --bloob (talk) 20:41, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will deal with it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 15 Mar 2013 1:02 PM Pacific
Should I be worried? It was my wall they posted it on. Or, can I just delete it? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:46, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
I think I know what the images might be that the complain stems from, but I would just leave the stuff there for now. Pretty much all the images I've seen should fall under fair use and if the image was taken from a news site, the copyright claim is weak. The threats were poorly written. The threat was basically, "hey you posted copyrighted stuff, but I'm to lazy to specifically tell you what..." Lame. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 15 Mar 2013 3:32 PM Pacific
Phew! That makes me happy. It was the images of Matthew and Sybil's Graves, wasn't it? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:49, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

I have a question.Edit

In The 2012 Christmas Special Edna looks at a picture of Sybil - and we see it too - would this count as an "appearance" of her, since it's her image?HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 06:06, March 20, 2013 (UTC)

No. If I said yes, you would be creating character pages for all the people who appear in paintings. ;-) You can mention it in notes on Sybil's page, though. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 20 Mar 2013 5:39 PM Pacific
No, no, you misunderstand. On the episode "Appearance Box" could I add "appears" to Episode 3.08 due to the image of her appearing in the picture? It wouldn't be a new page at all. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:51, March 24, 2013 (UTC)
I understand, but a picture is not an appearance. It's sort of not a mention either, but closer to a mention. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 24 Mar 2013 6:32 PM Pacific
Ok. Thanks. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 14:38, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism on Thomas Barrow PageEdit

Hello, I'd like to draw your attention to vandalism by this user: Special:Contributions/

Also, if you need any help with the wiki I'd be happy to have Rollback rights to help easily revert obvious vandalism like this. bloob (talk) 16:04, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
Blocked for a month. You now have rollback rights and appear here: Downton_Abbey_Wiki:Rollback_users#Rollback_users. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12 Apr 2013 10:23 AM Pacific
Thanks! It does make reverting stuff like that so much easier. :) bloob (talk) 19:16, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
I would ask for Rollback rights - by god, they'd have helped when CestWhat was involved - but I know not to ask for them! :-P HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:30, April 25, 2013 (UTC)
It's not out of the realm of eventual possibility, but now... probably not. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Apr 2013 1:45 PM Pacific

Lady Sybil Branson's DeathEdit

Do we really need a page on this? I've added the delete tag but wondered if it might be a pretty quick straightforward decision? --bloob (talk) 08:31, April 21, 2013 (UTC) 

Deleted. It was poorly written and incomplete. The video referenced was very poor quality as well. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 22 Apr 2013 1:00 PM Pacific
This page has been recreated. I've added the delete tag again and given my reasoning in the article comments. bloob (talk) 08:15, April 25, 2013 (UTC)
Redirected and message left on re-creator's talk page. - Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Apr 2013 9:51 AM Pacific

Reporting vandalism on the Anna Bates and Thomas Barrow page (again!)Edit

Vandalism by this contributor: Special:Contributions/ bloob (talk) 19:54, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history again there also appears to be vandalism by this user (I think I'm reading it right): Special:Contributions/ bloob (talk) 20:00, May 4, 2013 (UTC)
Not much I can do about anonymous vandals. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6 May 2013 10:33 AM Pacific
Well you can ban them can't you? bloob (talk) 19:23, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
Not really, because you never know if multiple people may end up sharing or re-using an IP address. Banning by IP is very unreliable, especially if it is a generated dynamic IP address which most are. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 17 May 2013 1:21 PM Pacific
You COULD ban them actually; a specific computer (and account) uses a specific IP address, so if you blocked them INFINITELY then they'd be unable to access the wiki on the computer that has that IP address. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 12:39, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Canon InformationEdit

Hello, just wanted your opinion on this page: Canon Information, recently written by HPR1. I've also just removed a header they put onto a lot of pages which told people they had to read this page before doing any editing. Since this seemed like attempting to put a policy in place without community discussion I've reverted the addition of the header. bloob (talk) 11:22, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't an intent of putting a policy in place; it was to avoid more edit wars between Me and CestWhat or other people who later arrive - a canon policy, which has to be read first - informs them of how high in canon each bit it. Note, bloob, you wrote "policy" twice in your sentence, so I removed one to correct it. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 14:52, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

I get why you wrote it, and I think the idea behind it is good - it's just not something one person should decide. bloob (talk) 15:44, June 3, 2013 (UTC) 
It is actually a very good start. I just commented out the bullet item under 6) for now, because it really is more of opinion. If enough other users agree with it, it can be put back.
As Bluebellanon said, these canon guidelines should be discussed point-by-point, but it is a really good start. From a quick glance, I would say it can stand unless someone has a clear and reasonable disagreement with something specific. Then we can remove that part temporarily and maybe fix it for re-addition or put it a more appropriate section. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3 Jun 2013 6:10 PM Pacific
Woo! Does that mean I can add the "Please seen Canon page before making edits" template onto the major pages again? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 12:37, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Did you miss the part where Fandyllic said "As Bluebellanon said, these canon guidelines should be discussed point-by-point"? Discussion needs to take place BEFORE major changes are made to the wiki - not afterwards. You can't put policy in place without discussion - it isn't fair to everyone else. --bloob (talk) 12:55, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
↑ We shouldn't recommend any guidelines primarily written by one person until at least some group of the community has reviewed them. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4 Jun 2013 6:25 AM Pacific
"From a quick glance, I would say it can stand unless someone has a clear and reasonable disagreement with something specific" <-- Fandyllic also said this - this, since we do not have a disagreement with the INFORMATION, just the order, means I should be able to stick them back in; we all agree the info is correct, but the order is not. Thus, the "please see Canon page before making edits" should be put back. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:07, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
I have a disagreement with the information. I've given several points I'd like to see changed before it's accepted. bloob (talk) 19:25, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
From reading over it, it is only the "cast interviews" and the order you seem to have a problem with. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:29, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Those are pretty major issues, imo, since we're trying to establish which sources have precedence over others. Also, you're missing the point again - neither me or you are the only people on this wiki. This discussion needs to stay open for a while to let everyone have their say before it's put in place as policy/guidelines. Personally I'd let it stay open about a month before it's closed - but that's not up to me. bloob (talk) 19:34, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
While it's true that you and I are not the only ones on this wiki, apart from you, me, CestWhat, Fandyllic and occasionally Seth Cooper, not many people use this wiki - and CestWhat and I have, as you can plainly attest you, never got along. Ever. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:38, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
We've recently had a few new members, including people who've put themselves forwards for the admin role, and we have anon editors all the time. Their opinions matter too. Also, I think it would really help if both of you tried to draw a line under everything that's gone on in the past and move on. If you expect to always argue with someone, I think you'll find that you usually will. bloob (talk) 19:48, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
I have put a line under it, but having every single edit even canon ones corrected by CestWhat does linger and sting, very muchly so. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:05, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah . . . you see the bit you just wrote just then, about past events . . . that would be you not having put a line under it at all. bloob (talk) 20:09, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Sybbie BransonEdit

In Episode 1 of Series 3, when Sybil takes off her dress and gets into bed, you can see the pregnant swell of her stomach; could we include this as an "appearance" of Sybbie, since Sybil was pregnant with Sybbie? 12:44, June 4, 2013 (UTC)HarryPotterRules1 (talk)

Uh, no. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4 Jun 2013 6:23 AM Pacific
Thank you! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:27, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism and quick questionEdit

Hello, I've just reverted vandalism by this user: Special:Contributions/ who inserted what looks like fanfic into the Lady Mary Crawley page. I've reverted the vandalism but thought it was worth mentioning since it's pretty obvious vandalism. Also, I wondered it would be alright for me to leave messages on the talk pages of recently active users asking them for their input on the discussion going on about the Downton Abbey Wiki:Canon information page? I just thought it's important that as many people as possible take part since it's a decison that will affect everyone. bloob (talk) 19:54, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

I've left that message, I just had a look down the Recent Wiki Activity page a way and left a message for the recently active users. bloob (talk) 14:12, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Canon InformationEdit

Hello, sorry to bother you if you're busy, but I'm not sure if you're keeping up with the discussion about the Canon Information page so I just thought I'd mention that I've written a second draft and I'd be interested in having your opinion of it: Proposed Second Draft. blue (talk) 12:28, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. As well as the above still being open I've just reopened this discussion: Forum:Article names with character names and titles#Reopening this discussion and I've begun a discussion here: Forum:Should we be including gosip, rumours and speculation? I'd be interested to have your opinions on this. Perhaps with some of them you could simply decide based on what the majority seems to want? If we wait for everyone to agree or for everyone who edits here to give their opinion then nothing is ever going to get decided - you do as an admin have the power to decide things like that, especially when the community doesn't seem to be large enough to come a decision itself. I hope you don't mind me pointing this out, as 'm sure you're aware of it. But I think the lack of certain policies (on canon, naming conventions etc) is detrimental to the community and having them in place would make things a lot easier. blue (talk) 13:13, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate pageEdit

Hello, there's been a duplicate of the Reggie Swire page created here: Lavinia's father. I've added it to the candidates for deletion but thought it might be a quick decision. --blue (talk) 20:30, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

A redirect is fine. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 22 Jun 2013 7:35 PM Pacific

Request to ban User:CestWhatEdit

Hello, I am an Administrator from the Game of Thrones Wiki. We banned User:CestWhat three months ago, but she kept coming back on under a series of over twenty sockpuppet accounts, drastically exacerbating the situation: [2]

I put in a formal request to Wikia to ban her global account: but it may be quite some time before they get around to our specific problems.

All of the other Administrators on the Game of Thrones Wiki were in agreement on pursuing further action against this internet troll.

If at all possible, I humbly request as one Admin to another that you permanently ban CestWhat from the Downton Abbey Wiki; it's the wiki she spends most of her time on now, and it may be some time before Wikia gets around to disabling her global account; but her near-daily attacks on the Game of Thrones Wiki reached the point where I think proactive measures are needed. Surely she has been fairly disruptive on this wiki as well.

Thank you for your time,

--The Dragon Demands (talk) 04:13, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

"fairly disruptive"? That's an understatement! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 08:18, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Not sure CestWhat is a she, but as much as I believe in solidarity, I can't ban someone for what they did on another wiki. I will look into it, though. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Jun 2013 6:45 AM Pacific
I understand. I figured I might as well ask.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 16:17, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

If you wantEdit

If you are taking this all seriously, I'll give the blah-blah response (I've spoken months ago with the Central Wiki and we're fine). CestWhat (talk) 17:52, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are not a reliable source in this case. I have contacts at Wikia staff, so I will get some more info. I suspect that their inaction means that The Dragon Demands' claims may be exaggerated, but I hope they aren't true. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Jun 2013 3:13 PM Pacific

Wikipedia LinksEdit

Hia, I've just had a minor editing dispute with CestWhat. Since I've had this discussion with them before and got nowhere I thought I'd ask your opinion. It's about CestWhat adding wikipedia links all over the place which they do quite a lot. I think they're unnecessary, distracting and that we should be providing any wanted information ourselves. CestWhat obviously disagrees. In this case the editing dispute is this: Now, I can sort of see the point when the links are to historical events but when it's simply to an actors other projects or to places (which is another thing CestWhat often wikipedia links to), I really can't see the benefit at all.

Also, although I have agreed with CestWhat on a many issues in the past and have given them the benefit of the doubt during their arguments and disputes, I'm beginning to think they're more interested in generating conflict than editing. --blue (talk) 20:37, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

First off, do really need an admin on this stuff. It's just a question of style since it really doesn't affect the content either way.
One, I'm not the only one who adds wikipedia links (it's encouraged by the Central Wiki since this site was co-founded by the founder of the real Wikipedia hence why there a simple way to do it). In the example of Kevin McNally article, I didn't add those wikipedia links. Two, the benefit is the same reason the real wikipedia has wikilinks in their articles, if a reader is looking at the page about Kevin McNally, see Valkyrie in the article and wonders what that is, they can just click on it and see for themselves. It's the same reason there is an IMDb link at the bottom of the actor's articles (obviously a person could just go to and look it up themselves, but we are making it less time consuming).
User:B made the point about if that happens, that person can just look it up for themselves rather this DA Wiki doing it for them. I see that point, but it's pretty weak for justified removing them when they are there or complaining that putting into an article is meant to be done just for the sake of conflict because has a different style choice.
How am I more invested in conflict in I'm not the one changing other people's edits because of my own personal style choices. If User:B doesn't want wikipedia links, fine, but how comes everybody (again, I didn't even add the wikipedia links to the Kevin McNally page since they were already there) has to follow UserB's lead. CestWhat (talk) 20:54, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
1.I'm asking for an admin to become involved because I don't want an edit war, and we've discussed this before.
2.I wouldn't call it a style issue. It's directing people away from our content and sometimes avoiding creating content here (in some cases a red link, or a reference or note with the information in question could be added) and because the link appears to be an internal one it's a bit misleading too.
3.We're a wiki about Downton not for detailed info on actors. There's always the external links section for links to IMDb or even to the actors wikipedia page if someone wanted to add it.
4.Perhaps I'm reading this wrong? It certainly looks like you added the links. --blue (talk) 21:17, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
Just doing a quick google search, of the 340 pages on this Wiki, 154 of them have links to the real Wikipedia. I didn't add them every time to just create a conflict. The Wikipedia template to make it easier to link to the real Wikipedia is automatically created the moment this Wiki was first started so it was always meant to have links to the real Wikipedia. If acontributor doesn't like using Wikipedia links, he or she doesn't have to do, but that's different then removing them from when others do. CestWhat (talk) 22:00, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I actually come down slightly on the side of CestWhat on this issue. The example diff shows Wikipedia links to items that aren't about Downton anyway, but are relevant to the subject of the article. It is also true that CestWhat isn't only user who's been adding links like this.
Here is my proposed solution: I will make a template that links to Wikipedia and italicizes the link. It will also have a tooltip informing the user that the link will make them leave this wiki. Also, if you want, we could make a special intersitial page that you go to before you link out to Wikipedia. It would then be up to you (Bluebellanon, mostly) to convert all the Wikipedia links to use this template and direct any complaints to me. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Jun 2013 3:21 PM Pacific
Well, I still think it's irrelevant and not helpful for the wiki to add them but that's a compromise I can live with. If it's more clear that people are leaving this site when they click the links that improves matters a bit. I'll probably just change links as I come across them though, rather than actively searching for them all at once. --blue (talk) 23:32, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
The template will be at {{wplink}}. You might be able to search for some Wikipedia links with Special:LinkSearch/ Not sure how to find ones that use [[wikipedia:...]]. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 25 Jun 2013 6:47 PM Pacific

Just because one person doesn't like them, does that mean it's had to be the way he or she wants it. I like the Wikipedia links, and considering other contributors add Wikipedia links when they edit on DA Wiki and they can't all be just being doing it trying to create conflicts with User:B like I'm being accused of, I'm not alone. Are you trying to solve a problem that nobody has ever complained about. Who is really going to upset about clicking on a link and would be upset since the only reason to click on it in the first place is because you want to know more about it. Also when just place the cursor on the link, it tells you that this is a Wikipedia link so all this effort to help people who aren't asking for help seems, if nothing else, redundant. CestWhat (talk) 04:06, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong - this argument HAS been dealt with before; we do NOT use Wikipedia links - I was told that when I used the summaries from wikipedia and the reference links to back it up; so, on that note, I shall be removing the wikipedia edits from the Kevin McNally page. Thank you. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 06:22, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

List of minor off screen charactersEdit

Hello, I've just finished adding all characters in the Category:Off-screen characters to the above page. Can I start adding redirects to the individual pages so they redirect to the correct section of the List of minor off screen characters or did you want to do it yourself? Thought I'd better ask before just starting. blue (talk) 14:15, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

Start adding redirects. List any pages you think can be deleted here and I'll review them. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Jun 2013 7:22 AM Pacific


I've added some references onto the Series 4 page but the reference link thing has gone! CAN YOU FIX IT?! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 16:47, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Every time you use a <ref> you need to follow it with a </ref>. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 29 Jun 2013 8:23 AM Pacific
I thought I had. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 11:12, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Canon InformationEdit

Hello. Sorry to be a broken record, but have you had a chance to look at this yet? Downton_Abbey_Wiki:Canon_information/proposed_draft It's been up quite a while so I can't see us getting much more input on it, and it would be nice to get something decided on before the new series airs. Then we'll all have chance to get settled into how the system works and get any kinks/problems it might cause ironed out. blue (talk) 19:00, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was on vacation and when I got back my home internet (as well as land line) was dead and still is. Not sure when I'll have much time to respond to this. Looks like it is very close. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9 Jul 2013 9:43 AM Pacific


Hello! I've put myself up as a candidate for adminship and I wondered if it would be alright to leave a short message on recently active editors walls asking for their input? Thought I'd better ask first. Thanks! blue (talk) 01:39, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

I will announce it on the sitewide notice popup. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 16 Jul 2013 6:53 AM Pacific
Thanks! Though judging by how quiet it's been lately I'll be lucky to  get any replies! blue (talk) 15:04, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
If it gets no response after a week or so would you be okay with me leaving a short message on people's walls? I'm only talking a short sentence asking for input/their opinion - I wouldn't phrase it as asking explicitly for support. blue (talk) 19:42, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
If you preview the message with me first, I might be okay with it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 16 Jul 2013 4:15 PM Pacific
It'd probably be something like: Hello, I've recently put myself forwards as a candidate for adminship. I'd appreciate your input and you can can find the discussion here: Forum:Adminship#Bluebellanon. blue (talk) 19:58, July 18, 2013 (UTC)
It still seems a bit like lobbying to me. If the number of users is not too large, I could post the encouragement for feedback for you. Just give me a list of users. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 18 Jul 2013 2:01 PM Pacific
Well, that works for me unless you'd like to reword it, either works for me. I was just planning on going through the Wiki Activity page and posting to recently active editors. But I just took a look at this WikiStats page and taking users from the top list might be a good idea? Special:WikiStats/breakdown?wsmonth=4&wslimit=25 Might as well miss off the top three though. ;) blue (talk) 22:52, July 18, 2013 (UTC)
Hey, had any more thoughts about this? It's been more than a week now since I posted the adminship request. blue (talk) 01:20, July 25, 2013 (UTC)
I will try to leave messages on the most recent 25 or so active users (including anons, but note sure if they will see the messages) before the end of the week. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 24 Jul 2013 7:52 PM Pacific
Thanks! I appreciate your help. -blue (talk) 10:39, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

Wanted to let you knowEdit

About this edit made to CestWhat's talk page:

Just seems a little inappropriate to me, especially since the user isn't an admin or even a regular editor here and CestWhat can't reply. --blue (talk) 19:33, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

I am an Administrator on the Game of Thrones Wiki and CestWhat trolled us for months with over 30 sock puppet accounts. It is entirely sound and rational to publicly humiliate her, lest any try to follow her example. Heads, spikes, walls.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:42, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
Is neither entirely sound, nor rational. If you can get someone from Wikia staff to verify your claims, I will believe them, but until then, I remain extremely skeptical. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Jul 2013 2:36 PM Pacific
CestWhat does appear to be globally blocked. However, replacing the content on a user's talk page is still vandalism. I hope you have no further need to visit this wiki. Have a good day. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Jul 2013 2:41 PM Pacific
Are you upset that I assaulted a User whom you suspect to be innocent? Or, are you upset that I shamed the system's inadequacy for dealing with trolls like CestWhat? She's only finally gone because of my dedicated efforts to remove her. At any rate, now that CestWhat is gone, I have no further need to come here. I will go wherever editors cannot live in simply dignity, and a downtrodden people cry out for justice.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 22:46, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry that of all places this had to happen on your wiki's talk pages, it's just the other wiki that CestWhat happened to use the most. Please carry on.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 22:46, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

Reporting commentEdit

Hia. I just wanted to quickly report this comment: Edna_Braithwaite#comm-10828 It's nothing major, but I do think character bashing and offensive language makes the wiki look bad and is unwelcoming to others. blue (talk) 19:47, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

List of minor off screen charactersEdit

Me again! I've finished re-directing all the individual pages to this list. I can give you a list of all the redirected pages for you to delete if you want - or they can just stay as redirects, up to you.

However, there could be an argument made for the deletion of both Cyril and Lavinia Painswick from the list entirely. They are not characters that appear in the series - they're not even mentioned in the series and if Rosamond had chaildren they would surely have appeared or at least have been mentioned by now. They seem to simply be back story that was thought of but never used. They've only ever been mentioned in the series one press pack and no where else. Perhaps we could mention them in a Notes or Behind the Scenes section of Rosamond's page and delete them from the List. They are simply not characters in any way shape or form - not even off screen characters.

There has also been categories made for "Patmore family members", "Courtney family members", "Gregson family members" and "Swire family members" - since the other family members are now on the list, these categories are pretty pointless in my opinion. --blue (talk) 20:31, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

I will look through redirect pages to delete. Your argument is always weakened if you say "in my opinion". This makes it seem like you are the only one who believes X. That said, any category with less than 3 members is a candidate for deletion. Tag the categories and pages you think should be deleted with {{Delete}} and I will look through them. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 31 Jul 2013 1:00 PM Pacific
I'll do that when I get a chance. Any chance of a decision on the Painswick issue? It's been brought up before I believe. Also, were you also going to leave a few more messages for members about the adminship discussion or am I remembering that incorrectly? blue (talk) 22:41, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention. I also had an idea that I think could help: Forum:Idea for improvement of character pages: pages for relationships.. I'd be interested in your opinion. --blue (talk) 22:54, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

Note, I'm sure there was a "Robert's aunt" page; if there isn't she needs to be added to the "list of off-screen characters" page. She was the one who "married a Gordon in 1860".HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:24, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

Character infoboxEdit

Hello. I've noticed that when filling in an info box for characters, if you leave the title part blank it still shows up as {{{title}}}. Is there a way of altering the character infobox so you that field stays blank if you don't fill it in? blue (talk) 14:43, August 5, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can fix that. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6 Aug 2013 5:29 AM Pacific
Thanks! I'm sure I could have figured it out eventually but I might have broken something in the meantime! --blue (talk) 13:55, August 6, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it wasn't that hard to fix... it looks like it was coded wrong and was supposed to not show title unless it was filled in. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6 Aug 2013 7:00 AM Pacific

Admin issueEdit

Hello! Were you also going to leave a few more messages for members about asking for input on the adminship discussion or am I remembering that incorrectly?

Also, what happens if no one ever gets enough votes to be appointed to admin? You seem really busy with other things and not very involved here and I'm more than happy to step in and help out. Although I realise that one endorsement isn't brilliant, I don't have any people voting against me either, would we be able to have a decision even if more people don't vote?

Sorry to keep bugging you about this, but seeing as one of the big sources of past arguments on this issue has gone (with the global block of CestWhat) it seemed like it might be a good time to get things moving and I'm really keen to get stuck in and try and get a few discussions moving and decisions made. Thanks for your time, I do appreciate that you've put a lot of effort here over difficult issues to keep things running as smoothly as possible and I think you've done a great job in (at times) very difficult circumstances. blue (talk) 20:08, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

I will post another round of encouraging feedback messages. If there is no response, or only positive response, I will make you an admin. I'll also try to make some help pages for admin stuff to do. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7 Aug 2013 4:56 PM Pacific
Thanks so much, I appreciate it! blue (talk) 05:34, August 8, 2013 (UTC)
Batch of messages posted. Only a couple new registered users and about 7 anons. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8 Aug 2013 4:31 PM Pacific
Thanks a lot! How long are you going to leave it do you think? A week? blue (talk) 10:54, August 9, 2013 (UTC)
A week or so. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 9 Aug 2013 9:36 AM Pacific
Sorry to be so impatient but it's been more than a week now . . . --blue (talk) 19:35, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
Hello again, is this still going ahead? blue (talk) 21:33, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Make pages...Edit

...for series 5 as it is officially confirmed:

That link also confirms the time length of Series 4: Feb 1922 - Spring 1923. Can we add? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:38, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

Try to use this article:
The site seems like an odd source and it seems to just be recounting stuff from the -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12 Aug 2013 5:46 PM Pacific

​Spam blog Edit

User blog:Oliver_wen/_Junior_Bridesmaid_Dresses-a_New_Force_on_Modern_Nuptials Just wanted to let you know, in case you didn't see it.--blue (talk) 06:18, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Odd editEdit

Hia, meant to mention this before but there's been an odd edit to CestWhat's profile: I wasn't sure what, if anything, should be done. They're globally blocked I think so either it is them editing it and they probably shouldn't be around if blocked (?) or it's someone else editing their profile and maybe it should be reverted? Anyway, thought I'd mention it. --blue (talk) 14:05, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Series 4Edit

Hia, an anon keeps editing the page for series four and removing a lot of info, including the references. I've already commented on their talk page asking them not to do this but they've done it again. Didn't want to keep reverting and get into an edit war with an anon! --blue (talk) 00:17, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

Keep reverting. Anons don't have the same rights as registered users. They almost never check or respond on talk pages either. If you need me to block for some "cooling off", just recommend a block time period and I'll do it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 14 Aug 2013 10:26 AM Pacific
Thanks, I'll do that! Perhaps if it happens again we could block them but leave them able to create an account. I think they did intent to improve the article - they're just going the wrong way about it. blue (talk) 19:49, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

Hi! <3 Edit

Hi! Thanks for the welcome. Do you know if there are adminship positions open? I am an experienced admin for The Hunger Games Facebook pages and I would love to admin here since there is no Downton fandom on Facebook. ----DowntonJay (talk, contribs) 21:39, August 14, 2013‎


Thanks a lot for the admin rights, I'll do my best! I just wondered, wasn't the forum on adminship supposed to be helping the community appoint a new bureaucrat, not just sysop? Because I thought you didn't want the job long term and was just a temporary caretaker. Following on from that, do you want me to check with you before doing things or just act independently? As an example I was planning on putting the Canon Information page as policy - would you want to be involved in things like this or should I just go ahead and act? --blue (talk) 06:40, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

The forum post was for a bureaucrat or sysop, but I would probably be judged as remiss, if I appointed another bureaucrat without significant community support.
Now that you're an admin, just act independently, but try to at least notify me what you're doing. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 21 Aug 2013 5:21 AM Pacific
That's completely understandable - if you do still want to leave maybe we could ask the community again in a while about me perhaps being bureaucrat. The place might pick up once the new series airs.
I'll make sure to keep you informed. Thanks for all your help with this. blue (talk) 15:13, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

Recent changesEdit

Nothing major but just to keep you up to date. I've edited the Wiki Navigation a little, changed the cast shown in the Downton Abbey (programme) page to show main cast and recurring characters only (with recurring being counted if they've been in 3 or more episodes), I've edited the Community Messages slightly, finalised a policy on naming of articles that was suggested by you ages ago (Downton Abbey Wiki:Naming articles) and renamed some articles in line with that policy. Er, I think that's it atm. --blue (talk) 13:51, August 22, 2013 (UTC)

I've also just removed Cyril and Lavinia Painswick from the List of minor off screen characters as they aren't characters in the series - they're now mentioned in a behind the scenes section on Rosamund Painswick's page. blue (talk) 14:16, August 22, 2013 (UTC)


Er, I think I've broken something already! *facepalm* I was renaming Sir Richard Carlisle to Richard Carlisle and its blanked both pages I tried to revert and its still blank. So I thought I'd better stop in case I made it any worse since I'm not sure what happened in the first place. Help! blue (talk) 16:44, August 22, 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it (Richard Carlisle), but be more careful with your renames next time. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 22 Aug 2013 12:12 PM Pacific
Thanks a lot, but I didn't do anything any different than I normally do. blue (talk) 21:22, August 22, 2013 (UTC)

More changes Edit

As I earlier mentioned planning to, I've put the Canon information page into place as policy: Downton Abbey Wiki:Canon information. I'm also trying to reopen discussion on the Forum:Should we enable the new style of forums?. I plan to post a little note on recently active members walls asking for feedback on the issue. --blue (talk) 14:22, August 23, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say earlier, I've changed the favicon for a little D from the Downton Abbey logo. It's not perfect, but I think it looks better then the default. blue (talk) 20:11, August 23, 2013 (UTC)
As an admin, if you've given a significant time and opportunity to the community to give feedback, feel free to post policy pages. Policy can always change. Try not to be too strident about enforcing policy, though. Many new editors don't even realize policies exist. That said, a notice with a link to the policy on a talk page should be sufficient to start with.
I like the new favicon. I might experiment with a miniature version of the Highclere Castle graphic, but it probably won't look as good as the "D". -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 23 Aug 2013 4:11 PM Pacific
I can't see us needing many policies, I was thinking a Manual of style and one on general behaviour/guidelines for behaviour might be useful, but I'm in no hurry to do either of those. And don't worry I wont be going around banning people or anything, it's more useful as a tool for people to refer to and for me to point people towards if they're struggling I think.
I thought a mini version of the castle might be nice, but my photoshop skills aren't that good. I also thought a DA in the favicon might be nice, but again, I don't think my photoshop skills are good enough to do that. blue (talk) 14:26, August 24, 2013 (UTC)
I've also started a forum discussion asking if people want a spoiler policy, since series 4 is coming soon - Forum:Do we want a spoiler policy? blue (talk) 13:33, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Font on Main Page.Edit

Hia, do you know what the font used for the headers on the main page is? blue (talk) 21:37, September 11, 2013 (UTC)

I forget off the top of my head, but I will leave a message on your talk page with a link. Someone suggested we change the font, since it reflects a later era, so it may be moot if we go that path. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11 Sep 2013 4:18 PM Pacific
Thanks! Yeah, that option is something to consider. I would like us to use a font I have access to though, and I can't afford to buy one.
Another thing I wanted to mention was that I've put a basic spoiler policy in place: Downton Abbey Wiki:Spoiler policyblue (talk) 07:09, September 12, 2013 (UTC)

Recent changesEdit

Hello, just a couple of major changes you might be interested in. I've begun a forum thread and polls on suggested changes to the main page: Thread:11992. I've also begun a suggested new policy: Downton Abbey Wiki:Guidelines for behaviour. blue (talk) 15:09, September 15, 2013 (UTC)

Oh also, I've used the "under construction" template on the suggested policy but the "discussion" link doesn't seem to work. You don't know why that is do you? blue (talk) 15:16, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
I think I know why the link doesn't work, but it may not be fixable. I will look into it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 15 Sep 2013 8:57 AM Pacific
Okay, it looks like the fix for {{Underconstruction}} was pretty easy. Haven't tested it in all scenarios, but it should work for most. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 15 Sep 2013 9:01 AM Pacific
Thanks for that! Much appreciated. Amateur Obsessive (talk) 15:11, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

Small change and advice please Edit

Hello, just wanted to let you know I've altered the welcome messages slightly, expanding them and giving useful links.

Also, I've marked Edwardian servants for deletion as it is plagiarised word for word from here: Life in an Edwardian Country House - which itself is based on "adapted extracts" from a TV show so we've no idea how accurate it actually is anyway. I've said in my reasons for the deletion that I think we would be better to expand the page Downton Abbey's staff - which is based on the roles as seen in the show. The web page the article is derived from could perhaps be listed on the Downton Abbey's staff page as "Further Reading".

Anyway, what I wanted to know was, do you think I should leave the delete template on the page a while to give others a chance to give their opinion too, or as it is plagiarism can it be deleted immediately? I'm thinking delete right away but I wanted to see what you thought first. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 15:10, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

This is Bluebellanon btw. I've changed my username! Amateur Obsessive (talk) 15:12, September 17, 2013 (UTC)
Delete it. I've updated Downton_Abbey_Wiki:Administrators#Who_are_this_wiki's_administrators?. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 17 Sep 2013 2:31 PM Pacific

Hello, Fandyllic.Edit

I will probably be shot down - to be honest, I expect nothing different - but I do still have desires to be an admin; how, if it is possible, would I go about this? The page on this wiki confuses me! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:37, September 19, 2013 (UTC)

You still have a chance. You can start by gaining the confidence of Amateur Obsessive (previously Bluebellanon). If you get their vote of confidence then you will almost certainly become an admin. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 20 Sep 2013 10:43 AM Pacific
How, may I inquire, do I do that?HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:51, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

Would youEdit

be able to post a message asking people to kindly keep off the "plot" section of episode 4.01 from tomorrow night until Wednesday? I'm off for a few days, so I'll write a full plot out. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:54, September 21, 2013 (UTC)

Can youEdit

update the "appearances" template to accomodate for Series 4? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:49, September 22, 2013 (UTC)

Spam comments? Edit

Hello, I wanted to get a second opinion on something if you don't mind.

We've been getting a LOT of what I would call spam comments - comments that only have a link in them and one link per comment with multiple comments made - both in the comments on the Series 4 page and the Episode 4.01 page.

Now, they are links that are about Downton Abbey, but they are only links and there are TONS of them, which is what makes me call them spam. But, since they are Downton related I wanted a second opinion before doing anything (deleting them? warning the poster? - it is overwhelmingly one particular poster).

What worries me is that I think it makes it look like our comments sections are filled with spam and might put people off leaving genuine comments/joining the wiki. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 15:26, September 23, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry that it took awhile to respond. I don't think legitimate links are bad even if they are many. However, what you could do is add them as External news links in an "External links" section and delete the comment with the link. That way the informative part of the link is preserved, but it doesn't clutter up the comments. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 26 Sep 2013 10:22 AM Pacific
To be honest I think adding a lot of links to the article without being at all discerning about the source/website they come from or whether what they're saying is right/useful (which is what we'd be doing if we just added all of them from the comments) would be worse than having them in the comments. If we added them to the article it's like us putting our stamp of approval on the site/info and I'm not sure external links should just be a link of anything and everything you can find on a subject.
No, if you think the links are okay where they are, in comments, that's alright with me. Just wanted a second opinion really. Although, changing the subject a little to comments in general, I'm not sure they're any better than Talk Pages. In fact I think Talk Pages were superior - there you just got comments on the actual article/improvements to be made. Now you don't get that at all, in fact you don't really get anything useful. I think we'd be better to go back to Talk Pages - people have the forums now for general chat if that's what they're interested in. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 21:31, September 26, 2013 (UTC)
I did not say add the links to a new section without evaluating their content. I would never do that. You have to make the choice whether you want to deal with the links or not. If you want to deal with them, you should at least see what they are about before deleting them, but you can delete them if you want.
I come from the inclusionist philosophy which errs on the side of keeping content if it is relevant. Some people (like CestWhat, for example) are of the exclusionist bent. They will delete or remove content if it doesn't fit some criteria (which often is not stated) or just because they don't like it or don't want to fix it.
The only drawback of returning to talk pages is that people will forget to sign their posts which can make comments and threads confusing. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Sep 2013 1:14 PM Pacific
Personally I'm not sure the labels of exclusionist or inclusionist are that helpful really. I think everything should be decided on it's own merits. I make an effort to keep that which people add to an article since they've gone to the effort of editing. I'm not going to search through comments for relevant material if people can't be bothered to add to the article themselves - especially not when it looks like spam and the link has no accompanying comment.
To be honest I'd rather have the job of adding people's signatures/reminding them to do so than keeping comments. The more I see article comments (and this is on a few different wikis I've taken part in) the more I prefer talk pages. I also think if we return to talk pages it might encourage more people to use the forums. I'm just not sure the majority will agree with me about the switch. Amateur Obsessive (talk) 21:39, September 27, 2013 (UTC)
Talk pages vs. comments is also tied in with the effort to attract more (but often lazier) contributors. Comments is much easier for most users, but it also means they often don't have to be as thoughtful or learn wiki markup. I prefer quality contributors over masses, but I'm not dedicated to a position. For the longest time, WoWWiki did not allow anonymous contributors and it seemed fine. Recently we have allowed anonymous contributors and as expected the quality of contributions has gone down. However, the damage has been minimal, so it may sometimes be a good choice. We could consider trying to recruit moderators for comments before turning them off. This role could also lead to more admins over time. I'll have to see if there is some kind of user permissions to allow comment moderators. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Sep 2013 1:46 PM Pacific

Custom video for US premiere of Series 4 Edit

Hi Fandyllic,

We're interested in creating a custom video for you to help promote the US premiere of Season 4. Is there a particular video you think would be cool for us to create? I was thinking a Series recap viewed through a historical lens would be neat. Would love to hear your thoughts... Thanks. Peter@Wikia 00:19, November 20, 2013 (UTC)

I will defer to Amateur Obsessive (talk) who would probably have much better insights than I. I will offer suggestions after Amateur Obsessive give input. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 19 Nov 2013 7:34 PM Pacific

Thanks for your response - i reached out to them as well. Cheers. Peter@Wikia 19:42, November 20, 2013 (UTC)

Could you help me?Edit

Hello, I talked to a user asking for ideas for my  Downton Abbey Fanfiction project, and he gave me some. After several days talking and trying to negotiate, I could not make him write with me. If you are interested, please leave a message on my Talk Page.

Sincerely, Sybil.

Susan Dorothy (talk) 19:03, December 13, 2013 (UTC)

Video LinkEdit

Here's the final video, hope you like it...

Would be great if you could promote from your main page! 

Thanks, Peter@Wikia 22:14, December 13, 2013 (UTC)  

Downton Abbey Upstairs/Downstairs polls Edit

Hi there!

Just wanted to run an idea Wikia staffers had to run a fun programs on Downton Abbey Wiki for the growing number of DA fans on Wikia.

The idea is to put together a series of polls organized as Upstairs polls and Downstairs polls, centering on dramatic moments and characters from throughout the years. The polls would be the same for both: Best Person You Love to Hate, Biggest Heartthrob, Most Romantic Moment, Most Scandalous Moment.

We've started collecting moments, but we thought we could also put it out to the community to add their own. We posted a similar idea on the Baker Street Wiki recently, and it got lots of interest. We'll promote this like we did the Sherlock polls.

I posted a note about this on Amateur Obsessive's wall as well.

Let me know your thoughts!

Acardwell415 (talk) 23:40, January 28, 2014 (UTC)Acardwell415

Sounds fun. I defer to Amateur Obsessive, but I will try to include some feedback. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 29 Jan 2014 11:07 AM Pacific
Cool. Haven't heard back from Amateur Obsessive yet and it's been a while. I'm sure everyone is super busy these days! We're going to go ahead and launch polls with our own ideas of what should fill those categories. And if nothing else, it'll be fun for people to vote and see what they choose. We're all fans of the series here on my team, so I think we'll get a nice selection. We'll post later today, and invite folks to pipe up with their opinions in the comments.
Acardwell415 (talk) 19:17, January 29, 2014 (UTC)Acardwell415
Hi there, wanted you to know we posted the polls and you can find them here ! While we didn't get to fish for suggestions from the community, we think the picks we made are a fun start. We hope you all will add to the discussion via comments!
Acardwell415 (talk) 05:55, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Acardwell415

Promote Upstairs/Downstairs awards on main page and skin Edit

Hi Fandyllic!

I hope you are doing well. I wanted to reach out to ask you two things! Do you think there is a spot on the main page that we could promote the Upstairs/Downstairs awards? Maybe Featured Article? 

We were also wondering if you would be open to having a new skin with a higher resolution (it could be a similar look or an entirely new skin...up to you!). I reached out to Amateur Obsessive as well. 

Let me know if either one of these is possible! Thanks so much.

Best,Asnow89 @@Wikia (profile)•(talk) 18:24, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

I can put a link to the Upstairs/Downstairs awards on the main page. If you have a higher-res background, please update the current one. I will try make one too. I've been sort of neglecting the background. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 31 Jan 2014 11:03 AM Pacific

My editsEdit

I have made some edits to the Series 5 page (and the Episode 5.01 page) based on this link: Could you look at the link and see if you agree with my adding of the information (namely the years it's set, the fact a shock is coming and the fact that Ivy has left).--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:57, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not a reliable source. You'll notcie the article has no "by" line or date/time. Also, Sulia is a "social network", not a journalistic organization. I think you can find some of the info there from better sources. I don't think there is misinformation, but it just isn't a good source.
Here are some better sources:
I just googled stuff to find these, so you should be able to do it.
-- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12 Feb 2014 9:28 PM Pacific

Mrs. PatmoreEdit

In the 2013 Christmas Special, Mrs. Patmore mentions that no-one "has wanted to squire [me] since the Diamond Jubilee". Queen Victoria's diamond Jubilee was on the 20th June 1887 and Mrs Patmore had to have had her season (though she would not get a debutante ball due to being a commoner) by that time. A woman typically has her season when she is 17 or 18. Going by the ages of a woman having her season and Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee, Mrs Patmore would have been born in 1869 or 1870. Do you agree? --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:49, February 18, 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree enough for you to put this in her infobox. Chains of deduction are not good enough to rely on if they take more than one step. You assume courting only happens in "season" and when she would have been in "season". You can put this stuff in a speculation section, but not in the factual content of the infobox. --
If I put a "born - assuming that the courting took place at the time of her season - in 1869 or 1870" would that work?--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 17:56, February 18, 2014 (UTC)
If you have to use the word "assuming", it should only be in a speculation section. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 18 Feb 2014 12:05 PM Pacific
Also, your deductions may be completely off, since according to Wikipedia, Victoria's Diamond Jubilee was in 1897, not 1887. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 18 Feb 2014 12:14 PM Pacific

Oh, hey - I made a typo! Lols. Yes, I'll rephrase it.

"In the 2013 Christmas Special, Mrs. Patmore mentions that no-one "has wanted to squire [me] since the Diamond Jubilee". Queen Victoria's diamond Jubilee was on the 20th June 1897 and Mrs Patmore had to have had her season (though she would not get a debutante ball due to being a commoner) by that time. A woman typically has her season when she is 17 or 18. Going by the ages of a woman having her season and Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee, Mrs Patmore would have been born - at the latest - in 1869 or 1870."

Will that work? --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 06:40, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

For a Speculation section, yes. Not for the infobox. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 20 Feb 2014 8:00 AM Pacific


Is CestWhat still blocked? The "Blocked" has disappeared from his/her profile and I want to know if I'll need to brace myself for his/her return. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:27, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

Me againEdit

Rewatching Episode 3 of Series 1, a line struck me and I wondered if you had any thoughts on it. Violet says: "Ah, just the ticket. Nanny always said 'sweet tea was the thing for frayed nerves', though why it has to be sweet I couldn't tell you'."

My personal opinion is that Violet meant the Nanny that raised her, e.g. her governess. Do you agree, or do you think Violet meant one of her actual grandmothers? --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:30, February 24, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can tell which "Nanny" Violet is talking about. As I recall, Robert and Rosamund may have been raised largely by a nanny and it could this nanny that she is quoting. However, the meaning of "nanny" could be specific to that era and only the historian who polices Downton Abbey may know the precise meaning.
You might find this funny: -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 24 Feb 2014 3:39 PM Pacific

Downton Abbey wiki in spanishEdit

Hi! I'm very interested in starting a wiki in spanish about Downton Abbey. I've seen how well you and the community keep this wiki and I wanted to ask you if I could use templates and similar colors from this wiki in the new spanish one. This only in an attempt to unify both wikis. Thanks in advance for your attention. I've already left the same message in the talk page of other admin, Amateur Obsessive. Best regards, -- Reina Rhaena Targaryen 0x36px 0x36px 20:43, March 7, 2014 (UTC)


I need someone to write my Series 3 and Series 4 AU fanfic with me. If you want or not to apply to write it, leave an answer here. Susan Dorothy (talk) 00:24, April 15, 2014 (UTC)

It would probably best if you posted your request to the General Discussion forum board. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10 Mar 2014 10:51 AM Pacific

RE: New Wiki Edit

here's the link for my new wiki:

Susan Dorothy (talk) 00:14, April 15, 2014 (UTC)


Hi can Reign CW Wiki affiliate with this wiki? Thanks and call me TAD :).

TheAuthenticDiaries (talk) 17:30, April 18, 2014 (UTC)TheAuthenticDiariesTheAuthenticDiaries (talk) 17:30, April 18, 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts and assistance is requestedEdit

Thread:16114 <--- thoughts? --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 15:38, July 29, 2014 (UTC)

Your assumptions are kind of whacky. See my reply. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 29 Jul 2014 4:46 PM Pacific

John Lewis jewelry Edit

Hi Fandyllic,

I was wondering whether it would be relevant to add the official collection of jewels at the bottom of the Dowton Abbey Page (programme) or in the merchandise section. I just found out there were 24 different pieces (necklaces, earrings, pendants...).

I know it's commercial stuff but it'll be Christmas quite soon and this is the official collection.

What do you think?

Periodattic (talk) 19:10, September 28, 2014 (UTC)Periodattic

I would prefer we start with an article about the jewelry collection. Perhaps Downton Abbey Collection jewelry? After that we can find a proper way to link to the article that isn't too obtrusive.
It looks like this collection has actually been around since last year. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 29 Sep 2014 4:00 PM Pacific

Twitter WidgetEdit

Since you're an admin, I suggest that you add the official twitter feed of Downton Abbey to the front page. The right column right now has a gap and the twitter widget can fill a bit of that up. It's very common for wikis to have a twitter widget on their front page so it could be a great addition to this wiki.TimeShade 09:59, December 27, 2014 (UTC)

See Twitter widget on the front page?. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8 Jan 2015 11:09 AM Pacific

Are you here?Edit

You may remember that, eons ago, we had Robert's father as "Patrick Crawley"; well... I think I found where it came from. Right here. Under Robert it has him as "He is the son of the late Patrick Crawley and his wife, Violet". Should we re-add it in? --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:04, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

It's borderline, but go ahead. Use this as a ref: <ref>[ Robert Crawley, Earl of Grantham] in [ Downton Abbey: The Unofficial Guide to Seasons One and Two: BookCaps Study Guide]</ref>
This is technically not a good source, because it is unofficial, but it should be fine unless something contradicts it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 27 Aug 2015 3:20 PM Pacific

Thanks. That is why I asked. If the show says differently - unlikely, given it's the final season *cry cry!* - then we'll change it.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 12:06, August 28, 2015 (UTC)


Hey, I'm sorry, but we do not advertise wikis on our homepage if they don't do the same. Thank you anyway! KILLIAN JONES ~ I hate you, flying jellyfish! 21:01, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

Re: Doing a good jobEdit

Hello. Thank you very much for the offer. I am happy to accept. --RotomicAcid: Remember, we are the Edwardians 21:20, September 23, 2015 (UTC)


I'm trying to make an edit to the "List of Minor Off Screen Characters, Patrick Crawley, 6th Earl of Grantham"... but my edit doesn't transfer over to the main page when I make it. Could you fix it?--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 13:12, October 23, 2015 (UTC)

That's what I mean. I've made the edit there... but it doesn't actually show up on the main page at all. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:43, October 24, 2015 (UTC)

Your advice please Edit

Hello, I just wanted to ask you your opinion of how we should proceed with a possible problem editor. User:Scoutpower1 has made a number of problem edits, most of them to do with them adding appearances that aren't cofirmed and other speculation, as well as little errors. None of it is a massive problem but the worrying/annoying thing is, that they haven't replied to any of the comments that have been left on their talk page. So I'm not sure what to do now. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 22:40, October 24, 2015 (UTC)

Home Page Issues Edit

The fandom link just added at the top of the home page does not seem to be working, but I do not see anything wrong with the URL. I removed the trailing slash, but that does not seem to be the problem.

Also, the featured article does not reflect the current wording of that article, specifically referring to series 6 episode 1 on PBS in the future tense. Unfortunately I do not see how to fix either problem. Ehj666 (talk) 20:09, January 5, 2016 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki