Stats 12 June 2006
Rank : Prison Warden Level : 54 Percentage : 44% (+1) Forum Posts : 1,189 (+15)
Submissions Reviews Accepted : 25343 (+87) Shows : 1 Pending : 58 (+1) Episodes : 2 Denied : 124 (-) People : 0 Total : 25525 Total : 3
Edited Guides Trusted User 155 Shows 2 Shows
Well, that's four hours of my life I am never getting back. Today was another day devoted to dealing with a regular contributor. (Actually, I went over to another place to let The_Unknown2 know that he had acquired a few show guides, and took an hour out to read the reaction in that place to last week's events.) Now, most of the guides I look after receive very little by way of attention from the TV.com community, but I do have one dedicated contributor to The Bill. Here is today's correspondence, in full and unedited. It doesn't show me in the best of light, but setting the correspondence in context is the only way I know to convey the horror of it all. This has been going on since October 2005 and, 100+ rejections and scores of PMs later, I have reached the stage where I dread receiving a submission from him. I refuse to reject a submission without explanation, but the explanations and advice go unheeded, further similar or duplicate submissions are made, and I find myself compelled to check understanding, establish that there is none, and break it down into child-sized pieces. Names have been obscured to protect the guilty!
From: TheOldBill 06/11/2006 6:16:53 PM
That doesn't look like any Thames production code that I have ever seen. Bearing in mind how seriously TV.com regards the posting of bogus production numbers, can you confirm the source for your information?
From: TheOldBill 06/12/2006 4:29:09 PM
I have written to you asking you to confirm the source for the production code for Funny Ol' Business. I still need your reply.
I wrote to you earlier querying the actual episode in which Michael Chapman took over as Executive Producer. Rather than reply, you have resubmitted, correcting an obvious error but not answering the question: was this the actual episode in which the change was made? How do you know?
Please understand that, as the only person ever to submit false information to any of my show guides, I cannot accept what you say on trust. I need you to tell me where you think you got the information from so that I can either accept these submissions, or take appropriate action. Please be so kind as to reply to me today.
From: 06/12/2006 4:32:00 PM
i thought they needed them on
Getting it right
From: TheOldBill 06/12/2006 4:35:36 PM
Answer the question!
From: 06/12/2006 4:37:08 PM
i did
From: TheOldBill 06/12/2006 4:46:14 PM
You are trying to add production number 100 as the production number for Funny Ol' Business.
I asked you: "Where did you get this information?"
You replied: "I thought they needed it on"
You are now saying that Michael Chapman became Executive Producer of the Bill from the episode Getting It Right. That may be true: my best information just tells me that this happened in 1989, not which episode.
I asked you:"Where did you get the information from?"
You replied:"Getting It Right"
Please tell me where you got the information from, so that I can check. If your source is good, I will accept these submissions. If it is not, or if you do not answer these simple questions, I will not be able to accept these submissions.
From: 06/12/2006 4:48:16 PM
january 1989 imdb
From: TheOldBill 06/12/2006 5:34:50 PM
I told you, when rejecting your submission claiming that this was Peter Cregeen's last episode and Michael Champman's first, that the best information held was that Chapman became EP at some point in 1989. Your source (IMdB) simply restates this. It doesn't say January 1989, and it doesn't say that Chapman was EP for this episode. Your submission should not have been made, after the advice I gave you on the last one, it cannot be substantiated, and is therefore rejected.
From: TheOldBill 06/12/2006 5:37:53 PM
You still haven't replied to my other question: where did you get the production number for "Funny Ol' Business". Think very carefully when answering this one! If I do not hear from you, at the 5th time of asking, I will take your silence very seriously indeed.
From: 06/12/2006 6:30:54 PM
i just like the production codes on for the episodes
At 6:47:49 PM he submitted a new episode with a plagiarised summary. This was painstakingly copy-typed from another site, with typos. (This technique was adopted when I explained, for the umpteenth time, that copying and pasting from other sites was not allowed. We had to go through that with every site he could find, as, presumably, he thought each rejection was site-specific.) He submits these plagiarised synopses every week, a few hours after the details leak onto the fan community: I then reject them every week.
From: TheOldBill 06/12/2006 7:21:48 PM
[EDITED] thank you for your (belated) honesty. This from a man who also thinks it a good idea to make up episodes! It is not a question of just liking the production codes on for the episodes. A production code is a real thing, and not easy to come by, as they are rarely published. Just sticking any old number in there to fill the space is both stupid and wrong. Did you know that [EDITED] were banned for life for doing the kind of thing you are doing? Do not ever try that on one of my show guides again. If I find you adding made-up production numbers to any other guides I will report you. I don't expect to hear from you again.
From: 06/12/2006 7:26:45 PM
so i can't update the episode guide
From: TheOldBill 06/12/2006 7:36:59 PM
Anyone can update any episode guide if they have a valid contribution to make. Making up production codes is not a valid contribution. I am not going to let you ruin this guide by sticking false information on it.
From: 06/12/2006 7:39:01 PM
sorry i wont updated any more
If only I could believe that promise. He said the same thing when he finally confessed to having made up a bunch of episodes (no, really!) for the show, with mis-spelled and uncapitalised near-sentences advising that two named officers were on the beat, or speculating on the typical day of a police officer looking out for a stolen vehicle, submissions that were accepted on my behalf by the good people at TV.com. My responses here are atypically intemperate, but after endless submission rejections and PMs over the past 8 months we do not seem to be able to get him past his determination to submit spurious information to a particular show guide. He continues to wreak havoc at a show that he was inexpicably made editor of by mistranscribing the first sentence from the DVD sleeve, and has now inherited a show from a recently banned editor. Both guides are now getting pseudo-production numbers. Frankly, he can do what he likes to those, but I am trying to protect at least one show guide from mindless sabotage, and I am just so very very tired of it all…
Log in to comment