Talk:Ultimate Big Brother

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page deletion?[edit]

I think this page is a liitle bit premature...as of yet, all we know is that at the end of this series old housemates will reenter the house for 2 weeks. We don't know that it will be called "ultimate champion" as in the source given it is reffered to as Ultimate Housemate, ultimate challenge and ultimate champion. --ElmoSlattery (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother: The Ultimate Housemate[edit]

Title confirmed by Davina McCall just now on Big Brother. AnemoneProjectors 20:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed wrongly :-) AnemoneProjectors 21:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering[edit]

The order they entered should be noted as well as the seasons in the bottom chart.--Cooly123 21:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Day 1 or Day 77?[edit]

Is it Day 77 or Day 1? Because both the official site states that today is Day 77.. and not Day 1..? --BigOz22 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be Day 1, as this is a new series, be it one that started on the same evening as the last one ended. Jim Michael (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It will get really confusing comparing this page to the website if we don't start on Day 77
This is the new series, therefore we need to start with Day 1. The website won't be around much longer so it doesn't really matter. Mr tim111 (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it will be more confusing for readers of this article if we say it started on day 77. AnemoneProjectors 15:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was Day 2 today on BBLB, so that probably settles that numbering should start from Day 1 Rhysg1234 (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

Does this article really need protection already? It says semi-protection should not be used before vandalism has occurred. I spent this afternoon writing the production section (broadcasts, logo) and prepared the nomination and housemates table, and wrote the house section about a week ago using just my IP address as I've only just decided that I quite like contributing to articles so have just made myself an account, but am really disappointed I've now been locked out of a page I've contributed massively to already.

Opps, forgot to sign that Rhysg1234 (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There had been lots of vandalism on the page before it was protected. AnemoneProjectors 23:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take it off again please. I'd like to finish putting in all the references for the stuff I wrote. There was probably just a lot of vandalism as it was launch night. Rhysg1234 (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I requested a protection because of the excessive vandalism that launch night on the wiki, and I don't like to risk that again. That's also what we're mainly doing the all the other important BB articles that have been getting the same problem. Sorry for the inconvenience, but at least you made an account and you are not vandalizing in any way. Way better than editing as an IP. --Dude (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is anything specific you would like added to the article just note it here and as long as it doesn't compromise the article another editor would be glad to add them for you. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hometown[edit]

Are we going by where the housemates are from, or where they live now? If the former, Nadia's entry should be changed to Madeira. If the latter, Ulrika's should be changed to Cookham Dean, Berkshire. Jim Michael (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be where they live now, as that's what we've put for all the other series :) Earlier when I put the table in I had a column for nationality too to show where they're from, with the little flags that appear on the full housemate page list. I would put it back but the stupid protection thing means I can't. Very annoyed by that. Rhysg1234 (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of temptation[edit]

Do we really need the Tree of Temptation tasks? because on Big Brother 11 uk talk, we decided that it will pretty much be pointless? Mr tim111 (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should mention that the tree exists and mention the tasks in a summary section. AnemoneProjectors 15:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are useful if you want to see what the trees done, just like if you want to see who's nominated who. The tables on BB11 look a lot better now columns are sorted to match each other and now that there's a source column. It should be done like that on this page too. Just make sure the column widths are sorted so that the amount of writing on each line looks ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhysg1234 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - it should go back Woods31 (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They do not have much to do with the storyline, as discussed in BB11, so I think it will be pretty much pointless here, since there may not really be much use of the tree in the 2 weeks that UBB has. Bob Righter maybe used less, if not no times, as is Davina Mccaw. I think these 3 should be written in the summary section, rather than having their own section. Also I don't think the table looked good in BB11. Mr tim111 (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ToT tasks sometimes require a housemate to act completely out of character. Shabby's task was very relevant to her interactions with Ben and Caoimhe, which were at the centre of her time in the house, during which time she was one of the more high profile houemates. John McCririck pretending to be nice, and fooling Josie into thinking that is the real him, is relevant. Jim Michael (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's relevant, add it to the summary. But don't forget to include sources. AnemoneProjectors 00:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hate reading long bits of prose. I'd rather they were in a separate table. They can have a huge impact on the storyline, often for a full episode, or over a few episodes like when Ben got his bad day. ToT was a big part of the last series, hence ToT getting "best bits". ToT should have his own table, just like nominations :) Angus1000 (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it affects the storyline of the house, it would make more sense to mention it in the summary. If it doesn't, then there's probably no reason to mention it at all. It's not Wikipedia's problem if you hate reading long sections of prose. AnemoneProjectors 13:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of people clearly want it in a table. Wikipedia is a public project and if the majority of people want it done a specific way, that should be the way it's done. Otherwise, what's the point in having a discussion about anything... Angus1000 (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's like nominations. They affect the storyline of the house, but in quite a major way, like some of the ToT tasks. If nopminations have a table. The ToT shold too.Angus1000 (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having a nominations table is one thing but having a table for every thing is not. The problem with 98% of Big Brother articles is that they have redundant tables that can be converted to prose. The goal here is to get the best article available. I know people don't like a UK-USA comparison but I am going to go there:
Starting with Big Brother 11 (U.S.) added the "Pandora's Box" twist that can be seen similar to the Tree of Temptation. All of the Pandora's Box tasks were included in the summary section. With each offer presented to the HoH there is a good aspect and a bad aspect. Both parts were reasonably covered in the summary. The same can be done with the Tree of Temptation and Bob Righter.
Wikipedia is not a fansite or a recap service. The article should contain information regarding the two but we don't need every detail documented or in the case of Bob Righter a word for word recap of the tokens. Big Brother 11 (U.S.) was recently passed as a good article with the Pandora's Box tasks included in the summary and the same should go for Bob Righter and the Tree of Temptation.
A lot of people preferred the old table for the summary section instead of prose but both Big Brother 11 (U.S.) and Big Brother 2009 (UK) proved that eliminating the majority of the tables and converting them to prose was the best way to go as it acheived the goal of making the articles Good Articles. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Houseguests?[edit]

With Darrenn BB1 inside the house today (although briefly) we should mention those who are joining the show to be involved with tasks etc.--Cooly123 19:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think ex-housemates could be going in daily for tasks, so it'll be a long list. AnemoneProjectors 21:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are relevant enough to include in the article, but not in the housemates list. Jim Michael (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean on the housemates list - they're not housemates. AnemoneProjectors 22:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a list is needed that can be integrated into the summary section. 01:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you there, so I will remove it. Mr tim111 (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also just remembered that we did not put the guests as a separate section in previous series. Mr tim111 (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now since this is the final series (asumingly) we can have an exception, and with over 5 people so far as guests more than the regualar seasons.--Cooly123 00:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As there are quite a lot of previous housemates coming back it would be nice to include them. It could be done like the celeb hijacks were recorded for BBCH as long as we match the table up with the housemates table so that things look right:
Name Big Brother history Guest Reason Source
Series Status
Caroline O'Shea Big Brother 1 Evicted Day 2 Took part in the "Who Is She" shopping task.
Kathreya Kasisopa Big Brother 9 Evicted Day 2 Took part in the "Who Is She" shopping task.
Amma Antwi-Agyei Big Brother 2 Evicted Day 2 Took part in the "Who Is She" shopping task.
Anna Nolan Big Brother 1 Second place Day 2 Took part in the "Who Is She" shopping task.
Lisa Jeynes Big Brother 4 Evicted Day 2 Took part in the "Who Is She" shopping task.
Darren Ramsay Big Brother 1 Third place Day 3 Announced this weeks nominations to the House following Nick's Tree of Temptation task.
John James Parton Big Brother 11 Evicted Day 3 Recorded a message for Josie. However, she did not receivce this message as she walked before it was shown to the House.
Stuart Pilkington Big Brother 9 Evicted Day 5 Victor and Michelle chose Nadia to receive Stuart as a slave for an hour.
Craig Phillips Big Brother 1 Winner Day 8 Took part in a task in which housemates had to race against him to build a garden shed. Craig won.

Maybe it doesn't need the status column though. Rhysg1234 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does look really good and it suplements the summary well by including info that's not already present and entirely relevent there. If we move the "Big Brother History" column on housemates to the same position as in this table, they should match each other well. Nice Woods31 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are things that haven't happened on the show yet, being posted?[edit]

I just wanted to know, because it states that Josie has left, and that Coolio and John are up for eviction. I just wanted to know why this is being shown already, considering its not been shown yet on Channel 4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.105.86 (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that those things were broadcast on Big Brother's Little Brother on E4 at 6pm this evening. Jim Michael (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a reliable source there is good enough reason to include the information on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a spoiler free zone. 12bigbrother12 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 11 is now a Good Article![edit]

Posted to Big Brother 12 (U.S.), Ultimate Big Brother and WP:BIGBRO.

Big Brother 11 (U.S.) is now a Good Article, this is the second Big Brother article to become a Good Article since the major revamp in the project's manual of style last year. Big Brother 2009 (UK) was the first to implement such changes and became a Good Article on May 9, 2010 after some work. This is an amazing accomplishment for editors of the articles and of the WP:BIGBRO project as a whole. All editors involved should be very proud of this. If we work now to make Big Brother 12 (U.S.) similar to Big Brother 11 (U.S.) (and make Ultimate Big Brother/Big Brother 2010 similar to Big Brother 2009) we could have more GA Big Brother articles here before the year is over. Also as far as Big Brother USA articles go Big Brother 11 (U.S.) is the first USA article to achieve this honor. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 00:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment of article[edit]

Because this is a current season of Big Brother, the article has been re asset to Current-Class. Once the season is over the article will be asset again to determine its class. 01:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Housemates in Infobox[edit]

Currently the Housemates list in the infobox (below the logo) includes piped links like this 'Ultimate_Big_Brother#Nick' but the article doesn't include a section about the individual housemates. I was wondering if there's going to be 'List of Ultimate Big Brother housemates' article
or if any of the following do the job:

With this template there is nothing that can be done, the template itself automatically links the Housemate's name to their section in the article. Since their names are in a table there is nothing I can do. Now when the series is over and the template is changed to the "endgame" template we can link each name to their specific article. There is nothing I can really do to the template since I have limited knowledge of the coding. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have written the endgame template ready for when the show ends -which can found here User:George2001hi/Sandboxes/Sandbox 1 (it just needs updating). The article could just use copied and pasted information from the List of housemates and added a few details about them entering Ultimate Big Brother, for now.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 12:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could give the infobox something to link to by adding the {{anchor}} template to the housemates section, but we'd have to anchor it for every name. AnemoneProjectors 21:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coolio's departure[edit]

Channel 4's BB site has (in its' scrolling housemates bar at the top of the screen) Coolio as 'Left'. Should this word be used instead of Walked or is Walked the universal term? Ta! db1987db (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed, but I am not sure if we should use the ejection colour or walk colour? Mr tim111 (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use Walked colour MSalmon (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was Ejected. BB said it was a "mutual agreement", in other words, BB said he had to go and he agreed In23065 (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Walked means that the person voluntarily left, which Coolio did not do, I think Mr tim111 (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with In23065. The way Channel 4 have written it is basically, "we told him he should leave for his own good and he agreed", he was ejected, just in a nicer way than, say, Kitten... 78.151.39.136 (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ejected is what happened to Emily" Coolio chose to leave. BB said "Coolio would you like to leave the big brother house" and he said "just open one of these doors and i'm out" 67.9.173.82 (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual Consent means both parties agree (in this case Coolio and BB). In Coolio's end, he wanted to walk, but in BB end, he was going to remove him (eject), so I pretty much both? Mr tim111 (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling you, it's a mistake to call it "ejected" He also chose to walk, so you could just as easily say "walk" it's just a toss-up matter of opinion 50/50 I think it damages the integrity of this article. Coolio was not actually EJECTED like Emily. I say it is wrong. If you want to be really accurate, you would say "walked" because he actually did choose to leave. But whatever, it's not the end of the world. 67.9.173.82 (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it back to Walked but added (Left) because he wasn't removed from the house, he chose to leave when asked by Big Brother. --MSalmon (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the word "left" being included in the table adds to the article. In fact, I think it'll leave people confused. Think about people who aren't familiar with the show. It should probably be expanded upon in some other way. AnemoneProjectors 22:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After watching the HL show tonight, I think that BB didn't really "remove" Coolio. Coolio wanted to leave because there was no other way to resolve the situation and really matters could have went worse had he stayed. So I think really walked would be the best. But on the website, it says he has 'left', which just means that he walked, I think that is just rephrased, maybe because he is a celeb? Mr tim111 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed Left now but I would leave it as Walked for now and not Ejected --MSalmon (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coolio's departure is between walking and ejection, but nearer to ejection - hence we should say he was ejected. In the diary room, he was told that what he was doing to Nadia is against Big Brother rules. He was told that it was harassment of a fellow housemate, which is regarded as unacceptable behaviour. He was asked if he regretted what he had done to her. He said he did not regret it, will not apologise, and if he stayed he would continue repeatedly mocking her and hiding her things. Big Brother and Coolio then agreed he should leave. If he had not agreed, he would have been removed. Under the circumstances, he didn't have the option to stay. Jim Michael (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the time though, Big Brother did not really "eject" him. But had he stayed and continue to harass Nadia, then Big Brother would have had no choice but to remove him. Only then would we say "eject". So really, because of at the time he left, I think we should use walk? Mr tim111 (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was definitely more of an ejection than him walking. People who walk don't talk, minutes before hand, about what they are going to when they go back into the house. BB clearly wanted him out, the only reason they have used the terminology they have is so they don't stigmatise Coolio as a person who was kick out of a reality TV show. Its also worth noting that he was not on BBLB and every walker, EVER, has been on BBLB, whereas not all ejected housemates have featured on BBLB. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I strongly believe this should go down as an ejection over a walk. In23065 (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on both sides here. Coolio wanted to leave because as he feels that he cannot resolve the situation. Big Brother immediately opened the door, unlike what he would do to any other housemate who wanted to walk; BB would have told them to think about it. So I think its kind of both right? If Coolio had stayed, and caused harassment to Nadia, that could have led him to being ejected, and maybe we would not have had this discussion. Mr tim111 (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coolio saying that he would carry on harassing Nadia is probably why they decided to eject him. I think to say that he walked is a lot more misleading than to say he was ejected. In23065 (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Emma (BB5) was ejected, so was Coolio. I've found this page on the BB5 Channel 4 microsite which shows the terms of her departure. That sounds like a mutual agreement too. Fans now all understand that Emma was "ejected" so changing that isn't really an option. In which case, Coolio should be listed as ejected too. http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/B/bb5/news/newsstorye3af.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.54.154 (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So lets ALL agree on whether we should put Coolio as walked or ejected and end this discussion. Mr tim111 (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was ejected. He repeatedly broke the rule against harassing another housemate. He was not allowed to stay under the circumstances of him refusing to apologise, not regretting harassing Nadia and vowing to continue frequently targetting her if he stayed. Jim Michael (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So most of us saying that Coolio was ejected, should we change it to that then? Mr tim111 (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah most people seem to be considering it as an ejection so I will change it. In23065 (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although he may of been "ejected" we will not know until he does an interview (if at all and mentions it) therefore it should be listed as "walked" because of the way the show presented it.--Cooly123 01:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Coolio was bullied into leaving by B.B., but it was definitely not an ejection. It would be better to have a separate colour for 'Left', but of 'Ejected' and 'Walked' it has to be 'Walked'. How does it present Emma? She was exactly ejected either. Salopian (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with Salopian and those others above who say Victor was not ejected. One cannot be ejected "by mutual agreement". Coolio either chose or agreed to leave but ejection is not what happened. I will give this a day or two before making my proposed change of marking Coolio as having "walked".Selector99 (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should really just remain as ejected since most of us agreed. If its walk, then BB would have just told Coolio to think about it, but of course, he would have harassed Nadia, and possible would have got ejected. If you read one of the comments on this discussion, someone said that a prev housemate was "mutual agreement" and it was put down as ejection.Mr tim111 (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coolio was ejected, in a similar manner to Emma Greenwood. Coolio's departure was nothing like that of Shabby, Caoimhe or Laura, all of whom walked. Most of Coolio's rule-breaking was not shown - he persistently harassed Nadia. BB called him into the diary room to try to have him apologise, accept that what he did was wrong and promise to stop doing it. He refused on all counts. BB could not allow him to continue targeting her. The large majority of Coolio's rulebreaking was not shown on the daily highlights shows - it was not one or two lighthearted pranks, it was persistent nasty harassment. Jim Michael (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proof that he was ejected - http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1345189 In23065 (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Could we please just end this discussion and just leave it as ejected. All signs points to it anyway Mr tim111 (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A forum isn't proof, though. Forums aren't reliable sources. Marco Sabba could have made that whole thing up. But I do agree it should say 'ejected'. AnemoneProjectors 00:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I am grateful to In23065 for posting the link to Digital Spy, I am also in agreement with Anemone who rightly points out that that forum is proof of nothing. It occurs to me that there that is no proof whatsoever that Coolio was ejected, only conjecture and hearsay. As such, I strongly disgree with Mr tim111 that "all signs point to" ejection. All signs amount to little more than opinion and I think the Nominations Table should be based on more than that. At the very least, it would be useful to add a 'Note' at the bottom of the table like those added for Josie, Victor and Michelle, to better explain that the term "ejected" is not as black and white as it seems. Selector99 (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John's nominations[edit]

I don't think it should be two seperate boxes, I think it should be one box.. why? Because John never nominated Coolio twice, he only was forced to replace Josie with Brian. --BigOz22 (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is usually there to make it more clearer who he replaced Josie with. But I guess we could put this down in the notes? since he was the only one who had to replace Josie anyway Mr tim111 (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes more sense to put it in a note. I thought that's what would have already been done. Plus it looks like his nomination for Coolio was voided, but it wasn't. AnemoneProjectors 17:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John James as guest[edit]

Can we stop the edit warring and discuss this please? I don't see any reason to include people who didn't enter the house, so John James should be removed. AnemoneProjectors 23:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I am trying to say, hence my edit. Guests are usually visitors to the house, John James never entered, he shouldn't be in the table. If he had been part in the storyline, he should be in the summary section and not the guests section. So I think he should be removed. Mr tim111 (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle[edit]

breifly exited than rentered on day 11.--Cooly123 22:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We should NOT put that in the info box, since on BB11, Mario, Corin, Andrew and Ben briefly exited and re-entered and we did not put that on BB11's infobox. We should put these kind of things on the summary. Mr tim111 (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

Seeing as the old summary was outdated, I put in a table, but haven't completed it, not to mention any sort of references to the summary are now dead links thanks to the move to Channel 5. If anyone could please help, that would be great. :) Jandal3c (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closest ever percentage?[edit]

Davina and Big Brother stated that John recieved the closest ever eviction percentage, with 50.6%. However, Anne from the second CBB also received 50.6% and Science from BB5 was evicted with an even closer percentage of 50.5%. So why is everyone saying that John's eviction was the closest? --Firegazer101 (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Ultimate Big Brother. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ultimate_Big_Brother&oldid=1210153611"