User talk:MegaPedant: Difference between revisions
Dalejenkins (talk | contribs) →Something that can easily be achieved: new section |
m →BB10 - week 12 nominations: new section |
||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
As a member of the [[WP:BIGBROUK]] task force, you may be interested in the aforementioned discussion. [[User:Dalejenkins|DJ]] 14:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC) |
As a member of the [[WP:BIGBROUK]] task force, you may be interested in the aforementioned discussion. [[User:Dalejenkins|DJ]] 14:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
== BB10 - week 12 nominations == |
|||
Hi. I was wondering if I could have your view on this please? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)&oldid=309171799#Week_12_eviction.3B_Sophie_and_Siavash.27s_nominations] |
|||
The argument that these were not spoken nominations doesn't seem a compelling reason not to include them. All available evidence is that these were nominations from the 2 housemates. I don't want to get into an edit war if I'm barking up the wrong tree! Any thoughts? [[User:Leaky caldron|leaky_caldron]] ([[User talk:Leaky caldron|talk]]) 09:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:46, 21 August 2009
![]() | MegaPedant (talk) is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:
- Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
- If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
- Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
- Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
- To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
- You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Big Brother 2009 (UK)
Dumped and The Apprentice (UK) ARE relevant to that discussion. It was stated that articles on Reality TV will never achieve such status due to snobbery - clearly not true. I revoked BB2006 from the GA list as it relied on sources from fan sites that had since been deleted. DJ 16:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Of course it belongs in the Broadcasts section. If not, where else does it belong? And it is not trivial - the decision has gathered coverage from various reliable sources, passing WP:TRIVIA and WP:RS. DJ 17:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- You appear to be wrong. The voting is a major contributor to the way in which the programme is broadcast, detirmined and constructed, hence it belongs on the Broadcasts section. DJ
- Nothing I have said was aggressive at all. I suggest you stop making personal comments and note that the issue is important and deserves to be included. I have asked other editors for their view on this issue. DJ 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- You appear to be wrong. The voting is a major contributor to the way in which the programme is broadcast, detirmined and constructed, hence it belongs on the Broadcasts section. DJ
Alucard16 has set up the Taskforce project page. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll take a look. I've been a bit busy lately. MegaPedant (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Sam BB7's article at AFD
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Bettay. DJ 09:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to oppose this proposal. MegaPedant (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
:)
Aww why thanks very much. I feel the same, and I'm suprised how strong this year's article is when looking back at the previous years' pieces. I can imagine that we can get it to GA a few weeks after the series finishes. :) DJ 16:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Big Brother 2009 (UK) - it's all been kicking off
After an afternoon of intense edit wars (too long to go into, you'll have to check the article talk page) the article has been fully protected until we can come to an agreement on the Housemates section. If you'd like to place your vote here, it would solve the issue quickly. I was under the impression that we had already reached consensus for "Option 2", but I must have been mistaken. Thanks, DJ 18:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- It certainly made interesting reading. So many "new" editors all deciding to contribute at once... hmmm, how strange. I have voted, for what it's worth, though on my own terms, as ever :) A friendly warning though: while I see this as a friendly notice try not to give anyone cause to accuse you of canvassing as it can only damage your case. MegaPedant (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I also found that quite peculiar. And especially as they've stated that they don't watch the show...but I'm not directly accusing anyone of anything ;). I just don't see how, within the space of an hour, the whole article was fully protected for 24 hours over a simple edit war that didn't even break WP:3RR. Anyway, I understand the issue on canvassing, but I believe that this doesn't apply as I'm contacting regular editors of the article about a major change. Thanks again :), DJ 13:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I assumed it was you who requested the full protection, though seeing that it's current, frozen, state is with the short version of the Housemates section I have to concede that I was probably wrong. Who called in the admins then, or is Big Brother really watching? MegaPedant (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I also found that quite peculiar. And especially as they've stated that they don't watch the show...but I'm not directly accusing anyone of anything ;). I just don't see how, within the space of an hour, the whole article was fully protected for 24 hours over a simple edit war that didn't even break WP:3RR. Anyway, I understand the issue on canvassing, but I believe that this doesn't apply as I'm contacting regular editors of the article about a major change. Thanks again :), DJ 13:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
One of the new contributors, who I just sent a lovley message to.... Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)#No. DJ 13:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I know you care passionately Dale, and that's the reason we've had our spats in the past and will no doubt have them in the future ;) but I urge you to keep a cool head and stay civil. Please. MegaPedant (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you'll find that DJ called in the admins with his forum shopping. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 14:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- So Big Brother really is watching. I'm curious Jeni, what piqued your interest in this Big Brother article, seven weeks in? Is it simply that AfD is on your watchlist? MegaPedant (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- DJ bought the article to a lot of peoples attention when he went shopping, so its only natural that people come in to express an opinion. Thats the great thing about Wikipedia, anyone can edit anything. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 15:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Except when it's fully protected! MegaPedant (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- DJ bought the article to a lot of peoples attention when he went shopping, so its only natural that people come in to express an opinion. Thats the great thing about Wikipedia, anyone can edit anything. Jeni (talk)(Jenuk1985) 15:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Another random editor just addead a "No" vote. I'm gettin very suspicious. DJ 17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Have you read Jeni's allegations above? MegaPedant (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. I chose to ignore them ;). DJ 19:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Reading material
You may find this interesting, I hope you don't mind that I included your edit to support my complaint - I'd be grateful if you voiced your views on the issue too :) [1]. DJ 01:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- You may use anything I've written anywhere to support any point you might like to make Dale, but that doesn't mean I'll automatically back you up and as I've been mentioned on ANI I've certainly exercised my right of reply. The thing is, I've only seen things from the Big Brother perspective and I have to point out that you've had more rows with me in the past than with Jeni. I have no interest or involvement in any of the American Idol articles and I'm not a habitual watcher of ANI so I really don't know what discussions you've been involved in there, nor am I particularly interested. The discussion at Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)#I'm going to suggest something radical... confused me a little as several people seem to have misunderstood what you were proposing. It's clear to me that you were suggesting two changes to the article's sidebar, namely abandoning the "real time" updating of the housemates' status (to which I expressed ambivalence) and, later, a change to the colour scheme for reasons of accessibility (which I supported but everyone else ignored). It seems a number of people believed that you were proposing to remove the sidebar entirely, which clearly wasn't the case, and the discussion rapidly deteriorated from then on. MegaPedant (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
MSN
Don't be hesitant to use MSN as a source (I gathered that you were from your edit summary). It's a reliable organisation; part of Microsoft afterall and, if anything, I feel we could use it more. DJ 17:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- My reservation was in case they delete items after a certain period. I would have expected ITN to be a reliable source too but I understand they remove items they consider stale. MegaPedant (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the WP:BIGBROUK task force, you may be interested in the aforementioned discussion. DJ 14:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
BB10 - week 12 nominations
Hi. I was wondering if I could have your view on this please? [2]
The argument that these were not spoken nominations doesn't seem a compelling reason not to include them. All available evidence is that these were nominations from the 2 housemates. I don't want to get into an edit war if I'm barking up the wrong tree! Any thoughts? leaky_caldron (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)