User talk:Bbmaniac

Nomination of Big Brother Australia 2012 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Big Brother Australia 2012 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Brother Australia 2012 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschro (talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of The Biggest Loser Australia: Singles for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Biggest Loser Australia: Singles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Biggest Loser Australia: Singles until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I will most definitely be waving for it's survival! Bbmaniac (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Projectlog2.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Projectlog2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Project Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Project Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Projectlog2.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Projectlog2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding BITE

As you are an editor who's been around for longer than me, I don't really consider my comments "WP:BITEy" - especially given your comments both here and at the AfD. Remember that under one interpretation of the policy WP:CRYSTAL, Jschro is correct - but that is not the interpretation which has come forward at the AfD. That's how consensus building works and everything there is right and proper. I don't see how suggesting that Big Brother is not "traditionally encyclopedic" and an eloquent writer would provide more benefit elsewhere is not a positive suggestion and quite similar to your comments above. That I consider Big Brother and other reality TV shows to be low quality programming doesn't mean I don't see the benefit of what you're doing and I urge you to carry on improving the subject which you find interesting. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Worm, I took offence in what you said; you are clearly saying that people that are eloquent writers do not belong writing on such subject matters as Big Brother; which is absolutely absurd. I think EVERY page on Wikipedia should have at least one eloquent writer contributing at all times and I believe that there are ample people working on such articles that do have eloquence in their writing. You're basically saying to Jschro that he is 'too good' for us, which is demeaning and crude. Jschro is not correct at all about WP:CRYSTAL, he claims that what is on the page is based on unverifiable facts on a very distant event. The event is not 'very distant' nor is the information contained in the article non-verifiable. He is incorrect, I can't make that any more clear.Bbmaniac (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I voiced an opinion, that as an eloquent writer that he could add more value to the encyclopedia by writing more traditional encyclopedic topics. I stand by that opinion, though I regret causing offense. I certainly think good writers should focus on their areas of interest, including non-traditional encyclopedic topics.

CRYSTAL, like all policies on wikipedia are open to interpretation and correct and incorrect are not terms that are appropriate. Wikipedia works on consensus and you've conceded his point is valid - it just doesn't match the community's point of view. As a he is a new editor I'm trying to explain the situation to Jschro. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand he is a new user; but his conduct has been pulled into question and he has persisted. He seems to be backing off a bit now, so I will follow suit. By 'incorrect', I stand by my opinion that his views on Big Brother Australia 2012 in accordance to WP:CRYSTAL were presented, and rejected wholeheartedly. He then continued to push the same opinions despite the fact many people had turned them down. I understand the guideline is open to interpretation, but if he is not able to take into account what other people are saying on the matter and even try to present his argument in a higher quality light or in a different way that conveys his points more effectively, then I do believe that he is just repeating himself and he is therefore in the wrong. Again, you say he is new, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt and retract the word 'incorrect' and replace it with the words 'lacking ability to enhance his skills at providing a more fluid argument that is more engaging'. As I said, his points are valid, but I can't discuss with him those points in a mature light when he presents the same ideologies over and over again, and blames the general public for 'not seeing it his way' or 'going around in circles'. He says he is trying to convey his ideas and he has to make them clearer by stating them 'over and over' again. How is that contributing to an argument? It isn't. It begs the question why someone like this, with little experience on Wikipedia, is even being allowed to nominate a page for deletion anyway? Can he not see how his attempts just look like his own propaganda? Bbmaniac (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm planning on working with him to understand that wikipedia doesn't have rules and the community discussion and consensus is the way we work - if consensus is that something should stay a policy will not trump that. Agreed he does push the same opinions over and over, but that's common amongst people who believe they are absolutely right - I'm sure this user has a place on wikipedia, but understanding the culture may be the difficulty. I admit that it's becoming a bit of a WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT situation - so my good faith may be misplaced - I think we'll have to wait and see how he reacts when he signs back on. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You know I really want to see things from the other perspective but the show won't even make it to air for close to a year. Clearly Bbmaniac your argument is an emotional one right now. I've been a fan of this show on an international level since I was a teenager I know without a doubt that there will be little information worthy of Wikipedia released for some time now. It really should be merged with the larger article until at least a few months into the new year. I'd be more inclined to be more sympathetic to your opinions if this were more of a two way street. I'll admit that right now the situation isn't as black and white as I once thought, however I think the negatives to keeping the article outweigh the positives. I'm sure you can appreciate that the announcement works it way through the grape vine that the article will be subject to a heap of rumors and speculation which will make monitoring it a pretty cumbersome task. I've also noticed that there is still a lot of room for improvement of the main Big Brother article, IMO merging the two would help to encourage editors to improve the main article as well as make it easier to monitor. Could you at least take a minute to seriously consider my point of view, emotions aside? Jschro (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Jschro - I don't believe Bbmaniac is taking an emotional argument. He, and I, and many other members of the community at the AfD have all considered your point of view - and have generally decided that the article should remain on wikipedia. Besides yourself, I do not think there is anyone who believes it should be deleted. If you think that the main Big Brother article could do with improvement, I suggest you improve it, but the community has spoken on the matter, and you should accept that. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Worm I wouldn't go claiming a victory just yet as the discussion is far from over just yet. I think I'm making some pretty serious strides bringing into question a significant amount of what is sourced in the article. I think an Unnamed "Spokesperson" is a far cry from a verifiable source. What I don't think a lot of people are considering when they are voting on this is that it is not just the author or publisher that needs to be reputable and verifiable but also the work itself being cited. Bbmaniac and others are getting a little too cocky considering much of what he considers to be fact is still able to be contested as there has been no official confirmation. Jschro (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Bbmaniac please refrain from editing mine or others posts. I can tell you right now it will not be pretty if it happens again. You are not an admin and it is not up to you to decided if my actions are biased etc. Jschro (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For this edit - which shows how well the community can work together, despite disagreements. WormTT · (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)