Jump to content

User talk:Cwmxii

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) at 00:35, 28 November 2023 (→ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Cwmxii, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 14:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8 out of 10 cats mystery episode?

Hello CWMXII,

Thank you for your edit. There seems to be a disagreement about what episode This Friday's episode is. While it is true that Radiotimes, the Online TV Guide has this episode being 1 of 5, The official site has this episode listed as Episode 4. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/8-out-of-10-cats/episode-guide/series-10/episode-4 and Sroaudiences, has tape dates for 6 episodes. There is a mysterious episode taping coming up. It could be a Christmas special. However, 8 out of 10 cats has never taped Christmas specials.

What I am saying is that perhaps there are 6 episodes this series, and something is wrong. Although Radiotimes is a valid source and all that, The official website is a more concrete source as it is the show's website. I suggest we leave the changes as they are ow and put this on the discussion page to see what people think about it. I have no idea what's going on, but if the official website says this week's episode is Episode 4 we should leave it like that for now. 65.94.244.245 (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)samusek2[reply]

Sorry if I sounded a bit rude, but I find this whole situation a bit weird. Why was this week's episode mentioned differentlyin different places. I wish I could e-mail Jason Manford or Jimmy Carr to understand what is going on. 1st Christmas special perhaps? I guess we will find out eventually. I just didn't want to sound a bit pushy but only wanted to compromise Thanks!65.94.244.245 (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC) samusek2[reply]

"Unscheduled episodes" at List of Never Mind the Buzzcocks episodes

The episodes have references and are supported. There is no reason to remove them just because the airdate has not been announced.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please stop edit warring on the Opinionated page. It's a non-issue frankly, but you will simply end up being blocked if you carry on the way you have been. There's no rule or even guideline that says what a 'star' is, and it's frankly utter nonsense to call Skinner a 'star' when the others spend the exact same amount of time on screen and do an equal amount of talking. It's also a nonsense to make a distinction between 'regulars' and non-regulars for a show which has such a short run, and when most guests are clearly being invited back for more than one episode. And because of that, no, the infobox is not going to get too long at all. It's there for quick information, and a list of guests is exactly that. If people want more info, that's why I created an article section dedicated to guests. But the article does not replace the infobox, and vice-versa. If you feel so strongly about this, I suggest you go looking for a third opinion, although please request they give it to your or my talk page. I really cannot stand the though of the first discussion opened on the article's talk page being about something this lame. I promise I will abide with whatever they say. MickMacNee (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CWMII

How are you? I just did some investigating, and I found out something interesting. I remember seeing the confirmation from The News of The World last week about Graham Norton's Season 10 start date. However, I didn't get to post until this week due to time constraints. Anyways, I checked your claim that the link that I posted led to the NOTW front page. That ended up being true, but what I did to post that link to the Wikipedia page was I went through Google News search, like I usually do to find out Graham Norton News.

I ended up finding a direct working link to the actual article under the thread "Is it the Ender?" that has a news bit about Graham Norton saying that it will be hard to find guests when the show comes back in October as Wossy's show premieres in September. http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=583&q=jonathan+ross+graham+Norton&btnG=Google+Search#q=jonathan+ross+graham+Norton&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=MsH&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&biw=1024&bih=583&prmd=ivnso&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=75KgTdmTFtSP0QGU9fSFBQ&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=4&ved=0CAwQ_AUoAw&fp=a7f2768dc99b6d8f

It is weird that I can get to the sourcelink through Google, but if I post it on Wikipedia, it doesn't sync up. I do not know what to do about this, whether we should not source it on Wikipedia or if there is someway to properly handle all this. I just thought I'd explain myself and keep you in the loop. Great work BTW! Thanks!65.94.65.173 (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC) samusek2[reply]

Hi, just checked it again, just to be certain and I clicked on the link I posted yesterday and it worked and the article showed up. It didn't work a couple of hours ago. However, if you search Google news as I linked above, the article can be accessed. However, as of now, it can be accessed through Wikipedia, so I reverted the edit. 65.94.65.173 (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)samusek2[reply]

WILTY Guest Appearances

Hey Cwmxii, I notice that you recently edited my contribution to the Would I Lie to You page regarding their guest appearances stating that the show hasn't been running long enough. I was just curious as to exactly how long the show has to run, before we can include that. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrflvs (talk • contribs) 14:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hiya, guests on WILTY on 17th March 2015 were Nick Grimshaw and Rhod Gilbert (David's team), and Clare Blading and Rob Delaney (Lee's team). Thanks for keeping this page up-to-date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheresaFarlow (talk • contribs) 18:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QI Guest Appearances

Cwmxii, Lemme just congratulate you on your hard work on this page, WILTY, and other British panel shows' Wikipedia pages. My only concern is in the Guest Appearances section. I know that the "One Appearances" are getting long, but I think that the public are still interested in everybody who has appeared on the show being listed, not just the ones who have appeared twice or more. But, I leave the judgment to you, if you believe that way is best, then leave it like that, but I personally think that all the guest appearances should be listed. Thanks anyway! ibrflvs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrflvs (talk • contribs) 14:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly come dancing

I have undone your recent edit which removed references from the page. Yes the majority are from main site but you also removed two independent ones showing the couples who have left. Without these the articles is barely sourced and is full of original research. I have started a discussion on the talk page as why remove them. There is no harm in them being there to source the article. Edinburgh Wanderer 08:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some tips to help you out!

Hi Cwmxii, I thought I'd drop a few notes on your talk page with some help on writing articles :o)

First of all, it may be best for you to do a bit of reading, starting with the Wikipedia manual of style, which will give you a lot of information about how Wikipedia prefers its articles to be written. It's not as hard to follow as it might look; quite a bit of the information there probably won't be vital for you at first.

Second, I recommend you make a user sandbox - which is just an area you can use to practise in, and to make notes in, and to get things ready in. If you click this red link: user:Cwmxii/Sandbox, that will let you create that page (it gives you an edit window to start work in). Anything, anywhere, on the help and information pages which gives you an example, try it out in your sandbox until you're familiar with it.

For your article, the next thing you want to do is start collecting as much information as you can about it. Google searches (particularly in Books and Scholar) will be your best friend for this! Once you've found the information, the next most important thing is to start writing up each fact in your own words (very important, this), and make a note at the same time of exactly where that information came from. Build in the references as you go along; I'm going to copy in, down below this, a whole heap of help on doing references, which was produced by one of our best teachers (Chzz).

Here's another place that you'll find incredibly useful - citation templates which you can copy and paste into your sandbox, between <ref></ref> tags; you just fill in the blanks from your sources into the template, and you'll end up with nicely formatted inline citations :o) It all helps. Remember to add a references section to your sandbox (make a new line, and put ==References== on it, and type {{reflist}} on the next line, so that you can see how your citations look as you do them. Remember to save your page often! You don't want to lose your work.

Hopefully this will give you a good start and make life easier for you.

One last thing to keep as a motto: "It's better to write one good, well-referenced, nicely-presented article than it is to create fifty unreferenced one-line stubs!" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How references work

Simple references

These require two parts;

a)
Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>

He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref>
b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}";
== References ==
{{reflist}}

(an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections)

To see the result of that, please look at user:chzz/demo/simpleref. Edit it, and check the code; perhaps make a test page of your own, such as user:Cwmxii/reftest and try it out.

Named references

Chzz was born in 1837. <ref name=MyBook>
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. 
</ref> 

Chzz lives in Footown.<ref name=MyBook/>

Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.

Citation templates

You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look; 

Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation
 | last = Smith
 | first = John
 | title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century
 | publication-date = 2001
 | publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
 | page = 125
 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4
}}
</ref>

Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result.

For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

Something to make your life easier!

Hi there Cwmxii! I've just come across one of your articles, and noticed that you had to create titles for your url links manually, or were using bare urls as references.

You might want to consider using this tool - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. Happy editing! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Would I Lie to You? (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TV3 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Strictly Come Dancing Christmas Specials, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Martin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Let's Dance for Comic Relief, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ed Byrne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Never Mind The Buzzcocks episodes Series 22

Hi CWMXII I had a question to ask you about this page. As you can see user Ryulong has decided to add another column to Series 22 with the Guest captains instead of leaving them in bold like it has been for a few years. He is also the guy that you are in an edit war on this page with when talking about putting a space before the references which he has reverted now as well. I have tried talking with him but he does not seem to want to talk. Can you give me some guidance? I know that there is a column in the newer series for Guest hosts, but what do you make of Ryulong's edits? This is a bit aggravating. Thanks in advance! 174.89.240.181 (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)samusek2[reply]

Don't add spaces before reference tags.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we have so much excessive text to say "These are the guest captains in this column" when we can just have a column entirely for the guest captains? It does not take up any more space than the rest of the information, doesn't look "horrible" and provides the information more clearly than bolding the guest captains' names.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the column for guest captains. We include a column for guest hosts so why should guest captains be any different?—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guest captain column takes up no more space than a guest host column does, so I do not see the reason we have to remove it and simply bold their name, just because there just happened to be a guest host again later on. Please respond to me here.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respond to messages here. Stop communicating via edit summaries.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Strictly Come Dancing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darren Bennett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Strictly Come Dancing (series 8), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ghost (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Strictly Come Dancing (series 11), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Casualty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Information icon Hello, I'm Blurred Lines. I noticed that you recently removed some content from The Simpsons without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Blurred Lines 19:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Have I Got News for You episodes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |[[Hal Cruttenden]]<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03dy8wg]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never Mind the buzzcocks!!

Hi,

I'm sorry if I seemed rude with my edits about the Morgan walk outs. It is only because I am confused about the notes section. I added the note last week seeing it was notable and also, as the Preston incident was noted on the Episodes page. Then you deleted saying it was already on the main page notes, I asked you what the difference was, why while the Morgan walk out was allowed, the Preston one could stay, even if both were mentioned on the main page as well. You deleted again and said that it wasn't suitable , but didn't answer my question. ( I hate it when people don't fully answer my questions on wikipedia when I am truly confused). So Since you said that Morgan's walk off was not notable for a list of episodes, and since there is a section on the main page all about walk-offs, then all walk offs would follow the same fate so I deleted it the Preston bit Honestly, I am puzzled as to what constitutes a valid note on that page.

Then user Ryulong reverted the edit (and kind of explained it in the process) and added a mean comment at the end, which seems to be his forte. I just wanted to let you know that I was not being vindictive at all. I was just confused. I'm pretty calm with my other edits on other programs like Graham Norton and when people change one of my edits, they don't always add in a little barb at the end of each edit, like Ryulong does. I just simply added the new week's listings with the 4 guests attributed to said Digiguide listing and then he changes it around before the episode airs (I believe he is american) and adds a pointed remark. It's a bit frustrating to me as I do mean well.

I'm talking to you as a fellow editor to try and vent my frustrations with Wikipedia. At the moment it's only the Buzzcocks episode page where I'm having problems. I do appreciate your input, but would kind of like an explanation on the notes and Walk-off sections of the page. I hope it's ok for me to write this. Thanks in advance!

184.160.203.195 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)samusek2[reply]

The Preston walk off resulted in a change in the people on stage permanently for the remainder of the show. That is why it should be mentioned Lemmy's and Morgan's were either not filmed or at the end of the program which didn't result in anything. Your removal of Preston's bit was a violation of WP:POINT because Cwmxii kept removing your note for Morgan, which is against the rules.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Unbelievable Truth (radio show), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you don't appear to have received any thanks...

The Simpsons (Annoyed Grunt)-star
For turning the list of writers from an unusable nightmare to something clear and efficient. Keep up the good work! Gran2 08:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Strictly Come Dancing (series 8), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waterloo Road. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove disambiguators from links, as you did in this edit with links to Brian Kelley (writer) on List of The Simpsons writers: this causes the links to go to the disambiguation page, and not to the article about the relevant person. —innotata 17:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Friend Like Me" from Croydon

Thanks for doing your bit here. How very annoying of our anon friend from Croydon. What is the source for this? I guess the show is recorded some time before broadcast. Do you think there is any scope for rev-del is it happens again? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever reply to questions and comments here? That's what your Talk Page is for, honest. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Please don't vandalise this article again"

Were you aware of the discussion thread that has been open at Talk:Strictly Come Dancing (series 12) since 14 December? Would you care to make a non-offensive contribution there? And would you care to explain your edit summary? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply reverting my edit, with an edit summary of "Allow me to reiterate", doesn't really count as "discussion" does it? Do you understand the purpose of Talk Pages? It seems you are somewhat reluctant to engage in reasonable debate. Would you prefer that I took to another forum, such as WP:DRN, WP:AIV or WP:AN3? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Six is a great score, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Unbelievable Truth (radio show), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hole, Fake and Smell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Information icon Hello, I'm KatnissEverdeen. I noticed that you recently removed some content from The Simpsons (season 26) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Katniss♥ 20:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly Come Dancing

Noticed you've gotten into an edit war with an anonymous user. You're clearly in the right as their edit isn't sourced but it might be time to report them as we are long past 3RR Davethorp (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Special Barnstar

The Special Barnstar
An appreciation of the work you put into various television related articles (List of Have I Got News for You episodes as an example). 6ii9 (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)#Episode Groupings

I would like to invite you to contribute to a discussion on whether or not "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" and "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" are two-parters. Over the course of 3 weeks and 2 discussions, few editors have contributed, so it would be a great help if you could take the time to contribute. Fan4Life (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Revision - List of Mock the Week episodes

I cannot accept you revising this to its former revision - There is no notable relevance about the info on scores in this show, as it does not use the format of "Team Captains"; Hugh Dennis is mentioned as one only in publicity material, but on the show, he is never mentioned as one, nor whoever is in the centre seat of the right team. Thus, the information on wins and such like has no proper notability whatsoever, especially as the show is more about improve comedy and stand-up than a serious competition. The article is fine if only to list the guest performers for an episode in a series. My reversions are not vandalism. GUtt01 (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously provoking an editing war here. Cease and desist immediately! GUtt01 (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least try and see if there's a consensus before removing information that's been up for six and a half years. I'll continue to revert your edits to the list of episodes as vandalism, but having reviewed them will allow the edits to the main page about the show stand. Cwmxii (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need general consensus on information that has no notability whatsoever? And furthermore, why do we have the article laid out like this? This is supposed to list the episodes on the show, and retaining information on the guest performers for it is fine; retaining info on wins is not, because Hugh Dennis, Rory Bremner, Andy Parsons and whatever guest sat in the centre seat, were not "Team Captains" despite publicity material. The scoring system was also not properly used; host Dara just gave points to whoever he judged won a round, and the show is not implied to be a serious competition, but rather simply being similar to comedy, topical discussion and improve/stand-up games that retain a similar format to Whose Line Is It Anyway?GUtt01 (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Strictly contestants

You changed Lesley Joseph's age to 71. Yes she turned 71 but after the series had already started, so it surely read 70. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8AA4:5600:41DB:330E:D76D:CF19 (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRICTLY VANDILISM

SOME IDIOT HAS CHANGED 'One unlearned dance' to 'one unlearned dance' on the dance chart!! this is abysmal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8AA4:5600:F446:3398:A86E:FDEF (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cwmxii. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QI Series O

2 things, you could have at least changed the O series to a different colour to the N series, as I was trying to do, and I wouldn't bother sourcing the recording date so much as the panel seeing as the recording dates always get deleted after the series starts airing. Drneroli (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, the colour thing was an oversight. I think it's important to include a source for the guests and the recording date; it will be some months before this series starts airing, after all. Cwmxii (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. Might I put it back to the colour I had it at or would you prefer I use a different one Drneroli (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly Come Trolling

Hi Cwmxii. I think it might be a good idea to ask for 24 hours semi or full protection on both Strictly Come Dancing and Strictly Come Dancing (series 15) at about 20.00 BST next Saturday night? And probably to keep these patterns going for the next 10 weeks? Might save a lot of wasted effort. What do you think? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Strictly Come Dancing contestants

Ah so after branding my edits as ‘vandalism’ you reverted them after all. Because they were not vandalism.178.106.210.88 (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted them because you put the result up before it was broadcast. Please don't do so again. Cwmxii (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Cwmxii. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of directors of The Simpsons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Silverman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Have I Got News for You episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jess Phillips (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your protection request

Hello Cwmxii, I left a question for you at the RFPP noticeboard. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Cwmxii. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Cwmxii. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Have I Got News for You episodes

I disagree. In 2014, the BBC's director of television banned panel shows from containing all-male lineups, and I would argue that such a violation is noteworthy somewhere on the site.--Launchballer 11:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Perhaps you need to take this to the talk page, instead of edit-warring. 14.203.54.17 (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Template:Master stories, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 32#"The End of Time", "The End of Time" is not a serial (this only applies to classic era stories) and thus should not be italicized. -- /Alex/21 00:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020 - Recent edit

Your recent reversion on List of Have I Got News for You episodes has been undone, due to a number of issues it reintroduced that had been removed. List of Episode articles are meant to focus on the information on episodes per se, and should not include information that is more relevant for the article covering the programme itself. Your reversion restored History to this article (which duplicates what is already stated in the main article on Have I Got News for You), and frequent guests (which is more or less something that the main article can cover) - the latter is not really essential for this list, even if episode tables list guests for each series. GUtt01 (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween group dance

The only evidence I could find for there being a scheduled group dance was the Metro, which is not a reliable source, so you were right to take it out.--Launchballer 22:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Barron

Hi. I know enough about Sara Barron to recognize that she probably merits an article, so I tried to do my bit as a good Wikipedia citizen by red-linking her when I noticed that she didn't have one. However, I am not a Sara Barron authority or even enough of a fan to want to take on the task of writing the article myself. In a perfect world, I suppose anyone motivated to do a red link would just do the article instead, but in the real world this is an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good, imho: because now we just have no red link AND no article, which is a step backward. (This is the same issue I have with the people who say "never add CN tags, just go find the citations.") Granted, there are certainly projects where an "all or nothing" policy might be more appropriate, but I don't think that's the philosophy of Wikipedia. Jcejhay (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring, August 2021

In List of Have I Got News for You episodes, believe it or not, the edits you are reverting are good faith edits. And you are edit-warring. I can full-protect the article as a content dispute or block you for 24 hours for edit-warring. What is your preference? Semi-protection of the article doesn't seem to be an option when all parties seem to be trying to make improvements. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't good faith though. That isn't how any article like that is formatted; compare, for example, List of A League of Their Own episodes or List of Mock the Week episodes. I'm simply applying consistency. Cwmxii (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being inconsistent does not equate to bad faith. Each article stands or falls on its own merits regardless of what other articles are like. The fact that one article is undergoing an attempt to improve does not mean that attempt is wrong; it might mean that other articles also have problems that should be corrected. From my point of view, not looking at other articles but looking at this one with fresh eyes, the anon's edits were improvements, not bad-faith edits. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

/* Controversies */ Clarifications on Weeks 4/10 voting flaws and article source titles

Hi Cwmxii, it is a shame that you deleted the controversies section of Strictly series 17 because they incontrovertibly did occur under the BBC's noses and most of the 'angry people' on Twitter noted some valid errors in the scoring (with the one-point-less-if-tied system really messing up the 50/50 aspect of it) and online/phone-in (certain lines always engaged while others stay open and online page crashes with erroneous statement of 'all votes cast' when none actually have been) systems that denied them the ability to vote fairly for Dev and Dianne and Saffron and AJ in the weeks they were cruelly ejected from the show. Article source titles were meant to show full proof of that to general readers as well, so it is annoying that some are still denying the obvious flaws in the show's running week after week that has fueled awful trolling and turned myself off live viewing in future. Especially when they refused to reinstate Tameka Empson and Jason Bell after Will Young and Nicola Adams pulled out and subsequently kicked off Max George, Ranvir Singh and Claudia Fragapane in unjust Week 4 and Semi-Final eliminations that would never have happened under normal circumstances (i.e. when no one pulls out at all or a week's elimination is cancelled after a withdrawal so as to maintain the planned number of finalists ranging from 3 to 5 per schedule). All this is part of the sure proof of Strictly being dodgy on those things, and if according to some it is not, then I don't know what is. Hope that is all illuminating to you in the meantime.

Jlgd1995 (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is all just total nonsense. As I've already explained, the way the phone lines work is that there's one line all the numbers go through, and the last two digits of the phone number tell the system who you're voting for. If one line was busy, then they're all busy. Not reinstating an eliminated couple when someone else pulls out isn't controversial in the slightest, it's just how the show works - you obviously can't bring back someone who lost their place in the competition fair and square through a public vote people paid money for, and the show obviously can't cancel an elimination. Indeed, the show's format is specifically designed it can still carry on as normal in the event of someone pulling out. This isn't proof of the show being "dodgy" at all; this is someone being bitter that their favourite got knocked out and trying to make up conspiracy theories to explain it. Cwmxii (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly man, I know you have your phone lines explanation and business-as-usual arguments, but to be such an apologist for the BBC (Big Brother Corporation) regime and delete article-backed evidence of certain problems that need to be addressed somehow, and to claim that it is the normal procedure for the show to continue kicking off celebs every week and end up with one less finalist, is just bang out of order. As I said, no need to lose another couple in the same week if someone else pulls out, and refund viewers for their wasted calls, simple as that. If I was on the show and one of my colleagues was forced to quit through no fault of their own and the show uncaringly said they were still voting off one of the others, I would quite frankly lead a mass walk out off the dancefloor in protest, refuse to carry on competing until they are reinstated by popular demand, and actually take a stand on these problems by leading calls to refund all of our viewers for being swindled to wastefully vote in an illegitimate scenario such as that. It is not necessarily a matter of our favourites being voted out but just anyone being ejected through no fault of their own by an unjust system such as this, and Strictly really needs to shake up and change things completely or it will lose its sparkle altogether and be a mere zombie of a programme which does not deserve to be well-watched by the Great British Public. Tameka, Jason, Ranvir, Max, Claudia, Dev, Saffron, Zoe L, Aston, Vick, Ali and Spoony need full compensation with a real alternative dancing show that doesn't cheat its competitors and voters like that and actually respects their journeys into good dancers galore, so matter closed between us Jlgd1995 (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Strictly Come Dancing (series 20). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Wikipedia tables must conform to the requirements of MOS:ACCESS. Bgsu98 (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HIGNFY Ep

Thanks for reverting me; clearly wasn't paying attention! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cwmxii&oldid=1187203259"