User talk:Msalmon

Welcome!

Hello, Msalmon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for joining our community. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. First thing: be bold! Editors are always happy to correct or revert mistakes and discuss changes with which they disagree. Here are some links you might find useful:

And for more detailed information:

Help pages - the instruction manual, contains everything you could possibly want to know
The five pillars of Wikipedia - our principles, or how to get on with other editors
Manual of Style - how to format articles, where to place pictures, and other stylistic matters.

You can also check out the community portal, which has lots of ideas on how you can help Wikipedia.

All of this information can be daunting, but if you have a question and can't find the answer, you can always ask me on my talk page or go to Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. One last thing: please sign your name when leaving messages for others on article and user talk pages using (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. I hope you enjoy editing! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Leicester Haymarket Busstat.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Leicester Haymarket Busstat.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Jennie's exemption

Hi there, do you know for sure that she is exempt from nominating? If you are speculating, it shouldn't be added. Thanks. --Alex⁹⁸⁹¹ 15:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie is immune from being nominated, not exempt from nominating. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Revert Rule

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. — FireFox ^(talk) _{16:06, 7 August '06}

Three Revert Rule

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. — FireFox ^(talk) _{17:51, 9 August '06}

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. — FireFox ^(talk) _{17:56, 9 August '06}

Re: Before where?

Before I started butchering it :P --_{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 10:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The table of contents on the Big Brother 7 UK article

Thank you for changing the position of the table of contents yet again, with total disregard to the comment I made on the article's talk page. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 09:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do anything to it, someone else did it while I was editing _{talk to} Mslamon ^{wants e-mail} 10:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This diff says you moved the TOC back to where it is now. I'm not here to start an argument about it, but if you have a good reason for it not being where it was, could you please bring it up on the article's talk page? _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 09:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I just left it where it was I only moved it once and that was it. I don't mind it being where it was _{talk to} Mslamon ^{wants e-mail} 10:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving it back then, that's okay with you? _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 09:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fine but don't blame me for something I didn't do. _{talk to} Mslamon ^{wants e-mail} 10:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only saying you did it because the diff says you did it, and as somebody once said, "The diff doesn't lie". If you take offence to that, I'm sorry. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 09:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that but someone else moved it while I was editing something else. _{talk to} Mslamon ^{wants e-mail} 10:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would have appeared as a separate revision in the article's edit history had that been the case. In all honesty, I'd have dropped this ages ago, and still will, if you're willing to do the same. There's really no need to drag it out as far as it is going. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 09:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets just forget about it. _{talk to} Mslamon ^{wants e-mail} 10:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 09:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Hi, do you have a source for the Celebrity Big Brother 5 info? --Alex ^{(talk here)} 22:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Big Brother

Please stop going against consensus, and read the talk pages. If you have a problem, comment before you take action, as moving all the pages to where they are now took a lot of effort from a lot of people. jd || talk || 09:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change it (which I don't see why you need to) please rewrite the intro or change the name back to what it was, otherwise it looks wrong. User:Msalmon 10:38, 23 October 2006

Was it not already rewritten? jd || talk || 09:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, on CBB5 (oops I meant 3) it say "CBB5 was the third season of Celebrity Big Brother". Does that look rewritten to you? Msalmon 10:46, 23 October 2006

Yes, it does. Celebrity Big Brother 5 isn't the fifth season of the series, as there were only two seasons before it. jd || talk || 11:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genie in the House

Hi! I'm sorry to bother you, but do you, by any chance, know where I can find screencaps and/or videos of the episode Out of our Minds? I really want to see it! I hope you can help me! Thanks. Miss.Hazelnut 25 October 2006

Sorry, I can't help you but y did u come 2 me? Msalmon 21:03 25 Oct 06

List of Kim Possible episodes

Hey Msalmon! Thanxs for all your work in moving the episodes in order or air date. However, the talk page reached a consensus and all episodes were organized according to production code. Check the talk page before making major edits, in case the issue was already discussed before. I had to revert back to the original version. Sorry about that. Keep up the good work and have fun editing! =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 23:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't episodes be ordered in list of episode number because 'Bueno Nacho' wasn't the first episoded aired it was 'Crush'. See [1] for episode order. Msalmon 19 Dec 2006 09:30am

Yeah, but something about how Disney does not air them in the correct order. ^_^ Jumping cheese

^Cont@ct 10:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 2007

As various sources have confirmed, Chanelle has asked to leave. Despite the fact that she has to stay for a while longer, she can no longer be regarded as a HM as she has techincally left. Futher reverting could break WP:3RR and could be classed as vandalism. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She hasn't left yet so she is still a housemate

I agree with you reverting the edits as she has not left :) Babygurl1853 18:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BB8 UK Nom. Table

It's polite to discuss the matter first (but from seeing your talkpage i can see this isn't always the case) on the articles talk page. You revert the article (to a bad version i may add) when so far you are the only person to disagree with it. -- Halo2 ^Talk 19:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go back to two tables then, personally I think that the main table will look crammed and funny with it in. Msalmon User talk:Talk 20:34, 6 August 2007

Yes exactly, "you think", that's the point of a talk page to discuss it. The problem at the moment is that there is no point having the total nominations, it doesn't show anything. (You may also want to fix your signature if you haven't doe so already.) -- Halo2 ^Talk 19:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 10:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Big Brother 2009 (UK)

Msalmon, you recently removed a citation needed tag I added to the Celebrity Big Brother 2009 (UK) article. The reason why I added a citation needed tag, is because information about when an upcoming show will begin should be cited. I realise that you said in your edit summary when you removed my citation needed tag that C4 has confirmed that that is when the show will start, but a citation is needed to prove that. I am not suggesting you made up the date, but unfortunately your word is not enough. I hope you understand why I therefore reverted your removal of the citation needed tag, and I hope you will be able to replace the tag with a citation. Thanks for reading. Terrakyte (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the citation. :) Terrakyte (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that is ok Msalmon (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good. Thanks again. Terrakyte (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it might be better for you to leave messages on the talk page and discuss with us whether to include rumours, before wiping it out. Like I've said, there's a precendent for listing the possible contestants, and whether or not I agree with it (which I don't, entirely), you could've left a note. I won't change what you've put, but I think you were a little hasty. Best wishes. Sky83 (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Strictly Come Dancing (Series 6). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 17:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Route Table

You only needed to correct the relevant section in the first place rather than get into an unnecessary edit war with the whole table! Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will leave it like it is but personally I liked it the way before Msalmon (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you, but the style of editing of this "new" user on First Leicester and Arriva Fox County seems awfully familiar ;-) All seems constructive so far, but an admin is aware of it and is keeping an eye on it. Just so you are aware :-) Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will keep a look out for it, but he/she hasn't made any big changes like the blocked user did Msalmon (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now almost certain it is the same person, as he/she has just blanked the page of User:Snleicester. Expect the his/her edits to get a lot more annoying! Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just noticed that. MSalmon (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No i will not be as annoying because i am finding information out to put into pages for the encyclopedia Stewiewispa (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't make any of the changes like you were before otherwise you will be blocked againMSalmon (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am checking the show changes box THEN adding information where it is needed as with centrebusif you want to take a look Stewiewispa (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. And also when you reply on the talk pages use one more of : than the last one which will indent it more MSalmon (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what did I say? :-) Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? MSalmon (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Stewiewispa.. "Expect the his/her edits to get a lot more annoying!". I think I showed too much good faith in not suggesting he/she not be blocked right away. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he has been blocked indef again MSalmon (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 2009 (UK)

Channel 4 have confirmed that launch date of the series. A consensus has been reached on the article's talk page; there you can find sources that confirm this. Your constant reverting is distruptive and could be seen as vandalism. If you continue to edit obstructively, you will be reported to an administrator and most likely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thanks, DJ 15:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for getting the cite wrong on the Nominations table. I fixed it now. --I'm new !! (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I didn't know you were trying to do a cite MSalmon (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Street View

RE: If information is interesting and has no citation should insert a fact (^{[citation needed]}). In this case the information is completely unnecessary; Google cars we could find in almost all countries in Europe. When Poland and Czech Rep will be released must be mentioned. In future (2015 I hope) all streets over the world will be available (possible exception Iraq and Afganistan). TouLouse (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks MSalmon (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Something that can easily be achieved

As a member of the WP:BIGBROUK task force, you may be interested in the aforementioned discussion. DJ 14:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what...

I was just thinking this morning that this would happen soon. I'll AFD it now, thanks for the notice :) DJ 22:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template discussion

You'll probably be interested in this discussion here. DJ 21:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm...

I'm sort of inclined to keep and improve this. I'm doing a "Cancellation" section on the BB10 article and there seems to be enough sources to merit notability. Dale is supporting Lisa Wallace to win Big Brother 2009 12:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. I'll AfD. Dale is supporting Lisa Wallace to win Big Brother 2009 12:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BB 2009 (UK)

Hi, this message has been sent to you in accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices

It concerns the following discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)#Cite_Episode_template

leaky_caldron (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A straw poll has now been added to the discussion about sources in order to gather consensus. leaky_caldron (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations totals debate

As a regular editor to Big Brother 2009 (UK), I am writing to inform you about this discussion on the aforementioned issue. Dale 20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SCD 2009

Thanks. Leaky Caldron 21:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, this is what I will be doing for all edit regarding this MSalmon (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XFactor

Under results summary in this article: The_X_Factor_(UK_series_4)#20_October_2007, it states that Simon's reason was to state that it was a "singing competition". I don't see why that cannot be applied here: The_X_Factor_(UK_series_6)#Week_7_.2821.2F22_November.29 to Dannii's comment. Whilst it may not be in your opinion to be a valid reason, she did actually say something, so "gave no comment" is a bit inaccurate? We could write it as "Commented that it was a singing competition" perhaps, showing that it's not a reason? Thanks, --Ictl (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss on article talk page, not here MSalmon (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing on Ice (UK)

"please stop deleting this as it is needed"

I don't understand your comment:

Why do we need an empty column? Of course we will need that column when the series has begun but, until then, the article looks tidier without it.
Why do we need two of the columns arbitrarily picked to have widths specified on them?
Why do we need all this inappropriate capitalisation all over the place?
Why do we need a section that at the moment contains no information? Or rather, at the moment, the information there is meaningless - it states that "X indicates the couple who did not skate that week" but at this moment (at least if the show is live as implied) this is true of every participant in the competition.

-- Smjg (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#1 singles of the 2010's

Hello, I've been following the article above (I added the image of Lady Gaga) and I though that unregistered users were banned from editing this article, seeing most of the time they just vandalise it. Can we block them from this article because it maybe small now but in a few years it will be a featured article. Thank You--David (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator so I can't sorry MSalmon (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing with the Stars Season 10

I replied to you in the discussion about the 1+2 deal. If the chart is the way you have it, the sortability of it is messed up and you can only sort that column by the week 1 scores, not the final scores. For seasons 4, 6, and 8 where the judges combined scores from Week 1 and Week 2, the "1+2" part is just left off completely and so I think we should either do it that way or my way so the sortability of it is not messed up. (Sortability probably isn't a word, but you get my point.) Onesmallnote (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 2009 (UK)

As you are one of the top contributors of this article, I thought you ought to know that it has reached Good Article status. Congratulations on your efforts, no matter how big, small, minor or major they were! KingOfTheMedia (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor (UK series 7)

Under the Results Summary section - Katie is still in the competition as of now (AdamD123 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, but what do you mean by it? --MSalmon (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first table isn't indicating place they came according to votes. It's only indicating whether or not they were in the Bottom two - there's no need for 10th/11th - see previous weeks. (AdamD123 (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

This is correct, and we do need to show the positioon they came in that week's vote only if it goes to deadlock --MSalmon (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All those values will be filled in at the end of the show when voting numbers are released. (AdamD123 (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yes they will, but we can fill Week 4 out because we knew what the outcome of the public vote was --MSalmon (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to stand down on the issue, even though I think it's unnecessary and doesn't fit in with the rest of the table. (AdamD123 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

That's fine but it will just keep being reverted --MSalmon (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor (UK series 7)

Hi. Why did you revert my edit at The X Factor (UK series 7)? It was supported by a WP:RS. Mhiji (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the chart position hasn't been announced on Radio 1 yet --MSalmon (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How's that relevant? It's been announced by The Official Charts Company. Mhiji (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a celebrity get me out of here

The jungle prison was in effect a big trial to avoid having to leave the camp. The dentist was the same sort of trial, yet that is included. It was a trial as they had to put their hands into the boxes to retrieve keys. Therefore, it should be included as a trial. Thomas888b (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was part of the "Kangaroo Court" task to win immunity from the first public vote not a Bushtucker Trial because they did not collect any stars --MSalmon (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the dentist should be deleted as that was not for stars then. Thomas888b (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No because it was a trial --MSalmon (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to articles that you keep changing

please explain why you keep undoing ALL of my edits ? I created the Thurmaston bus article and was editing the article. now it feels like i can't contribute coz YOU will undo my contributions it is becoming really annoying now please stop changing my edits. thank you Fatty2k10 (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you need to provide sources for all of it --MSalmon (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For send a warning message to this message! If you have an answer, please put this template to this page. Slovakia remains stay! ~~I don't think that'll not withdraw after christmas.<s\> Correction:I'm glad to compete after Slovakia confirms! 81.215.239.22 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)~~ [reply]