Talk:Scott Mills (radio show)

Offical complaint to the BBC

I have made the following official complaint to the BBC:

I wish to make a formal complaint in regards to your radio show "The Scott Mills Show". On January 19 they made various edits to the free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia that were false and/or ridiculous (for instance, they wrote "Edith has been romanticly linked with an ironing board." on the Edith Bowman article).

I can provide exact links of where they did this, we maintain an audit log of every change that we make. They also had to create an account "Joshworkinghard". When they log in to the site, they are expected to follow certain site policies: these can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines One of the policies is our policy on adding absurd or ridiculous information, which we class as a form of vandalism. They appear not to have followed this policy.

My complaint is that a media organisation appears to have decided that it is OK to vandalise our website, with the participants seemingly paying no thought to the consequences of their actions, or the reputation of the BBC. After all, I was not aware that the BBC, a respectable institution, condoned and encouraged vandalism!

Would Scott Mills and Mark Chapman create an account on Kuro5hin or slashdot and then proceed to add malicious or ridiculous information? There are similarly easy ways of gaining accounts on these websites, methods in which you will not be identified. The point that Scott and Mark were apparently trying to make was that anyone can edit the website with impunity.

Perhaps I should put this a different way. You can go to a public space where there is no surveillance underway, grab a can of spraypaint and then vandalise the wall. You would do this with impunity. Does this mean that the DJs of radio shows should broadcast that they are vandalising public property because they can get away with it? I think that the answer here is fairly clear.

So, to summarise: I would like to make a complaint about the conduct of your employees, Scott Mills and Mark Chapman when they vandalised various pages, of which I can provide detailed evidence. I would like to know what the BBC's position is on the deliberate vandalising of Wikipedia, or of any other website that are publicly available. Does the BBC encourage or condone such actions?

Finally, I would like to request that you cease and desist from such actions. We provide a valuable service to the public, and while we have some issues of vandalism from individuals, we NEVER expected to see such an august institution as the BBC participating in such petty and irresponsible actions.

Cordially,

Chris Sherlock

Wikipedia Administrator

I was not aware that the BBC condone vandalism. Does this mean that Scott Mills and Mark Chapman will be creating a slashdot or kuro5hin account to deliberately vandalise those websites? Ta bu shi da yu 02:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a necessary complain, to be honest with you. I think this is a case where we just have to not take Wikipedia so seriously. It wasn't as if they started the vandalism - they just noted that it was going on (and, addimtedly, taking part). But it was just a laugh! Robdurbar 08:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

dont u think ur takin it a bit 2 seriasly....maybe u shuld just drop it....ny way, it makes ur web more intrestin!

I agree, I feel as though you are taking this far too seriously, the majority of people who will read about the radio 1 presenters will be their listeners and know it's just a bit of fun going on between the presenters. There's no malice involved, it's pretty innocent stuff.

Actually, vandalism of Wikipedia is not a victimless crime. Wikipedia and those who want to use it to gain information are the victim. How would you like it if someone vandalised your project? I doubt you would. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why all the trouble? They came, they vandalised, they got nicked. Ban 'em and be done with it. --Kim Bruning 10:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Shut up you miserable waster. Radio 1 is designed for fun and jokes. You have a problem???? go listen to radio 4 where you're allowed to have your head up your own arse. If not, don't make pointless complaints and waste the license fee paying someone to read and burn your complaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.172.54 (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't designed for fun and jokes. Cycle~ (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Merging

Moved to Talk:Scott Mills; that is where the merge tag directs you Robdurbar 17:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Angry Pizza Man

Isn't he the "nastiest man in the world" or "angriest man in the world" rather than nasty pizza man (although that is what he is) Pickle 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Catchphrase

In the article it says "Scott begins the show with a catchphrase. On Monday - Thursday the catchphrase is "Alright Treacle"". I haven't heard him say this for a while, I don't even think he says it any more and for this reason I have removed. It could be mentioned somewhere else in the article though. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy-editing

I have been through the article and done my best to make it more encyclopaedic in language and accurate in grammar, and removed the many sentences and phrases repeated almost verbatim in multiple sections. However, I think it could do with some more work from a fresh pair of eyes. There is still a lot of unsourced material on this page, especially regarding the format, which really needs someone to find independent verifications. Also, when adding to the article, I often used the term 'programme' rather than 'show'. I was unsure whether to continue with the latter term for consistency in the article, but as neither is a very scientific term, I felt alternating between the two made the article more readable-does anyone have an opinion on this? Please change my 'programme' edits to 'show' if you disagree with me. Jomunro (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job. I had a look on Answers.com and under 'programme', one of the entries is "A scheduled radio or television show.". So I'd say programme is the right word to use. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Scott's house

Moved from User talk:Adambro. See here. Adambro (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why have you removed my edit to the Scott Mills Show Jammmie999 (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you mean this edit then I guess you mustn't have been logged in. The reason is simply that I don't feel information about where Scott Mills currently lives is particularly encyclopaedic. Adambro (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You may not feel it is "encyclopaedic" - Which isn't actually a word but my edit was correcting inaccurate information on the page not adding more information. Jammmie999 (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite encyclopaedic not being a word, at least according to some dictionaries, I hope the point I was trying to make was still clear, namely that such content isn't appropriate in encyclopaedia. You suggest that your edit was "correcting inaccurate information on the page not adding more information" but really the caption remains accurate even if it is no longer his living room. It still shows "A view from Scott Cam of Scott presenting his show from his living room". It doesn't matter that the living room involved is no longer his.

I note that you've reinstated this material. That is unfortunate because we're clearly engaged in discussions about it and it is also unfortunate that your edit summary described my edit as vandalism which isn't accurate. I would welcome your opinion as to why it matters that Scott has moved. Regards. Adambro (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well your edit was vandalism you were removing accurate information without any prior consent thus turning the information from being accurate to inaccurate. Jammmie999 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The accepted defintion of vandalism on Wikipedia is explained at Wikipedia:Vandalism. You should note that it states that vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" and that any "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". You can perhaps recognise that from that definition, my edit can only be described as vandalism if you were to suggest I was deliberately trying to harm Wikipedia which I hope you don't perceive as being the case. I'd also suggest that I don't need anyone's permission before making a change on Wikipedia.

On your point that the effect of my edit was to turn "the information from being accurate to inaccurate", I've already suggested why I don't think that is true. As I've said above, I'm of the opinion that the original caption remains valid even if it doesn't portray his current living room. "A view from Scott Cam of Scott presenting his show from his living room" doesn't imply that it is his current living room, only that it was at the time of that event. I don't think we need to clarify that it is no longer his living room and would welcome your comments as to why it is necessary to do so. Regards. Adambro (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

obsolete

The paragraph on Scott Mills: The Musical needs a rewrite to state what actually happened, with references. At present it is pretending that it's a future event. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

controversy

The first paragraph on Radio 1 controversy doesnt need to be in this page as it is about Chris Moyles not scott mills. So, not really relevant. 122.57.213.230 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure it was about Mills' show. --AntL (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Past Features section

The past features section is rather long and messy. How would others feel if the section was reduced to a paragraph or two? --AntL (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)