User talk:Tam001

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Kendra Todd. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Glee Project

Valid concerns were recently raised at Talk:The Glee Project#Edit request from 92.238.98.18, 27 July 2011 regarding wording in the article that stated "The contender won the homework challenge and was not at risk of elimination",[1] which is clearly wrong as Marissa won the assignment but was then eliminated. I addressed this in this edit, clarifying both similar statements and grouping them together so as to avoid any ambiguity between the two statements. For reasons that you didn't bother to explain, you reverted the changes, removing the clarification from the first statement,[2] which introduced an additional problem. The new statements were:

1. The contender won the homework challenge
2. The contender won the homework challenge but was eliminated.

As the main criteria for both statements is "the contender won the homework challenge", both of these statements can be applied to Marissa. While the second is "more" correct the first statement is still correct and needs to be clarified so as to avoid any ambiguity. Without any reason for your edits I then restored the changes that I'd made, again explaining why this needs to be done,[3] but again, you've reverted and again without any explanation whatsoever.[4] This type of editing is unconstructive. Without any explanation as to why this improvement in clarity should not be included, it's impossible to understand your motives behind the change. Accordingly, I'm going to restore the edits. If you disagree, please do not continue to edit war over this. Instead, please address the problem on the talk page, so we can build consensus. You can find the discussion that I've started here --AussieLegend (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries and minor edits

Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Also, please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". You have edited quite a few articles where your edits were definitely not minor, for example:[5][6][7] and of course this edit is very clearly not minor. Please be assured, this is constructive criticism, aimed to help everyone, I'm not picking on you. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

As has previously been explained, the table in The Glee Project needs to comply with WP:COLOR, which has now been achieved. If you disagree, please discuss the matter at the article's talk page. Please don't continually revert the work of other editors, especially without using edit summaries, something you've previously been warned about. Edit-warring is only likely to get you blocked. As per WP:BRD the appropriate action is to discuss the matter. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Apprentice (U.S. season 6)

Hi there. I noticed that you reverted my edit. May I ask why? 28bytes (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Apprentice (UK series eight)

Hi

This is the third time I have reverted your edits to the Weekly Results/Elimination Chart section of this page. Please can you stop making this edit? Your changes to this section are making it less clear, as it leaves blank some fields in the key. I would appreciate it if you would leave this section alone from now on, as this would be much more constructive.

Thank you George.millman (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I am fully aware that the way you are editing it is more concurrent with the American show, but that doesn't mean that the way that the American articles are organised is better.

• There is no reason to list the runner-up in the same way as the other fired candidates, as they are not fired in the same way and do not hear the 'You're Fired!' line from Lord Sugar.
• On last year's edition of UK Apprentice, the interviews were used on the last week, not the penultimate week, so no one 'survived' them - one person won at the end. It is currently unknown how the end of this series will work, but if the interviews are used in the traditional way (penultimate episode), I will change the label to read 'The contestant was on the winning team (or, in Week 11, managed to avoid being fired.)'
• There may be no reason to list it until someone quits, but we don't know at this point if anyone will quit. By this logic, there is no need to have a 'The contestant lost as project manager and was fired' label, as no one has been fired as project manager yet in this series.
• I concede the point about the words 'candidate' and 'contestant'. I'd be happy to change it to 'candidate' as that is how they are referred to in the show, but that is the only thing that I agree with you on.

Most of the UK Apprentice articles follow the way I'm setting it up, as opposed to the way you are setting it up. As I am in the UK, I don't look at the US articles very much, but if they are so different to the UK articles, maybe it's them that need to be changed. I know the American version came first, but clearly the articles for the UK version are clearer. George.millman (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, they are clearer, because they state if someone was on the winning team, survived the interviews, left the competition or was the runner-up. As for needing valid arguments to keep things different - it may have escaped your attention, but I have actually presented you with valid arguments concerning every one of your points - except for the 'candidate' and 'contestant' thing, which I actually agree with and concede on. You have not responded to any of my arguments, so your comment about needing valid arguments is a bit feeble really. What is more, I have been one of the few people who is actually keeping this article up to date - I have been updating the elimination chart every week, no one ever edits it before I get there, and the other bits of the article are updated so slowly that if it wasn't for me, goodness knows how long it would take for this to be updated - so I really think you ought to give me the benefit of the doubt. It's not just my personal opinion, I'm following the way that the articles for the UK edition of the show have always been. Whether the American articles do it as well is not my problem. George.millman (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, Jim Eastwood and Susan Ma lasted the whole season instead of being fired in the previous episode, and they are not 'runners-up', and I would not list them as being so. My argument about project managers wasn't about people losing as project manager, it was about people being FIRED as a project manager - which we do not know will happen in this series, therefore by the logic of having no quitter field, there should also be no 'fired as project manager' field until it actually happens - as it happens, I don't agree with that logic, and I think both the fields should remain there. I don't know why the winner is in lime instead of navy, but it always is in either lime or green in the UK articles, and, like you, I am actually trying to keep the pattern as well. But surely it makes more sense to keep this article in the pattern of the other UK series, as opposed to the US series? George.millman (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The other articles certainly do have those things, and I know because I look at them and edit them extensively. You say that you intend to change them - it seems as if you are just changing them because you personally believe that the way the American articles are organised is better. Well, myself and the other people who use these articles might not agree with you on that. The UK articles have worked perfectly well exactly as they are for years, and there is no need to change them when they are already perfectly understandable. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. George.millman (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

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) 13:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)