Talk:National Bingo Night (Australian game show)

Disclaimer in credits
Can someone reproduce here, the disclaimer show at the beginning of the closing credits? And can someone explain it. Thanks - Joshua Hrouda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.36.190 (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Episode 1 Red Numbers Correct ?
Can anyone confirm if the 46 is correct in the Red game (Episode 1) ? Other WEB sites do not list this number, and I didn't write this number down while watching. Is it correct ? **UPDATE: The 46 was corrected to 45.

Bingo Numbers Neccessary?
Is it neccessary for Wikipedia's entry on this topic to include the Bingo numbers called during each episode? They add no relevant information to the article other than if people wish to check their bingo cards. 124.168.29.43 08:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The list is pretty useless.Misterkillboy 09:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And sometimes I need to check my ticket! -- Whiteandnerdy111 21:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I missed the program on Sunday night, and I used the numbers on Wiki to check my cards. Please do NOT delete this section.
 * Well, the first series is over. Are these numbers really necessary now? Misterkillboy (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:National bingo night.jpg
Image:National bingo night.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section
I don't really think the 'one away' controversy is a controversy, as you can still be one away with 4 Os (the rules of bingo state you need 5 numbers in a row in any direction to win)121.219.239.103 08:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it was still possible to get bingo. I'll do some work there. (The home viewer cards show Ep 4, Red Card needs a diagonal running from left to right) -- Whiteandnerdy111 19:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's not being one away with 4 Os. It's being one away after 3 Os and a G was called.

As of tonight (26/11/2007) A Current Affair have made another report about this show. They claimed that they used camera cuts to make certain balls appear instead of others, and some other stuff. Also Channel 7 banned that No Bingo guy from appearing on ABC's The Chaser. I sure hope some of you other wikipals were watching more dedicatedly.Razorthe6249th (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The night after the final, Tanny was on Today Tonight about rigging allegations. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Bingo Card Checking Software
Can someone explain to me why discussing the development of Bingo Card Checking Software is considered "advertising" and keeps being deleted from the main page, and yet here the same page is advertising Chanel 7, the bingo show, and links to and advertises many other commercial programs (Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader). Why the double standards ? Can the people with double standards who keep deleting my edits kindly STOP ??
 * Semi-protection requested, for the above. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's consider this... here's the section I removed when I reverted the post that added it:
 * Moose OMalley (at Moose's Software Valley - http://move.to/moose) is working on software to check downloaded Australian National Bingo Game Cards. The software is already very advanced - and it would have probably been sold as shareware for $5 or $10 AUD ... Imagine checking many 100's of game cards in the blink of an eye !!! Sadly however, people have been ripping off and stealing all of his hard work for years, so this project will probably never be released to the public. A real shame ... I for one would love to have this software !!
 * Aside from the numerous gramatical errors, completely wrong style, am I the only one who thinks that it just looks like one giant ad? If the program had actually been released then it'd have a chance (at least as a link at the end), but quotes like "The software is already very advanced" and "Imagine checking many 100's of game cards in the blink of an eye !!!" seem like claims I'd use to sell something rather worthless. "A real shame ... I for one would love to have this software !!" is rather personal language and doesn't belong. Nor does "Sadly however, people have been ripping off and stealing all of his hard work for years, so this project will probably never be released to the public.". Would you like to QQ more? As for part of your original complaint, "the same page is advertising Chanel 7, the bingo show, and links to and advertises many other commercial programs (Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader)". Let's consider here - a page about a TV mentioning the show itself? That has to be advertising, right? And mentioning the channel itself? Imagine if you saw an ad on the net saying "Watch the coolest show ever, Monday at 9" - would you know what channel it belonged to? Finally, the link to Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader is just a link at the end of the page, because it is related to his show (being in the same genre). I'm sure if there was a decent page for this program that was more than just QQ'ing, it would more than deserve its place in the see also section. Until then, I think it doesn't deserve to be on this page. Sorry if this is too long or looks like a rant, but I really hate people like this, who think Wikipedia is their own personal playground). --DK (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, the Card Checking Software should not be on the Page. However, the Shows should Remain. There are plenty of shows on Wikipedia so this one should be treated no differently to others. PookeyMaster (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * DK said "I really hate people like this, who think Wikipedia is their own personal playground)" Geezuz, that's a case of "pot, kettle, black" if ever I have seen one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.77.2.130 (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You have the gall to complain that someone makes "gramatical errors", and you cannot even spell "grammatical" correctly. LOL, get a life you moron.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.77.2.130 (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "You have the gall to complain that someone makes "gramatical errors", and you cannot even spell "grammatical" correctly." - Ever heard of typos? Somehow I doubt all the errors in "A real shame ... I for one would love to have this software !!" are typos. I'd also say that you're pretty much asking for a flame war and therefore have no life, but I'm arguing back, so I won't. Still, "Geezuz, that's a case of "pot, kettle, black" if ever I have seen one" - there's a rather large difference between putting a rant on a talk page and whats basically an ad on an article's page. I'm sure anyone who actually has a brain would agree with me. --DK (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You kept removing my edits without any explanation, and when I ask for one, I am confronted with a pathetic, hissy rant. And you expect me not to tackle you on this ???  Get out of your ivory tower !!  Also, can you point out all of the errors in "A real shame ... I for one would love to have this software !!" - thanks.  "I'm sure anyone who actually has a brain would agree with me."  So, now you are calling me brainless - wow the personal insults just keep on coming, don't they.  When you can't win on logic, try and kick up dust with insults, hmm ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.77.2.130 (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * One final comment, according to Wiki's charter, that you *MUST* uphold: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." Seems like you cannot even stick to your own rules.  Calling me brainless, saying "I really hate people like this", and making accusations like "who think Wikipedia is their own personal playground" and "have no life" against someone who HAS NEVER posted anything on Wiki before are nothing short of vile.  Shame on you.  Seriously !  I hope someone senior at Wiki reads this and sees what you have done and takes action.  Anyway, I've got better things to do.  I wont be replying here further.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.77.2.130 (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You won't be replying here any more? Good. Anyway, since when was it a personal attack? Claims like "people like this" refer to a general group, not anyone in particular. Infer what you want, what I said is what I said (which may sound incredibly generic but it's the truth). Admittedly, for someone who "HAS NEVER posted anything on Wiki before" you seem to know the charter well. If this really is your first time... welcome to Wikipedia! The talk page for your IP (at least I have the guts to sign in) says it's a public address, but you seem to be well versed in the trolling arts (going all the way to vandalising my user page). --DK 10:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely the controversy was having as the "commissioner" a stereotypical portrayal of an Indian buffoon. Or perhaps that's not controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.197.8.190 (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)