Talk:Russell Brand/Archive 3

The celebration of mediocrity
I have removed pretty much all of the article because it is symptomatic of this age were merely being on television, regardless of ones talent (or lack thereof), is deemed sufficent enough to be included on this tool of learning and education. Russell Brand is a rather uncelebrated comedian whose main claim to fame is presenting a reality TV discussion programme, being a former heroin addict and achieving a level of notoriety in the tabloid press. This article was too long, a single paragraph is more than sufficent to describe him. Indeed the article went on to describe every job he has ever had. I can only assume that perhaps Mr Brand's agent was responsible for the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrIanMaclean (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't remove anything! People are actually using it! Just because you got something personal against Russell Brand it does not mean you can go delete everything. —Preceding unsigned 18:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have to have "something personal against Russell Brand" to recognise him as an unfunny twat. You just have to watch his live show, or listen to his radio show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.12.6 (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It is absurd to say Brand is 'rather uncelebrated' - in fact he is widely celebrated. Just as as example - in the Daily Telegraph Dominic Cavendish, reviwing his performance at the Camden Roundhouse in December wrote 'this year has seen him go from being the wittiest and lustiest new kid on the block to the hottest comic property in town' and ends the piece 'Shaman, showman and sex-machine all rolled into one, no-one else so encapsulates what it feels like to be 100% alive - and quintessentially English - at this moment in time'.

The signings of his autobiography, My Booky Wook had people queueing for 5 hours and more to see him and he signed literally thousands of books across the country. The book has topped the best seller lists for weeks. His Autumn/Winter tour was a sell-out and he appeared on lots of tv and radio shows over the Christmas period, including interviewing the Spice Girls and the Royal Variety Performance. You may not like him, Mr Maclean, but to say he's uncelebrated in a nonsense.86.137.205.78 (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh removing everything isn't at all childish. Russell Brand is not famous 'becasue he went on telly once' he has actually done quite a lot and if you read the article rather than deleting it you might have known that he has done a bit more than you give him credit for. And all your crap about how one paragraph is enough to explain him is pointless becasue your whingeing takes up that paragraph you have kindly allowed us. Also you contradict yourself saying the article was too long going on to talk about every job hes ever had. This would suggest he has done more than been on telly one time and that actually he is a worth while member of the entertainment society. Anyway since this person with his grudge against russell brand and his very childish behaviour has deleted the article you can basically find a lot about russel on the article page rather than discussion. Have fun.


 * As this section demonstrates, RB is a very polarizing figure. He has many admirers but at least as many people can't stand him and can't understand his appeal. Some acknowledgment of this in the main article would be helpful, and perhaps would defuse the rage of some of the Brand haters. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How about a section on views of spirituality/religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.71.84 (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Fact that anyone at all can have their entire life summarised in a single sentence is patently ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.63.63 (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

To the person who deleted the whole page - I couldn't agree with you more friend. If you alone think a topic should be removed from a reference source used by millions of people, just because you don't like the subject matter, then gone it should be!!! And whilst we're discussing this, should there really be any articles written by or about women, when we all know they're much better suited to domestic chores and child-care? So let's delete every last one of those... And I don't like the French. So all the articles containing anything even remotely French have to go... Also, wasps really irritate me, particularly during the summer months whilst enjoying a barbeque. So to be on the safe side, let's delete all the articles that mention any kind of winged insect, even in passing. Maybe they'll take the hint and bugger off...

Oh how wonderful and useful a resource Wikipedia will be when all of the people like us have finished with it, eh mate??? Come friends, let us seize the moment and enforce our views on everyone else, whether they asked for our opinion or not. I'm with you Castro, Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, Mugabe, Whitehouse (Mary). Let's get to work!!!

Gareth Day, London, UK (77.100.247.155 (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Gareth Day? are you sure thats not an anagram or some code name for Russell Brand? Very well said, and i must object to the despot at the top here who seems to be operating "censorship" in wikipedia. Hello? 2009 here, not the 1940's! Do we need an enigma machine to write coded messages to express ourselves over the more controversial artiste's in the world to avoid such restricitons! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurasimonuk (talk • contribs) 15:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw the edit that everyone is talking about (and getting needlessly hysterical). It wasnt censorship at all, it was just shortened (albeit drastically). I mean, this article is more a hagiography than a potted biography. A bit of balance wouldn't go amiss. --MyThoughtsExactly (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to be a jumble of facts that makes no linear sense, the timeline is very confusing partially because of how many different forms of media he is involved in... is there a way to streamline this or maybe change the headers. Some kind of chronological order may be all that's needed. Killemall22 (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To the OP. Wikipedia is more or less automatically generated from "reliable sources" ( ie. the mainstream media) in a serf-like fashion by people who fancy themselves as encyclopaedists.  There's no point using this as a forum to question the validity of RB's celebrity.  The mass media deems him a celebrity, therefore Wikipedia deems him notable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.228.110 (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Russell's Sunday radio show
Russell Doesnt Do A Sunday Radio Show Now? Ive Just Read The Timetable On Radio2's Site. Someone Should Edit It If This Is True. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.163.69 (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he still does his show becasue hes present it from LA at the moment from what i have heard. I cant confirm anyhting though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PieAndMashUp (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have edited this as he doesn't do a Sunday show now. I have put a previously BBC 6 Music link in the info box. If you can't confirm he presents a Sunday show on BBC 6 then it shouldn't be on the timetable. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Locked page makes an outdated insufficient page
✅  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC) --68.14.173.11 (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Russell Brand Show (radio show)
 * The Russell Brand Show (television show)
 * Russell Brand's Got Issues
 * RE:Brand
 * 1 Leicester Square
 * The Abbey (TV series)
 * My Booky Wook
 * Russell Brand's Ponderland


 * I've checked and they are all in there now.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Big Brother template
✅  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate to have the big brother template at the bottom of them page still? He doesn't do big brother anymore, he has significantly grown away from it with standup, television appearances and films. --86.131.195.196 (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Get rid of it, by all means Soulsonic Bambaataa (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Awards
Russell's radio show won, "The entertainment reward" [gold]. (http://www.radioawards.org/winners/?category=The_Entertainment_Award&year=2008)
 * It is in the awards section of the radio show. Bencey (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Awards section for this article should be cut down. Do we really need to list 'Shagger of the Year'? Maybe keep the more notable awards won and write them into a paragraph instead of a list. TwentiethApril1986  (want to talk?)  02:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was bold and made the changes. I removed the awards which aren't really important or notable and kept the more notable ones and put them into a table. TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  03:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bugsy Malone
✅  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello there! I've never logged into Wikipedia before but wanted to point out that this article says Russell Brand is in "Bugsy Malone"--something which the Wiki "Bugsy Malone" page and IMDB both contradict. Not that interested in this person or editing this article per se, just wanted to point that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pineappletyrant (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Bugsy Malone that Russell was in was his school play not the film. Bencey (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Middle-class, but Cockney?
There should be more about his early years, as this would illuminate the article. :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it! Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

VMA Awards: direct personal attacks
During the 2008 Video Music Awards, of which Brand hosted, he used the Jonas Brothers and their relationship with God as a topical joke throughout the whole program. He later apologized in the program for using their religious beliefs as a topic. But in the doing, made more and more inappropriate jokes, as he also did throughout the entire program. He attacked Sarah Palin's daughter for being pregnant, and the republican party as a whole. He offended millions in his words, and inappropriate humor MTV obviously made a poor decision on this years host. Better luck in the next years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanborrowman (talk • contribs) 06:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I gather from the BBC that he didn't tone down his act sufficiently for a US audience; comparing Britney to Christ, calling the US President a retard and ridiculing virginity rings. I've got a source for the first two, but breakfast TV here can't repeat some of his comments. Not sure if that show was broadcast before or after the watershead, but did they really let him adlib live on primetime TV?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  06:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This really isn't the correct forum to discuss the political incorrectness or perceived inappropriateness of Brand's performance. However, in the interest of what may or may not be included in the article a few salient points should be made. The VMA awards were broadcast on MTV, which is not a primetime network channel, but a premium cable service that isn't as subject to broadcast censors as general broadcast networks might be. I watched the show and Brand was essentially Brand - a bit outrageous, a bit flamboyant, a bit non-PC. I didn't see or hear anything qualitative in his performance that I haven't heard from many other comedians. The Jonas Brothers bachelor party comment actually was a bit funny. He was making fun of conservativism as a whole, which isn't a new or shocking thing relative to the MTV music industry. However, I suspect his real offense was that he was British and dared to say those things. I would urge anything that is added to this article to be NPOV, well sourced, balanced and in context. It isn't really possible to say that he was allowed to ad lib, but then, a lot of comedians and hosts have been allowed to ad lib and this was the VMA awards. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, but I still think the controversy merits a mention in the article on him. What do you think of the sentence I added to Russell Brand? Should I drop the had to from the apology bit?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, at present, the source doesn't actually support everything you've added. "...didn't tone down his act sufficiently for a US audience": that isn't covered in any way in the BBC article and meaning to or not, is a little POV regarding what a US audience would or wouldn't accept. As I said above, Brand didn't say much that hasn't been said by someone, on tv somewhere, in the US. George Bush gets ridiculed routinely, it's nothing new. Any comedy will reflect the opinions of the comedian. The Britney statement is going to be controversial, but at least to me, it doesn't compare her to Christ, it compares her musical comeback from the dead to the resurrection of Christ. It seemed like a bit of Britney worship on Brand's part. I honestly think at this point, anything included should be very much based in the sources given. There is nothing that supports that he had to apologize for anything. Who's to say it wasn't his own idea? Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, had to has gone.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  10:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see from Brand's performance at the VMA awards his style of humour and act in general wasn't modified from how he usually performs. MTV booked him for his particular brand (excuse the pun) of comedy and showmanship as he has been doing for years in the UK and any controversy this caused in the USA is not noteworthy since this is not a wiki to report on America's view of people. -92.10.204.179 (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The only controversy is due to the fact that Brand is a British Comedian mocking the USA he didn't really say anything an American comedian hasn't. Its a non issue. 62.30.54.79 (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is remarkable quite how po-faced the yanks get about such trivia. I mean Brand is quite a funny guy (if you like that sort of thing) and his own style (campness, victorian/cockney affectation etc.) really does highlight his own absurdity as a figure of fun. To get offended by his act on the VMAs is ridiculous. Then again, the straightlaced conservatism of certain sectors of US society is also, frankly, ridiculous and as such, is a valid target for ridicule. Free specch should be encouraged and protected. If the conservatives get to drone on tediously and sanctimoniously about their virtuousness, then comedians should be free to poke fun. Plus, let's not get started about the hypocrisy of the conservatives and their idiocy in the face of facts (evolution anyone?)...82.211.95.178 (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, this isn't the correct forum for this discussion. I am American. I am the one who made the initial caveat about keeping this in perspective and requiring solid referencing. Not everyone was offended, and not every news source bashed him for it. Meanwhile, there is no place on this talk page for analyzing US vs. British conservatism or hypocrisy. I'm sure there is a nice discussion forum somewhere to indulge in such observations. This page is for discussing improvements to the Brand article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

On reading the world press and reaction to his performance, I think this page has survived relatively well... so far. A testament to the discernment and effectiveness of the wikipedia community. Beerni 11:08, 10 September 2008 (GMT)


 * EHM!! excuse me people...we are forgetting the jonas brothers, it wasnt his bussiniss to mock them for their belief in god, that was inappropriate and disrespectful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.46.83 (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And? The article addresses it, his apology is included. What would you have an objective article do? If this is just an editorial comment, this page is for discussion of improvements to the article, not to express your opinion of his act. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bedtime Stories not bedtime life
✅  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

the movie with him and adam sandler is called bedtime stories not bedtime life please change it and link it correctly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikopowii (talk • contribs) 23:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've changed it, thanks for pointing that out.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please take the hyphens out of "6-months-old" in the Early life section?
That's all. Exceptinsects (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Kittybrewster  &#9742;  07:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Material
There's a paragraph that keeps being added to the article which contains a quote from heat magazine. While we can't use the bulk of the paragraph because it doesn't reflect the reference. I do think we could usefully expand the lead sentence into a paragraph that gives an indication of his type of humour. What do people think of adding the following second sentence to the article?

Brand's comedy utilises risqué and sometimes self deprecatory materiel often rooted in his experiences of addictions to drugs and sex. For example despite repeatedly winning awards such as "Shagger of the year" and "sexiest vegetarian", in an interview he described Daniel Craig as [http://www.heatworld.com/Article/3240/Russell+Brand+reveals+secret+gay+crush... “a challenge to my heterosexuality,”]  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Brand's MySpace profile
Can we add Russell's MySpace profile to the links section here?

www.myspace.com/russellbrand

Charrisonline (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:EL. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

How does this not adhere to those guidelines? Charrisonline (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ELNO covers links to be avoided. #10 says Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Brand on DVD
someone add this to the article. http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=280;-1;-1;-1&sku=885406 82.1.68.117 (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Russell Brand the rough diamond
Hare Krishna would be very Impressed with Russell Brand who has a fabulous sense of his own sprituality and self awareness.Yes he has been around the block a few times and may not appeal to everyone but who in this planet does?He has created his own unique style of comedy, which is so beneath the realms of all policital correctness that has got out of control, this makes him a breath of fresh air and delightful to watch.A number of talanted people have had a rough ride before hitting it big, He was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but talent coupled with sucess is a winning recipie to him being able to buy more silver spoons then all the negative people out there put together..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishscots (talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well gosh and thanks for the great Russell Brand review. This will help improve the article... how? Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actor > comedian?
Does Russell now have more work as an Actor than he does as a Comedian? If so, should the infobox be changed to the Infobox Actor template? TwentiethApril1986  (want to talk?)  16:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be a bit too soon to do that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology
not sure if this is noteworthy or not but brand's apology to the jonas brothers at the vma's was acctualy a joke that was cleverly edited to seem serious. if anyone thinks this is worth putting in the article then please do. 82.1.68.117 (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Russell mentioned this on his radio show tonight. Isn't it his opinion that it "was cleverly edited to seem serious"? We should not include this in the article unless a reliable source has reported this as fact. TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  21:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Alcoholism
The personal life section states he is a (former) alcoholic, but doesn't elaborate. Does he self-identify as an alcoholic? If so, he should be added to the people self-identifying as alcoholics category. Werdnawerdna (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Date in article
Date in article is incorrect - The show was recorded on 16th october, but was broadcast on 18th October - can someone with access to edit article please change ❌
 * Currently it says Broadcast on 18th, date of prerecording is in Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row so we don't need to repeat it.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Offensive phone calls to Andrew Sachs
Since the following text has been added to the article on Andrew Sachs, I suggest it should also be added to the article on Russell Brand, in the context of his BBC Radio 2 show:

"On 25 October, 2008, the BBC came under fire after comedian Russell Brand and Television host Jonathan Ross made several obscene phone calls to Sachs. Both presenters, who have been notorious for their liberal use of profanities on air, left messages on Sachs's telephone answering machine in explicit terms claiming Russell Brand had had a physical relationship with his granddaughter, Georgina, and went on to joke that Sachs may kill himself as a result." GriffAurora (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Have now added a bit about the controversy to the Radio section, but it might be better under another heading, such as Controversy. This is definitely worth a mention as it is atracting ever greater attention - including comments from the prime minister. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Taking a long, and possibly more sanguine view, this is a perennial problem we have with unfolding events, in that we cannot judge now what their overall importance to the article is going to be. Wikinews is meant for that sort of thing. Meanwhile, everyone piles in with updates, as if this encyclopedia is a news service. Unless it results in the sacking of Brand and Ross, or a major fine for the BBC, or a substantial change in regulatory provisions for broadcasting, it seems to be little more than the scandal that enveloped Angus Deayton some years ago. I suggest that until it develops, can be seen with the benefit of hindsight, and put into its proper perspective, we don't go overboard. By all means, let the tricoteuses have their short-lived hubris, but within policy. I've already had to semi-protect Jonathan Ross because of the negative impatc. -- Rodhull andemu  23:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A controversy section is discouraged in most instances. In this particular instance, the prank controversy may or may not be noteable enough for it's own section but we definitely shouldn't add a generic controversy section Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. I agree that most of the time controversy sections are a bad idea but in Brand's case I think it is perfectly acceptable. Brand is one of the most controversial celebraties England has ever produced and a big part of his fame can be contributed to that. When it comes to Russell Brand, a contoversy section is practically the same as an acting or presenting section. 82.1.68.117 (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, i'm glad i checked here, i had never heard of him and came here especially to find out about the controversy and any ties to New Zealand, is this the only controversy he's been involved in? i belive it might be relevant if we can find some good sources all though maybe not edited in as a controversy section.Killemall22 (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi lock
WHY IS BRAND'S WIKIPEDIA ENTRY LOCKED? Is he royalty? Why has such an idiot gained immunity from rightful embarrassment? 86.129.132.90 (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Its only semi locked to prevent vandalism. Open an account and within 4 days you will be able to edit the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Brand is not an idiot. In case you hadn't noticed he was excercising his right to free speech. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている.   Talk   Contribs  10:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to put in a "citation needed" on the Radio 2 listeners figure of 2 million. Can someone with an account add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.16.30 (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

✅. Tried to find a citation but nothing obvious/public domain. Someone with access to the full RAJAR data should be able to confirm though. Paulbrock (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Morrissey the cat
Twice in the Personal life section it says he is a fan of Morrissey and has a cat named after him.
 * ✅ -- Rodhull andemu  15:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
Its really an embarrassment. Someone with a grudge reducing an already inadequate section to a couple sentences, mostly about a current controversy is not encyclopedic by any measure. --Tefalstar (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If this hasn't been changed yet it should be ASAP. He's known for his comedy, his acting work and (up until now) his successful radio career. One incident shouldn't affect the whole introduction to his wikipedia article. -82.45.60.218 (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Would either of you care to suggest an alternative paragraph? I seem to remember it was already considered too short before this blew up.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section
Surely we need one of these? Brand is a controversial figure and I think it would be better to have it all together in one bit. (86.129.161.131 (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Form the previous
What does the line "where 20% form the previous year" mean? Lawrence Waterhouse (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Not a lot. But I've read the quoted source and tweaked the article. it should make sense now.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

New picture?
I'm not sure how to change the picture that was chosen to show all who come to Russell's lovely Wiki page what his pretty self looks like. The photo that is in place is downright all wrong! Can somebody who know how to fix that do get a better more recent photo?? One where he is showing off a nice smile perhaps, and looking more presentable would be nice. Or maybe you can tell me how to do it. Thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anetchi (talk • contribs) 07:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You want a picture of Brand looking presentable? That would be difficult to find! Werdnawerdna (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

On an (slightly) related note, I personally find it both curious and remarkable that the word hair appears nowhere in either the article, or the talk page (other than my comment, right here). Personally, I suspect he'd find humour in that. 166.70.232.249 (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Banners, banners, banners
What's going on with these ridiculous banners?

If you can put a banner on an article (as every article in Wikipedia seems to have) you can take the time to do the editing that bothers you so much, to put the banner there in the 1st place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.34.220 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Add Russell Brand's curation of the MySpace comedy channel to the 'Presenting' section of his page
undefined Russell Brand is currently curating MySpace's new comedy channel which is attracting thousands of viewers. The comedy channel, which has Brand presenting a combination of his own work and that of other people, runs until Monday December 22 and hails Brand's return to the UK comedy stage after his gisgrace over 'Sachsgate'. This, thanks to the sheer volume of viewers and Brand's rejuvination of his image through this channel, should obviously be added to his Wikipedia page and the url  should be referenced to this addition Millsotheblue (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC).


 * As he's had a non BBC show air since the hoax calls scandal this wouldn't be a return, but yes we can add something if its sufficiently notable, however thousands of viewers possibly isn't. What do you suggest adding and where in the article would you suggest we put it?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)