User talk:Alucard 16/Archive 2

BB to WP:GA status
Hmmmm.....I wonder if anybody will ever look at this? - Rjd0060 17:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope so. - Rjd0060 19:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: It has been reviewed!
I saw that. Finally. I will take a closer look at it late tonight or tomorrow. If you make any changes, be sure to note them on that talk page. From what I can tell (just took a quick look) they all seem like minor changes except for the Prose/MoS problems. We should be able to handle it. - Rjd0060 21:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Big Brother US and UK Image Issues
Good work. That should correct any problems. The barnstars are mostly for reverting vandalism. Thats what I do the most here. Rjd0060 03:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Big Brother Infobox Colors
Good work!! Ready for an early season of BB? I've talked to Jeeny, feel free to leave her a note or email her. - Rjd0060 04:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:Something BB related
I like it. I've added a comment to both pages. Good job. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually noted in one of my replies that I think we should hold of on the US version for now. But if everybody else thinks its okay now, then I guess it will be fine.  I just don't think it needs to happen to the US version, as the UK version has a lot more info in there. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Nice work. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Big Brother 9 (US) Dates
I think we should hold off. I cannot find any other sources with the dates. - Rjd0060 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess those sources are okay. I'd really really like if there was something directly from CBS. - Rjd0060 01:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * hmmmmmm, i guess so. - Rjd0060 02:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work! I made a few adjustments, and created a redirect.  Keep your eye out for info about BB: After Dark.  I sure hope it returns, and then that article will need some fine tuning. - Rjd0060 04:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, lol. You're right. - Rjd0060 05:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added another reference. It is a a screenshot from CBS.com showing the dates. It can be removed once we have a reference directly from CBS. The image is located at Image:Cbs.com screenshot confirms bb9.JPG. - Rjd0060 20:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, it just came to me. Anyhow, I think we should only keep it until we get another reference that is directly from them. - Rjd0060 20:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, not really vacation. I used the wrong tag. I'm just away. Anyhow, I've commented on the AfD. Good work on tagging it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You figured it out correctly. Looks good!  -Rjd0060 (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

2007-2008 Midseason
I was thinking so we clear the page up a little, just add the schedule. All of the shows have been confirmed, plus i put that notice there. What do you think? --Yankeesrj12 01:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want go ahead, if not I will. --Yankeesrj12 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

bb10
is it up for deletion it should be up. Seth71 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother
Thanks for writing me. If the citations were there, I'm sorry for putting the cite-request tags. I'll have to take a closer look at some of the other points you mentioned. The larger point I was getting at was the non-encyclopedic tone of the writing -- the articles are written like fan-magazines.

Sorry for saying Tony Benton rather than Tony Westbrook. The citation, however, was fine -- a verbatim news story posted to an aggregate site. I'm a little concerned about saying, essentially, "We don't post the names until Julie says so." Wikipedia isn't a marketing division of CBS, and if the legitimate press has reported on something, then it's public. To censor ourselves because Chen or CBS might not approve, or for any other reason, once this information has been made public by an authoritative source -- well, I'm sure we can agree that we're independent of CBS and show, can't we?--24.215.162.198 (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the kind and thoughtful reply, and I'm glad to see that some of the issues I noted are things you see, too. And the fact you left in the one person made public via the mainstream media is such a great, collaborative, Wikipedian thing -- to say, "Well, that's not the way we usually do it, but this outside guy makes a point."


 * And I am an outside guy, and I like leaving things generally to the aficionados, so it's rare that I came here at all, and I won't impinge. It's just that seeing scholarship, even pop-culture scholarship, get sublimated or self-censored due to corporate preferences that gets me concerned. Thanks for leaving the Westbrook thing up, and let me just wish you continued good editing on your project! --24.215.162.198 (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Big Brother Voting Tables
I don't know why people keep changing it. We could request protection, but I highly doubt that it would be approved, as there hasn't been "a lot" of problems with it. I am sure it will settle down once BB9 starts anyways; then everybody will be screwing up that page, you know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(UK) suffice
Interestingly, I had a feeling that that may be a bit of an issue. I will discuss the matter with you on the article talk page so that others may contribute if they so wish. J Milburn (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Making The '07-'08 Page Smaller
I think you should definetly delete the by network pages, but keep the renewals and cancellations. It's not hard to find what time a show is on, but if you want to see if your show is cancelled or renewed, you dont have to click on it, you can just scroll down and look.

P.S. I cleaned up the '06-'07 page a bit. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ratings
Seems fair, I'll just keep an archive. Geoking 66 talk —Preceding comment was added at 01:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Congrats!
Thank you! About the article though, do you know what website it may have been copied from? -- Rjd0060 (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, nevermind. You're not the one who added the tag.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it sure reads like it was from someplace else. I've looked around, but cannot find out from where.  I'd leave the tag there for now, and the admins that usually work on Copyright problems will check it out. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Question about BB9
I've added a note on the talk page. Good work on the example tables! - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: We have problems with 68.34.109.154
It is probably a different user than it was before. A lot of IPs often float between many people within a shout amount of time. The best thing to do is continue warnings, unless they keep adding stuff during a few hour timespan. Only 4 hours left! Hope you're ready to do lots of reverts. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

BIG BROTHER EDITS
We already have people posting EVICTED HOUSEGESTS when there has been NO SHOWTIME AFTER DARK and NO confirmation of these houseguests eviction ANYWHERE! Why are you so adamant on creating a page that shows spoilers as SOON as you click on the page!??!?!? — —Preceding unsigned comment added by RMThompson (talk • contribs) 14:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

One one one BB Discussion
I understand the reasoning behind the changes but what I don't understand is the blatant disregard for Wikipedia's rules regarding verifiable information. With the exception of PERHAPS fansites, that can be disputed, the information that is viewed on Showtime and the feeds just isn't reliable information because it cannot be verified. While it might be TRUE information, if it cannot be verified by a reliable third party, it should not be admissable. The idea behind that in my opinion would be that the information is purely speculation until it happens on the CBS show and is listed on the website. For example, this week, the couple that was voted off.. I am sure the person who made the change saw the information during a live feed, but how do we know that they were really kicked off? What if they quit? What if they were booted for a reason? We don't know the specifics until the show airs! I still maintain that a few years ago there was a change, because I had the live feed... someone won a contest and then because of a penalty they refiled the contest with that person not participating... or something along those lines. Meaning that until it airs it shouldn't be factual. I don't mean to take things so personal and I apologize, but I still believe it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to have an entry not marred by information that is from live feeds. Plenty of legitimate websites 'recap' the shows once they've aired so CBS is not the only source; TVGrapevine, Gear Live, Inside Pulse, BuddyTV just to name a few! If you want let's place a discussion link on it and have a legitimate discussion by viewers who may not know there is a debate going on. I cannot TELL you how many people have told me both last year and this year that they agree it shouldn't be put on but they "lost the fight" years/months ago. Wikipedia is ever changing and I just don't think precedence equals the right way to do things. Thanks for opening the line of discussion. . Imagine a user who logs into the article to try to remember who was nominated only to find out who already won power of veto and who was renominated, ruining the next episode of the show. I just think there is a way to avoid this! Another thing I would say we could do is a having a "future episodes" section towards the BOTTOM of the page that shows who was evicted via the live feeds/Showtime show with a spoiler tag and notice that things may change by the time an episode airs. I think that would be a good compromise and would allow users to view who is CURRENTLY nominated if they only watch the show RMThompson (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK so the comprimise would be that the main box on the right would only contain AIRED information, and the voting history would contain another tag stating that this section contains information that has not aired yet? Anyway to leave the voting history as it is now with the legitimate information from the show and then a SECONDARY box for upcoming results? For isntance, all over the place is the fact that Neil left, but do we REALLY know he left, or was he kicked? From the feeds Ive read it was Fish of the House and then he was gone with no mention... so who KNOWS what happened, and people are placing unsourced information. I still maintain that placing the live feed stuff is not verifiable, but if it gets most of the unverifiable stuff off the main box and the main part of the page, I guess I think thats a good idea. RMThompson (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Big Brother 9 (U.S.) Neil's leaving
I have a question for you. How do you know that Neil left voluntarily? -- pete 18:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

PoV
I'm thinking we should add something that explains what means in the infobox. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I say just add a line to the legend. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Should it say "winner" or something else? Maybe "holder"?  I don't know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what do you think? Say the veto is used by the winner X to save Y.  Do we move the symbol to Y ?  I can't remember. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I guess we'll just leave it for now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing my edits Talk:Big Brother 9 (U.S.)
First reply here and not on my talk page. Second you moved my comment to the bottom of the page which was not necessary. According to the edit history you also removed my other comment [see], Please restore with explanation why this edit was made. It looks like 1. you are censoring me. And 2. You are assuming Wikipedia ownership. Thank you. -- pete 23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Josh what do you not understand? When I say First reply here and not on my talk page that is what I expect. Second you only seem to reply to one half of a message. Are you assuming Wikipedia ownership of Talk:Big Brother 9 (U.S.)? Because that is what it looks like. -- pete 23:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I always reply back on your talk page. That is the message at the top of my talk page. Second I do not assume article ownership of any article here on Wikipedia. Like I said before, from my understanding about the way Wikipedia works is that new comments on talk pages should be at the bottom of each discussion. If I am wrong about this please let me know. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪  00:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: 69.136.129.125 continues to vandalize
Unfortunately since they are not actively vandalizing (right now) there isn't much I can do. If you notice them vandalizing again, after warnings to stop, report them at WP:AIV. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Big Brother Topic
I do not know if you have noticed the changes (doubt it.... lol) in the big brother topic, but I decided to start helping you clean up the topic. The only thing that I would be changing would be the spelling errors and some of the gramattical errors. I would consult you or the big brother project page if I need to make some big changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchy 228 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops... I just realised that I did not sign my last message 0.o. Ok, is there any way I can actually join the Big Brother wikiproject??? Some Weird Guy named Shawn... 01:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchy 228 (talk • contribs)
 * K Thx :) Some Weird Guy named Shawn... 01:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchy 228 (talk • contribs)

Big Brother nonsense
I don't know about you, but I'm getting annoyed that I have to keep repeating myself. Just wanted to say hang in there. There really is no point on continuing to say the same things over and over, until somebody goes to Dispute resolution or similar. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I really just don't get it. I plan to continue on like normal, and let them do whatever they want.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Confused
Ok, is Dick Donatos nickname spelled Evel or Evil, I have not seen proof of this on the show (yet I have forgotten most about last years show...) but I could of sworn it was spelled Evil. Anarchy 228 (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * K thx lol 76.2.54.59 (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Big Brother 10
I think it is still way to early. We need to wait at least until somebody reports on it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't realize that it was announced on HouseCalls. Now that it is sourced, should be okay. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just created redirects Big Brother 10 (and talk) to Big Brother 10 (U.S.). Once the UK edition gets an article, go ahead and turn the redirect page into a disambiguation page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Question
Yes, it isn't appropriate. He's been blocked several times for this same behavior, but just doesn't seem to get it. I can't get into all of this right now, but perhaps in a couple of days I'll take a closer look into it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just left him a note, actually. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Couple things
I'd recommend adding the tag to the talk pages of all BB images (logos, etc.). For other WikiProjects they do it and for "class" they use "NA" (so it would be ; or we could always do something else).

Also, we should use another logo that doesn't include the "Till death do you part" line, as they don't use that on the episodes anymore. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work with the images! As for a newsletter, I don't see why not.  I rarely visit WP:BIGBRO, and I'm sure many others don't visit it either, so it might be a good idea to have another way of communicating information, such as a newsletter. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And yes, I'd just upload the new logo over the old one. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I, personally, don't like it cropped small like that. I think it looks bad.  But, you're welcome to leave it, or discuss with others. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks great! - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)