User talk:Eeveeman

Editing Reasons - Should a User be swearing as their reason, or is that being uncivil?
Just wanted to say, I approve of your editing of some of my additions to remove, as you put it, "fluff". However, I just wanted to hear your opinion on something. Do you think a user should swear as a reason for their editing, or is that uncivil? GUtt01 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi ; I don't really see the point in swearing/complaining in an edit log, take it to the article talk page if they're particularly incensed about the way an article is being edited, and even still swearing achieves nothing and belittles the point you're trying to make, and honestly has no place on Wikipedia. We're all people editing articles "for fun and for free", after all, if you get pissed off enough to swear its probably a good time to log off and calm down. The article is getting a lot of traffic, for better or for worse, in particular from unregistered users, but you're not going to get anything solved from edit messages! All the best Eeveeman (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Following my message to you on this matter, a user who prompted me to ask about this, apologised for his uncivil manner owing to lack of sleep, as much as I apologised for anything I might have done wrong in their eyes. Glad both they and I were reasonable, mature human beings who could resolve matters in a civil way.  Thanks for what you said. GUtt01 (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the Thanks - The Apprentice, Series 11, November 2015
This is to just thank you for the "Thanks" you gave me for my editing on The Apprentice (UK), Series 11. I have to say, some people tend to add in things that are excessive and not necessarily needed at all, and so I like to cut such bits out when it's not appropriate to do so. After all, we don't to know if a whole team came in with "(the entirety of the team)", nor do we need to know someone wasn't involved in the Boardroom (at least when their is still a chance they could be brought back in).

I even had to edit out someone's belief that we needed to know something, along the lines of "This means that 'Candidate A' had one victory as PM, jointly with 'Candidate B'.", or something to that effect. Again, thanks for the "Thanks"! GUtt01 (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, Yeah it's too easy to get into the habit of explaining the minutiae of everything, I'm very much of the opinion it should be shorter, snappier, I don't like reading tons of waffling on to get to the point! Keep on editing, all the best Eeveeman (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent Work on Apprentice (UK) Series 11
Hey ; Thanks for the editing you've done in keeping out information on episodes that have yet to be broadcast. After seeing people add in results and information on team setups and such like before an episode was broadcast, I'm glad someone else agrees with me on keeping such information from being added in before an episode has been broadcast, and also keeping out anything that appears to be gossip and rumour too.

I think that, since there's evidence of a twelfth series likely to come in for this show, that if an article for Series 12 is made, we should probably leave suggestions or such like in its talk page on what editors should try to do in regards to new information on an episode. What do you think? GUtt01 (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ,I half considered putting in a semi protected request but I figure its quite low frequency and easy enough to just revert changes. It's frustrating that people want to just add in results before they've been confirmed, and gossip isn't kosher for Wikipedia either. The issue is that very few editors, especially unregistered users, will ever look at the talk page. There's a reason we're basically the only ones using the current series' one! As such I'm not entirely sure what can be done, save for plastering commented notices like I've just done, which isn't exactly clean for editors but hopefully(!) should slow the number of edits needing reverted. All the best eeveeman 22:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The Apprentice, Series 12 - Recent Edit
Just saw your recent edit for this article, for Week 3. Just thought to let you know that you made a mistake about the Note point regarding Mukai's handling of the corporate deal. When he changed the deal, he reduced the price per bag for all the bags being offered, after adding more bags to it. I had to change that to make it more clear, as I wrote out that info and felt the change to the point was incorrect to what I saw in the programme. Otherwise, apart from a few changes, the work is fine.GUtt01 (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see the issue with my wording but I'll leave yours up. eeveeman (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I just thought I let you know, I had to change that Note Point. I had a sudden thought over what was written and realised I had not been as clear over Paul's criticism as I thought I had.  I failed to point out he was criticising Mukai for not sticking to the original deal and price when he decided to add more bags and then reduce the price per bag.GUtt01 (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The Apprentice (UK) - Articles on each Series of the show
Hi, I thought I would send out a message to prominent editors who work upon the articles that cover each Series of the The Apprentice (UK). I have begun to start wondering if we, as editors, are doing the right thing by writing out these articles in a manner that seems to be not encyclopedic as they should be in regards to the general principle of Wikipedia. I state this because, over all of the Series that have been done, all information on each episode that has been broadcast, editors write out the Episodes in term of detailing a general review of a task, the setup of teams, who won and who lost, the reward provided, who was fired and why, and noting down notable events and such like associated to the episode.

Now, when QI's main article was made, editors decided to cover each Series by writing out everything that was discussed as an answer to a question, as if it was a fact of importance; even I was one such editor who did this. Eventually, a Wikipedian finally decided to end this by deleting the pages and just ensuring that the episodes were listed in terms of their number, title, the guests on it and who won that episode, and the Air Date it was first broadcast on (including QI XL).

The fact is, I believe that this is happening again in regards to this show, in that any Wikipedian who comes to the articles in each Series, are generally writing out information that appears to make the site appear more like a Blog, than an online encyclopedia. I fear that unless action is taken now to discuss what should be going into these articles, someone may come along and decide it may be necessary to delete these pages. I have started a discussion on this matter, over on the Talk page for the show's article, and would like you, as a Wikipedian who has been involved in these articles, to provide input on the matter.

I hope that by discussing the matter, we can generally determine what action should be taken on this issue. Please take time to consider this, when you can, and do pass this on to any Wikipedian that you know, has been editing these articles alongside yourself. Thank you for reading this. GUtt01 (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request - The Apprentice (Series 13)
Hi there,

Could you do me a favour please, and reveal Week 7 on this article for me? I'm operating under an IP, as I haven't got my computer with me (its under repairs) and I cannot recall my password for my editor account on Wikipedia. My account is GUtt01, and I usually do this wheb a series is currently being aired. I would much appreciate the assistance until I can do so myself once I get my computer back. 2A02:C7F:5015:BD00:E4C4:84CA:611A:87B5 (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi again,

I am wondering if you can do me another favour with this article, if possible please? I can edit in some way now, but its a bit limited doing so through my Xbox's internet browser. Anyway, I was wondering if you could update both Week 8 & 9 (both in HIDDEN TXT) with their episode title, their task, and the citations for these, when you can possibly do so. The show's official website has put up benchmarks for these episodes and a short sum of each at this moment. And if you do put up the citations, use the Cite Web layout for one of the other episodes in this article. Would very much appreciate this.GUtt01 (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , Sorry dude, way too busy this weekend and in general, just making incidental edits when I get the chance right now - I see you've beaten me to it anyway with the references! eeveeman (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's alright. I managed somehow to do so thru my console, so no worries, okay? May need ya to reveal Week 8 tomorrow though, as I won't be able to move that message in HIDDEN TXT so easily.GUtt01 (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

File:TheApprenticeSeries14CandidatesPhoto.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)