User talk:GUtt01/Archive 1

Contributions in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare article
Hello, GUtt01

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for the contributions in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare article. Unfortunately, your contribution did not adhere to the standards expected of a featured article (some of which are very difficult to satisfy) and I saw reverting them the best option. Here is a summary of why it is done:
 * 1) Fluff: Your edit had added a lot of unnecessary fluff to the article while we have a strict word limit for plot sections in Wikipedia. (Consider studying this exercise to get a grasp of the fluff issue.) In general, you need not say "X joined Y and together they did Z"; you can say "X and Y did Z". For instance, there is no need to say "in the hopes of capturing him" when another sentence in proximity already says so. In a coup d'état, leaders are always executed, so you don't need to say there was a coup d'état and leaders were executed. (But you can say the opposite: There was a coup d'état but X and Y were spared execution.) When a nuke wipes a city and everyone in it, there is no need to say "including such and such group". (But you can says the opposite: ...including everyone in it except such and such group.)
 * 2) Unreferenced contribution: "Much to the outrage of several western nations?" A source, please. "Hushed up by the US and its allies?" Exactly which source gave you the impression that US would hush up its own heroism?
 * 3) Not adhering to Manual of Style: In Wikipedia we use capitalized words sparingly, in places where others don't. There is no call capitalizing "ultranationalist" and "loyalist" since they are not proper nouns.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. Good work on your second edit. There are slight problems with it (that I can fix) but I think on the whole it is a good edit. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Contributions in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 article
Hi.

I have been watching your edits in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and I must say you are getting much better. Still the following problems are visible.
 * 1) Fluff: Please review our previous discussion. I just give you an example: "As Russia and the United States continued to fight each other" is long phrase that adds zero meaning. Judging from the context, the reader does not assume the fighting stopped unless it is explicitly said so. There are three instances of this in the article.
 * 2) Words to avoid: I advise you to study Manual of Style/Words to watch as soon as possible but our area of discussion here is § Editorializing and § Relative time references. You have used these words.
 * 3) Information without context: We write articles for people who have not played the game. They have no grasp of what or who is Foley and even why the destruction of ISS (or ISS itself) is important. Moreover, what is "war in 2011"? ("Events of the previous game" is certainly more informative, as the reader has a clue to follow.)

I will salvage what I can of your edit but you will find that I may not keep much of it.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Top Gear (2002 TV series), but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm McGeddon. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Jeremy Clarkson. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to The Apprentice (UK series eleven), did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to revert vandalism you do it manually like everyone else here - Reverting everyone who's edited after the vandalism is not helpful .... It's just disruptive and could see you blocked if repeated,
 * Thank you!. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is to inform you that, while yes it was wrong of me to undo others to remove vandalism, sometimes it is hard to undo mistakes without knowing what was done if another edit prevents such an action. Also, when revising or editing something, to simply add in swearing as a reason and not a logical one, is inappriopriate behaviour.  Please give your reason in a calm, civil manner, not in the way you did so.  Some of the edits that had been undone, I will restore, but anything that was unnecessary to have been done won't go back. GUtt01 (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * With the greatest of respect many many editors here do it manually and that's what you should be doing!, Reverting all fine edits after apparent vandalism is damn well disruptive - All's you need to do is hit "edit" and then paste the correct parts in but as you're obviously incapable of doing that I'll revert and do all my shit again shall I!. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please! Be civil.  Acting like this will have others wonder who is at fault here. And yes, I should have done that, and as such, I apologise for it.  I just was unsure if some information was worth having in, while uncertain about some edits that had reduced information. GUtt01 (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the language as well as for the above - Quite honestly I've had a day from hell and plus I've barely had any sleep so the last thing I really needed today was to have someone undo my edits for in my eyes a silly reason, Meh it's all in the past, No point moaning about it and reading you the riot act, Anyway I apologize for the above, – Davey 2010 Talk 15:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology, mate. Appreciate that you weren't thinking straight from having not much sleep. Thanks for being a human being and being civil in this matter. I think both of us have learned from this. GUtt01 (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks that does mean alot and I obviously accept your apology too :), Looking back at earlier I clearly did lose it and I genuinely am sorry for that, To be absolutely honest I'm actually surprised you didn't report me as to be fair I would've deserved it,


 * Had today been a normal day I obviously would've been much much nicer and certainly alot more calmer so I am sorry for earlier,


 * Anyway thank you for accepting my apology and I hope you have a great weekend :) (BTW Happy Thanksgiving if you celebrate it :))


 * Thanks and Happy editing :) – Davey 2010 Talk 17:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of Thunderbirds Are Go Episodes


Hello, GUtt01. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "List of Thunderbirds Are Go Episodes".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Hello, I'm Doniago. I wanted to let you know that I undid your recent edits to the King Ralph plot summary because they added a significant amount of unneeded detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses. You may read the plot summary edit guides to learn more about contributing constructively to plot summaries/synopses. There are also specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making changes to plot summaries/synopses that conflict with the plot summary edit guides, as you did at King Ralph. You may wish to review the specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. Excessive detail and high word counts should be avoided. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Contributions For The Apprentice UK Series 11
Hello GUtt01

I saw you undid my revision for The Apprentice (UK series eleven), specifically the Party Planning episode. This has actually been one of the more interesting Wikipedia articles for me, as when I try to make an edit, it usually gets re-edited. (For instance, whenever I stated it was the first time the final boardroom consisted of more than three candidates, it gets removed.)

Anyway, to the point, not to sound self-entitled or arrogant, but I felt that my edit had a better writing style in the sense that "much to the irritancy of Lord Sugar, Gary deliberated..." than "his lengthy deliberations irritated Lord Sugar", sounds more arranged and sounds like it fits with what the episode portrayed. I don't know what's the best way to describe it, but's like saying "his argument was countered by Lord Sugar" rather than "he argued, but Lord Sugar countered this by...". It doesn't feel right right, and the latter example (in my opinion) sounds like a better narration.

If you disagree with what I've said, I'm perfectly alright with that. I was just making the point as why I had reverted your edit. If you disagree with any of my points, please reply to let me know, I'm interested in feedback for how I could edit articles better. Thank you for reading.

Rotten Tardises (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * While I don't mind you revising what I undid, I felt the wording of it sounds... wrong. I mean... I agree that letting people know David had already been selected, is right to add in, but I don't think it should have ben stated that "he bore responsibility", because I didn't sound right.  Stating that his "multiple errors" was the reason for him being selected, is correct, but needed to be worded right.  All I was doing, was trying to determine how best to word the points so they that when one read them, it sounded not just clear, but also understandable. GUtt01 (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to Top Gear (2002 TV series)
Please note that, per MOS:DATED, quickly dated terms like "current" should not be used, which is why I modified the text appropriately. Series 23 has ended now, so we can use appropriate terminology, and that can be modified if necessary when/if series 24 eventuates. Please also note that, per WP:CITELEAD we don't actually need citations in the lead when the content is cited in the body of the article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Understood, but could it be possible to merge the sentence in the lead about Evans' resignation to that about the hosts for the 23rd series? I feel it should be, but want your opinion of whether it should appear like this - " ; shortly after the series finale, Evans announced his resignation." GUtt01 (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't really see what that achieves, other than saying in 9 words what is already said in 8. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Top Gear edits
Could you please stop unnecessarily changing the order of fields in Episode list. LineColor is the last field in the template and is after ShortSummary, not before. There is absolutely no reason to change the order and it confuses anyone trying to work out what was changed in a particular episode. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the notes, they are unnecessary. That sort of thing should be included in the prose. You've been reverted twice now. Please respect WP:BRD and discuss, and do not edit-war. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Images on We Happy Few
Those images you added to We Happy Few aren't public domain. They are definitely still copyrighted by Compulsion Games, and must meet WP:NFCC requirements. They do need to be resized, but I do also think these can be made to work. I would make these changes myself but a bit hectic right now, but wanted to let you know ASAP before they are tagged as improper images. --M ASEM (t) 19:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On the outfits shots, you'd want to add a source to this article to show that they spent time researching Brit 60s outfits. (I don't recall one, but also I'm sure this could be found). That way you can justify the image (at smaller resolution) to show the theme.
 * The one with the Bobbies I know the source is there, but I think maybe might be better to take a gameplay screenshot that shows similar elements (such as Bobbies) which still gets across the theme, but also can be used to demo the UI elements of the game.

I just seen that you changed the licensing on the images. I would like just a bit of help here with the use of the Non-Free template, if you could possibly do so please. What should I put for portion in each one of the images, what should I put for Low Resolution, and should I put in Yes, for replace-ability? GUtt01 (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ignore the previous Ping; I talked to someone else on the matter, who kindly helped me to get the images sorted out, after they changed them to Non-Free use game screenshots. As for the first point you made, I will change the caption; I wasn't sure about that, so will change it to just connect it to the setting of the game.GUtt01 (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries: the article definitely can support a few images given its been noted to exude style, but I am very careful on NFCC aspects. --M ASEM (t) 22:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-free images Reply Comment
I'm glad that you chose to take an interest in properly using copyrighted images on Wikipedia! On Wikipedia, use of non-free content is governed by the Non-free content criteria. An annotated guide to the criteria is available here. When using non-free content, you have to explain how each use complies with the criteria. There are that can help you organize the rationale, but you don't have to use them if you write out the explanation. You must also remember to properly tag the file with its licensing using a copyright tag. If an image does not have both a complete Non-free use rationale and licence tag, it can be removed subject to the CSD. If you have questions on media and copyright, ask at the Media copyright questions page, with the  template, or ask me on my talk page.

Happy editing! AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Top Gear episodes
Hi, GUtt01 I haven't done any editing on the Top Gear page for a while, I expect you to not blame me for something I didn't do. Okay, maybe it says I did edit it, but in that case I don't remember it. MariusEllingsen47 (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I just noticed that it was only for Series 3. But please, leave the numbering for that Series as it was done; I had to update it.GUtt01 (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Apologies accepted, in that case, I shall keep guard of the page if someone makes the mistake of editing the total numbers. MariusEllingsen47 (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Episode numbering
Just to clarify, numbers in the  field just have to be unique. They don't need to be official, or in a specific format. Ideally we just start numbering at 1 (or 0 in some cases) and add 1 for each episode but, as you've seen with Top Gear, that causes problems at the LoE page because only the main series episodes are transcluded there. We don't need to go into specifics for episodes that are main series episodes, we just need to give each a unique number. It doesn't matter whether they are a special, compilation episode or even a short film, we just need one numbering system for them. We could start at "B01", "Z01", "1001", or even use "A", "B", "C" etc. We need to simplify the format so that people not intimately familiar with the reasoning behind choosing the format can work out how to number episodes. All extra episodes are special in some way, even if they aren't technically a "special episode", so "Sxx" is the easiest format to use. We've tried different numbering on other articles and it always ends up as a disaster. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

File:BGEE-Game Screenshot.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BGEE-Game Screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Too Old for This Shift plot
Your plot for "Too Old for This Shift" is incredibly and excessively detailed. Plots aren't meant to include every detail in the episode (please feel free to read WP:PLOTSUM). I see you put in your edit summary that your plot contains "major details", however there are several sentences in your plot which don't cover major details ("a young boy named Kai begins playing with a drone that his father gave him, much to his mother's dislike." being one example). Can you shorten your plot and make it more concise please. I also have one more question: what was wrong with my plot in the first place? Thank you. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Hello. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Casualty (series 31). If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. This also applies to Too Old for This Shift. I'm not sure if you are aware of it, however you have been overwriting a lot of other editors contributions recently. Please keep this in mind for future edits. Thank you. ElectrodeandtheAnode (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Aprentice Series 12
I have seen your message on the way that I edited the table, but I do not think that it is right for you to remove my information. Firstly, it doesn't matter that the other tables don't have this information, secondly I think it is better for the reader, as it means that they don't have to scroll down and try to find this information, it's just there on the table I am disappointed that you have removed all this information, after I spente some time putting on the table, and I'm, still unsure to why you are going to such efforts to remove it. It's not causing any harm. I'll use the Sandbox in future, but please do not revert any of this information, unless if you have a valid reason to do so. Chazmo1 (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have given a valid reason when reverting the information; if I failed to, then I will put up my hand to making a mistake on that. If you want to make a major change to the table, you should discuss it with other editors in the article's Talk page. If there is general consensus towards approving the change, then it can be done. GUtt01 (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, sure. Thank you. Chazmo1 (talk)

Teams on the apprentice
If you're going in to edit everything on the apprentice for teams etc. you've got your work cut out.

--88.144.112.231 (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In what way do you mean? I have already worked hard on the articles for Series 1 -> 10; I plan to work on Series 11 some point soon. My aims have been with the editing on these, as follows:


 * 1) Lead rewritten - A rewrite of the lead to reduce detail in it, including shifting the line from Candidates into it, albeit with some amendments.
 * 2) Merge the Candidates and Results sections together - They are linked, and don't need to be separate, except for the result being a sub-section of the other.
 * 3) Remove Original Team field from Candidate Table, and reclassify results by Task, not Week - The first has been unnecessary for too long, the other is being based on broadcast schedules for the series; if we use Week, it should be for for the title of the episode, or for an actual time-length (i.e. "The candidate later stated, on their appearance on You're Fired a week later...")
 * 4) Trimming down of Task Review and restructuring - Breaking it up into separate reviews of both teams, and trimming down the detail in it.
 * 5) Trimming down of Notes - Removal of Trivial information, and rewrites of the Note points that exist.
 * 6) Criticism & Controversy - Overall rewrite, restructuring sub-sections if it would be more effective with some information used

As you can see... I have spent quite a bit of time making these edits. GUtt01 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop undoing my edits!
Hello GUtt01,

I'd like to ask if you could please stop undoing my edits for 'The Apprentice' Wikipedia pages! I make edits not to be nuisance to anyone, but because I feel that they need to be included. For example, when I put "Grainne inadvertently revealed she did have the experience, etc., etc." I was stating she claimed she had the experience, but under further questioning from Lord Sugar and Karren, without intent, revealed she didn't. That's why I included that information. Also, on the "Alana being the only person brought back the first episode to win" edit, I included it, because there have similar achievements noted on the other pages and nobody had a problem with them in the past.

I wouldn't mind these edits so much, except you constantly undo my edits as if I'm some sort of imbecile compared to your "oh-so-special editing talents". I don't mind having my edits re-edited, but don't outright remove them, just because it's me and not you! I'll stop editing the pages if it makes you happy, but just I'm asking if you problem with the way I edit, just talk to me about instead of outright dismissing me.

Rotten Tardises (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, you can't just ask someone not undo your edits, as Wikipedians have the right to undo edits, but you can ask for a discussion with them if both parties cannot agree on which is better. Secondly, the last part of your message looks to have been made out of annoyance/anger and stress. It is wisest not to act in an uncivil, aggressive manner; civility is what this site prefers from it's Wikipedians.
 * First and foremost, you can't just ask someone not undo your edits, as Wikipedians have the right to undo edits, but you can ask for a discussion with them if both parties cannot agree on which is better. Secondly, the last part of your message looks to have been made out of annoyance/anger and stress. It is wisest not to act in an uncivil, aggressive manner; civility is what this site prefers from it's Wikipedians.


 * Now, as to some of the bits you mentioned above. My editing on these articles has mainly been to trim down the amount of detail being put in, but to still maintain the important, significant matters of each episode.


 * The part about Grainne claiming she had the qualifications - that was in the show, but it doesn't need to be stated as that "she admitted to not having the qualifications" in the Fired section. Stating she lacked these overall, sounded better; however, I checked, and maybe changing it to "she had yet to earn the qualifications needed", might be better.
 * Alana winning after being brought back on the first episode - I'm afraid it doesn't have much relevance as an achievement. The reason that Lee McQueen from Series 4 got his achievement noted was because it was a very credible feat to make it through the process without being brought back on any of the ten tasks, regardless of him being on the winning or losing team. An achievement that is noted is one that has a very high amount of significance to it; Alana's isn't, because she got brought back two more times.


 * Next time you see someone undo an edit and you don't like it, don't revert it immediately, send that editor a message to begin discussion on why they did so. Okay? Just calmly discuss it. If you feel annoyed because they still revert it after you tried to discuss the matter with them, then warn them of their behaviour. But do it in a civil fashion. GUtt01 (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * First thing, it's one thing to undo an edit maybe every 20-30 edits I've done, especially if my edit inadvertently borders on vandalism. But to undo every edit that I've done within the past 2 weeks (and other occasions such as Episode 8 of Series 11), just gives me the impression that you think I'm sort of sort of pleb and that I'm working for you or your company, or something.
 * Second thing, fair enough. I was admittedly annoyed when writing that post, but that's mostly because I was feeling discredited as an editor. Imagine if you wrote songs for a band (this isn't the best example I can think of, but it's the only one that comes to mind as of writing this) and another member of your band constantly rejects each of your songs and all your hard work was for nothing. I was admittedly stressed, but that's because I feel as might as well shut down my Wikipedia account, because it seems as if anything I write/contribute is never satisfactory for the pages.
 * Third thing, maybe Alana's "achievement" isn't as remarkable or credible as Lee's from Series 4 or Jim's from Series 7 (working with every single candidate in the process), but it doesn't mean it's utterly useless. I feel it's still noteworthy since no-one else brought back into the boardroom on the first week has ever won the show.
 * Third thing, maybe Alana's "achievement" isn't as remarkable or credible as Lee's from Series 4 or Jim's from Series 7 (working with every single candidate in the process), but it doesn't mean it's utterly useless. I feel it's still noteworthy since no-one else brought back into the boardroom on the first week has ever won the show.

But Lee nor Alana worked with every candidate in the process. Lee never worked with Shazia and Jenny and Alana never worked with Oliver, Mukai or Paul.

--88.144.112.149 (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fourth thing, as before, I don't mind people making adjustments to my edits. In the Series 10 page, I initially put on Nurun's firing article as "she only survived as Project Manager last week due to a fortuitous win", which in hindsight, was a poor edit and when it was changed to "her poor performance as Project Manager from the previous week", I felt great for that editor, because they amended my work in a way that was constructive.
 * Fifth thing, I know that there are these "talk pages" where you can send ideas through, but I felt as if I didn't get anything out of it. Maybe it's because I'm more focused on the actual pages themselves, rather than the "talk pages", but I feel as if, had I actually wrote something on that page, I might as well be writing those words into a private word document for no-one to see. I could send messages to editors, but it's not going to magically change their opinions. Maybe I could use the talk pages in future, but it's not like anyone will actually pay attention to them.
 * To summarise, I'm sorry if you felt I was being uncivil. I won't take back everything I wrote, because I was annoyed, I won't deny that, but I'll admit could've approached it with in a more professional manner. I just question as to whether I should continue to edit the Apprentice pages, because I feel there's no point in contributing something if it's just going to be brushed aside. I have some ideas on the structure of the Criticism/Controversy sections and more and I'll address them if you're interested, but like I said previously, if you want me to stop editing, just say it, and I'll do so. Rotten Tardises (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your response and understand how you feel. I would be annoyed if my hard work was undone so much, that I'd probably chuck it all in and no longer be a Wikipedian. As for Series 12's Criticism/Controversy section, the reason those three candidates were put under the same section was mainly because I realised that all three shared the same type of controversy - being in the media spotlight for having a family relation (i.e. Uncle), who had been involved in a criminal matter, either being charged for a crime or being involved in it. I felt by merging it together, but keeping the candidates' section of info separate, it would be easier to understand; I since put it into a bulleted list, with a line regarding why all three are in together. But... why don't you tell me what these ideas are? GUtt01 (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response and understand how you feel. I would be annoyed if my hard work was undone so much, that I'd probably chuck it all in and no longer be a Wikipedian. As for Series 12's Criticism/Controversy section, the reason those three candidates were put under the same section was mainly because I realised that all three shared the same type of controversy - being in the media spotlight for having a family relation (i.e. Uncle), who had been involved in a criminal matter, either being charged for a crime or being involved in it. I felt by merging it together, but keeping the candidates' section of info separate, it would be easier to understand; I since put it into a bulleted list, with a line regarding why all three are in together. But... why don't you tell me what these ideas are? GUtt01 (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Basically my idea for the Criticism/Controversy page is this. For the candidate section, each section should be limited to one/two candidate(s). Instead of the "Intimate Relations"/"Criminal Backgrounds" titles, I've recently noticed, have it so it's just the candidate's name, their reason for the controversy and the article(s) demonstrating proof of that controversy (i.e. discrimination, criminal backgrounds, previous scandals, bad behaviour on the show, etc.). The maximum amount of names in each section should be two for any candidates with equal controversy (i.e. Mona and Howard in Series 5, Glenn and Zoe in Series 7, Scott and Brett in Series 11, etc.) As for the results page, I'd say anything regarding the following is welcome if it feels outrageous enough to be justified: Week Results, Final Decision and Aftermath. That's basically my idea, I think the relationships and criminal backgrounds in the latest page are right for exploiting in the Criticism/Controversy page, but I'd like to try and include it in a way that fits what I described. I hope this information's helpful. Rotten Tardises (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically my idea for the Criticism/Controversy page is this. For the candidate section, each section should be limited to one/two candidate(s). Instead of the "Intimate Relations"/"Criminal Backgrounds" titles, I've recently noticed, have it so it's just the candidate's name, their reason for the controversy and the article(s) demonstrating proof of that controversy (i.e. discrimination, criminal backgrounds, previous scandals, bad behaviour on the show, etc.). The maximum amount of names in each section should be two for any candidates with equal controversy (i.e. Mona and Howard in Series 5, Glenn and Zoe in Series 7, Scott and Brett in Series 11, etc.) As for the results page, I'd say anything regarding the following is welcome if it feels outrageous enough to be justified: Week Results, Final Decision and Aftermath. That's basically my idea, I think the relationships and criminal backgrounds in the latest page are right for exploiting in the Criticism/Controversy page, but I'd like to try and include it in a way that fits what I described. I hope this information's helpful. Rotten Tardises (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It sounds a good idea. I could go with that (i.e. Jessica and Grainne - intimate relationship). Alright, go with that as soon as you can please. I have no objections to it.GUtt01 (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mr. Bean (Mr. Bean episode)
Hi, I also think it's important to keep articles about British TV shows accurate and up to date and I do a lot of it myself, but please read the new WP:NPP before you tag any more articles for deletion. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I have since discovered your mass tagging  of Mr  Bean episodes. It is unnecessary and looks tendentious. I'm sure you'll understand if I take a look at your other deletion logs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

All those AfD have since been closed as keep. I will continue to monitor your editing for a while. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)