User talk:Rotten Tardises

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Rotten Tardises! Thank you for your contributions. I am WereSpielChequers and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

April 2016
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at James Hetfield. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  23:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Hello 4TheWynne, I received your message regarding James Hetfield and I would like to politely ask why the content I posted was disruptive? I stated on the page one of James Hetfield's instruments was drums, which is true. He has played drums in the past and there is video evidence of him doing so; I have cited some examples.  My edit was not original research, I did not insult or defame James Hetfield, and I believe my edit could not be considered disruptive. I feel it is unfair how Eminem's page says he can play drums, and yet there's no video evidence (from what I've seen anyway) that he can do so, whereas what I put is not technically disruptive or incorrect and yet it gets removed with a warning. If you feel different to what I have posted, feel free to reply and we can talk about whether my edit was disruptive or otherwise. Thank you for reading. --User:Rotten Tardises (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply to 4TheWynne
Hello 4TheWynne. I should've left you a reply on your message, but I was unsure as to whether you had received it so I'm sending another reply just in case. Anyway, I received your message regarding James Hetfield and I would like to politely ask why the content I posted was disruptive? I stated on the page one of James Hetfield's instruments was drums, which is true. He has played drums in the past and there is video evidence of him doing so; I have cited some examples. My edit was not original research, I did not insult or defame James Hetfield, and I believe my edit could not be considered disruptive. I feel it is unfair how Eminem's page says he can play drums, and yet there's no video evidence (from what I've seen anyway) that he can do so, whereas what I put is not technically disruptive or incorrect and yet it gets removed with a warning. If you feel different to what I have posted, feel free to reply and we can talk about whether my edit was disruptive or otherwise. Thank you for reading. --Rotten Tardises (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Rotten Tardises. Apologies for the template – sorry if this is sudden. Generally when editing infoboxes for individual musicians, we don't put in every single instrument that the musician plays, otherwise they would be massive. Instead, we only put in the instruments that they use to contribute to studio albums and other releases (as explained in my edit summary). Because Hetfield contributes vocals and guitar to such releases, those are the instruments that are left in the infobox. He might be able to play drums, bass, piano and many other instruments (and I've already seen these videos long before you sourced them, so I know very well about this), but we don't have to put them all in. Another point worth noting is that sourcing YouTube generally isn't the best way to go, especially when you're just putting in URLs, and you're much better off finding a proper article or a video that you can source properly when throwing in information such as this. So yeah, that's why I reverted your edit – sorry for using a template; I wouldn't really call what you did disruptive, so you can feel free to remove it. There's just a lot of these types of edits happening all over the place and I'm doing what I can to stamp them out. And if what you're saying about Eminem is true, have a look and see if Eminem contributes drums to his studio albums, and if he doesn't, then you should be able to remove it. Thanks for the reply, and I hope that this information helps.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  11:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The Apprentice (UK) - Melody Hossaini
Hello - this is just a brief answer to your question. I've seen a number of occasions where it does seem Hossaini has edited this page. The fact that she has created her own Wikipedia page despite being no more well-known or successful than any of the other candidates in the series does seem slightly odd, and her section in the "List of Candidates" page, at one stage, listed her achievements and awards before saying "alongside this, Melody likes to constantly edit her Wikipedia page". While I cannot be certain that it was her herself who edited the page, it seems fairly unlikely that any one else would be as invested in her as to create a page for her and add this "controversy" when candidates who have progressed further do not have so much as a page.

I won't delete the section for the time being, but if the issue crops up again, I may consider it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.224.211 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The Apprentice (UK) - Recent edits to Weekly Results Table on Articles for several of the show's series
Hi,

This is to let you that I have reverted your recent edits on the articles concerning the series of The Apprentice (UK); primarily those you touched recently, on the Elimination Chart that is found in the Weekly Results section. While you should not stop editing, I do believe that you made unnecessary work on these tables that was not needed. The table concerns itself with candidates who are still in the process; those who are eliminated who come back to the finals should not be mentioned in this table. The final episode of each series where fired candidates returned to assist the finalists, mentions who returns in that episode of the Episodes section of the article. If you really must do that again, first discuss it on the talk page, before editing it in. It would be more wiser, especially as you gave no reason for doing so; a blank reason for such an edit may leave it being questionable.

Keep editing, but think carefully before making any major changes. GUtt01 (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi GUtt01. I am sorry for making these edits without thinking whether they would be completely suitable. I just thought it would be a good idea to mention which candidates came back to assist the finalists. In my interpretation, I felt the candidates not being mentioned could lead one to believe the finalists worked by themselves without the help of the eliminated candidates. That was why I had made the edits, although I do take onboard using the talk page to properly discuss new edits next time. The only reason I had not was because I'm mostly aware only of the main page rather than any subsequent pages and never discovered messaging systems on Wikipedia until around April 2016. I can tell you don't completely hate my work given you thanked me for one of my edits on the Series 5 page, so I am very happy to edit and receive feedback for my work (positive or otherwise) and I would to like to thank you for helping me and the other editors to contribute to the pages. I apologise for my edits, and will take on-board the feedback.

Thank you for reading. Rotten Tardises (talk) 20:49, 1 June 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. Thank you for reading this. GUtt01 (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Apprentice (UK), Series 12 Candidate Selection
I just saw the recent edit, and... well... I'm not sure about moving the Candidate Selection information into results. The reason I say this, is because the section is more to do with the candidates themselves, rather than the results of Week 2, even if they influenced this.GUtt01 (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You can feel free to remove it if you want. The reason I specifically placed it in Week 2, was because I felt that out all examples were it displayed "the worst candidate line-up ever", it was demonstrated best in Week 2. As I said when making the edit, it could just be my interpretation. Rotten Tardises (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * In addition, nowadays, I feel that the best way to describe how we debate things on what should be in the Apprentice pages is basically something along the lines of this: . (Please note, this is not supposed to be an offensive criticism, but a light-hearted joke.)