User talk:9cds/archive

Please note that I will reply to any messages here, and not your talk page, in the interest of not splitting up threads.

Welcome!

Hello, 9cds/archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 01:20, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

AFD

I changed your nomiantion to a speedy delete. That article should not be nominated through the normal AFD process. I jsut wantedt you to know so you weren't wondering why someone deleted and relaced your tag.Gator (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I was under two minds whether to speedy or AfD it or not, and since AfDs sometimes get speedied, I felt that the best choice :) 9cds 17:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA advice

I know you were nominated in an RFA recently. Those who vote in those things are very concerned with edit summaries, so start using them now as you would the subject line in an e-mail. Every one. It will help you in your mext RFA.Gator (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice; I'll try to remember to always fill it in in future :)

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome 9cds. R!ch 21:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement

Thanks for the edit (although I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who finds the Metrolink comfortable ;)). Looks like I need to work on my neutrality a bit! - MJ

No worries :) -- 9cds^(talk) 17:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester bombing

No, I'm determined the article remain NPOV, and I've gone into detail why. I'm not the only user to revert to this version, although I have been the most consistent. As for what I want, you'll have to make up your own mind about that.

Lapsed Pacifist 19:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Day Reverts

Hi 9cds, I have been discussing the issue with the user/s (them being sock puppets as well) and they are not being co-operative in the slightest. I have posted it on the Administrators Notice Board and hope to get a response. What is the policy on a user who is not responding to the requests for sources and/or deletes templates and becomes abusive? -localzuk 23:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm aware you are trying to discuss the matter, but I had to make you aware that the 3RR rule still stands in this case, so you have to be careful. If the user doesn't respond to requests for sources, etc, then he will eventually get banned. -- 9cds^(talk) 09:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that the information that was being reverted was classed as vandalism anyway - as it was a template that had been correctly placed and therefore not applicable to the 3RR according to the page (or so it seems according to WP:3RR. Maybe I am learning more about WP than I thought. -Localzuk ^(talk) 18:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't realise this. Sorry :) -- 9cds^(talk) 18:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quizmania

Hi 9cds, I work for FremantleMedia so will be updating the Quizmania over the next few weeks so the website will soon be out of date. Chuck Thomas currently presents the show every Friday or Saturday night, so the best way to prove this is to watch ITV1! We also have two new presenters Kirsty Duffy and Lee Clarke starting in the next month. I will also continue to update the jackpot wins as and when they happen and add more crew credits. tgk

We cannot have any information in Wikipedia unless it can be backed up: so unless you cite your sources, it goes. Production credits should not be included, just as they aren't included in any other show article. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, I work for FremantleMedia, and watched Chuck Thomas present the show LAST NIGHT, but I am not going to waste my time updating this page for you to delete it. We will not be updating our Quizmania website anymore, so your page will be inaccurate and out of date, leaving this page outdated and uninformative. If you want correct information and you are willing to listen to a source, I suggest you contact the creator of the show, chuck.thomas@fremantlemedia.com for a list of presenters and crew. I am disappointed by your reaction as I wanted this page to be as informative as Quiz Call. tgk

I will be putting back these legitimate criticisms of quizmania tomorrow. I'm going to bed now and don't have time to respond to you properly right now. These criticisms are however legitimate, and will be remaining on the site in one form or another, I can pretty much guarantee you that. I'll respond to you properly when I have more time tomorrow. Aaarrrggh 02:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not replace them until we have discussed it. I'm all for pointing out criticisms of Quizmania, as long as it is presented in a NPOV fashion and aren't full of lies. -- 9cds^(talk) 02:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The criticisms I posted were totally legitimate, and there was not a single lie amongst any of them. Please feel free to prove me wrong. I have responded to you on my talk page. Aaarrrggh 09:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the job is on you to prove it _right_. -- 9cds^(talk) 12:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a single factual innacuracy in any of the information I have added. The point about there being no right or wrong answer is totally factually correct, and totally legitimate criticism. Show me where I have used 'lies', or incorrect information, and I will be happy to change the information. If you cannot do this, it has to stay. I think we should take discussion on this issue to the article's own talk page. Aaarrrggh 12:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see:

They do not make up the answers. This is said A LOT and is proved in the bonus round. (Do you even watch the show?)

The fact they don't show adverts is IRRELEVANT! This is merely done so that they can show more adverts during the day!

I am returning the arcicle and am considering taking this to RfC. -- 9cds^(talk) 12:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see:

Where did I claim that they do make up the answers? I did not. I merely said that they phrase questions in such a way as to not have a verifiable 'right or wrong' answer, and that this is clearly open to abuse.

And it is *not* being abused. You are suggesting it is.-- 9cds^(talk) 12:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they do not show adverts is relevant. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that 'they can show more adverts during the day'. Can you provide a source to back up these claims?

No, it isn't. This is a well known fact!-- 9cds^(talk) 12:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting it back. You are trying to revert a legitimate addition to an article that contains no false facts whatsoever. If you wish to continue discussion, I have opened a discussion on the article talk page. Aaarrrggh 12:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting its lock. -- 9cds^(talk) 12:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9cd - do you work for the company that make this program or something? You seem vehemantly opposed to perfectly legitimate criticism. Nothing I wrote was innacurate in any form at all. Let's actually look at the wording

No, I don't. I Just care for Wikipedia too much. -- 9cds^(talk) 12:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, one point at a time then:

"Equally, the questions on Quizmania appear specifically designed so as not to have any solid 'right or wrong' type answers. For example, the viewers might simply be asked to "name a rock band", while a graphic will appear on screen with 10 spaces to represent the 10 bands that need to be named. "

True. This is a fact. The questions do not have any right or wrong answers. Any problems with this? If not, why do you keep removing this from the article?

I've kept it in the article. -- 9cds^(talk) 12:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem with this is that there is no way to verify in advance what bands were actually on the list - essentially, it is down to the discretion of the quizmania team to declare which bands are and are not on the list."

Fact. How can you even deny this? You witness it every night when you watch the program. You see questions like "Name 10 jobs a woman might do?" People phone up and say things like "nurse!" to which they'll go "[buzz!]oops.. no sorry, nurse wasn't on the list" There is no skill to this whatsoever, and it is totally down to the discretion of the quizmania team as to who is on the list and who is not. We have to take their word for it. Fact.

But you are suggesting the producers choose on a whim if they're right or not. They do not. -- 9cds^(talk) 12:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No - I am suggesting that this system (the open ended question system) is a reason for concern and suspiscion. I never actually said that they are cheating, but merely implied that the system they use would be wide open to that kind of abuse. It's true. From an objective point of view, it's true. So I still don't see the problem. If I said outright "Quizmania is a parasitic scam tv show designed to take massive amounts of money from people too stupid to tie up their own shoelaces", I would be guilty of presenting a POV position. As it stands right now, this is totally legitimate, and if you check out the article on Quiz Call you will see that there is similar criticism there. Aaarrrggh 13:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But nobody is concerned. It should not be mentioned that they can be changed. The way I rewrote it mentioned that it's *luck* to get the right answer. That is the only way to make the article NPOV. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying the only way to make the article NPOV is to remove all criticism and present the program as based on nothing more than luck? For someone who asks for evidence, you seem to be prepared to take a position based on little to no evidence at all, at least in terms of what you have presented so far. Prove to me that the bonus round is totally genuine (simply showing me a few winners will not do the trick. As I have established before, even if it were a scam, I would expect a few people to really win money, simply so the company and people behind quizmania can point to them as evidence. I want proof that the system they use is truly random and is totally fair and open. If you cannot provide proof, the criticism MUST remain in the article). Prove to me that the normal question rounds are genuine. You have provided zero evidence thus far, yet assert that you (somehow) know that it is genuine. All criticism I have provided is factually accurate, relevant, and not POV towards anything more than the facts and the evidence. How you can have a problem with my edits is totally beyond me.

The bonus round is genuite because they show the number on a bit of paper! I'm sick of this argument now. Do whatever you like to the article, I stopped caring. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaarrrggh 13:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The same applies to the Jackpot - the numbers could be any between the range of 00-99, and it is only down to the discretion of the Quizmania team to declare that somebody has got the numbers correct."

True. You have failed to demonstrate otherwise, other than to tell us that "they tell us the numbers are chosen on a computer". Oh, concrete.

No, the number is on a piece of card which the presenter holds in an envelope. This is revealed when guessed correctly. -- 9cds^(talk) 12:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The lack of independant verification in these cases has led many to be suspicious of the authenticity and honesty of the program."

Fact. There have been numerous complaints about this program, and there was even an article in The Guardian complaining about these tactics, and the 'open ended' type questions that appear on them.

Then link to the Ofcom complaints. -- 9cds^(talk) 12:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every single element is based in fact and covered with evidence. You are removing totally legitimate criticism and I will not stand for it. Aaarrrggh 12:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie King has stated several times on the show that she was born in Sheffield, and then moved away after six days. Please leave this entry unless you have other information to prove otherwise Timclare 13:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I reverted to incorrect informaiton, but I reverted what looked like a change by an anomynous writer, and I couldn't find any proof to where she was born. I have a distrust for anomynous users ;) -- 9cds^(talk) 15:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother Logos

Hi,

Thanks for the comments! I do have some of the images in a higher definition but I decided to make them all the same size so that all the pages can have a similar look. There's a couple which I only have in low-res. Bluejam 00:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't be much of a problem, you should be able to resize the image as it's being displayed. -- 9cds^(talk) 00:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'll try to get some up when I have time :) Bluejam 16:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist

In order to write from a neutral point of view, we can't state as a matter of fact that it was a terrorist attack. What your source allows us to do is to quote Major's view of it, including that he saw it as a terrorist attack - though I think "callous and barbaric" sounds better myself, which is why I included it. Palmiro | Talk 16:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, ok. I've reworded it again, keeping the source. Better? -- 9cds^(talk) 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that looks OK to me. Still more emphasis on it than I would be inclined to give, but it's much more even-handed. I've reworded it slightly. Palmiro | Talk 16:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar. It has made my wiki-day :) -Localzuk ^(talk) 19:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome =). Although I'm fairly new to wikipedia, I'm used to other wikis. I think that this site is one of the most useful sites around, and I shall endeavour to add to it as much relevant information as possible. --Piplicus^(t/c) 22:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox British television

A little belated, but thanks for adding the ability to specify width dimensions. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No probs :) It was something I've been wanting to do for a while, but only realised how to do it :) -- 9cds^(talk) 23:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reverts

OK, if I hadn't used admin revert (and saved 20 minutes) to revert Tobias's changes to match his (reverted) page move, I would have simply moved them back with "rv", which wouldn't get any response (since it would be done manually), yet you still would not know my reason for reverting. --Golbez 15:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's good practice to only use it for obvious vandalism. Also, it only takes a minute to revert it normally. I know, I'm not an admin ;) -- 9cds^(talk) 15:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though to be honest, I probably would not have reverted them had I not had admin rollback. It takes just a moment to do it normally - for one article. Not for fifty five. It was mostly a protest to Tobias's continued practice of moving an article without even asking, then changing every single link to avoid the redirect. --Golbez 15:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should then talk about it, rather than continually rever articles the wrong way? -- 9cds^(talk) 16:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His was the initial sin, and he has been blocked for violation of 3RR in pursuit of it. --Golbez 18:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.-Localzuk ^(talk) 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Scott

Yeah, i noticed that after I edited. I wasn't sure at first if you were warning for a previous edit, or for mine. Anyway, good luck with those darn vandals. Con Dem^Talk 02:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I appreciate your motives anyway :) These lot seem like a right lot.. they're not too bad so if need be I can work them up to level 5 warning and get them blocked. I can stay up all night ;) -- 9cds^(talk) 02:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. For some reason I actually feel a little disappointed when a vandal stops at two or three, cos it means I can't get them blocked. I know that's mean, and not how it's meant to work. But it's true. Con Dem^Talk 02:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as they stop either way :) I guess we're just too nice, giving them plenty of chances :) -- 9cds^(talk) 02:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to my {{helpme}}

Thanks for responding, but no thanks for not answering the question. Either you misunderstood it, or you didn't read it carefully.

Yeah, I know all about preferences. I have none set, therefore am seeing all defaults. What's happening is that at certain times, the display formatting of all Wikipedia links changes from normal. Normally, they're blue, not underlined. At certain times, they become blue, underlined, as they were a while ago. All of them. (Now everything's back to normal.) I don't change anything on my end; it appears as if something changes on Wikipedia's end (CSS style sheet?).

Not a big deal, but it's bugging my curiosity. Got any ideas? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 19:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be a browser thing :) Nothing on Wikipedia is changing. It all depends on your browser defaults. -- 9cds^(talk) 19:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Brother UK

Off Centre... don't be so rediculous. I have probably alot more experience of website design and management than you, and I know how to make things look right. It's just like the way that you like to have a tacky black background on the logo for no apparent reason.

Rediculous.

Did you get my email? Add me Mynte@msn.com. --Jiblob 22:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the quick revert on my userpage. It is much appreciated. I was really a fan of how removing the guy's vandalism was "censorship"... Hilarious. Anyhow, thanks for the help, it looks like he is blocked for the moment. --TeaDrinker 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone got too much exam stress :) I guess I just looked at recent changes at the right time. I think I got all of his vandalism now. No probs :) -- 9cds^(talk) 16:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

You are welcome. It was given a short vacation.--Dakota ~ 16:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster Uni IP vandalism

No problem. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 16:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Template:Infobox_British_television

Hi,

Because of your changes to Infobox British television, pages which use this infobox no longer state that they are "British TV shows" -- presumably people are meant to be psychic and already know the shows are British? It also means that the "picture_format" tags have all stopped working on these pages (see e.g. Bleak House (TV serial), Have_I_Got_News_for_You, Planet Earth (TV series) etc for shows where you have caused the picture format tag to stop working.) I'm not going to revert your changes as you've already reverted them back again twice, and it would be an edit war, but I would be grateful if you would revert your last change to Template:Infobox_British_television yourself. Rnt20 13:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misunderstood what "picture format" was: I thought it was to say if it is HDTV or not. To say if it's widescreen, etc is fine, so I'll return that with apologies. As for the line saying it's British, nope, that isn't needed. It says it's british in the article (or at least, should do), and the infobox is for British shows. Feel free to add a header of some sort, though. -- 9cds^(talk) 16:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mafioso rap

Hello! The Mafioso rap section needs to be made into its own seperate article. However, not only am I having trouble removing the redirect linking (every time I type Mafioso rap, it brings me to the gangsta rap article) but the gangsta rap page itself appears to be blanking and half of the article has dissapeared (this may have something to do with my computer however) Chubdub 15:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've taken the content out of that section and put it into Mafioso rap for you. You may want to link to it from Gangsta rap, either as a "See also", or as a small section in there with a line or two about it. Hope that fixes your problems! -- 9cds^(talk) 15:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Chubdub 04:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use policy

Yes, WP:FUC:

"Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion.". ed g2s • talk 15:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say...

Something like what I originally put on the page but a bit smarter sounding. KinseyLOL 23:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

Please try not to intefere with my talk page. If you'd checked out the image, you'd see I didn't upload it, merely added transparency at some point. ed g2s • talk 11:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're an uploader of an image, and should have tagged it properly. You have no excuses, please do not remove it. I am doing this because you are currently causing many problems wrt copyright in images, and you should not hide the factyou cannot tag images yourself. I have every right to edit your talk page - it's a wiki. -- 9cds^(talk) 11:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I am doing this because you are currently causing many problems wrt copyright in images" - then please read WP:POINT. I don't know where the original uploader got the image from, so it is not my responsibility to tag it. ed g2s • talk 12:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing it to prove a point, I am saying that as someone who dislikes copyvios so much, you should be more careful, and people _will_ watch what you're doing closely (as I am doing). You should then tag as "unknown copyright". Please do not remove the warning I put on your talk page. -- 9cds^(talk) 12:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother UK series 7

It's Fine, I've reverted it back. The notice at the bottom of the page makes it perfectly viable according to the rules on the Channel 4 Website that we may use these images on the page.

It is just pathetic to feel so strongly that you wont let me edit the page in any way without reverting it back. I took it in to careful consideration before I decided to add the images again and they are perfectly fine.

As for the logo, have a look everywhere, and you will see what colours are meant for what.

YOU MAY WANT TO consider actually looking at the official rules on the official channel4 site on the official big brother website before you make further judgement.

Thanks --Jiblob 15:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the policy should be lifted, please post on the talk page. Thanks. -- 9cds^(talk) 15:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot just create a policy out of thin air. It is in writing on the official site as to the rules of those images. Read it.

The logo

If you have a look anywhere, the logo is Yellow and Black with a WHITE background. This logo it the official site and it is no better quality than the one I have uploaded. Say for instance that there was a quality issue... why is it 137px by 97px? Why not show it as a full sized image?

How can you possibly read the official Website Fan Rules page, and then tell me that they are not viable?

I shall revert it back because what you have created is incorrect, and any changes that I have made are sound. Their are no Copyright issues related with them because I have checked.

I shall add the rest of the images for the contestants!

A Truce

Hello,

Ok, If it true that I am wrong, I sincerely apologise for taking this a step further than I should have done.

I am very new to the site, however doing what I have done today has actually taught me about the workings of the site, so at least something positive has come out of this.

I may just add screen captures of the house mates to the page, if this is definitely OK to do.

Sorry once again,

- Luke (jiblob) :D

Thanks, and I'm glad you've learnt about how wikipedia works. Screen captures are indeed fine, and I encourage you to add some!

I hope you continue to edit wikipedia, just remember that any reverts to anything you've done shouldn't be taken personally, and I'm always here if you need any help! -- 9cds^(talk) 16:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BB7 Logo

The way I see it, this was the original logo up and you have repeatedly reverted to the black background, so you have been changing what is already more correct, and as it appears bullying another contributor. I'd appreciate if you desisted in both of these activities. Philc _T^E_C^I 11:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The black background was actually there first. Check the page history. -- 9cds^(talk) 13:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your message, are you suggesting that there is a higher regulatory authority on the big brother logo, than channel 4? Philc _T^E_C^I 20:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which message? Both logos came from Channel 4, both are right. Yes - both of them. One has been made for white backgrounds, one for black backgrounds. The black one however is more widely used in wikipedia so there's no need to replace it (the black one has been there since the logo was released, the white one got uploaded two days ago), and the white one is poor quality. Please see Talk: Big Brother UK series 7 for more details. -- 9cds^(talk) 09:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The message on my talk page surprisingly (shock horror) Philc _T^E_C^I 17:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dawn in BB7

No problem - DigitalSpy is normally a reliable source, yes, but with unofficial websites the problem is that some of the time they get their information wrong :) I'm sure DS will correct their information soon enough anyway. — FireFox (U T C) 12:39, 25 May '06

Re: Barnstar!

Wooooooooo thanks! Keep up the good work yourself! — FireFox (U T C) 15:24, 27 May '06

More 4+1

Are you watching it on Sky, because on Freeview I just get a message saying that More 4+1 is no longer available and that channel 31 will become FilmFour in July. Dan1980 18:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true.. what they've done is stopped broadcasting More4+1, and using the bandwidth to broadcast Big Brother. Even though it's a different channel number, it's effectively replaced it. -- 9cds^(talk) 19:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh... that explains it! I've added Channel 305 to the Big Brother Live section to make this clearer. Dan1980 08:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good - thanks! -- 9cds^(talk) 11:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Esperanza!

Welcome, 9cds, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member, you might be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee, Titoxd, JoanneB, and Freakofnurture.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact me by my talk page, Celestianpower by email or talk page, or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users on our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, please see the IRC Tutorial, which was written by one of our members. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to be!

Thanks! G.H e 22:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?

Why are you watching my talk page? And more to the point, why is it any of your business what I do with it? Even more so to the point, why do you assume I'm clearing my talk page to get rid of your comment? Stay out of things that don't concern you. JD 14:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia:Removing_warnings - and there's no rule that stops me watching peoples' talk pages, in fact, I have several users on my watch list. :) -- 9cds^(talk) 14:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say there was a rule that stops you from watching peoples' talk pages, I asked why you're watching mine. Just stay out of my business. JD 15:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merely because I have my settings to automatically watch pages, and I left you a message in the past. -- 9cds^(talk) 15:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BB7

No probs... it looks like I broke the template myself anyway, it's showing two Dawns for some reason... and it looks like a mystery how Ashlene is spelt, loads of websites are spelling it differently, hehe. We'll have to see. — Fire Fox 21:18, 29 May '06

I guess it's a case of waiting for Channel 4 :) I've fixed the template - I messed up the template when I increased the number of housemates to 18, and forgot to change the housemate numbers. -- cds^(talk) 21:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. So what's this reason for you losing the 9? — Fire Fox 21:29, 29 May '06

I'm known in most places as 'cds', in particular freenode, so I'm requesting my username be changed to user:cds, in the meantime, I'm making the change less drastic by changing my signature. :) -- cds^(talk) 21:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense :) — Fire Fox 21:33, 29 May '06

Do you not understand?

I told you to stay out of my business, and I meant it. I don't need you to tell me something that's plainly obvious. JD 16:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]