Talk:List of Big Brother 2006 housemates (UK)/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:List of Big Brother 2006 housemates (UK)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 New Pictures
2 WANTED: New screenshot of Shahbaz!
3 WTF?
4 Michael Cheshire
5 Redirects
6 Mach Test
7 What order are these in?
8 Pictures
9 Be Unbiased Please
10 Michael's Beliefs
11 Nikki's feeling towards Pete
12 Sezer arrested
13 Nikki-which image
14 Spiral
15 Nikki's article
16 Revertions
17 Jennie's education
18 Michael Cheshire Again
19 Sezer's "dream"?
20 Weasal Words
21 Sezer
22 Aisleyne
23 Merge?
24 Image alignment
25 Order
26 Section lengths
27 Image alignment
28 Grace
29 Sam
30 Imogen sex tape
31 Transexual
- 31.1 Transvestite/Transexual
- 31.2 Who's more Qualified?
- 31.3 I'll check the rules for myself Thanks
32 Does Spiral have a record out?
33 Glyn broke his punisment?
34 The Plastics
35 "starting with the most recent one to leave"
36 Apologies in advance...
37 The removal of Big Brother 7 from Glyn's section

New Pictures

Some of the images aren't very good (some of the hms faces are hard to see, like johnathan's and graces and others are looking in the opposite direction like mikey and michael. Also others show the hms in negative moods, e.g. Shahbaz, and biases the article) Maybe some of the pictures need a change. Any thoughts? 80.43.11.242 17:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have one of shahbaz here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shahbazbigbro.JPG and grace here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GraceBB.JPG

Hope this helps Bravedog 17:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if those images could be used, they don't go with the others, as they aren't widescreen. It's highly unlikely that people would agree to have them on the article with the widescreen images. Also, they're extremely blurred and distorted. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 17:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have widescreens of- Grace= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GraceBigBrother7UK.JPG

Mikey= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MikeyBigBrotherUK7.JPG

Bonnie= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bonnie.JPG Bravedog 09:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

They aren't widescreen, they're just ever-so-slightly wider than the first images you uploaded and provided links to. They need to be 16:9 proper widescreen. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 11:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have two high resolution ones of Nikki, I don't know if they're widescreen or not. I think they might be. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Hipopatotamus/d35_2230_g_nikki_drink.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Hipopatotamus/bb7_d42_g_0440_Nik.jpg

They look 4:3 size, and the person in the images isn't neutral enough. Sorry. --JD 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WANTED: New screenshot of Shahbaz!

We need a new shot for him is biased (he has an angry look on his face!). I'll use this- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shahbazbigbro.JPG as a temp shot. Bravedog 09:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

WTF?

Sorry, but this is awful! Personally I don't agree with having the housemates split off. What do others think?? ellisjm 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks really weird. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should go back - seems the most logical place to have this information. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? It's common practice generally that when an article gets too long, you split off a chunk of it and create a list. This, in my opinion, is very similar to List of recurring characters from Futurama, though of course, not fictional. Being 33KB, this reduces the main article length considerably and allows us to stop hacking the TOC. many benefits, in my opinion. I even got the infobox to work. Regards, —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If "hacking the TOC" was your reason for moving the hosuemates to a separate article, then wouldn't moving the chronology still have been the best idea, as you have to add a new section every week - or every two weeks, as the case may be? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, just a small part of. And we don't need to hack the TOC at all now. Back to a regular, default, auto-generated TOC. :). —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone fancy changing all the links on Big Brother (UK), and any other articles with these links in them? -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

EXACTLY! If you change this one, you have to change everything! Who thinks we should leave it as it was?? ellisjm 21:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't. They'll get changed over time: it's a wiki after all. I will, however, change the links on Big Brother (UK). The reasons to split have been laid out clearly and rationally. Please do the same with the £"not splitting" argument and then people will take you seriosuly. This is a consensus-led discussion, not a vote. It's the rationale that counts, not numbers of people saying "I want it this way" or "I want it that way". —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Support... Was that over the top? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 21:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was. We are not voting at all. Not now, not ever. —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This looks so odd. People who come to the main page will be confused. It doesn't go along with the other Big Brother articles. Revert, please. Geoking66 22:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why is looks so odd. It's the same as a great number of articles on Wikipedia - see Madagascar for instance...

It doesn't have to "go with the other articles" at all. This is different from the others because the rest of the article is so long and the housemates section is particularly huge (an unprecedented number of housemates ...etc... New users won't get confused at all - it says clearly where this information is on the main page (using {{main}}) and it fits with the style of Wikipedia - when a section becomes too long, it's split off into a sub-article. See Madagascar for instance - this method is used loads there. —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 10:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it got my opinion across. It wasn't meant to suggest that this was a vote; simply that I think that it should go back. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 22:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

But that's totally meaningless if you don't give a rational reasoning. Your view is worthless if you don't explain it on Wikipedia. —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 10:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. The housemates on all of the other Big Brother articles, are on the Big Brother articles; not on their own page. Considering the Big Brother WikiProject is about standardisation, and since to put housemates on their own page on other articles would look really weird and stupid, I think that, for standardisation, the Big Brother 7 UK article be brought back inline with other Big Brother articles. That a better answer? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 12:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is, though I disagree wholeheartedly. On other Big Brother pages, there have been what? 14 housemates? Here, there are 22, taking up a massive 33KB of article space. Since articles aren't meant to be over 31KB (browser issues, etc), the guideline in these cases is to split into a sub article. The circumstances are different here than the other Big Brothers. While standardisation is obviously a good thing, you do have to take into account differing situations, which this definately is. —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 13:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think it's a good idea to have it split for the same reason Celestianpower points out, it's above the 32KB threshold with it in the main article. --Lorian^T_C 13:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well unless something's changed, last time I checked the article size limit was only a guideline; not a policy. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 13:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

More of a recommendation actually. --Lorian^T_C 13:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

With the housemates, the article was almost 60KB and, according to Wikipedia:Article size, "Wikipedia articles should heed these rules", meaning that the article "Probably should be divided". This seemed a logical place to divide. —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 13:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not have do the chronology instead? That's something that could be done on every article without it looking weird or stupid. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 13:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't said why it looks wierd or stupid. —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 13:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Some articles don't have much housemate information, and to split them would look weird. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I keep saying - you don't need to split the others. This is a separate article, so needs to be treated separately. —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 13:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The housemates section is 33KB on its own, so it would still be too big. --Lorian^T_C 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the housemates section is much larger than chronology. —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 13:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information.

Was there a discussion about splitting the housemates section, before you did it? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but I felt, in this case it was prudent to be bold, since I was re-writing the entire article at the time (a task, I'm in the middle of and will get back to soon - it direly needs it). —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 13:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

...be bold in updating pages' does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects...

I know this is probably going to be taken way out of context, and it probably doesn't even say what I want to say, but I couldn't find anything else other than WP:BRD, which isn't even a policy. I would revert it, but firstly I can't, and secondly, we're already having some sort of discussion about it... --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 14:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a deletion, or a large change. The text is all still there, just in a slightly different place to ease readability - not all people have broadband, you know. And anyway, it's too late now, we're discussing it here. —Cel es tianpower ^háblame 15:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So do you think that the same should happen to the chronology section too, as it is likely to get even longer than the housemates section? --Alex9891 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If the chronology were split as well, or instead, then it wouldn't be so bad. In my opinion, it's just the fact that the housemates aren't on the main page; but everything else is. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 16:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If the article gets over 32KB (which it probably will), then it should be split off. --Lorian^T_C 16:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Was this move discussed before? As far as I can see, only Celestianpower and Lorian agree with it! --Alex9891 (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, does look that way. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 16:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The page is already over 32 KB. How do you propose we split it again? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 16:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is 33KB and can't be split anymore than it already is, the main article is currently 28KB. --Lorian^T_C 16:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were talking about this article. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 16:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Cheshire

Is there still not a picture of Michael? --Alex9891 (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this the point where we're allowed to use a picture off another website, until a screenshot is available? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 16:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone didn't take the screenshot for use on Wikipedia, so we can't use it. It's not exactly difficult to make a replacement. --Lorian^T_C 16:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Would getting one from a free video clip on the Channel 4 website be allowed? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 16:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine so. --Lorian^T_C 16:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that the copyright of screenshots is invested in the copyright holder of the original programme, not the person taking the screenshot (since there is no creative input by taking a screenshot.) So screenshots of UK Big Brother taken from other websites have exactly the same copyright holder as screenshots taken for anyone else from the same programme. The copyright info is usually given at the end of the programme. Isn't this correct?--luke 19:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Under fair use laws we can use the screenshots taken by the uploader, but we can't take them from someone else without permission, fair use doesn't cover that. --Lorian^T_C 19:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Should all the redirects such as Nikki Grahame now point to this article instead? -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think they should - people are searching for the people, not the show they were in. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 20:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I just changed all the existing ones, apart from Nikki Grahame, which is protected. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Mach Test

The comment regarding the Mach test (in Aisleyne Horgan-Wallace's description) seems misleading. Should it be mentioned at all given its credentials are dubious? (It's a test for manipulativeness that fails to correlate with psychopathy, and is itself highly manipulable since the characteristics being 'tested' for are incredibly obvious). More specifically, I think the claim made on BBBB was that AHW was the most manipulative because she had the highest score... the test is only supposed to divide 'high Machs' from 'low Machs', and as it wasn't claimed that she was the one and only 'high Mach', the test wouldn't support that. I'll change the entry unless anyone has any objections, and then try to get out more.

What order are these in?

Are these sections in random order? Would alpha order by surname not make more sense? I don't want to do this myself yet in case there's a reason for the current ordering... Jenny Wong 12:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the order that they use in the show - alphabetical by first name. --Alex9891 ^(userpage) 12:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

They are in alphabetical order by first name. — Fire Fox 12:44, 21 July '06

The reason for this is not many people will know their last names. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops - feel kinda stoopid for not spotting that! Thanks for not shouting at me! Jenny Wong 12:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

YOU'RE WELCOME!!! ;) -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

The picture of Grace doesn't really give people much of an idea of what she looks like because of those sunglasses. And the same could be said of the picture of Jonathan. Does anyone have any clearer fair-use face shots of these two? Jenny Wong 13:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Be Unbiased Please

I've just removed a large section regarding Richard and Michael, from Michael's own section. This should be about MICHAEL and not about Richard, or his attitudes towards him.

Please keep this NPOV. If you want to voice opinions then please do it elsewhere. 88.109.181.194 22:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it back, as some of what was there was actually relevant. If you can edit it again so that it's NPOV, but still has some of the relevant information in it, then that'd be good. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 22:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing relevant about Richard referring to Michael as 'she', especially not in this section. It's a brief introduction to the HMs, nothing more. 88.109.181.194 22:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There's everything relevant about that. The page was split because this has become more than just "a brief introduction" to the housemates. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 22:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, this needs to be kept as neutral as possible to comply with the NPOV policy. Comments about Richard or any other HM that could influence someone's perception of them should really not be on Wikipedia. Small jibes directed towards someone aren't that relevant, are they? Hardly a big event in the BB House, so they aren't worth mentioning IMO. If we added sections to this page with similar comments over the course of this BB the page would never end. Anyone else care to add what they think? :) 88.109.181.194 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Richard kept calling Michael "she" is one of the things that made him start getting angry about the whole femininity thing, so I think it's notable because of that. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And you cannot comment on NPOV with your message about Grace. --Alex9891 ^(userpage) 22:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I can, because I put that (tongue in cheek) comment on the TALK PAGE and not the actual article. I'll try to get this article locked because people just cannot leave it alone. 88.109.181.194 22:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't try to get the article locked just because of this single thing. Unless anybody has a good reason to not include it, it should be included; and that should be the end of it. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 22:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, an admin said he cannot lock it because it is not disputed enough. But the level of revertions going on is a little silly - just look at the revision history! Anyway I've added a controversial tag at the top, upon admin's advice. 88.109.181.194 22:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okey dokes. But as for this "she" thing, does it get re-inserted or not? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 22:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it depends if you want a revert war on your hands! Haha. Seriously, I think it is too POV to be put on here, not to mention irrelevant. 88.109.181.194 23:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well I've already said what I think, so pretty pointless repeating that. Any other people wanting to say anything? Or do I have to wait until morning? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 23:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is relavant enough to be included. --Alex9891 ^(userpage) 23:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing should be added about his stuffed cat though - that has no relevance in the article whatsoever! --Alex9891 ^(userpage) 23:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Stuffed cat!? Oh, I think I remember seeing him playing with something that may have looked like a cat once... What notability would a stuffed cat have anyway? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 23:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing at all, but it keeps getting added! --Alex9891 ^(userpage) 23:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

:S right then... Anyway, are we adding back the she stuff then? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 23:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. It wasn't really biased at all anyway. :S --Alex9891 ^(userpage) 23:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

:) Great, because I was about to run out of room to indent my messages if this carried on any longer... --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 23:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been removed again. Now, the article says that Michael doesn't get on with Richard because he doesn't like being made out to look feminine, but it has nothing to back this up. What was there before did that. Is there a reason why it's suddenly disappeared again? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 16:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, it must be the mysterious 88.109.181.194. --Alex9891 ^(userpage) 16:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Add it back; or will that look as though we're starting an edit war? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 17:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Btw, does his picture show up fine for you, because it doesn't for me? --Alex9891 ^(userpage) 17:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, all the images appear in my browser. You tried clearing your cache and all that? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 17:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's strange, it's just his. --Alex9891 ^(userpage) 17:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What happens when you go to the image page, or go to the actual image? Does it work then? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 17:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's just an empty thin box :( --Alex9891 ^(userpage) 17:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... My vast computer knowledge ends just about there, so I dunno what could be causing that; unless it's something to do with your OS or browser maybe. Other than that, I'm all out of ideas. See how many I had? :S --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 17:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I saved it using Photoshop instead of GIMP and reuploaded it, does it help? --Lorian^T_C 17:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, but it doesn't particularly bother me - it's just pretty odd! --Alex9891 ^(userpage) 17:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you cleared the cache? Otherwise it'll still be trying to show the old version. --Lorian^T_C 17:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone object to a semi protection? — Fire Fox 17:21, 22 July '06

That seems a bit unfair; what with the whole "Anybody can edit" thing. Meh, not my decision to make anyway. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 17:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfair? This is what protections are for though. — Fire Fox 17:24, 22 July '06

How much does semi-protect protect it? --Alex9891 ^(userpage) 17:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocks IPs and new users from editing. --Lorian^T_C 17:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds fair - considering it is an IP user who is causing this edit-war --Alex9891 ^(userpage) 17:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe this. You guys have now semi-protected this article, which means I will now have to sign in to my Wikipedia account and STATE THE SAME ARGUMENT. How arduous and pointless. When will you learn that just because someone is an IP user, does not mean their views are irrelevant? Jesus. Anyway, this article is biased. Can we all just stick to the NPOV policy please? It's obvious certain active users here dislike Richard, but we need to remain NEUTRAL. Why is there no mention of the ongoing Aisleigne 'wigger' debate, no mention of how zany Michael's views on religion are? Because you two cretins dislike Richard and think by editing a rarely-read article on Wikipedia AGAINST him will affect how the public vote. Pathetic. Now, I'll sign in and revert it once again. Jeez. 88.111.104.94 00:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not why the article was semi-protected. If you feel the article is lacking in some areas, and you feel that because of that some people are represented to look better than others, you should change that so that other people are represented as much; not remove information from peoples' information to bring them down to the same level. If you revert the article, it will be reverted back as vandalism; unless you have a good reason to remove information from the article. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 00:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly why the article was reverted -- and for the record, please do not threaten me. You know exactly what I am saying here. Perhaps you could tell me why the article was semi-protected? Spunko2010 00:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're saying here. You're making crazy assumptions that we trying to edit the article in a way that portrays Richard in a bad way; but that is not true. As I have said before, if you think the article is lacking in some areas, help those areas; but do not remove information unnecessarily that is there for a reason. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 00:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked you to explain why the article was semi-protected. Could you do that please? I' asking you to re-read this paragraph: Michael has had a hard time getting along with fellow housemate Richard; this is mainly due to the fact that Michael claims that although he is gay he does not like to be made to look feminine.. Okay? Good. That is all that is needed on the relationship between Richard and Michael. I am not bordering on zealotry or anything like that, personally I dislike both of these characters. But I refuse to sit back and let this biased rubbish be posted on here. Why do you have to keep referencing the way Richard refers to Michael as 'she'? Is that really a relevant piece of information to put under Michael's part of the article? Do you honestly think that reflects HIS character? Spunko2010 00:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It is information that stays on the article because it further explains what Michael doesn't like about Richard. If you feel that paragraph is not NPOV, then change it so that it is, but don't remove any information unnecessarily. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 00:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

But is that necessary to put under Michael's subcategory? Why don't we discuss Michael's attitudes towards, say, Mikey, or Pete. Or Susie? I know why, because you have a grudge. Admit it, I don't mind. Spend £5 voting for him to leave, but please keep Wikipedia free of nonsense like that. Spunko2010 00:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

For your information, I don't vote. In fact, I've barely watched four hours of the show since it's been on. Four hours. I can't comment on other situations as I haven't seen them, but as I have said before, if you think other housemates or situations are under-represented, you should add to them so that the article is balanced. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 00:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Four hours, really? And you consider yourself to be an avid fan of BB? Strange. Perhaps you should tell me what you make of this sentence, to change the subject of this debate slightly: "this is mainly due to the fact that Michael claims that although he is gay he does not like to be made to look feminine.". Don't you think that is an offensive sentence? ALTHOUGH he is gay, he doesnt act feminine? Christ on a rope. This article is in a bad way, I'm trying to fix it but I get put up against.. people.. like you. May I ask you, is there any way I could get the attention of an editor to look at this? I can't see it going anywhere. Spunko2010 00:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how that sentence could be offensive. Do you want to reword it? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 00:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to reword it but it will get reverted within a few minutes, so I shant bother. May I ask you, is there any way I could get the attention of an editor to look at this? I can't see it going anywhere. Spunko2010 00:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not reverting your edits because you're the person making them - if you reword that, and the rest of the article isn't compromised or degraded as a result, it doesn't get reverted. Feel free to make the revision. Also, I'm not sure how you would get the attention of another editor at this time; they're all probably asleep. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 00:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Was that supposed to be condescending? Hmmm, anyway, I think I will join them in the land of nod. But remember.... NPOV.... NPOVVVVVV... Spunko2010 00:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If it sounded that way, then I apologise. But seriously though, change the sentence if you feel it should be changed. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 00:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Still don't think it's right, 50% of the part on Michael is about Richard. The only way one could clear this up would be to remove a lot of it. I've requested arbitration. Spunko2010 00:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael hasn't got much information about him because he's not been in the house for long. If he does something else that's notable, it'll get included. The amount of information included for a person shouldn't be stressed over mid-series. If when the series ends there's still not a lot of information about Michael, that would be a good time to bring that up. But while the series is still airing, that should be ignored. If you still think some information should be removed, you should at least wait until other users have been allowed to have their say. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 01:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

don't you think Michael referring to himself as GOD is worth a mention? "I am God". Priceless. Also his use of tantric masturbation . seriously he said that in his BB audition tape.

Michael's Beliefs

It was said on the night Michael went in to the house that he was a follower of Kabbalah, I cannot find a quote anywhere but Davina herself said it. If anyone can find it that'd be excellent. 88.109.181.194 22:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

the aol poll which is referred to in the Nikki section is flawed. it allows multiple entries per user.

Wikipedia is flawed, it lets idiots like JD_UK spout their biased views with everyone turning a blind eye because s/he has contributed many edits. Spunko2010 00:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a personal attack. You should refrain from making personal attacks, especially since that in will in no way affect the way I feel towards you, or how I will treat you. People don't favour my edits over anybody elses, and if somebody has a problem with any of my edits, they will do exactly what I would do to your edits if I had a problem with one of them. I am not above anybody on Wikipedia. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 00:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why someone who has only watched a few hours of a programme keeps changing the page anyway? my views are based on watching the live update thread whilst working and the highlights , that's three or four hours a DAY. i'm what you might call a bb obsessive. why are my observations less important than JD_UK etc?

Nobody is saying they are. You're taking it way out of context. You removed a piece of text; people didn't like that. That's how it is; nothing more. If you want to add stuff to the article, nobody'll have a problem with it, as long as it isn't vandalism. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 10:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

so why was the line about the aol poll being flawed removed?

The way it was written, was suggesting that it's been confirmed that people tried to take advantage of that flaw. If you want to add it back, to say that the option to vote more than once by means of this flaw, then nobody's going to want or try to stop you. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 11:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally, someone who shares my viewpoint. I loved this part: You removed a piece of text; people didn't like that.. The fact of the matter is, YOU did not like it. So, to correct you JD-UK, there are now two people who share the same viewpoint. Bite the bullet, and stop reverting what is right -- again, if you dislike Richard you should add sections about his attitudes to others in HIS section, if there are similar posts made for all the HMs. This article is biased; you are biased. Now be brave and swallow your pride, because you are wrong. 88.109.104.43 11:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to "swallow" any words that you're putting in my mouth. I've never said that I dislike Richard, nor have I ever alluded to that point. The information that was removed was relevant to the section it was in, and improved the article. I'm not the only person that thinks that, otherwise I would have been the person that added the information back every time. As I have said many times already, if you think certain sections are biased, fix the article; but removing relevant information is not the way to go about doing that. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 11:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

How was the information about Richard referring to Michael as 'she' relevant to the section on him. Yes, it shows there is a conflict, but why is there no mention of other conflicts within the house. I know why - because this page would be 10x longer than it already is. It stinks of double standards - you can't revert some sections just because you don't agree with them. You know full well no one has the time to add details about all the conflicts within the house, so why keep spouting that nonsense like a stuck record? And as for you being neutral, what a load of rubbish. Spunko2010 11:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have told you over and over again: if other sections aren't as detailed, add information to them. The article is getting protected now because of this, so you won't be able to do anything to it anyway. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 11:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, you're pathetic. Truly and utterly pathetic. You can't let anyone get anything over on you, can you? Must be a trait your character has. Please read this section, I'll bold it for you so you can see it this time: You know full well no one has the time to add details about all the conflicts within the house, so why keep spouting that nonsense like a stuck record? . Deary me. I've applied for arbitration on this, I've also applied for advocacy. So hopefully something will come of this. If anyone thinks JD_UK has acted unreasonably please leave me a message, I'll be taking this further regardless though. Spunko2010 11:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA - Calling people pathetic is not the way to resolve an argument. --Lorian^T_C 11:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and how would you suggest one resolves an argument? Discussions like the ones presented on this page seem to get nowhere with someone so thick-skinned. Spunko2010 11:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

By putting across why you think it should be one way and countering what the other thinks with your opinions. Not personal attacks. --Lorian^T_C 11:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've done that throughout this talk page. Spunko2010 11:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you even arguing about? There is loads of talk over 2 headings, I think a summary of what each of you wants will help others to contribute to the discussion. --Lorian^T_C 11:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do it later tonight. Spunko2010 12:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Nikki's feeling towards Pete

In the interview with Davina Nikki said she "loved" pete not was "in love" with him. It's very common to differentiate the two with the latter usually being more deep-rooted/serious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doobystew (talk • contribs).

it is irelevant, non-notable, non-encyclopedic clap trap like most of this article and when the edit ban is lifted I intend to remove all such weasel, unsubstantiated commentary. Also, unlike you, I will sign my remarksleaky_caldron 14:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

people seem to be very rude on this discussion and dismissive of other people's point of view Timdew 14:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

the point is, I'm not interested in "point of view". More to the point, if people knew what they were doing, they would understand that Wikipedia isn't concerned about POV either, it is concerned with established, verifiable facts. If you want to share your opinions find a chat room or a news group. leaky_caldron 14:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

let me clarify, i don't mean "p.o.v" in terms of what goes into the article but in the discussion of what's valid and what isn't. you seem willing to delete proven information too if it offends your eyes.e.g the double eviction stuff you keep deleting when it's been PROVEN by Davina speaking about it on main show and confirmed by Dermot in no uncertain terms on BBLB .

it certainly was not confirmed at the time the first attempt to link the task to the nominations to the double eviction was made. It was also badly written. It was pure conjecture which was why I removed it. This is an encyclopedia - not a guessing game. leaky_caldron 19:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

there is no need for any party in this discussion to be arrogant, rude , patronising or aggressive.

Sezer arrested

"A City of London police spokesman confirmed a 26-year old man was arrested following an "alleged incident of rape on Friday morning". From BBC News 86.132.137.30 02:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nikki-which image

Which image should be used for Nikki. This- Image:Nikkidiary.JPG or this- Image:Bb7nikki.jpg Dalejenkins 13:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The one that we are actually allowed to use; that being the latter of the two. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 13:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Spiral

added d.o.b 28th November as said on BB just now Triangle e 21:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nikki's article

If Nikki is hosting her own show, doesn't that allow her her own article? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 20:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. As I understand, she's not even hosting it, it's just an entertainment-documentary series about her? — FireFox ^(talk) _{20:58, 26 July '06}

Oh, right. How lame is that gonna be... Is it just about her? --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 21:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

even if she was hosting it, in the context of this article (BB) it's non-notable, otherwise the article just becomes a never ending biography. If she becomes notable she can have her own article leaky_caldron 21:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's why I asked, and why this section is named Nikki's article. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 21:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone got a source for this "Princess Nicki" show? A google search brings up nothing other than message board gossip. --dogbomb 13:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nikki is spelt with two Ks, ie [1]. --
JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 13:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and idiot is spelt "dogbomb". Sorry - added a reference now. --dogbomb 13:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess today's not the day for spelling, sorry. --
JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 13:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

this is a bb article not a biography of Nikki. if she becomes notable and gets her own page then this might be worth mentioning but it's not relevant to this article.--Timdew 21:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add the comment, merely the reference (the comment ws the reason I was seeking the reference) - However, I think it is fairly relevant because it is something which has happened due to her appearance in BB - its not a biographical peice, but a statement of fact. I will leave it out, and let concensus decide. --dogbomb 07:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Revertions

Can the two users who insist on reverting what I remove please let me know on my talk page, why they are zealous towards disgracing Richard on Michael's part of this article please? I will keep removing the parts that insult Richard until this is amicably resolved. 88.110.25.215 21:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought this already was resolved. We made our point, you made yours. Just leave it at that. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 21:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but where and when did you 'make your point?' 88.110.25.215 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't point out actual incidents, as my head feels as though it's going to explode, but I remember saying that the part you keep removing further explains the part of the article that says Michael and Richard don't get along; and I also remember saying, a lot, that if you feel other sections are lacking, you should add to them so that it is evenly balanced. Every article needs criticism; making it an episode of Sesame Street doesn't help with the NPOV thing. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd assume your head feels like it is going to explode because of the amount of time you spend online. As soon as a revertion is made, you jump in and change it back. I'd suggest a break from the computer, perhaps a little adventure into the 'outside world' (e.g. outside of your bedroom). Possibly even get a job. Anyway, enough ranting, I have done what I said I would. 88.110.25.215 22:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You're Spunko2010 right? If so, then until you can be bothered to do what you said you would above, your removals will be reverted.

Sure, I'll do it later tonight. Spunko2010 12:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

--Lorian^T_C 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I said I would do that, correct! But I notice the other party also did NOT do that. Innocent until proven guilty? Why do you take the side of the Wikipedian? It is simply because s/he has taken the time to register for an account? I mean, is that really fair? Until the other user states his/her side, can't we just leave it locked -- or WITHOUT the offending content? It makes me so irate that I have to keep coming back to this page defending my thoughts. Can't you take a (neutral) side and decide for yourself what needs to be done, anyway? 88.110.25.215 22:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with the fact that I've registered an account. The fact that you want the information removed could be interpreted as not abiding to NPOV. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 22:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You've got me there! Reverting biased views about two HMs, I see, sounds like I'm the one who is biased! Christ. Take a break, it's getting to you. 88.110.25.215 22:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not taking sides, I would expect for the person who wants it changed to post their reasons first before the other party, regardless of whether you are registered or not. --Lorian^T_C 22:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, adding the protect template to the top of the page does not protect it. And attempting to do so is not going to help your cause, but damage it. --Lorian^T_C 22:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

88.110.25.215:It seems to me the material should be included, and not blanked. If you wish to edit to improve the article then you might want to take a look at our policies and guidelines, remain civil during conversation and try to reach consensus on an NPOV rather than forcing a POV one way or the other. Ste4k 23:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we will leave it at that then. Finally a fairly resolved issue on Wikipedia! If only. 88.110.25.215 23:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. --Lorian^T_C 23:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Jennie's education

The 8 A Levels claim keeps being repeated but it extremely unlikely to be true. Jennie turned 18 this year and therefore should have sat her A2 exams this year. She may not even have completed them before going into the house, and certainly would not have the results.

the evidence so far points to 8 A levels and until that's disproved the article should reflect this, surely? --Timdew 16:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it 8 grade A GCSE's or 8 A levels?

She's only 18 and 8 A levels would be quite a acheivement as most people only take 2 or 3 Timdew 21:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I read that she had twelve GCSEs and five A-levels in a gossip magazine. Seems much more likely somehow. I'm tempted to change it to this unless someone cites their source for eight A-levels. I read somewhere else last year that someone had broken the record for number of A-levels with ten, beating the previous record of seven. So it somehow seems unlikely that she would have eight. Abbyemery 14:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

i've read the same thing but i've had a hard time tracking down where I read it. I've googled till i'm blue in the face. Timdew 15:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This says that she 'apparently' has 8 A levels Tra (Talk) 15:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

the quote i read was made by her mother in the press but I read it online Timdew 15:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this one? Tra (Talk) 15:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That link has GOT to be wrong. They probably mean that she took 8 A-Level units - not that she has 8 A-Levels. The fact that the link uses the word "apparently" makes the claim look even more false. Triangle e 22:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's another Ch4 page that says she 'reportedly' has 8 A levels. It seems to give the idea that they haven't asked Jennie herself but found out the information from another source — possibly a newspaper? Tra (Talk) 00:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[2] this article in her local paper claims she had 8 GCSE's

on the live feed last night Jennie said she was worried because she doesn't know her A level results yet http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/news/newsstory.jsp?id=2991&articleMask=1 --Timdew 08:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Cheshire Again

Can someone explain the reasons why the section on Michael has more about Richard in it than Michael?

Also why it's so biased and speculative? use of "mainly due to" for example and " Richard only seemed to talk to Michael about sex-related themes" . Seemed? thats not NPOV. and it's also untrue and unsubstantiated. --Timdew 22:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with one section being more informative than the others, make the others more informative. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 22:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

if you check my contribs that's what i'm attempting to do. it's not a case of being informative it's a case of the michael section not being encyclopedic and being biased. you're quick to mention his differences with Richard but don't mention that Michael began to understand and empathise with Richard after the letter was read out. you're biased. --Timdew 22:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not able to comment on something I haven't even seen. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 22:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

that's from his eviction interview. have you even watched big brother? so why are you so quick to revert changes to this section that don't conform to the Michael-Richard divide. Timdew 22:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) Assume nothing. I've watched some Big Brother, and the part I keep reverting is one part that I've seen. I saw his eviction interview, but wasn't paying much attention to it. As I've said before, if the section seems biased for whatever reason, balance it out; but don't balance it by removing valid information. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 22:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

it's not valid. you can't say richard "seemed on only talk about sex". it's untrue for a start and it's not neutral. you also can't speculate as to the intentions or reasons behind something. it's about the facts or have you changed the rules? are you an admin/sysop/chairman of the board? i'm wondering why you're telling me what to do.

Anything I say shouldn't be taken as instruction. I'm not an admin. If you want to remove that line that you pointed out, remove it. But there is no need whatsoever to remove the information about why Michael doesn't like Richard, and the information that backs it up. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 22:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

we will have to agree to disagree on that, i still think it's irrelevant and erroneous. michael's entry should be primarily about Michael. enough said :O) Timdew 22:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, well who he didn't get along with, and why, should be included as well, shouldn't it? —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 22:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

(friendly discussion not edit conflict lol) night night Timdew 23:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

nice to see Michael didn't get on with Pete either, anyone care to include that ? [3]

JD_UK, why don't you make the changes to this article? Instead of sitting there on your high horse, why don't YOU improve it. That would have to be more constructive for Wikipedia, instead of the usual drivel about making this article more balanced. 88.110.49.185 16:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't comment on what I haven't seen. I'm hardly going to write about stuff I know nothing about. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 16:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It begs the question, why do you bother editing it then? 88.110.49.185 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sezer's "dream"?

"Sezar dream is To Be Reincarnated in to a pair of French Knickers", it says. It looks a like a bit of a haphazard entry, but it's true, apparently. He said it during a quiz that was organised as part of some task. I'll let someone else deal with the random capitals and the citation cos I'm too lazy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.43.80.248 (talk • contribs).

it doesn't really add anything to the article does it? It's just a random comment he made whilst in the house --Timdew 21:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Weasal Words

So what are we doing to remove these? I did Bonnie's entry today. Does one responsible person want to tackle each housemate's entry and sort this article out that way? Triangle e 22:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sezer

This section seems quite negative and biased, it includes things Sezer "claimed". Surely this should be changed to what has been substantiated? --Timdew 04:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Aisleyne

Surely it needs to be mentioned that that she breaks down crying at every opportunity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthony Florister (talk • contribs) 2146 UTC August 5 2006.

Only if you have a source. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 20:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What relevance does Aisleyne's "crying" have? It just sounds derogatory to me. Tell me a female housemate who didn't cry in this series?! JJ

Merge?

Don't merge this article, both articles are too large in themselves. They don't need a merge at all. --T. Moitie ^[talk] 20:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this should go back on the main article, and the chronology should go back on its own page. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 20:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Both the chronology and housemates should stay separate. --Alex9891 ^(userpage) 21:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That'd work as well. Having the one section that the majority of people expressed a dislike in being split put on another page, and the section that should have been split still on the main article is just wrong, on so many levels. At least if they are both split it's a compromise of some sort. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 21:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I've changed my mind about chronology - think what a dull page it would be! --Alex9891 ^(user) 00:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:( —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 00:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Think about it, it would just be text! --Alex9891 ^(user) 00:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what most encyclopaedia articles are? —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 00:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice with lots of pictures ;)... --Alex9891 ^(user) 00:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no images in the chronology section now, and splitting it would only move a section of the page onto another page. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 00:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know... I think the chronology is the series, like the story. The housemates are listed, and more details are on another page. --Alex9891 ^(user) 00:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Never thought about it like that. But does it really make a difference is the chronology is on a separate page? —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 00:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can really be bothered, go for it. :D --Alex9891 ^(user) 00:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to do anything, as there's no consensus and other people haven't contributed to this most recent discussion on the same thing, yet. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 00:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Image alignment

How are the images to be aligned? Are they all to be alternating (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Big_Brother_housemates_%28UK_series_7%29&oldid=68072953); or should they all be left aligned ([4])? —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 23:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Left --Alex9891 ^(user) 23:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternating godgoddingham333 23:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Order

Why are they in order of eviction? I think it looks horrible! They should be in alphabetical like they've always been. It's less confusing. To an outsider, that looks like they're just in any old order... godgoddingham333 23:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If everything else is... like on the Big Brother UK series 7 page --Alex9891 ^(user) 23:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that actually show's they're not in the house and the order in a compact space. Who's in, who's out etc. godgoddingham333 23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It is also in order of entry, and of exit. Perhaps I should rearrange the 6 top housemates into order of entry? --Alex9891 ^(user) 23:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, if this page is going to be in order of eviction, the top lot should stay in alphabetical order, perhaps with a line (----) in between the two groups of tragics. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 23:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't really see that line. Is there a way of having a white space of about a cm either side of the line?? godgoddingham333 23:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a look now... --Alex9891 ^(user) 23:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I've tweaked it slightly... godgoddingham333 23:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you not see the {{inuse}} tag right at the top in green? You did exactly what I was doing, and I got an edit conflict. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 23:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I went back and refreshed rather than clicking edit at the top. So now, I didn't see it. Sorry. godgoddingham333 23:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Section lengths

I just thought of something. This page has been split. What I just thought of is: "Why was the page split?" What I mean my that is, Big Brother 2006 Australia lasted 101 days, that's longer than any Big Brother UK or America series (correct me if I'm wrong); but the BB06 article hasn't been split at all. What's made BB7 UK and BB7 America become so long and excessive that they both needed to be split, when these seasons haven't even ended yet? Couldn't we remove any irrelevant information from these sections and then glue Humpty Big Brother back together again or something? —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 23:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah. It's good as it is... --Alex9891 ^(user) 23:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's because in the UK and US, there are more people who watch Big Brother and edit the English Wikipedia, so more content goes in the articles, so the articles get longer so they end up being split. Tra (Talk) 23:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But still, it still seems a bit odd that these articles are longer. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 00:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't really give a toss, you don't even watch the show. Remember? 88.110.23.108 00:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Image alignment

And what, JD UK, is your "good reason"? godgoddingham333 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Any images that are next to the table of contents and are right-aligned will be right-aligned, and under it. Left-aligning all the images prevents this, and doesn't make other images look odd in the process. --
JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 18:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I liked the alternating left and right. Can't the table of contents be put back where it would normally be? -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It makes the article unnecessarily long. --
JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 18:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Then instead of going left-right-left-right etc, go right-left-right-left... godgoddingham333 18:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be, the other way around..? --
JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 18:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well whatever I tried to make it, (say L-R-L-R etc.) make it the opposite (say R-L-R-L etc.) godgoddingham333 18:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess it could work, but what if the top two sections are still short enough for the images to be messed up? --
JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 18:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How are they messed up?? It looks fine! godgoddingham333 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It leaves a heap of whitespace from what I can see. There is no problem with the images all being left aligned - making them L-R-L-R serves no purpose other than to make the page look "pretty" (if that) --dogbomb 18:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you think Aisleyne's chances of staying at the top of the article for the whole of the series are? --
JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dogbomb:Well from what I can see, there's no whitespace; it looks fine! JD: Well considering Imogen and Richard are up this week, Imogen will go, cos she's 'boring'. Jennie, Glyn, Pete and Nikki will be in the final so its between her and Richard for a midweek eviction (which we know will happen) next week. What has this got to do with the debate? godgoddingham333 18:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Where's that come from? --
JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 18:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What? godgoddingham333 18:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That. --
JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 18:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It causes a huge amount of whitespace. Look at Glyn's entry for example. With his image aligned to the right - there is a chunk of whitespace underneath which could fit a whole wikipedia article inside. Similar with Imogen, etc. Unless there is a valid reason for changing the image layout - I say leave it as it is for now. --dogbomb 18:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You asked me about Aisleyne's chances to stay at the top. So I asked what that had to do with the debate. godgoddingham333 18:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, but I still don't understand what that quoted text has to do with anything, or even where it came from; I never said what's in that quote... Anyway, Aisleyne's section is pretty long, so I don't know if you've seen the problems that would occur with the layout if a shorter section, or two shorter sections, were at the top, next to the TOC. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 19:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

NO! Cos you and Dogbomb asked me a question each. So the bit after Dogbomb: is addressed to Dogbomb and the bit after JD: is addressed to you! godgoddingham333 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Well speculation isn't all that great, I think we should wait until nearer to the end before we do make any real changes to the edit, as we'd be able to properly see if the layout is going to be affected or not by image alignment. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 20:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but at the end of the series, when the article is not split into two, we should alternate the images... Agreed?? godgoddingham333 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If it won't crap up the layout, yes; if consensus agrees. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 20:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There we go - another wikidebate sorted out amicably. Isn't this great? godgoddingham333 20:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

...Sarcasm? Or seriousness? --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 20:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Bit of both really... godgoddingham333 20:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Grace

Now that Grace is back in, could someone please get a screengrab from a live feed or something? One without those huge sunglasses perched on the end of her nose so that we can actually see her face? Cheers. Oh and Lea maybe too... godgoddingham333 22:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Get one with the breasts. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 22:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

lol. And one of Glyn and Pete with their new hair... godgoddingham333 22:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And Aisleyne, her face is hanging low in the image that's there now. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 22:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeh. So someone? Please? godgoddingham333 22:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sam

I thought Sam was a transvestite, not a transsexual. It's been changed on the article. Which is right? --Alex⁹⁸⁹¹ 00:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The section is supposed to be gender-neutral, so as to avoid such conflicts. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But which is correct? Should it stay on there? --Alex⁹⁸⁹¹ 00:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't looked at it. Do you mean the transsexual bit? --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 00:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep --Alex⁹⁸⁹¹ 00:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. I didn't watch it enough. If she prefers to be referred to as a female, I think that makes her a transsexual, rather than a cross-dresser; especially with one of few conversations I saw from the show, where she and Nikki were in the Diary Room talking about he clothes on the she, or something like that. Basically, I think it should stay, assuming all that is correct. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone changed Sam from a pre-op transsexual to a transvestite because she has said she does not want a sex change. I changed it back to say transsexual because Sam isn't a transvestite and there is such a thing as a non-op transsexual. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should stay as that - transsexual. Unless others have a disagreement, or there's another, more neutral way to say what we mean. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 13:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Imogen sex tape

I don't understand why this was deleted? It's true and verifiable, and I tried to write it without being crude. I read the policy page to which I was referred but found couldn't see anything I had done wrong. 61.10.12.4 21:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not related to Big Brother. This page is about the hosemates time in the house. --Lorian^T_C 22:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So what about Mike Tyson and Aisleyne? --Alex⁹⁸⁹¹ 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not like I'm gonna go through the whole article looking for stuff that's not supposed to be there. Just because that's there doesn't mean this should. --Lorian^T_C 22:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If I'm being frank, I'm afraid I find that a ridiculous explanation. No more than half of each housemates entry is related to their time in the house and this is clearly noticeable whenever any self righteous person like yourself changes the page, and the edit is as valid as anything about Mike Tyson, Chris Isaak, or Pete's mother. Therefore I will be replacing it the next opportunity I get. 200.75.141.53 23:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good for you dude! --Alex⁹⁸⁹¹ 23:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there actually anything wrong with having this in the article? Did the fact that this thing is around the interweb have anything to do with Imogen being in the House? I just saw it, it is real. Hardest thing I've ever had to watch... --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 21:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

there is plenty wrong if it's inaccurate and I've removed it until it is established whether (A) it should be included (probably) and (B) it is correctly cited AND (C) it accurately reflects the content. "making love to an ex boyfriend" does not reflect the actuality. "performing various sex acts" would be more appropriate leaky_caldron 16:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's only worth going back into the article if the video was leaked due to her being in Big Brother, for whatever reason. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[5] --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 16:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Transexual

A Transexual is someone who has had a sex change operation.

Since Sam Brodie has not had the operation, she is considered as a Transvestite.

Regards

From Transsexual:

Transsexualism is a condition in which a transsexual person self-identifies as a member of the gender opposite to the one assigned to them at birth.

Transsexualism and sex reassignment therapy are not the same thing. You can be a transsexual without having had the sex change. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 10:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Transvestite/Transexual

Sam Brodie considers HIMSELF as Male, although prefers to be refered to as SHE. Since 'she' still has her bits, he is a transvestite. Not a trensexual. In whatever way you look at it, it's fact. Sorry!

I'm trying to state fact here, and not trying to be the 'top poster' as that is what it seems to me. Norfolkdumpling (talk • contribs)

Who's more Qualified?

Just wondering who is more qualified to say whether or not Sam Brodie is a Transexual or a Transvestite. I think it's myself, as I am myself, a 'Tranny'. Norfolkdumpling.

Please don't create more than one thread for the same subject unnecessarily. Unless there is something to suggest that Sam would rather be identified as a transvestite or a cross-dresser, she is a transsexual by definition. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 11:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello JD, We are not talking about what Sam would or would not prefer to be called. We are talking about what she actually is.

I would like to be called the Queen of England, but I can't have my way can I? Norfolkdumpling (talk • contribs)

Do you have anything to show that she is a transvestite, rather than a pre-operative transsexual? --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 11:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Hun, but she's a transvestite. Legally, now I have had the operation, i'm consered as a Transexual Man to Woman, and have to legally be reffered to as a woman. But before I started HRT treatment, and before I recieved my gender reassignment, I was legally reffered to as a male transvestite.

It's the same for her.

I know the ins and outs of the legal procedures, as I have been there, and contribute to various support groups. Norfolkdumpling (talk • contribs)

This isn't about legal ins and outs, it's about the word we're using in this article. The definition of the word transsexual in no way states that a person must have had sex reassignment therapy to be a transsexual, and transsexualism is merely a condition in which a person identifies as and assumes a permanent role of a member of the opposite sex. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 12:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Hun. this isn't about the legal ins and outs, this is about the classification of what she is. And transexual classification shows that she is a transvestite. Whether it be the Legal Classification, or not. Norfolkdumpling (talk • contribs)

I'll check the rules for myself Thanks

Don't need someone to keep telling me what I can and cannot, and HOW to post. Norfolkdumpling (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you should read WP:TALK and WP:SIG. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 11:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please stop putting your comments on the bottom of mine please. If you have something to say, please leave a clear gap in between them, so others can see there are two people discussing, instead of just one. Norfolkdumpling (talk • contribs)

Please don't remove other users' comments. The use of indents and signatures after comments is usually enough to see that more than one person is discussing something. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 11:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry hun, didn't realise I had deleted your comments. It's just you didn't indent a minute ago. Norfolkdumpling (talk • contribs)

I forgot to do it, that could by why you encountered an edit conflict. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 11:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Hun, not the most expert person when it comes to editing. Norfolkdumpling (talk • contribs)

Alright, I'm glad that for the most part we've remained calm and civil; it's probably best if the two of you stop edit warring, and instead try to talk out and resolve your differences. For one thing, I'm not sure if either of you have yet considered the policy angle, here, either verifiability or no original research -- two very important policies. Per WP:NOR, the dictionary definitions of these two terms are deprecated in the face of primary source material; that means we need to find a source calling the person in question a transvestite or a transsexual; in the event neither of the two statements can be appropriately sourced, then they both seem to fail WP:V. I'm happy to discuss this, further (if I'm missing discussion, feel free to drop off a note at my talk). Regards, Luna Santin 12:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Luna Hun,

I think that what JD is refering to is a pre-op transexual. Which Sam is not. You only become classed as a pre-op transexual when you are going through hormoanal therepy, physcological analysis and all the others things you have to go through before you all aload the op. You have to go on a 3 year course in the UK before you are aload the op, (It mau be longer in the US, not 100% sure on that) Norfolkdumpling (talk • contribs)

From Transsexualism:

Most transsexual men and women desire to establish a permanent social role as a member of the gender with which they identify. Many transsexual people also desire various types of medical alterations to their bodies. These physical alterations are collectively referred to as sex reassignment therapy and often include hormones and sex reassignment surgery. The entire process of switching from one physical and social gender presentation to the other is often referred to as transition, and usually takes several years.

This paragraph quite clearly says that most transsexual men and women desire to establish a permanent social role as a member of the gender with which they identify. Nowhere does it say that a person is not a transsexual if they choose not to pursue transitioning. Further down the same article, it says that the definition of the word transsexual is debated, but two medical associations have put forward definitions:

It is accepted in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders that expression of desire to be of the opposite sex, or assertion that one is of the sex opposite to the one with which they were identified at birth, constitutes being transsexual. [6] The ICD-10 also states that transsexualism is defined by "the desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by the wish to make his or her body as congruent as possible with the preferred sex through surgery and hormone treatment."

Again, these definitions nowhere state that a person must pursue, or express a will to pursue, the transition process in order to be regarded as a transsexual. I can accept this debate is valid only on the basis of there being no source or proof of whether Sam wishes to live her life as a woman or as a cross-dresser, but a few Google searches show that newspapers use the term transsexual or pre-operative transsexual a lot more frequently than the term transvestite. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 13:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi JD hun, yes, but we're talking about classification here. As I said, it's not what Sam wants to be refered as. Even though Sam has said that she is a MAN, but prefers to be refered to as she. We are talking about Classification, and when I was in Sam's position, this is how EXACTLY i was refered to. Before I started my psycological therapy, I was classified as a transvestite, as I was still a man, but wore womans cloths. Even though I felt like a woman inside, i was still a man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norfolkdumpling (talk • contribs) .

You don't need to start any sort of therapy to be a transsexual. If you can provide a source from a medical association that says otherwise, that'll be the end of this, assuming others agree with it. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 14:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, JD Hun, you do have you go through Psycoloical Therepy. I've been there. You have to go through the therapy for 3 years before they allow you to have any kind gender reassingment. It's to ensure that you're not going to change your mind after the operation. Because it HAS happened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norfolkdumpling (talk • contribs) .

What do the newspapers call this person? How were they referred to on the show? Those are the most important questions, for me. If reliable sources haven't consistently referred to this person using one or the either term, it would seem appropriate to either mention both terms, or find another (transgender, for example, which appears to be an umbrella term created specifically to solve debates like this one). One way or another, we need to start talking in terms of sources -- and per WP:NOR, that means sources which are specifically dealing with the context of this person. As encyclopedians, it's not our job to determine what this person is, but only to report what other people already consider him or her to be. Hope that makes sense. Luna Santin 21:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot more sources refer to Sam as a transsexual than as a transvestite. I don't actually know what Sam was referred to as on the show, if at all, but I think this newspaper report should help greatly in this conversation. The report says that Sam is a transsexual, and Sam herself says that she always uses womens' toilets; unless transvestites do this also. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 22:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Spiral have a record out?

I noticed in the Irish Singles Chart, there's a song called "Finglas" by Spiral. Is it the same person? It's at number 9 in the chart. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Very likely. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 16:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So is it article notable? --Alex⁹⁸⁹¹ 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't fit criteria. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 16:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But the song might. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is. Only one of the proposed guidelines apply to the song as far as I can see: Has appeared in the Top 20 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 17:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article would look something like this. :) :) :) -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look too bad... I still don't think it's worthy of inclusion though. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 17:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it'll reach number one :) Apparently it was released before but I can't find any details. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This does sound like him (although not a full-song length) and I seem to remember an episode where they said "turn over to E4 for BBBM with a music video from Spiral" at the end, unfortunately I was on holiday and didn't have E4 --Aceizace 00:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it to Finglas (song). -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we mention this in the article, especially considering it now has an article of its own? -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

why does it even have an article of it's own????? i'm amazed--Timdew 16:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Glyn broke his punisment?

I'm pretty sure that Glyn was not allowed to talk to the other housemates until after they'd chosen who'd go back in. After Nikki came back I positive the voiceover said "Glyn has been let out of the bedroom" and if so that means he must've been allowed to talk to the others, there was definately no mention that he has broken it. --Aceizace 23:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not being able to communicate wasn't his punishment... he just wasn't allowed to talk to them during his punishment. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I meant. I see you've fixed it, thanks for clarifying :-) --Aceizace 00:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Plastics

The following section about Richard is unworthy for a number of reasons:

He has nominated Imogen five times, and in two weeks he has nominated both Imogen and Glyn leading him to comment that he will be hated in Wales. He has also nominated Lisa, Grace, Sezer and Mikey, and has referred to those housemates as "the Plastics as I call them", and insult he has used in an argument with Imogen. The name 'the Plastics' is a reference to the clique in the Lindsay Lohan film Mean Girls. While in the House Next Door on Day 84 Richard said "Mean Girls is my favourite film", after Nikki said it was "not so bad being a Plastic".

firstly - why do we need to read who has has voted for so many times That's already in the Nomination Table.

second - The first time he is known to have mentioned the movie Mean Girls was on day 84. It is total speculation and WP:OR that his earlier references to "The Plastics" related to that movie. It doesn't actually matter that "it seems likley" or "its for certain" - it is against the WP:NOR policy.

finally - it is totally without significance, although maybe the Welsh comment could remain. leaky_caldron 09:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

in Richard interveiw with Davina on leaving the house they talked about the plastic and who they were etc and Richard said that he was talking about Mean Girls. He also assigned people in big brother name (which I can't remember) I think it was Regina George was Grace , Gretchin Weiner was Imogen and I can't remember who Karen was. But then Richard said that he thought they were all lovely now but he also said that Imogen wasn't smiling which caused a frosty one from her. Maybe shes seen all the bb footage! Hope this helped!

"starting with the most recent one to leave"

This was removed by Leaky Caldron with the reason "it isn't", but it is, isn't it? — FireFox ^(talk) _{13:23, 13 August '06}

Maybe he's taking into account the re-eviction of Grace, Nikki, and thingy. Even so, it'd still be is. Put it back, or change it to something else. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 13:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

seem to remember Imogen being the most recent to leave "properly". She's shown 4th after Mikey, Lea and Grace. They should be put back in the order in which they were originally evicted from the BB house, otherwise it's fairly meaningless leaky_caldron 13:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} — FireFox ^(talk) _{13:39, 13 August '06}

{{youfixit}} --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 13:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to look at the actual template: {{sofixit}}, you'd realise it existed, and it was directed at Leaky caldron anyway, who removed one sentence instead of re-ordering the housemates. — FireFox ^(talk) _{13:43, 13 August '06}

Oh, right... Sowwi. Who gonna fix it? --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 13:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

prefer to leave it to "experts" for 2 reasons; (1). they know what they are doing, (2) I don't want to get into edit wars. But it doesn't look right and also, M, L & G left at the same time - so it gives the reader an incorrect impression of chronology leaky_caldron 13:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest Leaky caldron fixed it, seeing as he came up with the suggestion in the first place, but it really doesn't matter. That's what {{sofixit}} is all about – fixing the article properly instead of taking the easy way out. — FireFox ^(talk) _{13:49, 13 August '06}

If I remember correctly, which I probably don't, Grace left after Mikey and Lea, and Lea went out first. That would make the order of incorrectness Lea, Mikey, and Grace. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 13:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

you talking about a diference of 0.5 second in leaving the door? leaky_caldron 13:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I said what I said because you said they left at the same time, and my way of reading it just made me think something overly unnecessary yet totally informative should be included. --JD ^{don't talk} _{email me} 13:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the leaving times of Grace, Mikey and Lea is so insignificant it doesn't really matter. I don't see why the whole article can't be in alphabetical order anyway but the consensus seemed to be this way so I didn't complain. — FireFox ^(talk) _{13:53, 13 August '06</sub}

Apologies in advance...

So, Sezer "is a former boxer, competing in white collar boxing". What, he joined one of Tyler Durden's Fight Clubs? :)

The removal of Big Brother 7 from Glyn's section

The words "Big Brother 7" should be included in Glyn's section, as on its own, although it makes sense, what is there now has no context. What did he come runner-up in? The fact that the article is for the seventh series is not a reason to not include these three words in his section. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 23:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

this article clearly states at the beginning the "Following is a list of the 22 housemates that participated in the seventh series of Big Brother UK, in reverse-order of eviction"--Timdew 23:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As I've said already, the fact that that is stated at the top of the article doesn't make it entirely clear further down. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 23:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

there isn't any need. it's not part of previous bb articles and i maintain this is CLEARLY implied by the article, there is no need to add a list of numbers . I mean why stop at sixth place?? if the figures are necessary for 1st to 6th why not 1st to 22nd?

Because there were only six housemates in the House when the Final was broadcast. More than anything, some might see it as a title: Runner-up of Big Brother 7, Winner of Big Brother 7. It doesn't read so well when it's just Runner-up and Winner. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 23:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

as usual you are riding roughshod over other editors when there is an edit conflict. we had started to discuss this and were still in the process of discussing this when you made changes to the section in question . that's just plain rude. you could at least have the manners to wait until this was resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. --Timdew 23:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the edit I made because the information had been removed from the section, and it should be there. The fact that I've inserted the information, and the fact that I've presented it in the way I believe is more suitable, does not mean I am not willing to continue this discussion. If you wish to change the wording of the text I re-inserted into the article, I'm not going to revert it back, as this discussion is here and I would like a decision to be reached by consensus, rather than by my own judgement. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 23:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

funny how you say that after you've done things the way you want. you aren't JD_UK in a different incarnation by any chance are you? i'm going to bed, this article will fade in obscurity over the next few weeks so it's hardly worth losing sleep over although I still believe that BB6 article has it right and this BB7 one is a bloated piece riddled with vanity posts. --Timdew 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like it, continue the discussion! I've done things the way I want them because that's the way I think it should be, but as I've already said, if you think that should change, I'm not going to reject all the changes you make. I didn't write it the way I think it should be written out of spite, but I'm not going to insert the information in a way that I wouldn't normally write it. I am JD UK, but I changed my username. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 00:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_Big_Brother_2006_housemates_%28UK%29_archive_7922.html"

Category: Talk archives

Talk:List of Big Brother 2006 housemates (UK)/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

New Pictures

WANTED: New screenshot of Shahbaz!

WTF?

Michael Cheshire

Redirects

Mach Test

What order are these in?

Pictures

Be Unbiased Please

Michael's Beliefs

Nikki's feeling towards Pete

Sezer arrested

Nikki-which image

Spiral

Nikki's article

Revertions

Jennie's education

Michael Cheshire Again

Sezer's "dream"?

Weasal Words

Sezer

Aisleyne

Merge?

Image alignment

Order

Section lengths

Image alignment

Grace

Sam

Imogen sex tape

Transexual

Transvestite/Transexual

Who's more Qualified?

I'll check the rules for myself Thanks

Does Spiral have a record out?

Glyn broke his punisment?

The Plastics

"starting with the most recent one to leave"

Apologies in advance...

The removal of Big Brother 7 from Glyn's section

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search