User talk:Dalejenkins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IF YOUR MESSAGE IS RELATED TO IMAGES, PLEASE POST IT HERE

Contents 1 Michael Jackson 2 Big Brother 7 3 Category removal 4 RE:Wikiproject Apprentice 5 James Max 6 Moving The Apprentice 7 Reverting Ruth Badger 8 Shilpa Shetty 9 The Apprentice 10 VANDALISM ACCUSATION 11 Trinny Woodall 12 Paul Holt 13 DYK 14 Apprentice related articles 14.1 Unreliable source in Comic Relief Does The Apprentice 14.2 Inclusion of The Apprentice UK template on Comic Relief 14.3 Replaceable fair use images 14.4 Edit summaries 15 Complaint 16 Image:Dan2.jpg 17 Thanks for the recent message. 18 Removal of tags 19 Apprentice 3 candidates

[edit] Michael Jackson

Re. your "weasel" template, this has been removed as you left no guidance on the talk page. If you replace it, please give as many specific instances as possible to help other editors. I'm not editing this article. I'm just an admin who's keeping an eye on it because it's been stormy, so please exercise tact if you join in. Thanks. Tyrenius 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother 7

Stop redirecting Big Brother 7 to Big Brother 2006 (UK). The article you keep redirecting the disambiguation page to is not going to be what everybody is looking for if they are searching for "Big Brother 7". Please read Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Thanks. J Di ^talk 21:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please also stop changing other redirects like Diary room to Big Brother UK articles. Big Brother UK isn't the most notable series of Big Brother, and the term Diary Room is used in many others. J Di ^talk 13:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category removal

Hi, Dalejenkins. Is there any particular reason why you blanked the category Category:The Sarah Jane Adventures producers and removed the category from pages that included it? If you think the category should be deleted, the appropriate course of action is to list it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, following the procedure listed on that page. I'm not aware of any discussion having taken place for this category. Please do not attempt to delete categories without discussion. Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Wikiproject Apprentice

Thanks for the offer, I'll look into it. For future reference, please put new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks - • The Giant Puffin • 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I was about to come over and say the same thing... it's good practice to always leave new messages at the bottom of talk pages! Cheers, _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dale. My only input was in regard to Celebrity Apprentice, supposedly being done for Comic Relief. The celeb articles were put in Category:Apprentice UK, which logically was wrong. Celebrity Apprentice should be in Category:Apprentice UK and the celeb articles in Category:Celebrity Apprentice. That way they link to Category:Apprentice only through Category:Celebrity Apprentice. Logically, connecting directly to Category:Apprentice UK should mean that they are connected directly to that programme, taking part as contestant, have a screen credit or applying Sugar. Good idea to seek consistency in articles which link to a common theme, if only in their treatment of the theme - compare and contrast the celeb articles which link to Category:Celebrity Apprentice to see what I mean. Guy 14:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Max

I noticed that somebody removed the redirect you put on this page and added content in its place. Does that count as vandalism? RedRollerskate 22:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving The Apprentice

Dale, I have just reverted your move of The Apprentice to The Apprentice (US TV series). Aside from leaving multiple redirects all over the place, before renaming or moving a Wikipedia article, you should use the article's Talk page to discuss whether or not the Wikipedia community agrees with the move; otherwise this may trigger edit wars, break article links, or cause other problems. In this case, your move went completely against the previous consensus (see Talk:The Apprentice) which was for The Apprentice to remain in place, despite Bravedog's undiscussed move to The Apprentice (US TV series). Don't get me wrong - the move may well be a good idea, and I'd tend to support a proposal to host a disambiguation page at The Apprentice, but such a proposal must gain consensus before it can be carried out. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to your message on Image talk:ApprenticeBadger.jpg _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Ruth Badger

Dale - regarding this edit you made to Ruth Badger. You appear to have blanket reverted quite significant changes to the article, without explanation or posting on the talk page, and even marking this pretty major change as minor. I have therefore undone your change. If there are specific problems with the article as it stands, I suggest you make small changes to the area(s) which concern you. In particular, I'd like to point out that dates should be formatted as (eg) January 1, 2007 rather than 1-1-2007 which is ambiguous. Also, since you chose to merge The Big Idea with Ruth Badger's article, it is not appropriate for this section to be so exessively long. If you feel The Big Idea merits so much detail, then I would suggest it should never have been merged in the first place and should remain a separate article. The article on Badger should be, primarily, about her, and any mention of The Big Idea needs to be primarily about her involvement in it. Please discuss any future major changes on the talk page, and do not mark them as minor. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shilpa Shetty

why did you delete the text in the shilpa shetty article?? did you actually read the reference and external link site?? tell me //matrix17

sound more like an bad excuse and an explaination. you should act before you read the references and external links. and i think you know it./matrix17

[edit] The Apprentice

Please don't post nonsense on my user page. If I touched anything related to the Apprentice UK, it was inadvertent, and a byproduct of my AWB edits. Also, comments should go at the bottom of a user page. Evan Reyes 21:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a chance. That was a copy-edit months ago with no regard to the content of the page. Nobody could look at that edit and think I was interested in the content of the Apprentice UK. Evan Reyes 22:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please post at the bottom of talk pages, and please do not include fair use images outside the article namespace as this is a violation of the fair use policy, criterion 9. Thank you, mattbr³⁰ 22:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you could see from my edit that I wasn't concerned with the content of the article, just fixing a few typographical errors. Evan Reyes 20:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

regarding this edit, it would be a very naive assumption that just because a user edits an article (particularly when they make minor grammatical changes) that they are necessarily interested in the subject of that article. I have edited a total of 4547 distinct pages and I can assure you I'm not interested in all of those subjects. A vast number of editors help out with cleanup tasks, on a number of articles, not just those they are particularly interested in. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VANDALISM ACCUSATION

Hello, you publicly accused me of vandalism, which is a lie. I don't appreciate your lies, and I hope that you use more care and diplomacy for your Wikipedia interactions in the future. I see that you have left messages on many other users' pages, so perhaps you were just joking with people. Either way, I don't appreciate it and would like an apology. Fstutzman 05:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have further investigated your accusation, and the "vandalism" you accuse me of was actually added by 81.132.91.128 and was simply caught in an accidental revert. Do your homework before you go accusing people of vandalism. I'm trying to help and now I have a big CAPS accusation of vandalism on my talk page. Thanks a lot you twit. Fstutzman 05:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trinny Woodall

Hi there, I was just wondering what the tag on the Trinny Woodall talk page means. What does it aim to achieve and what needs to be improved? Keep up the good work. Many thanks Eagle Owl 21:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I see, so just adding her actions during the show. Where would the sections need to be added: to the Trinny Woodall page or Celebrity Apprentice page? Prior to this, I've added a link to the official red nose day website showing who is involved which is a start.

I will definately contemplate joining the project, but I don't tend to commit myself as such. I will have a think though. Many thanks Eagle Owl 22:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I will certainly help with the Trinny Woodall and Maureen Lipman articles as I'm involved in those page anyway. Regards Eagle Owl 22:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Holt

Why did you redirect the Paul Holt article to the X Factor without any explanation? This issue has been discussed before and there was no consensus reached on whether the article should be kept or not. If you still believe that the redirection/merge should go ahead, please discuss it first or please could you elaborate for me why you went ahead without such consultation. Thanks. ^Tom_Phil 00:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 8 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Timothy Campbell, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 14:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apprentice related articles

Dale - several things:

[edit] Unreliable source in Comic Relief Does The Apprentice

Regarding this edit to Comic Relief Does The Apprentice, which I have reverted on several occasions. The phrase which you are adding is pure speculation, and has no place in an encyclopedia. The phrase you are using "this has led some fans to believe" is not encyclopedic and is directly in contravention of our policy at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Some people probably think Tony Blair will resign next month, but that's no reason to add that sentence to his article unless we have a reliable, and verifiable source. Speaking of which, your reference Celebrity Apprentice-Tim to be a "mentor"? is completely inappropriate to be cited in an encyclopedia article - it is the view of a few un-notable individuals in an online forum. That is original research and cannot be cited here (see Wikipedia:Attribution). Again, consider the scenario that I post on an online forum that I think Tony Blair may appear in Comic Relief Does The Apprentice - that would be no reason to update this article, citing my quote as a source. It's simply not reliable and Wikipedia is not the place for fan's views. Please do not add this statement again.

[edit] Inclusion of The Apprentice UK template on Comic Relief

Here's a copy of the message I posted on Talk:Comic Relief... please do not continue to add this template there without further discussion. Regarding the repeated inclusion of {{The Apprentice UK}} template by User:Dalejenkins - I see no good reason for that template to be included in this page. The template should be about connecting articles directly related with The Apprentice UK - of which Comic Relief is not. This article is about Comic Relief as a charity organisation. The role of the Apprentice in that has only been one special edition show in 2007. Imagine if every TV programme, which had ever made a Comic Relief special, were to include Comic Relief somewhere on their template - this article would be unusable! Let's not start a precedent...

PS - I have started a discussion at Template talk:The Apprentice UK suggesting the removal of this template from all of the celebrity articles to which it links _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 09:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use images

We have discussed previously use of fair use images - namely that per the first criteria of our policy fair use images may only be used if no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. I have therefore tagged both Image:Saira khan.jpg and Image:Tim campbell.jpg which you uploaded, for deletion, since these images are being used to illustrate articles on the individuals concerned - and we could create a free image to be used instead. Please do not upload further fair use images without first referring to the our policy.

[edit] Edit summaries

Please make better use of edit summaries when you make contributions to Wikipedia. Edit summaries (completing the text field under the main edit box) should briefly provide information about what you've changed and why. They're very useful for people reviewing a pages history, your contributions, changes on their watch lists, or for administrators patrolling recent changes for vandalism. It's good practice to always leave an edit summary - and I notice you hardly ever do. See Help:Edit summary for more info.

I hope you'll take on board all of the above. Many thanks, _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 09:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint

Dear UKPaolo. I do not need to be rude, but why are you trying to destroy the hard work of myself and others regarding articles such as Comic Relief Does The Apprentice? Myself and other members-most of them members of WikiProject The Apprentice UK-have been working hard trying to build up and establish articles and templates like these and suddenly you make drastic changes that quite frankly butcher the articles without even consulting the talk page involved or the WikiProject talk page. I find this quite an insult to not only mine, but other user's hard work. If you are interested in the subject please join the WikiProject, as I invited you to before. Hopefully, you, myself and the rest of the members can vote/decide/agree to disagree on what edits should be made to what articles. As I said at the beggining, I do not mean to be rude. Thank you for your co-operation on this matter. I trust that you will reply on my talk page. Regards, Dalejenkins 18:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dale, I have not tried to destroy anyone's hard work, merely to make improvements to Wikipedia, which is what I trust you are doing here as well. Regarding my edits, I have left an explanation above, and opened a discussion at Template talk:The Apprentice UK. Regarding my edits to Comic Relief Does The Apprentice, I have left appropriate edit summaries to express why I changed content. If you disagree, please do not blanket revert. If there are individual things you would like re-added, then please re-add them, along with justification as to why they are necessary. References such as the Radio Times, frankly, are not, and nor are sources which are speculative when a final contestant list has now been published by the BBC. Regards, _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

PS, I have no interest in joining the WikiProject - it's a personal opinion of mine, but I don't see a use for them for articles such as this. I can edit things I'm interested in without a need for joining a project. As I said, that's a personal opinion, and I'd in no way discourage you from organising the project. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dale - in light of your comments, I have provided an explanation for my changes at Talk:Comic Relief Does The Apprentice. As I said there, please do not blanket revert, but instead re-add or change back the particular things you disagree with (preferably discussing your reasoning there, first). If you'd like any further explanation, feel free to leave me a message. Many thanks, _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 19:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dan2.jpg

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia needs a source by which it can be demonstrated that this is an official image and not a fake; a blog is not a sufficient source. Absent such a source, this image will be deleted. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please discuss here before any attempt to return the image to the article. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thus far, all your sources are social networking sites with no editorial oversight. I'll leave the image up during the discussion, but we still need an official source that this image is an official release. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 22:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dan2.jpg has been deleted. Please see here for incontrovertible proof that it's a fake, and this overlay proving it's the identical image and not a different pose. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the recent message.

Hey thanks for the recent invitation to the 'Apprentice UK Wikiproject', i will take into consideration for signing up to it. mickyfitz13 ^Talk 15:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of tags

Dale, please do not remove "replaceable fair use tags" as you did here. If you disagree that the image is replaceable, you should add the template {{Replaceable fair use disputed | Your reason why a free replacement is not available}} to the page, and the closing administrator will decide whether the image be deleted. There's a backlog of images at the moment, but that's no reason to remove the tag just because the date has passed. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apprentice 3 candidates

I'll do a re-write of the candidates (due to your copy-paste job discovery). Dalejenkins 17:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dale. Only just noticed the copyright violation, and don't have a chance to replace it with anything better myself at the moment. At least [1] can be used as a reliable source to be referenced in any re-written description. This BBC news article may also prove useful as a good reference, as might [2], [3], [4], [5] - all recent press articles. Cheers, _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)