Talk:List of Big Brother 2006 housemates (UK)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Big Brother WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to Big Brother, and List of Big Brother 2006 housemates (UK) has been identified as one of these articles. Anybody can help the WikiProject by trying to improve existing articles. Please add your name to the list of participants, if you are committed to helping out.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Archive

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Featured Article

This is a well referenced article. If we can remove all the weasal words, we could get this to be a featured article. Triangle e 00:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pete's last name

I'm sure this has been discussed a lot previously (I can't be bothered to look in the archives), but I just looked up the BMD index on 1837online.com and it gives Pete's birth name as Peter Alexander Bennett, his mother's maiden name as Stephenson and his birth district as Camberwell. Just thought that might interest some people! -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • It was in the Daily Star on Sunday today that Pete's parents weren't married, so his mother's maiden name being Stephenson fits. Jess Cully 15:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • By the way, I haven't seen his birth certificate, the website gives a list of names, districts etc, with references for obtaining a birth certificate, just to clarify what I've seen and what I haven't seen. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll : Order of Michael and Spiral on this and other pages

Michael should appear before Spiral
  • Jess Cully 15:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC) The housemates are arranged in order of longevity in the game, ie in order of success. Michael and Spiral are tied on this criterion, so the tie should be broken by conventional alphabetical order. Michael comes first whether on surname or 'BB name'.
  • Michael got two votes and Spiral got one, would this not make sense to keep Michael before Spiral, as they we evicted jointly. Kind of like a goal difference thing for football tables - if you see what I mean Darrenhusted 20:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Spiral should appear before Michael
  • Alex talk here 15:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC) They should be in reverse alphabetical order, as that follows suit with the rest of the list.
Other
  • I think they should be in the order in which they left the house. talk to JD wants e-mail 15:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you mean Shahbaz first? --Alex talk here 15:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I meant out of Michael and Spiral, whoever stepped outside the House first should be further down the list. I know it sounds a bit over-the-topish, but I reckon it might help this and stay with the whole "reverse-order of eviction" thing. talk to JD wants e-mail 15:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Does anyone know, as I didn't actually see it? --Alex talk here 15:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I think Spiral walked out first, then Michael pushed in front of him after they were both out..? talk to JD wants e-mail 15:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The whole page should be in alphabetical order (by first name)
  • It makes the page much easier to read, it would prevent all this pointless debate on which order housemates are listed in, and it would make it much easier to find the housemate you're looking for if you're new to Wikipedia. — FireFox (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2006
    • I don't see how it makes the page much easier to read, but yes you have got a point - perhaps it should be alphabetical now the series is over. --Alex talk here 15:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, how about it...? --Alex talk here 19:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Well you know what I think, it should be in alphabetical order. — FireFox (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2006
          • I was getting used to it being the way it is now... If it is put in alphabetical order, could last names be removed and moved to the first line of each section? talk to JD wants e-mail 19:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's changed now. --Alex talk here 21:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I put the last names back because all links to this article include the last name. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • If I changed all the links, would there be any other problems with the last names being there? talk to JD wants e-mail 14:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
          • If you change all the links then I won't have a problem with the last names being removed again. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I'll do it when my internet connection isn't so slow then. talk to JD wants e-mail 14:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
            • It's not your internet connection, it's Wikipedia. However I would be in favour of keeping last names, they're doing no harm being there. — FireFox (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2006
              • If Wikipedia is having problems right now, I wouldn't be able to tell anyway; I definitely have a problem with my internet connection, it's really slow. talk to JD wants e-mail 14:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
                • This normally helps :) — FireFox (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2006
                  • I agree that the last names aren't doing any harm, I'm in favour of keeping them too. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
much better with the full names - and the pictures if possible. Wouldn't it have been better to have discussed their removal here, first? leaky_caldron 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
i agree, the page looked better before these substantial changes which should have been discussed first, as is required when we lesser mortals make changes--Timdew 20:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
you mean a "greater mortal" made these changes? Surely not the handiwork of an a**********r perhaps? leaky_caldron 20:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't think J Di was an administrator... — FireFox (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2006
lol, i don't believe he is either, but it's what he believes that's in question .--Timdew 20:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
so, not even a greater mortal then,just a mere mortal leaky_caldron 21:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well if someone would kindly point out who the "greater mortal" is, as leaky put it. — FireFox (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2006
the all seeing,all knowing, all powerful JD_UK aka JD I aka JD who keeps making substantial changes to this page without discussing it first as he requires everyone else to do unless they want to see his reverting stick --Timdew 21:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
So, please tell me, leaky, what is this "a**********r"? — FireFox (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2006
Because of my bad internet connection, I wasn't able to check my watchlist as often as I would normally; so I made the changes under the assumption that people were okay with it. I didn't know that other people were having disagreements about this until it was pointed out to me by somebody else, as I was doing the last few articles. talk to JD wants e-mail 20:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Makes you laugh doesn't it? I was simply trying to improve the readilbility of this section by breaking it into 2 separate parts and received the following warning (after only my first revert): "Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive." Yet you make wholesale edits without (by your own admission) an unsatisfactory level of discussion! Comments anyone? leaky_caldron 21:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I was giving you sufficient warning - you would have liked it much less if someone had blocked you without being given sufficient warning, correct? — FireFox (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2006
I'm sure you know from our previous exchanges that I am perfectly well aware of the rules. I take exception to being warned after my first reversion, especially in relation to a fairly innocuous edit on a mere talk page leaky_caldron 21:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment: so some editors can get away with this and others can't, that doesn't seem right somehow. How does that work?. Assume good faith, as an uber-editor reminded me recently --Timdew 21:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Stay civil please, everyone. Thanks, and good night :) — FireFox (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2006
speaking for myself, I am. Despite provocation leaky_caldron 21:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It was confirmed to be Bennett on that Big Brother catch up show that showed how they've been since leaving.

[edit] Removed images

Why were all the images of the housemates removed? I have put them back until a reasonable explanation is provided. --LorianTC 16:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There were too many fair use images on the article, and it's pretty difficult to claim that a limited number of images are in use when there are more than twenty of them. talk to JD wants e-mail 16:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
isn't "too many" in relation to fair use more to do with how great a portion of the original material is used. 20-something screen caps out of 13 weeks of 24 hour a day filming isn't a lot, (if that's the case).--Timdew 20:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't make the original decision to remove images from Big Brother articles; an administrator did, and he removed the images on BB05 and BB06 AU, leaving messages on the talk pages. talk to JD wants e-mail 20:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
which admin decided that for this page and where's his message for this page. you made the changes according to the revision history?--Timdew 20:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The message is in my e-mail inbox. talk to JD wants e-mail 20:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
how are the rest of us supposed to know this? you aren't the only editor on this page. If an admin has made this decision then surely he/she would consult/inform the rest of us as well as the self appointed managing editor--Timdew 20:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the greater part of this discussion is pointless. We've established why the images were removed, and complaining about the past (and lack or reasoning/communication?) will not make any difference. What's done is done. — FireFox (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2006

Greetings. I'm the administrator that removed the images on BB05 and BB06, and advised JD to do so here. I sent an e-mail to JD because his user page requested e-mail in lieu of talk page comments, but I don't want to leave anyone out of the discussion.

I sympathize with those who prefer the page with images of the various personalities, and it's too bad that U.S. copyright law makes it legally dicey to do so. Wikipedia policy forbids excessive use of copyrighted images in a single article, even invoking the "fair use" defense. I'd change the copyright law if I could, believe me. As a workaround, if anyone wants to create articles on the individuals involved, illustrating each with a single image from the show, then (assuming the articles are deemed "encyclopedic") this shouldn't be a legal problem. I hope this helps. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 12:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

pretty useless really since they are clearly only remotely notable as a collective, not as individuals and would remove the entire essense of the single article format adpoted for BB. I don't see how it's not fair use and think alternative sources of advice should be explored. I don't feel confident in the advice received leaky_caldron 22:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll just try and clarify this quickly for you, leaky :) {{tv-screenshot}} states "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots ... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." So basically, the number of screenshots being used in these articles qualifies as more than "a limited number", and therefore was probably copyright infringement. That is, I believe, the reason they were removed. Although not directly involved in the removal, I hope the explanation helps. — FireFox (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2006
It certainly helps to explain why the images should be allowed. The use of the screen shots is a "limited number" by 2 factors, the number of HMs (22) and the fact that that there is only 1 picture per HM. How much more "limited number" does it need to be? If, as inappropriately suggested, there could be 1 per HM on separate article pages, that amounts to exactly the same number, type and usage. As I said, I'm just not convinced by the advice I'm afraid. leaky_caldron 06:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Leaky you do have a good point, but maybe there is a limit to the number of fair use images on a page. --Alex talk here 09:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible to replace the images with a group shot of all of the housemates or, if that is not possible, a shot of one lot of housemates then in a separate image have a shot of another lot of housemates. This would identify them but only use one or two images. Tra (Talk) 00:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea. --Alex talk here 09:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Although there may be a problem with the pictures, I'm not going to try to go into detail, they add to the article and they're not commercial shots, they're just pictures of housemates. If this is not fair use, then a picture of a politician or an athlete shouldn't be fair use either. Geoking66 05:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The only reason fair use couldn't be claimed on these images is because of the amount used - the licensing tags that are put on television programme screenshots when people upload them clearly state that a limited number of images qualifies as fair use. This article had 22. J Ditalk 05:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There were a limited number of images. There were no more than 22 of them! -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Har. People on Wikipedia consider two or three fair use image to be a limited number. J Ditalk 11:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glyn & English

I removed the references to and descriptions of Glyn Wise's ability with the English language, versus his native Welsh. They were unnecessary, condescending, and vaguely crossed my mind as being pompously anglocentric. Those sorts of comments do not belong here. -- Andrew 00:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surnames

Surnames back then? J Ditalk 13:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think so. — FireFox (talk) 14:09, 02 September 2006

[edit] Split Nikki

I think Nikki could be split into her own article. The fact that she now has her own TV show (Princess Nikki) which she is star of (and it involves no one else) I think gives her sufficient notability to get her own article. I also think her relationship with the winner adds a small bit more to notability (though not as much as the show). Anyone else agree? - Рэдхот 15:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe. --Alex (talk here) 15:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal. --Alan Алан アラン 11:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no! Don't split Big Brother housemates, that's how terrible things like Mike Malin and Ivette Corredero get created where the only information on the article would be better placed in their section of the relevant Big Brother article. If an article about Nikki is what people want, they should create an article that doesn't speak only about her time in the House; it's meant to be about the person, not their time on Big Brother. What'd be wrong with a redirect to Princess Nikki or this article anyway? I don't think there'd be enough information to create an article just for her. J Ditalk 11:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I never said anything about her Big Brother info. I just have to propose it here anyway. And no matter what, it would have to have some info about her in the house. Just cause it's here doesn't mean it's excluded everywhere else. Having sufficient notability doesn't mean it has to have sufficient content that isn't already on Wikipedia. That's not what the criteria is. The criteria for what I'm proposing is just that she has sufficient notability not how good the article might be. And the problem with a redirect to this article from Princess Nikki is that they don't have a large enough direct connection to each other. - Рэдхот 13:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
You said that you think Nikki should be split into her own article, and I thought that by this you meant use the information here in an article about her, and then add to it. I didn't mean to say that everything about her time on Big Brother should be exlucded, but if an article were to be created, it shouldn't turn out like the two other articles I pointed out, where those articles are nothing more than descriptions of the housemates' time in the House. If something like the Nadia Almada article were doable, but obviously not with that amount of content, I myself wouldn't have any objections. J Ditalk 14:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
No. A stub would be fine, in place of a huge imbalance of Big Brother related content vs. everything else. References to Princess Nikki also could help make it easy to add more (but not all) BB content without causing noticable imbalance (after tomorrow). But I think we should come to a conclusive decision by the time Princess Nikki premieres tomorrow or I wouldn't be surprised if someone creates it anyway (since it's a redirect, an IP could even do it) - Рэдхот 16:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Since no one is outright objecting (since J Di has seemingly given a conditional support) I've made a stub. It's looked very strange having the infobox on Princess Nikki linking to Nikki Grahame which is redirecting here. Feel free to improve. - Рэдхот 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ivette Corredero

Noone questioned her notability in the deletion debate. J Di says that her article info mostly about her appearance in Big Brother. If we add info about other notable things she is involved with then can we bring her article back? Unitedroad 08:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You might have the wrong talk page... J Ditalk 08:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] aisleynes birthday

aisleynes birthday is the 28th of december confirmed on an interview on choice fm not 10th december as stated

[edit] Images

Can we all please agree to not use any images in the article unless all of, or a lot of, the housemates are in them? Having images for one or two of 22 housemates looks incredibly biased. J Ditalk 23:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It is biased. No images at all unless they are the user's creation. --Alex (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with you J Di. I already told the user in question that 22 images would not be fair use and any less that 22 would seem biased, and I suggested he give up trying :) -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lea the first mother of BB?

Lea is said to be the first mother to appear on the UK Big Brother. I'm pretty sure this is untrue. Were not some of the contestants in the early series mothers? David | Talk 14:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Which in particular were you thinking? --Alex (Talk) 15:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't actually thinking of one in particular. But what of Caroline (s1), Penny (s2), Lynne and Alison (s3)? David | Talk 15:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

nope none of them were mothers at the time of entering the big brother house, lea was the first (we were told by davina) this year there have been 3 mothers though, lea, susie and jayne

[edit] got/gotten

I've noticed a few attempts to use the word 'gotten' in the article. I've searched for the verb 'get' in Cambridge Dictionaries Online and according to that, 'got' is the only acceptable past tense form of the verb in UK English. 'Gotten' is US-specific. Since this article is about Big Brother in the UK, UK English should be used. Tra (Talk) 23:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to punch British people who say "gotten"! Grrrrrr — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You'll be pleased to know, I have GOT rid of it completely! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Why have the pictures of the housemates been removed?--195.93.21.138 13:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read this section. Thanks. jd || talk || 13:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed split of Glyn's section

I do not think splitting List of Big Brother housemates (UK series 7)#Glyn is a good idea as articles about individual people are meant to include information about them; they aren't meant to be about the subject's time on some game show that supposedly made them famous. If an article is going to be made about Glyn, it should be about him and why he is notable (somebody please explain to me how he is after reading WP:N), and splitting the section in this article is not needed for that. JDtalk 15:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

He's not notable, and the article shouldn't be split. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
as above, no split, not notable . -- 81.102.100.105 21:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Although, he does have his own media career now. I say split! 80.41.122.98 08:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting up article

I think the majority of these housemates ex-housemates now deserve their own articles. Please could someone put this into action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeipedia (talk • contribs)

Why do you think that? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
How do they? And what about the ones that don't? --Majorly (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa the plumber

Someone asked for a citation that Lisa became a plumber. It was shown in that programme that followed the housemates after the series (Winner's Week?). I hope that helps. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split Aisleyne?

Should Aisleyne be split now? She still regularly appears in newspapers and magazines - often now without the BB tag, as well as her radio show.86.148.201.146 17:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer has and will always be NO as she is still another desperate ex-reality TV star scraping the barrel of celebritydom who will be forgotten in a few years time like almost every one of the first series contestant.
Basically for one straightforward answer, still not notable enough. Dr Tobias Funke 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd say she was as notable as Makosi, who did little after the initial post-BB6 press, yet has her own article. I think the continued press coverage that Aisleyne receives warrants an article. She's been top of the Celebdaq dividends for BB7 housemates for months, beating even Pete and Nikki.86.144.141.49 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
To reply to above, isn't Makosi just about pretty much forgotten apart from her campaign to stay in the UK, whilst scraping the barrel of celebritydom. Also not to mention that the Aisleyne page has in fact been nominated for AFD once and the result for that was redirect. Also, don't forget that Makosi has now been nominated for AFD. Dr Tobias Funke 17:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Issues from George

The one about George committing necrophilic crime REALLY needs to be backed with some hard facts. That is a very gross and heinous crime, and if it is not true, it is complete slander. PLEASE back it with hard facts! Until then, I am removing the section. Arbiteroftruth 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I never heard anything about it. Sounds a bit far-fecthed to me. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 18:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jennie's Carcrash

I removed the little paragraph about Jennie's car crash, because it didn't quite seen worded correctly. "Jennie servived by pure luck" being an example of this. Feel free to add it again, just try to make it sound a bit better! Paul Norfolk Dumpling 18:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You could have improved yourself it instead of just removing it... -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I could have done, but I thought I should give the original author a chance to edit it themselves. Seems only fair. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 18:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You could've tagged it with {{fact}} or {{cleanup}}, or informed the original editor. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's easy to say "Could've done this, or could've done that", but I didn't. It's done now. Over. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 19:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph was added in this edit by Carebearwithfangs (talk · contribs) who is currently inactive, so it is unlikely that they would be able to reword it themselves. Tra (Talk) 20:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What type of Tranny is she?

This doesn't make sense to me! Sam has said that she/he does not intend on having a sex-change operation. So how can she be a 'Pre-op transexual'? She isn't pre-op anything! She's a transvestite. Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but it seems a bit odd to me.

Any comments on this? Paul Norfolk Dumpling 18:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The previous discussion is at Talk:List of Big Brother 2006 housemates (UK)/archive#Transexual, if you want to have a look. Tra (Talk) 20:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spiral Drumming?

There is no evidence of this being true. The only place this is documented is on YouTube, which in turn refers to this page as authority! Any attempts to validate this rumour merely results in bouncing between that site and this. Because of this, and the fact that the only similarity between the featured drummer and Spiral is the ownership of a hat, I have deleted this remark until further evidence can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.65.94 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)