Talk:Samuel Preston (singer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Samuel Preston (singer) article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
The Big Brother WikiProject aims to improve articles relating to Big Brother, and Samuel Preston (singer) 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.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] The Ordinary Boys

have added some info on them. didnt know much, so its kind of a reworded version of the original ordinary boys article. LiAm McShAnE 16:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now See What All You Vandals Have Done?

This page has had to be locked due to all the vandalism. Is there no one out there - amongst reality TV junkies, readers of Heat magazine, or wannabe Mods or Madness fans who were born twenty years too late - who actually doesn't hate this little man? What has poor wee Preston done to merit all this abuse? OK, he can't sing, he's in a crap and failing band, and in a desperate bid for fame ("It worked well for Kenzie last year") he went on CBB and threw himself into his one and only chance of minor fame via a trashy romance with a dull, stupid but essentially inoffensive and harmless bimbo. Yes, he's small; yes, he's got goggle eyes; yes, he's a strange, ugly little Thunderbirds puppet of a man... but come on, is he any worse than any other Z list wannabe out there? Why is he so hated? Imagine how he must feel when he reads this every night. He'd have that same torn little face he had on the Buzzcocks program. So come on people, give him a break.


[edit] Not Really Much To Say About Preston, Is There?

shouldn't there be more focus on his music career rather than merely a summary of his two weeks or so in Big Brother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliofly (talk • contribs)

Yeah I agree. There's more info about CBB4 on here, than there is on the actual CBB4 page on Wikipedia! The article might as well be re-named as 'Samuel Preston on Celebrity Big Brother 4.'

Considering the bulk of his 'fame' comes from Big Brother, I have no problem with this article focusing mainly around that. --^pirate 15:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Lots of this article should be copied and pasted onto the CBB page. It's odd that on the CBB page their is relatively little info on CBB4, however, once you click on Samuel Preston there is loads more info about it

this says fuck all about the guys music career

What music career? Jacob 15:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Alot of his fame comes from marrying that girl um... the famous one. Elmo 21:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You could mention that he shortened his name to Preston from Samuel Preston to mimick Morrissey's doing the same

[edit] "Cock Boy"

I have removed the reference to Preston being called "Cock Boy" whilst at Worthing Sixth Form College. Whilst I've no doubt it was probably the case, the claim was unsubstantiated and therefore had to be treated as vandalism. Can anyone validate the Cock Boy name with a valid source? - if so, we can add it again.


I (sadly) went to that college. I don't specifically remember Cock Boy being used, although it may have. I did think he was a twat though.

I have one of his old teachers, tis true my friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.144.112 (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You get a fucking viable source, mate, and you can stick whatever you fucking like in there 172.200.11.35 (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do Z List Celeb Wannabes Merit Entries on Wikipedia?

What is this guy actually doing on Wikipedia? He's a celeb magazine z-lister. The detailed description of his adventures in the BB house read like some 9 year old's school report. This is absolutely worthless trivia about some goggle-eyed little man whose pop career is already well behind him. If Wikipedia is going to contain references to every wannabe who clambers on to our limitless TV reality shows, then it might as well contain individual biographies of everyone living in the UK. I have therefore made appropriate changes.

The stuff about his career being solely about appearing in magazines etc. doesn't seem very impartial.

Well, given that his band had virtually no mainstream success or media coverage until his appearance on BB, it's obvious that his pop career is a direct spin-off of a reality TV show and quite without merit in its own right. However, I am prepare to let the amended entry stand as it is.

Having a grandparent who taught at Princeton University is not noteworthy, unless the lecturer was famous and can be cross-referenced. Otherwise, should every Princeton lecturer be on Wikipedia?

The connection with Philadelphia was superfluous (does it matter, for instance, if this guy returns to Blackpool every year?), as is the gratuitous mention of another, non-famous rock band.

I've removed the reference to Ordinary Boys' recent chart "success" - if it can be called that - as they have their own page. Also, the Never Mind The Buzzcocks episode looked as if it had been written by an 11 year old fan, if not Preston himself, so I've changed it to what actually happened.

I've also removed the rant about Amstell. If anything, it's about Amstell not Preston, so should go onto Amstell's entry, not here. Wikipedia is not a fansite, nor should it be used for promoting commercial artists. Preston has flogged his story to every celeb magazine going since his CBB appearance, and doesn't need gushing fan literature posted on this site.

-- The rant should definitely appear on this page, its about Amstell but said BY PRESTON, hense it should be atributed to him! as for the rant about fan literature i've no idea what your talking about!Soot and stars 13:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's just a long quote off the radio and has no place in an encyclopedia. Preston's opinion on Amstell, like his opinion on global warming or the war in Iraq, belongs in a TV or newspaper interview, or on his blog if he has one - it doesn't have to be quoted verbatim here. The notable thing about the Never Mind The Buzzcocks episode was his storming off in a huff, which made him a national laughing stock. Otherwise, he hasn't really been in the public eye since his wedding or done anything else of note as an individual. This isn't a fan site, and he's not a solo artist. The Ordinary Boys have a page that deals with Preston in his capacity as a singer. Outside the Ordinary Boys, he ranks alongside the likes of Jade Goody's boyfriend, Jack.

-- it's not my fault his fame comes largely from a reality tv show, yes he is a complete arrogant twat but never the less he still warrents a page on wiki due to his notable fame, the quote adds interest to the above story and bulks out his page a bit.. however i can't be bothered to re-add it as im up against an over zealous reverter.. come on you think Preston would be in a real enyclopedia? thats the great thing about wikipedia its allows a certain sense of pop culture to permiate what is in reality a high culture persuit. if i was you i'd chill out a bit and not let the increasingly meaningless persuit of celebrity worry you so much! Soot and stars 20:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he even rates as an arrogant twat, he's just a non-entity who latched himself onto the winner of a reality TV show and therefore doesn't merit any wasted space on Wiki. By all means, add to the Ordinary Boys entry while they are still in business if you're desperate to pander to pop culture, but this individual is just a z-list celeb wannabe. There are thousands like him out there, all willing to sell their souls for an appearance in Heat magazine - and none of them are worth a mention. Famous for being famous isn't a reason for having an entry here, and this site is not to be used to promote artists or individuals. So, it's not a case of chilling out, it's a case of just sticking to the facts - and there's nothing really to say about this guy.

I've removed the earlier reference to him sucking a "big cock" backstage at Never Mind the Buzzcocks, which was probably untrue.

Once more, sycophantic fan comments have had to be rewritten.

I have deleted the reference to descent from Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey because it is not referenced. Can anyone point to some published sources confirming this? Christina Kaye 17:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the last paragraph worthy of Wikipedia? Can an experienced editor make a judgement on this please? Christina Kaye 17:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it as it was unsourced. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet again some little Preston fan has been trying to talk their idol up with the "I would have hit him" comment. I have removed this trivia.

Given what a complete and utter arse the guy made of himself on the Buzzcocks program, I would have thought his fan(s) would have rather the incident went unreported altogether.

-- Let me dish out a piece of advice to anyone who thinks adding anything new or interesting to this page is worth it... don't bother.. as i have already found this is one of them unfortunate wikipedia articles that has an "owner" someone who looks at it all day clicking refresh, immediately removing anything put forth that they themselves have not writtern, so with great sadness i suggest we declare this article "closed"? Soot and stars 16:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone explain what a chud is (as refered to in the first paragh)

A Chud is a colloquial term for the male genitalia whereby the width of said member is approximately four times the lenght. Hope that helps!

Soot and Stars - how can anyone add anything new or interesting to this article? The guy is a nothing, an absolute little shit who'd do anything, go anywhere, appear in anything and marry anyone for a bit of fame. If you're a Preston fan, I'm sure he's set up his own website somewhere where you can go into great detail about what he thinks of Simon Amstell etc etc etc. BORING. Get over it.

Oh, and a CHUD is a cannibalistic human underground dweller. Don't you people know ANYTHING about popular culture?

What's this bit about him being Lembit Opik's love bunny, any sources to back this up?

They used to be an item a few years back and there's a ground swell of opinion that the marriage to Chantelle is a sham and he's still bumming Lembit Nervousbear 15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC) NervousBear

- The Lembit Opik stuff is just vandalism and probably libellous and has been removed. The nonsense about Preston threatening to knock someone out is has been removed as it is 1) the kind of crap that belongs on a fan site, not here and 2) utterly ridiculous, as if this little shit of a man could knock anyone out... or punch his way out of a wet paper bag.

I've corrected the NMTB episode once more to include the word "huff" - which is what the sulky, humourless little twat stormed out in.

quick question, if you hate Preston so much why are you on this page 24/7 making sure everthing thats on it is constructed by you? i already know what you reply is going to be... something about "fan sites"??? what is your ungodly obsession with the words "fan site" why would a "fan site" put insults about its subject within its content? are you mental? if any ones qualified to make a "fan site" about Preston it is clearly you! you know EVERYTHING about him! Soot and stars 11:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Soot and Stars, your obsession with Preston and exploring every little detail of his life seems to need an outlet, but this is not actually what Wikipedia is for. This is the crucial point you seem to be missing. Why don't you start your own blog about Preston? That way, you get to give voice to your deep rooted feelings about him, but no one needs to read it.

Sorry what? i edited this page once, and i've stuck around because i find it funny talking to you! as ever you didn't answer any of my questions, i never argued that Wikipedia was for "every little detail" my questions were why are you on this page 24/7 and what is your obsession with the words "fan site", whats even funnier is after i mentioned this obsession you changed tact and used the word "blog" to replace your favourite "fan site"! lol.Soot and stars 10:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Blog, fan site.... it's all good. Forgive me my suspicions, but I have this nagging feeling that you are actually Preston, desperately trying to eek out whatever is left of your 15 seconds of fame by trying to "big" yourself up on Wikipedia and desperate to put a positive spin on your disasterous Buzzcocks appearance. Tell me Soot and Stars... are you perhaps 4'11", with goggle-eyes, tiny shoulders and a head as big as your body, awful tattoos, a bimbo reality celeb wife and the lead singer of a pretty awful Madness tribute band whose last single was a flop? Well... are you? I think we should be told...

Yes... im preston... good one. Now we've moved on from that moment of sheer comedic bliss perhaps we should talk about the burning issue...

  • Yet again some little Preston fan
  • Once more, sycophantic fan comments
  • Wikipedia is not a fansite
  • and doesn't need gushing fan literature
  • kind of crap that belongs on a fan site
  • Why don't you start your own blog
  • If you're a Preston fan
  • I'm sure he's set up his own website

Now if that isn't someone with deep rooted dementia i don't know what is! im actually worried about you.. people can help you do you know that? You claim to hate Preston WHY ARE YOU CONSTANTLY ON THIS PAGE? please please answer the question please! Soot and stars 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Soot and Stars, please... calm down. Here on Wiki there are many of us who edit and revert content pages both to remove vandalism and to prevent self-promotion, fan material, useless trivia building up etc. That's what we do. There is no dementia involved, I can assure you. But what about you? What is it you actually want to add to the Preston page that has got you in this state? If it's not abusive, and it's not trivia, hearsay or nonsense about Preston knocking people out (lol) - and it's not actually Ordinary Boys information - then please share it with us.

[edit] Indie rock band?? Please...

Someone changed the category of the Ordinary Boys to "indie rock band". This is hilarious and obviously meant as a joke, but represents vandalism. They are essentially a Madness tribute band and can be classed (at best) as a faux-Mod group. I have reverted this.

- Please do not associate Madness, one of Britains best-loved & original ska band with these music & performing arts school talent vacuum twats. TOB are only a tribute to utter shite.

[edit] Preston is an idiot

i see someone has sneakily put this comment on just below the references. this comment is not supported by reasoning or a reference. i don't doubt it, it's in the wrong section of the article though.

any evidence to support this claim?

It was vandalism so I removed it. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Oboe

Preston does play the trumpet and the oboe in the album brassbound, it's in the sleevenotes. I'm not sure how to reference sleeve notes. The oboe is probably not pink, that was a typo on my part.

Well I'll trust you on that, but you do know what "pink oboe" means don't you? — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I've heard of pink oboes before but there doesn't seem to be an article on wikipedia or indeed any articles on pink oboists so I can't be sure.
Well playing the pink oboe (or similar) is a slang term for fellatio so you can understand why I reverted you. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
My goodness, such a talented musician as Preston would have no trouble picking it up I'm sureHermanzegerman 15:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yes

I've been out of the UK for two years and have no idea who this person is. I would like to say, though, that I agree with the majority of the writings above. Sachabrunel 20:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Two years? Don't even bother trying. I've been LIVING here all this time and I haven't the foggiest who this guy is, other than he might be somehow romantically involved with Jordan (who I could also care less about). Though maybe that was someone else. Guess it doesn't help that I couldn't give a toss for Big Bro. Can't see why he warrants inclusion in an encyclopaedia - is there some WP spinoff that works sort of like Who's Who but with a bigger complement of personalities? -- tahrey 22/4/07

edit: have read the actual article. seems he's in the ordinary boys, who i best remember for being subjected to a "mash up" of one of their songs with "Baggy Trousers" by madness, and you really can't see the join... yawn. PS is the sidebar SUPPOSED to say they're a "scat pop" (!!) band, or is this just vandalism???

[edit] Earl Grey

There is no TalkPage Comment, only one from YOU Christina. Pages often contain info about person's background (from Brad Pitt; "is of English ancestry") or famous relations (Laila Morse; "sister of actor Gary Oldman". I really don't see your problem, its referenced, interesting, and was widely reported at the time. What have you got against the fact? --UpDown 18:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually there are a lot of comments above about how the article should focus on Preston's music career and his Big Brother noteworthiness. But my main objection is that it goes against some of the core Wikipedia policies. Please see Wikipedia:Five pillars, which states: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs.... Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher". I think its pretty clear that this kind of information belongs elsewhere - a fan site perhaps. Christina Kaye 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
No I disagree. All biographies also contain what might be classed as "trivia", as shown by the Brad Pitt and Laila Morse links. Background information is important, and this is just that. I'm really failing to see why you object so much, its not link I'm putting in a trivia section, I'm incorportating this within the background paragraph. --UpDown 08:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I care so much about this, because incorporating irrelevant trivia into articles cheapens the whole project. Its a really important principle. Have you read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia? Can you, hand on heart, really say that this kind of stuff belongs in an encyclopaedia article? Can you imagine Encyclopaedia Britannica or the Dictionary of National Biography including this kind of trivial detail? Citing other articles which ignore core Wiki policies is not really a defence. Please can you help the project by keeping the information concise and relevant, as I'm sure you have much that's useful to contribute. Thanks, :) Christina Kaye 11:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I can say it's as relevant as what school he went to, or Brad Pitt's ancestry. Background sections often include famous family links or heritage (ie John Inman being Josephine Tewson's cousin; Clive Dunn being Gretchen Franklin's cousin), and I really can't see the problem here. One simply line stating his descent from a Prime Minsiter (like a similar line on Helena Bonham Carter's page regarding Asquith) does not harm as certainly does not "cheapen" the project. What does that is remove perfectly legitimate information because you don't like it. --UpDown 15:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not that I don't like the connection to Earl Grey (which as far as I am concerned is completely harmless, and no doubt of interest to a few people), its that its inclusion here, along with the amazingly irrelevant fact that Preston stormed out of a tv show, seems to contradict Wikipedia policies and guidelines on trivia.
  1. You need to persuade editors that these facts are not trivial... but preferrably not just by citing yet more examples of articles which have got away with dodgy content.
  2. We are dealing with a relation 7 or 8 generations away - not a close relation as in most of your examples. Grey had 13 children, most of whom themselves had large families. He probably gave rise to between 50,000 and 100,000 direct descendants, dozens of whom have Wikipedia entries. Clearly it would be mad to include a mention of him in all of their articles.
  3. By extension - Preston (through Grey & his wife) is presumeably descended from a large number of famous characters - William the Conqueror and the prophet Mohammed to name but two. Yet again, it would make a nonsense of the article to include all of them. Can you imagine Prince William's entry if it was considered appropriate to mention the thousands of his direct ancestors who are well-known?
  4. Everyone would agree that Preston's education belongs in a biography of him. It is part of his life story and helped make him who he is. The comparison with family history trivia is specious.
  5. The real problem with this article - as endorsed by most of the editors above - is that there is very little to say about Preston that is relevant to Wikipedia. Let's just accept that and move on. Christina Kaye 17:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
To be honest I still disagree. You admit yourself it is of "interest" to some people, and Enyclopedias are meant to be interesting. Anyhow, you clearly feel very strongly about this, and unless other people intervene I will leave the article as it currently is; lacking relevant and interesting information because you don't like it. --UpDown 18:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged Vandalism by User:82.12.116.232 & Reply

I agree with User:UpDown that the comments by 82.12.116.232 contain obscenities that are in clear contravention of WP:VAND and should be therefore be removed. This user's contributions are almost exclusively limited to article, and are almost all disruptive. Admins should be alerted if this continues. I have deleted the content on this occasion. Christina Kaye 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, s/he continues to place their irrelevant comments. What you think of Preston is totally immaterial to this talk page. If you think that Preston doesn't deserve a Wikipedia page, nominate it for deletion, do not continue to write irrelevant tirades on this page. --UpDown 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I will allow you the "obscenities" point, and have edited the comment accordingly. The revised comment is restated below. I would ask both of you to please do not assume ownership of this article, as your interference of the discussion element of this article is getting disruptive and violates the spirit of Wiki. Preston is a person, so it is hard to disassociate the relevance (or otherwise) of the article with the relevance (or otherwise) of Preston himself. There is a real debate here on Wiki about the importance placed on celebrity culture and whether or not we fill these pages with what might reasonably be called trivia.
UpDown, I can assure you that your point of view is no more valid than anyone elses, so would ask you to stop vandalising this page by removing comments that you disagree with - this isn't your personal blog. I will continue to undo your vandalism and re-add my comment.
- I think this discussion basically encapsulates the arguments raging about "trivia" on Wikipedia. If we include everything and everybody on here (including nobodies like Preston, a person who is a member of a failed/failing pop band who has done nothing of any note as an individual other than appear on yet another mindless reality TV show), then Wikipedia is going to end up meaning nothing. We could all post articles about ourselves and our lives on it ad infinitum. That's not actually what an encyclopaedia is about, is it? In truth he doesn't merit an entry, and if there has to be an entry it should be as brief as possible. Preston certainly seems to merit a lot of the negative comments generated here, but even then, surely just being the generator of a lot of negativity is not reason enough to be included on Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.12.116.232 (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] redirect

Shouldn't Samuel Preston goto the american civil war guy first? surely he's more notable. He was notable enough to have six navy ships named after him. whereas this Preston is mainly famous for being a bit of a burk on a gameshow once. Elmo 02:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

- Chronologically, and in terms of long-term importance, I would agree: definitely. However, the die-hard Preston fan who keeps trying to hijack this article would probably disagree!

Firstly, please sign your comments. And actually I would agree. I am not a Preston fan, I just want the article to be neutral, and not totally anti-Preston like many other wants. --UpDown 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless mentioning the Buzzcocks show if you remove the noteworthy aspect of it

There's no point in including the NMTB recording if it's going to be toned down and made to look like Preston did something noble and dignified. The only reason it is noteworthy is that he stormed out of it in a huff (the original and most accurate wording)... and that's also the reason why it will be shown on clip shows for years to come.

We should either restore the "stormed out in a huff" description, or we remove the whole Buzzcocks section altogether.

Any thoughts?

I disagree. It is not for us to say he "stormed out in a huff", because you could argue that he walked out rather than hear his wife offended (I've never actually seen footage, so I am neutral here). Personally I wouldn't be disappointed if the whole section was deleted, but I think some others think it should be here. But if it is going to stay, then it must be neutral. --UpDown 12:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you watch the footage on YouTube and then you will have some degree of knowledge before you try to take control of this article. Being ignorant of something is not the same as being neutral, and with all due respect I am astounded that you made that comment. Preston's reaction is the only reason this incident is memorable. "Walked out" is actually a very biased spin on how he behaved and not neutral at all (it's probably how he or his fans would describe it, but not those who saw the show). We can only go on what we know and what we saw on the clip, and either we report that he "stormed out in a huff" (or something similar) or we get rid of the Buzzcocks reference altogether.

i would be interested to hear from others who actually saw the incident feel about this. Do we include it and describe it properly, or cut it altogether? In years to come, it may be the only thing he is remembered for (like, say, John Nott).

To be honest I really doubt this is what he'll be remembered for. If remembered for anything, it'll be BigBrother or marrying Chantelle. Anyway, I think the current wording which avoids "stormed" or "walked" is the best and I hope others agree. --UpDown 12:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It is hard to see how the anecdote about Preston on NMTB could possibly be seen to meet the criteria laid down in Five Pillars of Wikipedia. There seems to be fairly general agreement above that this is trivial, and it should therefore be removed. Christina Kaye 20:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with its removal, although be prepared for a lot of hassle from the IP addresses! --UpDown 10:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about. This person only proved he has no sense of humor by walking out. You can hide the truth all you want but the buzzcocks article has it. This is wikipedia, not your fan club. --Leladax 09:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I see there has been some dispute regarding the inclusion of the Buzzcocks incident. I came to the page as a user trying to find information about it and had to look here to find why it was removed. The information is important to the Preston article and is entirely suitable under Wikipedia's guidelines. The only real issue is the wording of it to present the incident neutrally. As a musician, Preston is essentially a one-hit wonder (with that #3 charting song only hitting that rank after the post BB re-release). He came to public attention with his appearence on BB and his subsequent relationship with celebrity wannabe Chantelle. After the dust settled on that, the next time he hit the headlines was when he walked out of the Buzzcocks recording. Whatever your opinion on the manner of his leaving and whether he was right or wrong to do so, it happened and should be mentioned. Walking off a TV show mid-recording is unusual and noteworthy. Particularly when the show is question has a reputation for being provocative, cheeky and often plain rude to guests. If it's an issue of wording that's in dispute then I suggest you look to these articles and quote the BBC spokeperson and Preston himself (BBC Article and NME Article). Personally I would say that he did storm off, but editors should watch the clip and make up their own minds. Whatever, I would strongly argue that this incident is notable/notorious enough to be mentioned in the article.--81.91.203.53 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations, this now reads like a Fanzine

This entry could have been written by Preston himself, or his PR people. He storms out of a TV studio in a huff and almost in tears, much to the amusement of the audience, in a clip that has become a comedy classic... but here on Wiki a Preston fan who admits NEVER TO HAVE SEEN THE CLIP rewrites history and manages to make Preston seem like a cross between Saint Bob Geldoff and Amir Khan.

That a young (I presume teenage? UpDown, I mean no offence, I just assume you are relatively young judging by your work on here) fan should do this is understandable, but to have a member of the Admin team then lock the article with this (well meaning) kind of POV vandalism masquerading as "nuetrality" is very disappointing indeed.

As for the accusations of "anonymous users" - well, quite frankly, UpDown or Alphachimp means no more to us that an IP number or an unsigned comment. I would rather see correct data from anonymous users than biased POV fan literature from "known" users anyday. 84.9.253.132 08:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC) CHARLES GREENE, GLASGOW

Interesting, someone's whose main work is on Upstairs, Downstairs must be young, I wonder how you come to that conclusion? I am not a Preston fan, I only watched this page after an argument with Christina Kaye on whether a comment about Earl Grey was relevant. And if you really believe this reads like a "fanzine" then I feel sorry for you; it reads like a neutral encylopedia. If people want to make their own decisions then they can do that, but it should not be reflected here. --UpDown 10:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm... my assumption was based on your style of writing, your over-eagerness to hijack an article, your willingness to instigate a reversion war with another overkeen user, and your obvious bias in trying to spin this article so that Preston comes out of it looking like a tough gentleman despite your admission that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the Buzzcocks incident.
However, what really marks you out as dreadfully immature is your use of the phrase "I feel sorry for you..." when someone has a different point of view. This emotive, irrational type of language is what children use in teen chatrooms. Like "get a life" or "you're worse than Hitler", it's one of those silly, baseless terms of childish abuse which say more about the writer than the written about. You ought not to get so personal, r so emotionally involved. to be honest, I have no real issue with you at all UpDown; I think you are indeed a Preston fan (though ashamed to admit it) and have reworked this article in a biased way. What is deplorable, however, is that a member of the Admin team has locked the article whilst it was still under your biased editing, and I think that this reflects very poorly on Wikipedia. We live in a celebrity obsessed age, and I'm afraid that people like you, and all the trivia that comes with you, are the future on here. No disrespect to you as a person at all, but I'm very disappointed in Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia, not an online fanzine... and this kind of rubbish is what all those MySpace profiles are for. Just my opinion, but there you go.
There seems little point in insisting I am not a Preston fan, as you seem unwilling to listen. I have no feelings on him whatsoever. And I feel sorry for you because you cannot see what a neutral article is meant to be like, phrases like "in a huff" are the sort you would find on a biased chatroom. An encycopleida firstly wouldn't even mention this incident, and secondly would do so in the way we have. I am amazed that you fail to see you are trying to push you POV. --UpDown 11:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Well, UpDown, let us agree to agree on this one point (and end the discussion cordially!): that the Buzzcocks incident should be removed altogether when the article is unlocked. Is that fair? And I would also suggest that Samuel Preston, the Civil War character who seems to have made a bigger mark on history than someone who came in fourth on Celebrity Big Brother, gets top billing and users are redirected to this rather Ordinary Boy if they so wish.
My final comment then; The incident hasn't been removed, merely merged with an above section, as I (and Christina Kaye) don't feel it warrants its own section. Its really very trivial. Secondly, I agree "Samuel Preston" should redirect to the general not the singer. --UpDown 12:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
As we all agree (remarkably) that this incident should be removed, we can end the matter here. Happy editing all. Christina Kaye 13:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
And as the man simply known as "82.12.116.232" (though my friends call me 82), can I just add that I, too, agree with the outcome. Yes, you read that right. So Christina, UpDown and that other fellow, no more quibbles from me. As for anyone who does ever want to see Preston making a fool of himself on Buzzcocks, you'll find it easily enough on YouTube.... Cheers.
Preston himself talked openly to media (BBC Radio 1 Newsbeat, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6251913.stm) about the incident. That, and the fact that it is probably among the top 5 things about this fellow, should in my opinion warrant it's inclusion, or at least a mention and reference. Thoughts? Mihtjel 18:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact he discussed it with the media is irrelevant. And just because the article is a stub that is no reason to mean that trivial incidents become notable and worthy of inclusion.--UpDown 10:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lament for the integrity of wikipedia

i've been engaged in a similar task to the people on here by trying to have the page on totally un-noteworthy 'comedian'Dave Bishop at the very least altered to reflect some sense of reality. The guy writes his own wiki page and fills it with unsubstantiated facts and yet i've been accused of vandalism for pointing this out. Poor show.

keep up the good work on this page folks, don't let the 'fans' (IE preston himself) distort the truth

[edit] Not noteworthy

I'm sorry, but the fact that there's already an article on The Ordinary Boys, and the fact that UpsideDown refuses to acknowledge the Buzzcocks incident, leaves this article with barely enough dull, inconsequential info to fill two paragraphs, which basically speaks for itself: a singer from a flash-in-the-pan band, best known for his very brief marriage to a Z-list celebrity wannabe, does not merit his own article. --77.250.154.137 (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that's a different matter. But the issue regarding the Buzzcock incident was discussed above and it was deemed to trivial. Just because an article is short, does mean that that is a reason to insert trivial information to flesh it out.--UpDown (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)