User talk:Bcschneider53/Archive 1

177:

page, the grids on the list page were transformed. At first, I had just listed the episode title and the celebrities appearing that are mentioned in any tv episode guide. Then TotalDramaMan imposed his newfangled grid and it stuck. If we decided just to go back to the old version with the episode titles and guests, would that work? I see that celebrities and episodes are mentioned in acceptable fashion on shows like Million Dollar Password. I was also wondering what type of game shows. I thought it was for game shows like The British Chase with both Celebrity and regular editions, but now with Hollywood Game Night? I know that there are some British show pages where there are certain users that want to reformat game show grids like TotalDramaMan did with winnings, teams and the like. There are even still some users that still want to add episode guides to shows like Tipping Point where Listcruft and NOTSTATS has been advised. I would like to maintain the quality of some of these game/quiz show articles, and don't want them to lose any info or become an AFD. Any advice would be appreciated.

211:, but I doubt it will make much of a difference. An article like that (and the others like it) fall under NOTSTATS, LISTCRUFT, etc. Figure It Out, Deal or No Deal, and The Chase (UK) have had their lists of episodes deleted; now Hollywood Game Night is having the same thing happen. Individual episodes of game shows are not notable in the same way they are for dramas and sitcoms, hence they do not have their own articles for the lists of episodes. Regarding Million Dollar Password, that was a much shorter-lived series than any of the others and does not have its own separate article, although that list is probably worthy of being taken out of the article as well. I hope that answers your question; please do not hesitate to let me know if it does not. We also may have to eventually take a look at other articles as well, such as 1009:, which is a game show. Everything was cool, until earlier this week when the unregistered user added in an episode guide for the revival with just the date of the episode and the celebrities in the Squares. (no mention of Mr X and Miss O). I thought it was all right, but then I noticed that this was a game show and there were no episode guides for eitherr the original series or any version of Hollywood Squares. Then I remembered what you told me about Hollywood Game Night above and you said that there would be no efficient way to make an episode guide for that programme even with just the guests with no episode results. So I wondered if it should be removed. 709:

substitute all the BCG sources for Radio Times listings. By Sunday morning, he had reverted the edits, so then I reverted it again explaining to him more clearly as to what other editors have told me. He reverted the edits again this morning, telling me that RadioTimes was also not reliable. He not only reverted my edits but also the edits of another user who chose to simplify the opening paragraph at the top of the page. I was going to suggest, if both RadioTimes (even though many other editors don't have a problem with it) and BCG are not "reliable, then we could use the press releases from ITV as sources for example

1065:

that the list of episodes page even if it included more information was a candidate for deletion and it is the same format. A group of celebrities trying to win money for two civilian competitors. there was even talk on the AFD page about it being a panel show. When I was going to reason with the guy, I noticed that not only had he reverted my edits, but he had also reverted the topic I had started on the talk page asking for any other viewpoint, which AldezD had recommended. He also deleted the topic on the Through the Keyhole talk page, citing that it was unconstructive to the improvement of the article.

547:. Son of the Bronx and TV Media Insights both credit Nielsen in a similar manner to TV by the Numbers, as data straight from Nielsen themselves is rare. Cable ratings below the top 100 weekly are hard to come by and it should be clear that these sources are valid. Double standards like this, as I worked to help bring The Chase to a standard similar to that of articles on primetime TV, are reasons why I find myself working on Knowledge (XXG) less frequently. I will hope you take these facts into consideration and allow the page to contain more helpful information. — 838:

not correcting existing vandalism for a few months. Those used to be isolated cases throughout the years, but now with SolomanMcKenzie and other erratic edits, using the knowledge that i hve accrued from Wiki, I've been editing more and more. I am starting to get disenchanted with Knowledge (XXG). I hate arguing with other editors over minute little details, like this thing with 81 and just get back to editing a few select pages.(It's become an addiction) Also, I would like to have a life and get it back on track. So that's why I don't register here.

1069:

page!!! Would you be able to do something . i know you must have a lot on your plate, as well as AldezD, but everything that you told me to do has not worked. I wouldn't care if you reverted and locked the celebrity Squares page. I don't think he will register for an account ever. I know that its only one network and this unregistered user will probably give me leeway on certain major ITV shows, but I do have to say he is being very rude and abrasive. I will send you his edit history so you can see what he wrote. thanks.

31: 2772: 2834: 1391: 475:, I reverted Chad's edits, and within seconds, I received a notification telling me that you thanked me for my edit. Chad then proceeded to add the ratings back in, which you reverted. However, for the third time, he has put the ratings for every episode in the article. I'm sure this falls under something, but I wanted to let you know that the ratings are back in the article now. I don't want to start an 712:, as they have the info for both series 1 and 2 and it seems more reliable as it comes from the network itself, but I didn't want to do anything without checking with you first. I'm a bit apprehensive at what 81 will say. With his reverting of both my edits and user "Unreal"s edit of the opening paragraph, I feel as if 81 has some sort of set agenda and won't let anybody else make any other edits. 2620: 2506: 2324: 2210: 1833: 1622: 1345: 425: 2389: 2151: 2011: 1724: 1288: 1124:. I'm sorry, but only administrators can do that, and I am not, nor have any interest in becoming (at least not at the moment) an admin. But I can tell you that you, in my opinion, are in the right. If you need anymore help, let me know; however, I will be quite busy over the next week and may not respond in as timely a manner as I have previously. Thanks, -- 543:: I find it strange that you're talking about me as if I'm not here, but okay. My ties have absolutely nothing to do with my work here. I have been told that the source is not "verifiable" because it provides no link to any Nielsen data. However, TV By the Numbers is consistently used as a source throughout pages and they do not link to any data, as proven 820:

and AldezD thought that they were reliable and i did switch to the best of my ability, so I'm hoping for the best. (stupid I know). Also, as he seems to be like AldezD, deleting episode guides for certain programs stating WP:NOTSTATS, it is kind of odd to why he is all right with keeping the episode guide for "Through the Keyhole". that's what I asked him.

1948: 1770: 2569: 2455: 2273: 2100: 1571: 1516: 1242: 374: 1875:

format in June 2013 in Stockholm form me. I dont know why you dont want the correct information about the format? Its produced by High Noon for GSN but we ITVS N own the format and its sold to the rest of the world through our distribution company ITV Studios Global Entertainment in London. Please contact them if you dont think this is true or go to

655:

rated episode ever are cited, both with sources other than Pucci's blog, which have been allowed and proven reliable in many other articles (although, ironically, the one from TV Media Insights comes from Pucci himself, but it's published on TV Media Insights rather than his blog, and I used TV Media Insights as a source in

674:, I'm sorry if you think we were talking about you as if you were not here. I cannot speak for AldezD, but if I said anything you took as rude, I apologize. I was actually, however, expecting you to chime in here eventually, so it will be interesting to see what you think now that I have given my reasoning. Thanks, -- 1914:

is assisted in production by a ITV as it is based on the British format, but does that really make it a "British" game show? No, not really. If you want to add a Production section with this information and an applicable source, that would be great! It would make the article more complete. But to say

1874:

Hi Ben, Saw that you been erased in The Line that its a Swedish game show. High Noon that produced the show in US is an ITV company and so is ITV Studios Nordic. All Studios companies meet on a regular bases and we pitch tv-formats to each other. JIm Berger the CEO of High Noon picked up the swedish

1064:

I tried to do some investigation and noted that on the hollywood Squares talk page, though there are no episode guides, there is a topic on whether the program is a game show or a panel show. Then I remembered everything that the two of us and Aldezd had talked about Hollywood Game Night and the fact

959:

AldezD may be a better editor to ask that question to. AldezD frequently participates in AFDs related to this kind of thing, whereas my main focus is to add sources to and promote articles, rather than AFDs. I can tell you that NOTSTATS will almost certainly cover all traditional game and quiz shows;

915:

Can you let me know what types of programmes WP:NOTSTATS covers as in checking his edit history, he is deleting episode guides from not only game shows (like you told me about Hollywood Game Night), but also travel series, documentary series and the like. he is also erasing sources that other British

278:

Thanks again for the explanations. I do have to say it's a bit hard to get used to Knowledge (XXG), especially as I have seen different editors and their different editing methods. I was just curious as while the outcome of a program could be not sourced. There could be an official episode guide with

176:

Hi Ben. I saw the AFD tag on the above page and noted that no one had commented about it. I have seen this type of Listcruft tag on some British Game Show pages that I contribute to. I understand the whole sourcing issue, but is there a way to make the page acceptable? As you can note on the main HGN

2055:

Hi! Thank you for attempting to bringing this article to FA status. I would have tried myself, but I was very busy expanding the other race reports. Creating and expanding one race report per week is a difficult thing to do, and is possibly the reason why I'm no longer as active as I was a few years

1060:

Hi Ben. well, I removed the list, as you said, and I also referred him to Tipping point and The Chase pages for similar reasoning. However, later on in the day, i noted that this unregistered user had reverted everything and a bit more arguing that Celebrity and, by retrospect Hollywood Squares was

768:

Yes that was me asking about HGN. I just thought I'd ask you, because i thought I saw mention of Aldez D. and someone with an unregistered IP address telling you and him about getting rid of game show statistics. I really wanted to know if TV listings were acceptable, as I 've used them for british

1068:

I was wondering if there was anything that you could do in this situation. Even if he has only been here for less than a year,this guy seems like HIS way is the ONLY way and anybody who challenges him is an idiot. I don't think that he would listen to reason from me. He erased my topics on the talk

1017:

is a game show similar to the american version,I was wondering if you could make a decision on whether to include it. I am really sorry to ask you all these questions, but I'm getting frustrated with this user and want to keep a sane relationship with him. I know that it's really only one network's

837:

As for your other question, When I started on Knowledge (XXG) I was a casual user, only editing my favourite shows. As the months and years progressed, I advanced slightly and saw it all: sockpuppets, people not answering their talk pages and openly admitting it, rude know-it-all editors and people

331:

hosted." I don't think it is necessary to include that statement at all, considering the very next sentence states (with a reliable, acceptable reference) that the ratings have jumped from a 1.5 to a 4.0 rating. Either way, I think it would be redundant to have both sentences in the lead. Anyway, I

230:

It's me again on another computer. Thanks for the reply. I'm just a bit confused on what different shows episode guides are considered listcruft and notstats. I originally thought that it was only programs where there was a regular series and a celebrity series, but I guess not. what about solely

919:

I don't know what episode guides are good or not now. I am a bit ambivalent at editing the way that I used to as I will always be in fear of whether I am doing the right thing or not. i don't want Big brother breathing down my neck who won't listen to reason. I am thinking of starting a dispute or

819:

Hi Ben. Well, I have not heard from AldezD yet. He does seem to be editing pages, but not answering his talk page. I sent him a source link for The Chase page from the ITV press office, which he accepted. So that's cool. I wrote to 81 told him that it would be best to use ITV Press office sources

708:

Now from past experiences through out the years, other big time British TV editors on Wiki have told me to refrain from using BCG as a source as it was fan updated, and it was best to use sources from the network website or press offices or listings from Radio times or Digiguide. So what I did was

2661:

I'm afraid that we have to start from scratch with most of the seasons... The only problem with results of guys like Hylton or Marcis before 1972, is that they competed in a whole bunch of races with a lot of different cars and teams. So we can't fit those into the regular table like Shepherd and

654:

will have 30 episodes aired by the end of the season, and will reach 50 next year as season four was given the green light last night. Listing the ratings for FIFTY episodes would easily take up at least half of the article, maybe more. Right now, the ratings for the premiere episode and the high

483:

states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter…" which Pucci is, as he works for TV Media Insights. To sum it up, I just don't know if it's okay to let the ratings stay in the article, or if they should be removed

319:

Okay, I'll admit I did not check out the links, so that is my fault. However, I also removed the refs based on the two statements they cited. Number one, "The show's ratings have improved significantly under Harvey." That individual sentence does not need a citation because the upcoming sentences

997:

Thanks for all the advice that you have given me. I really appreciate it. The unregistered has calmed down now a bit and we seem to be getting along for now. However, I did have one question for you. I am really sorry that I keep on coming to you for advice, but i've tried talking to AldezD for

1150:

Hi Bentvfan. I didn't notice that you had provided more feedback on the GA review. I've circled back and responded to your comments. I've also offered a re-written Lead on the GA Talk page. For the Lead re-write, that is not a "non-controversial" edit, so per WP:COI I'd like to ask that you or

704:

page and noticed that some of the sources that 81 amongst others used for the new version of the program was from British Comedy Guide. He used it for both series of the programme, which premieres later in the week, also including the mystery celebrity homeowners for episode 1, which can be

696:

Hi Ben, I was wondering if you can give me some advice on a little dispute that I having with a user that you know. It's user 81.153.74.173, he's an unregistered user that has sent messages to you and AldezD, who has helped delete unnecessary grids and data from show pages from people like

741:, but even those are not where my main attention is. I see you've asked AldezD the same question, so hopefully you'll receive help somewhere. The best advice I can give you is to go to 81.153.74.173 yourself on either of your own talk pages and see if you can work out the dispute there. 715:

What do you think I should do next? Would it be possible for you to maybe have a look at the page and help resolve this dispute in some way? I am getting a little confused with the many differing viewpoints of all the different editors on Knowledge (XXG). thanks in

964:

was taken to an AFD a while back and was kept). I'm sorry I cannot help you out more, but I am not familiar enough with travel and documentary series to give you a definite answer. If you have anymore questions, I'll reply to the best of my ability. Thanks,

156:

We have developed an exciting new version of SuggestBot’s interface with some cool features! Volunteer to be one of the first users to try it and help us make it better by answering a short survey! If you’re interested in participating, leave us a message

1116:

On a bit of a side note, I also see that all your signatures end with "samusek2". Did you used to have an official account? I know you probably don't want to create one again, but the IP may react differently if his edits are being reverted by an official

1039: 303:

Hi. Just FYI, the two blogs you removed as unacceptable sources from the Family Feud article are published by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (ajc.com) and the Orlando Sentinel - so they're just as reliable sources as a column in a newspaper.

2707:

reaching featured article status; as will be abundantly clear, I don't know much about stock car racing, and would like to extend an invitation to you to change the summary however you see fit, including removing the terrible, terrible joke.

1012:

As you know, this guy seems very adamant and bossy and would be mad at me if I tried to make a change. I did what Aldez D originally told me and wrote a message on the program's talk page however AldezD is NO help for whatever reason. Since

732:

Hi, are you the IP that asked me for advice on the Hollywood Game Night episodes? Anyway, I'm afraid I can't help as much with this situation, as my main focuses here are the American game shows; I do occasionally edit the British pages for

1195:

I do think the lead could be slightly expanded, but given the length of the article, two paragraphs is fine for GA standards, at least in my opinion. Feel free to lengthen the lead if you want; either way, it's strong enough in my opinion.

609:

source or field of journalism, and even includes references to copyright violations of which the site administrators have accused the author. The verifiability of details included in posts on that blog is not acceptable per WP guidelines.

231:

celebrity panel shows or game shows? I am not a Wiki Expert and don't want to start a AFD witch hunt . I am just curious as to better understand what kinds of programs merit this distinction if you know what I am talking about. Thanks.

662:

In short, I think those two (or, I guess, three, as they showed two the first night) episodes are the only ones we need to cite because they are still notable, while some random episode from season one is not and likely falls under

470:

has (for the third time) added the ratings citing Douglas Pucci's blog on Blogspot as his source. Before this, I started the ratings section with a brief summary, giving the premiere's ratings as will as noting the series high. Per

1035: 634: 792:

No problem, let me know if I can be of help to you in the future. By the way, since you seem to be a frequent editor, have you ever considered creating an account? It's free, easy, and your IP address won't be visible to others.

1043: 332:

do admit I failed to check out the links for themselves; however, there was more reasoning that led me to remove the refs and statements. If you have any more questions or comments, please don't hesitate to reply. Thanks, --

1102: 484:

again (although Chad will probably revert again if the latter action is taken). I see you frequently blank your talk page, so feel free to remove this and reply on my talk page if you want to. Thanks for your help, --

907:

talk page and see if anybody answered and so far nothing. A few hours later, I noticed that the unregistered user has started a flurry of edits every night on different programs citing WP:NOTSTATS and WP:OVERKILL.

1180:

Hey, I noticed you passed the article as GA, even though the Lead is still short. I wasn't sure if the current Lead was fine or if it just slipped through the cracks. I put together a longer Lead on the Talk page.

624:

First off, my apologies if this is a bit long, but I want to make sure I address everything I can. AldezD, correct me if you disagree with any of this, but I believe that listing the ratings results for

2419:

articles. Congratulations on your first featured article. It is also WikiProject NASCAR's first and only featured article so far. Keep up the good work, and thank you for all of your contributions. :)

2697: 750:

or British Comedy Guide. To be honest, I hadn't even heard of the latter before you left your message. Please let me know if you have any other questions, and I'll be happy to respond. Thanks, --

998:

advice and all that he does now is blank his talk page and ignore me. I don't know what I did to anger him, but I can't get him to help me out. it's like this unregistered user is an old buddy.

544: 513:

Thanks. I've got a feeling I know who this guy is. I could be wrong, but if I am right, he worked closely with other game show related blogs (specifically, BuzzerBlog) for many years, and

646:

to GA status last month, and it passed. I did not give the ratings for EVERY episode by citing Pucci's blog, even though I could have; I only gave a brief ratings summary, and it passed.

207:

Sorry for the semi-late reply, I was not expecting to go out for lunch. Anyway, there probably is not a way to make that page acceptable. Of course, you can always go to the AFD and vote

114:! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Knowledge (XXG) and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! 1061:

a panel show not a game show, even if there are two civilians competing for cash. He also chided me for citing Tipping point and The chase citing WP:OTHERSTUFF. I was a bit angry.

251:

either; however, I would say that the vast majority of panel shows and game shows would not merit notable episode lists, although it is quite possible there are a few exceptions (

637:, "Information on individual game show episodes is sub-trivial and not instrumental to understanding the topic in the manner that fictional/dramatized TV series episodes are." 2875: 1837: 1732: 1686:

No problem! I see you are busy reviewing another article right now, so take your time. Thanks again for coming out of retirement (albeit a short one) to finish the review. --

633:, specifically section 3, which states, "Excessive listings of statistics." As AldezD has stated in many AFDs before (most of which have resulted in deletion), including 279:

the guests on each episode on the network or Zap2it and it could be, like HGN, a prime time weekly series with not many eps per series. Also I sort of figured out that (

1437: 2746:

Yes, you may! Oh, and it doesn't need to stay that length - quite a bit longer is perfectly acceptable; it's just that, when you don't know the subject well... =)

1295:, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 14 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See 2158:, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See 2018:, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See 1920: 1823: 1816: 1789: 1731:, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See 1714: 1707: 1557: 1550: 97: 96: 2898:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

1460:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

193:

I will be unavailable this morning as I am about to leave for church, but I will try to reply later today to your questions. Thanks for your patience, --

2627: