![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
At some point the housemates' occupations were removed from the table. Would whoever did it care to explain why, please, as I'm considering reinstating them. MegaPedant ( talk) 13:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I've done a little research and we can now officially state that Sophie lives in Nantwich and Rodrigo lives in Leeds. And I suppose we could use this 2007 source to back up that Isaac is from Cleavland If we're going to do occupations, maybe we should compile them here first with sources? It's just that there was alot of controversy over some of them (Isaac, Kenneth and David are the first to spring to mind), so maybe this will be easier in retrospect? Dale 11:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Please can nobody propose that this section be altered any futher - it caused a big enough headache the last time lol. Lets just add the occupations back and see what gets reccomended at Peer Review/GA review. Dale 19:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
What is the point of these? They don't provide a working link to the source being linked. leaky_caldron ( talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
They are not very effective and the latest one is incorrect. They actually won the shopping task on Day 90 not 89.
Where was the consensus to change to these per the specific requirement in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_templates?
"Citation templates are used to format citations in a consistent way. The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a consistent citation format to another without gaining consensus."
This isn't a consensus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)/Archive_4#Sources_roundup_-_with_a_snazzy_graph. leaky_caldron ( talk) 18:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
nor was this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)/Archive_2
They should be changed until consensus is reached, or am I wrong? leaky_caldron ( talk) 18:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
"Remember to use Cite web and Cite news. I'm sure we can all do it together :)" DJ 13:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It mentions cite episode once in an extremely long and inconclusive arguement in which you played a central part. You cannot possibly claim a consensus. I think you should restore the status quo. I will be changing the latest one anyway and we'll see where that takes us. I would like other editors to contribute but I think many of them have found less contentious articles on which to focus their efforts! leaky_caldron ( talk) 18:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Using the episode template is common sense. Why should we not use it? – túrian patois 19:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Leaky caldron has removed the template for a second time, despite the consensus here being against the decision. Once more and they break WP:3RR, leaving us with no choice but to alert the admins. Dale 23:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
To summarise:
leaky_caldron ( talk) 09:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:UCS doesn’t really work for me here. It’s not obvious to me that the advantages of using the prog. Template outweighs the lack of back-story it causes in the summary. As it says there, “When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense.” The summary isn't a good place for links that cannot be accessed. leaky_caldron ( talk) 16:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I think its safe to say that all points of debate have been executed above, and it doesn't look like a consensus has been formed due to contributions from just 3 editors. Therefore, I think its best to have a quick poll in order to gather the views of contributors who don't want to join in on an argument. If any editors do want to raise a point they can still do so above, meaning that this section does not break WP:PNSD. Dale 20:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Just want to keep these somewhere safe, as the source we have listed is the ever-reliable C4 website. No need for a discussion, just here for the future if we need to change them. Dale 21:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Why not just use this for all? http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/voting/nominations-history.html It's the noms table official source and when it disappears to archive just needs a single minor change to the URL. I did the earlier years in June. leaky_caldron ( talk) 21:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to remind everyone that when 2 or 3 editors revert the good faith edits of another editor in an edit war, that's not consensus, it only means all the editors making reverts are edit warring and fixing nothing. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Rodrigo - 11% [4].
Charlie - 13.2% [5] Alternative URL
David - 19% [6].
Dale 19:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Charlie was 13.2% I believe but that's unsourced atm. These are all from the same voting cut. The lines are open again for the final 2. leaky_caldron ( talk) 20:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It's here http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/blog/f9825573afe09854a830cf48bc38bc34/view.c4 and will no doubt be documented elsewhere. WP:TIND leaky_caldron ( talk) 21:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Here are the customary overall percentages, assuming no changes in the vote share during the final. As ever, this is "just a bit of fun":
This result was remarkable for two reasons. Firstly, Sophie was a runaway winner, 30% clear of her nearest rival, and with almost half of the votes. Secondly it was extremely close between the rest of them, with 5% between second and fifth. -- Ross UK ( talk) 01:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Before the series began, a debate on this issue concluded with the decision that the nominations totals should be kept for now and re-debated at the end of the series. Since then, much has changed, so here is a run-down of the arguments at the time and subsequent developments. Please sign (~~~~) underneath your chosen point of view, alongside a rationale stating the reasons for your choice so not to break WP:PNSD. Dale 20:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
As far as policy is concerned:
Even if the current source is not updated with the final week I believe that “the table itself is the source” argument is sufficient for a non-biographical, non-text array and this can be confirmed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard for guidance. I’m happy to do the leg work if necessary.
Precedent: The argument remains strong. It has both historical and widespread use.
Changing it in this article alone would be entirely inappropriate. Edit warring would be inevitable from a wider editor base than this discussion/consensus. I for one would also be persuaded to remove similar tables from all other BB sites (for consistency as suggested by ♪♫Al ucard). This would cause widespread disruption to a large number of articles and I hope we would all be willing to back each other up in the ensuing edit wars!
For that reason I believe that wider BB community agreement is absolutely vital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Nominations_table_and_Voting_history_table
The only previous discussion I have found before this year was here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Big_Brother/A3#Total_number_of_nominations 2 years ago. No change to the U.S. style was agreed.
There has been no response. Until that is resolved it’s not worth going to the OR Noticeboard. leaky_caldron ( talk) 09:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Under the competitions it says that the Uberfan was "Jobby" but this is not true. There were 2 competitions: A "Be Big Brother" one which Jobby won, and the "George Lamb Quiz of the Decade" which was won by Jacob Stolworthy, an 18 year old A Level Student from Eltham. I know this as a fact for two reasons: 1. I have recorded the episodes from E4 and 2. I am a close friend with Jacob and attend Big Brother evictions every single week. I was at the eviction on the night he had gone into BBLB as a cameraman, and was able to discuss everything with hi, about it.
I do not know how to edit Wikipedia so I would like someone else to do so. As it currently stands the article is completely wrong. 93.97.52.92 ( talk) 22:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Kizzy Gourlay 93.97.52.92 ( talk) 22:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Recent changes to this article have ignored subjects that have been discussed on this page and consensus reached. I give as an example the day on which each week was determined to have begun. Also a number of pictures have been added. While I consider Nikki Grahame to be relevant, I don't believe pictures of Henry VIII, Elizabeth II, Beyonce Knowles, Michael Jackson or Susan Boyle add anything to the article and their addition is simply gratuitous. A picture of Rodrigo meeting the ersatz Queen or of Siavash dressed as Henry VIII would be a different matter, copyright issues notwithstanding. I've asked that the editor concerned read through the archived discussion and reconsider. Please discuss. — Mega Pedant 21:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
That was last week - what are your views in response to the justifications above? And, as I mentioned, no consensus has been established, so no consensus has been violated. KingOfTheMedia ( talk) 22:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
As you can see, I've changed and/or replaced the images that were causing problems. The only one that I'd like to stick with is the image of Susan Boyle - the Sree incident followed on from the hugely notable Boyle drama and the Daily Mail and The Times picked up on this association, placing them under the umbrella of the ongoing controversy. KingOfTheMedia ( talk) 23:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Saw this on the GA nom page. Wouldn't know how to do a review but one thing that sticks out just from the opening is that the prize fund being £71,320 isnt sourced anywhere in the article form what I can see. Mark E ( talk) 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 10/Archive 5/GA1
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Big Brother 10 housemates (UK) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother 10 housemates (UK) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The outcome will directly affect this article.
Leaky
Caldron
14:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Her birthdate/-year seems to be wrong, if the source is right. It claims she was 30 in May 2012, so if the date is right, year must be 1981 (not 1983). 82.141.94.123 ( talk) 08:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Big Brother 10 (UK). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Big Brother 10 (UK). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Big Brother 10 (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
At some point the housemates' occupations were removed from the table. Would whoever did it care to explain why, please, as I'm considering reinstating them. MegaPedant ( talk) 13:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Well I've done a little research and we can now officially state that Sophie lives in Nantwich and Rodrigo lives in Leeds. And I suppose we could use this 2007 source to back up that Isaac is from Cleavland If we're going to do occupations, maybe we should compile them here first with sources? It's just that there was alot of controversy over some of them (Isaac, Kenneth and David are the first to spring to mind), so maybe this will be easier in retrospect? Dale 11:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Please can nobody propose that this section be altered any futher - it caused a big enough headache the last time lol. Lets just add the occupations back and see what gets reccomended at Peer Review/GA review. Dale 19:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
What is the point of these? They don't provide a working link to the source being linked. leaky_caldron ( talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
They are not very effective and the latest one is incorrect. They actually won the shopping task on Day 90 not 89.
Where was the consensus to change to these per the specific requirement in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_templates?
"Citation templates are used to format citations in a consistent way. The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a consistent citation format to another without gaining consensus."
This isn't a consensus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)/Archive_4#Sources_roundup_-_with_a_snazzy_graph. leaky_caldron ( talk) 18:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
nor was this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Brother_2009_(UK)/Archive_2
They should be changed until consensus is reached, or am I wrong? leaky_caldron ( talk) 18:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
"Remember to use Cite web and Cite news. I'm sure we can all do it together :)" DJ 13:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It mentions cite episode once in an extremely long and inconclusive arguement in which you played a central part. You cannot possibly claim a consensus. I think you should restore the status quo. I will be changing the latest one anyway and we'll see where that takes us. I would like other editors to contribute but I think many of them have found less contentious articles on which to focus their efforts! leaky_caldron ( talk) 18:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Using the episode template is common sense. Why should we not use it? – túrian patois 19:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Leaky caldron has removed the template for a second time, despite the consensus here being against the decision. Once more and they break WP:3RR, leaving us with no choice but to alert the admins. Dale 23:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
To summarise:
leaky_caldron ( talk) 09:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:UCS doesn’t really work for me here. It’s not obvious to me that the advantages of using the prog. Template outweighs the lack of back-story it causes in the summary. As it says there, “When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense.” The summary isn't a good place for links that cannot be accessed. leaky_caldron ( talk) 16:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I think its safe to say that all points of debate have been executed above, and it doesn't look like a consensus has been formed due to contributions from just 3 editors. Therefore, I think its best to have a quick poll in order to gather the views of contributors who don't want to join in on an argument. If any editors do want to raise a point they can still do so above, meaning that this section does not break WP:PNSD. Dale 20:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Just want to keep these somewhere safe, as the source we have listed is the ever-reliable C4 website. No need for a discussion, just here for the future if we need to change them. Dale 21:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Why not just use this for all? http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/voting/nominations-history.html It's the noms table official source and when it disappears to archive just needs a single minor change to the URL. I did the earlier years in June. leaky_caldron ( talk) 21:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to remind everyone that when 2 or 3 editors revert the good faith edits of another editor in an edit war, that's not consensus, it only means all the editors making reverts are edit warring and fixing nothing. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Rodrigo - 11% [4].
Charlie - 13.2% [5] Alternative URL
David - 19% [6].
Dale 19:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Charlie was 13.2% I believe but that's unsourced atm. These are all from the same voting cut. The lines are open again for the final 2. leaky_caldron ( talk) 20:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It's here http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/blog/f9825573afe09854a830cf48bc38bc34/view.c4 and will no doubt be documented elsewhere. WP:TIND leaky_caldron ( talk) 21:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Here are the customary overall percentages, assuming no changes in the vote share during the final. As ever, this is "just a bit of fun":
This result was remarkable for two reasons. Firstly, Sophie was a runaway winner, 30% clear of her nearest rival, and with almost half of the votes. Secondly it was extremely close between the rest of them, with 5% between second and fifth. -- Ross UK ( talk) 01:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Before the series began, a debate on this issue concluded with the decision that the nominations totals should be kept for now and re-debated at the end of the series. Since then, much has changed, so here is a run-down of the arguments at the time and subsequent developments. Please sign (~~~~) underneath your chosen point of view, alongside a rationale stating the reasons for your choice so not to break WP:PNSD. Dale 20:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
As far as policy is concerned:
Even if the current source is not updated with the final week I believe that “the table itself is the source” argument is sufficient for a non-biographical, non-text array and this can be confirmed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard for guidance. I’m happy to do the leg work if necessary.
Precedent: The argument remains strong. It has both historical and widespread use.
Changing it in this article alone would be entirely inappropriate. Edit warring would be inevitable from a wider editor base than this discussion/consensus. I for one would also be persuaded to remove similar tables from all other BB sites (for consistency as suggested by ♪♫Al ucard). This would cause widespread disruption to a large number of articles and I hope we would all be willing to back each other up in the ensuing edit wars!
For that reason I believe that wider BB community agreement is absolutely vital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Big_Brother#Nominations_table_and_Voting_history_table
The only previous discussion I have found before this year was here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Big_Brother/A3#Total_number_of_nominations 2 years ago. No change to the U.S. style was agreed.
There has been no response. Until that is resolved it’s not worth going to the OR Noticeboard. leaky_caldron ( talk) 09:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Under the competitions it says that the Uberfan was "Jobby" but this is not true. There were 2 competitions: A "Be Big Brother" one which Jobby won, and the "George Lamb Quiz of the Decade" which was won by Jacob Stolworthy, an 18 year old A Level Student from Eltham. I know this as a fact for two reasons: 1. I have recorded the episodes from E4 and 2. I am a close friend with Jacob and attend Big Brother evictions every single week. I was at the eviction on the night he had gone into BBLB as a cameraman, and was able to discuss everything with hi, about it.
I do not know how to edit Wikipedia so I would like someone else to do so. As it currently stands the article is completely wrong. 93.97.52.92 ( talk) 22:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Kizzy Gourlay 93.97.52.92 ( talk) 22:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Recent changes to this article have ignored subjects that have been discussed on this page and consensus reached. I give as an example the day on which each week was determined to have begun. Also a number of pictures have been added. While I consider Nikki Grahame to be relevant, I don't believe pictures of Henry VIII, Elizabeth II, Beyonce Knowles, Michael Jackson or Susan Boyle add anything to the article and their addition is simply gratuitous. A picture of Rodrigo meeting the ersatz Queen or of Siavash dressed as Henry VIII would be a different matter, copyright issues notwithstanding. I've asked that the editor concerned read through the archived discussion and reconsider. Please discuss. — Mega Pedant 21:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
That was last week - what are your views in response to the justifications above? And, as I mentioned, no consensus has been established, so no consensus has been violated. KingOfTheMedia ( talk) 22:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
As you can see, I've changed and/or replaced the images that were causing problems. The only one that I'd like to stick with is the image of Susan Boyle - the Sree incident followed on from the hugely notable Boyle drama and the Daily Mail and The Times picked up on this association, placing them under the umbrella of the ongoing controversy. KingOfTheMedia ( talk) 23:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Saw this on the GA nom page. Wouldn't know how to do a review but one thing that sticks out just from the opening is that the prize fund being £71,320 isnt sourced anywhere in the article form what I can see. Mark E ( talk) 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Big Brother (British TV series) series 10/Archive 5/GA1
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Big Brother 10 housemates (UK) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother 10 housemates (UK) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The outcome will directly affect this article.
Leaky
Caldron
14:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Her birthdate/-year seems to be wrong, if the source is right. It claims she was 30 in May 2012, so if the date is right, year must be 1981 (not 1983). 82.141.94.123 ( talk) 08:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Big Brother 10 (UK). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Big Brother 10 (UK). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Big Brother 10 (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)