User talk:Bcschneider53/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Bentvfan54321, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Bentvfan54321! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Help test new SuggestBot design

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 on SuggestBot’s user talk page. Regards from Nettrom, SuggestBot’s caretaker. 18:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

List of Hollywood Game Night Episodes

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 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.74.15.186.97 (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)samusek2

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, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

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 Keep, 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 List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? UK episodes. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

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 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.184.160.203.195 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)samusek2

I don't know everything 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 (List of QI episodes is actually a featured list, I can explain that as well if you would like). Shows like Survivor and The Voice certainly do, however, because they are reality competitions which span through weeks. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for the explanations. I do have to say it's a bit hard to get used to Wikipedia, 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 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 (List of QI episodes was a bit different, due to the layout of the page. Anyways, thanks for the heads-up about the explanations. It was much appreciated. Cheers! 184.160.203.195 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)samusek2

Media blogs

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. 166.204.251.5 (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

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 make that point obvious. Number two, "Family Feud's ratings were said to have improved a full 40% from the prior year back when John O'Hurley 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 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, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Family Trade

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Family Trade you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DepressedPer -- DepressedPer (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Family Trade

The article Family Trade you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Family Trade for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DepressedPer -- DepressedPer (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The Chase

Hi AldezD. I noticed that User:Chad1m 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 WP:BLOGS, 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 edit war as I have the article at GAN right now and want it to be stable once a reviewer picks it up. I'll also note that WP:BLOGS 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 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, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've reverted the edit and again warned the user. AldezD (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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 has added BuzzerBlog as a source before in the Million Dollar Password article. Thanks again, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

To User:AldezD and User:Bentvfan54321: 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 here. 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 Wikipedia less frequently. I will hope you take these facts into consideration and allow the page to contain more helpful information. — Chad1m ^Email Talk _Cont. 06:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

TVByTheNumbers is a well-established and WP:V source of information for ratings. Articles list an author as well as sources used. The site's About page details information about the site and includes historical information and guides. SonOfTheBronx, however, appears to be a personal blog on a website where anyone can setup an account. The most-recent post on the blog is clearly written by someone not affiliated with any type of WP:V 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. AldezD (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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 every single episode is a bit excessive anyway, and may fall under WP:NOT#STATS, 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 this one, an article somewhat related to this topic, "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."

I took Family Trade 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. Family Trade lasted only eight episodes, and I was worried that it would be excessive to list all of the ratings, no matter how reliable the source was. The Chase 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 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 Family Trade (an article not written by Pucci) and did not have any problems with the reviewer).

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 WP:TRIVIA. I actually began writing this before the most recent message was posted, but AldezD has a good point as well regarding the status of Pucci's blog.

And to User:Chad1m, 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, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources Through the Keyhole

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 SolomanMcKenzie. 81 has been a big help sometimes, but it is hard to reason with him.

I was correcting an edit on the page for Itv's Through the Keyhole 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 considered a spoiler as the episode has not aired yet.

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 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 [1], 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.

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 Wikipedia. thanks in advance173.179.185.186 (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Samusek2

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 The Chase and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, 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.

I'm sorry I can't help you out more, but I'm afraid I do not know enough about Through the Keyhole 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, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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 and American shows with no problem. Thanks anyways 173.179.185.186 (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)samusek2

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. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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 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.

As for your other question, When I started on Wikipedia 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 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 Wikipedia. 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.173.179.185.186 (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)samusek2

Well, I sure can respect that. Still, if you need anything else in the future, I'll be glad to help. Best of luck, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again, but I just wanted to let you know that AldezD recommended I detail my problem on the Through the Keyhole 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. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.172.40.147)

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 editors on the BBC side have told me that it is fine to use Press Office info/

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 just massively reducing my editing on Wikipedia, as the enjoyment has dropped considerably for me.173.179.185.186 (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)samusek2

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; however, panel games and reality shows may be exempt from that rule (List of QI episodes 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, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Celebrity Squares

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 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.

I don't know if you know that tonight, ITV is premiering a new revival of Celebrity Squares, which is the British equivalent of Hollywood Squares, 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.

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 Celebrity Squares 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 programs being affected but still..... Thanks in advance!173.179.185.186 (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)samusek2

To start, I'd simply remove the list. If that doesn't work, try pointing out arguments used in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? UK episodes. AldezD, meanwhile, is in the middle of this mess right now, so I'd expect things over there to be busy for the next few days. Let me know if you need anything else. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.153.78.152 173.179.185.186 (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)samusek2

Tell him about Hollywood Game Night and to check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hollywood Game Night episodes. Hollywood Game Night is a game show-panel game crossover, much like Hollywood Squares or Match Game. If that doesn't work, I don't know what else to tell you.

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 user.

Lastly, I see you have asked me if I can "lock" the page; I assume you mean Wikipedia:SEMI-PRO. 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, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

BabyFirst

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 someone else make the edit. Looks like we're on the home stretch! CorporateM (Talk) 14:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'm in the car on my phone now, but I will try to check it out soon. If everything checks out, I'll pass the article. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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. CorporateM (Talk) 18:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Michael Larson

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Michael Larson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. ₂₃W (talk · stalk) 23:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Michael Larson

The article Michael Larson you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, 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 Talk:Michael Larson for things which need to be addressed. ₂₃W (talk · stalk) 08:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Michael Larson

The article Michael Larson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Michael Larson for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 23W -- 23W (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Beat the Chefs

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Chase (U.S. game show)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Chase (U.S. game show) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Chase (U.S. game show)

The article The Chase (U.S. game show) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Chase (U.S. game show) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

Sorry about the review, I'll take care of it this weekend ;) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 22:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@MrWooHoo: 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. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show)

The article Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, 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 Talk:Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Barnstar

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks for being an awesome nominator and making Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show) an almost perfect article! I applaud your experience at polishing and creating GA articles, and I hope you have more GA's in the future! Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 21:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show)

The article Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (U.S. game show) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The Line

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 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 https://itvstudios.com/programmes/the-line Or i could put you in contact with our US lawyer that could explain that this format is owned and created by ITV Studios Nordic.

Best Regards Hans Engholm CEO ITV Studios Nordic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74Peter (talk • contribs) 13:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hans, the show is airing in America though, isn't it? The Chase (U.S. game show) 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 that it is a Swedish game show is like saying The Chase and Millionaire are British game shows. Thanks! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Another GA Barnstar from yours truly

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thank you for being that one editor who had nothing to the article, but changed the mistakes needed to make it a GA! Congrats on making All-China Women's Federation GA! Cheers! --Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 01:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2011 Brickyard 400

The article 2011 Brickyard 400 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, 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 Talk:2011 Brickyard 400 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: 2010 Sylvania 300

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 ago. I apologize for this late response, and I wish you the best in bringing this article to FA-status. Thank you for reviewing 2011 Brickyard 400 as well. – Nascar1996 ^{(talk • cont)} 01:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The American Bible Challenge

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The American Bible Challenge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The American Bible Challenge

The article The American Bible Challenge you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, 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 Talk:The American Bible Challenge for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The American Bible Challenge

The article The American Bible Challenge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The American Bible Challenge for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2010 São Paulo Indy 300

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2010 São Paulo Indy 300 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2010 São Paulo Indy 300

The article 2010 São Paulo Indy 300 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2010 São Paulo Indy 300 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congrats on your first FA! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The WikiProject NASCAR Award
		I, Nascar1996, hereby award Bentvfan54321 the WikiProject NASCAR Award for his valued contributions to WikiProject NASCAR 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. :) Awarded 01:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Minute to Win It (U.S. game show)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Minute to Win It (U.S. game show) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Minute to Win It (U.S. game show)

The article Minute to Win It (U.S. game show) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Minute to Win It (U.S. game show) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2011 Coca-Cola 600

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2011 Coca-Cola 600 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2011 Coca-Cola 600

The article 2011 Coca-Cola 600 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2011 Coca-Cola 600 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Pre-1972 results...

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 Trickle. Otherwise it is going to be a real mess. The only thing I can think of is using one table with 50 some races. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm… I see. I'll think about that once I'm finished my current project, which could take a while. Thanks again, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-12-31/Featured content

This contains the writeup for the 2010 Sylvania 300 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.

The important thing is that you are happy with the writeup. This is the culmination of a lot of work on your part. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Thanks! So can I just tweak it myself? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

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... =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Holidays

	Merry Christmas and a Happy 2015!!!
	Hello Bentvfan54321, thanks for your message! I also wish you success and happiness on this Christmas and holiday season and a Happy New Year. Happy editing, Jahn1234567890 (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

DYK for 2006 UAW-Ford 500

Harrias ^talk 12:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)