User talk:George.millman

Thanks for your support, George. The Wiki Editors have taken down the list of Eggheads winners 3 times now. I told the first one (AldezD) what I thought of him.....that didn't go down at all well! Since then, both he and Dougal18 have rejected the list. Good news is that they may have accepted my YouTube citation for the £75k winners! Last winners were "Streetwise" (S14 E49) but Wiki don't want a list of winners. By all means, reinstate the list and perhaps add the BBC iPlayer link to S14 E49. It isn't available any more for viewing, but the Wiki Editors don't know that! Eggs are still accumulating so you can happily watch the latest episodes on iPlayer - like I do. Cricket Scorer (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Messages

Hi George, Got your message by email (!) and I definitely can do with some support on Eggheads "Winning Teams". It is the essence of the show - so (anonymously) I have now added a YouTube link for the £75k winners of 6 years ago, Beer Today Gone Tomorrow, into the Eggheads Wiki article! I shall alternately contribute to this article with an anonymous id and my Cricket Scorer id. We will not be beaten! Cricket Scorer (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, George.millman. You have new messages at User talk:Pip2andahalf.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

Thanks for tidying-up the Eggheads article after introduction of Dave Rainford for CJ. Did you see my reply of 16-Aug to your question of 13-Jun. I don't know how to "dialogue" with a Wiki contributor - this appears AMATEURISH! The Cricket Scorer (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Hi[reply]

I have a couple of questions about Eggheads... they don't really relate to the Wikipedia article, but I thought you might know.

Firstly, why are they taking a break now? Wouldn't it make more sense to take a break in between the series, instead of right in the middle?

Secondly, do we know when CJ is leaving? Could it be that he won't return after the break? And are they going to replace CJ, or just carry on with the six?

George.millman (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi George, Sorry not to have replied before now, and thanks for keeping entry up-to-date. Eggheads back to repeats whilst Euro 2012 Football, and Wimbledon 2012 Tennis, were live on BBC during June and July. Then, a complete 2-week break for the London 2012 Olympics. Perhaps another 2-week break from 29th August when London 2012 Paralympics will start?

CJ may have left when host change occurs on Episode 61 of this Series 13. Wikipedia entry suggests he will be replaced by David Rainford although there was no Series 3 of the programme "Are you an Egghead?" to find a replacement ! The Cricket Scorer (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

=

Hi

Are you sure that Team Phoenix are the joint lowest scoring team on Eggheads? Jeremy Vine's comments on the programme implied that they were the out-and-out worst team, and this link supports that:

http://racefortheelvetoffice.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/candidates-keen-to-distance-themselves-after-eggheads-catastrofuck/ George.millman (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Jump to: navigation, search


Hi George, I "feel" and fear for teams of 2nd year undergrads when they perform against the Eggheads. They're only 20-y-o, so were born in early 90's, and get asked lots of questions about events that happened in early 21st century (1900-1990). Whereas, the Eggs average age is 60-ish and they were around when some of these events actually happened ! That helps, plus their phenomenal memories.

So, team 'CJ's Haircut' only answered 4 q's on 12/4/10. This was surpassed by team 'The Magpies' (Newcastle Univ) on 25/1/12, answering only 3 correctly in whole match. And then matched by 'Team Phoenix' (from Grey College of Durham Univ) on 10/2/12.

I really think that the auditioning team should be more thorough when pre-testing teams for the programme. Apparently they weed out expert quizzing teams but let teams of teenagers through ! I wonder why ? Mind you, we are approaching episode 1000 in May and that means 6,000 contestants have appeared on the programme. I wonder how many quizzers are left in the UK to challenge the Eggs ?

Regards, The Cricket Scorer (Lloyd Windust) The Cricket Scorer (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC) The Cricket Scorer (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Not Going Out

Ok thats fine. Thanks for providing the links :) ShedMediaUK (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cut

>>Please do not reinstate the sign indicating 'other characters'. No probs. The other characters was a "I'll do the proper sub heads when I get round to it. The way you have done it is perfect.Dejvid (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, George.millman. You have new messages at Sillybillypiggy's talk page.
Message added 17:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

sillybillypiggy¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE! 17:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice

The current display is used for the American show, which is more accurate with actually happens. And using the same patterns is also the best option.

  • There is no reason to list the runner-up diferently than the other eliminated candidates, since he/she doesn't get hired like the winner.
  • The white board is not only used for candidates who won the task, but also for those who survived the interviews. So the orange one used for the ones who lost the task is enough.
  • Unless someone quits, there is no reason to list it either.
  • The people on the competition are called candidates in every other session of the article, no reason to call them contestants in this one. --Tam001 (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The UK articles actually incorporated most of the structure the American ones use, down to the weekly results table and so (it was much different before it started following the original). I don't see where they are clearer, or why it would use different colors in the tables just for the sake of being different, or listing colors that may not even show up in the table. Keeping a pattern is always the best option, and you would need valid arguments to keep things different - unless it's just personal taste, which doesn't really matter in Wikipedia. --Tam001 (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being a runner-up only means you lasted the entire season instead of leaving in the previous episode - I'm pretty sure even the official website lists the second place as "fired" like they do with everyone else. The prize is for the winner only, which means only he/she should be shown as different than the others. Also, using lime instead of dark blue for the winner is just a meaningless change. There is no reason for showing a marker for quitters unless someone quits - and there is no way of knowing someone will actually quit unless it happens. Everyone knows the show will have winning and losing project managers and a winner, so that argument for quitters doesn't work. And if you're just going for "tradition", as I mentioned before, these articles were completely different - they are using the American pattern now and don't need to have small particularities that aren't similar for no reason. --Tam001 (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does makes more sense to keep it in the pattern of the other UK series, but since they only need minor edits to follow the original pattern, it's actually better to change all of them as I intend to do - the older articles don't even have the candidates listed in firing order or weekly results for team switches and project manager records.--Tam001 (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, George.millman. You have new messages at User talk:RachelRice.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

August 2012

Hello, I'm Nikthestoned. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Pure (novel), but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nikthestoned 14:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, George.millman. You have new messages at Nikthestoned's talk page.
Message added 16:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Nikthestoned 16:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Big Questions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kaye Adams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shaun Dooley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Misfits (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop adding "cast lists" to episode articles about The Simpsons.

This info is redundant, duplicate material, repeats the same info, and also says the same thing twice on the page.

Please see discussion, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Simpsons#Cast_lists.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, George.millman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, George.millman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]