Talk:Big Brother (Australian TV series)/Archive 1

Vesna's surname

Why is Vesna the only houseguest without a last name listed in the sidebar? Does she not have one (unlikely), or is it just that nobody knows what it is (and why not)? You'll have to forgive me, I'm located in the U.S. and can only keep up with the series from the official website, so my information is a little limited... --PatadyBag 22:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think it's probably because noone knows it. I might go and see if I can find it on google right now. I don't beleive the official website has the surnames, which is odd. Cyclone49 12:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't actually seem to find it, strangely enough. Cyclone49 12:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know where the custom of the official media (show, website) not broadcasting the housemates surnames came from. As far as I know they have never done it - only in third party media such as newspaper articles. With a first name like "Vesna" you would think google would be able to find it pretty easily, but it doesn't appear to be that way! http://www.behindbigbrother.com is another handy resource for BB AU stuff. -- Chuq 13:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Vesna's last name is Tosevska

• The contract housemates sign states that their surnames will not be revealed Gtoomey 07:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Most media outlets have media-liason agreements with Endemol Southern Star, which involves not revealing surnames until the season ends. I know of fan sites who have received emails from ESS asking them to take down surnames. sebiv 10:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Belindagate?

Could someone that is a hardcore fan of the series please add information regarding the "belindagate" incident that supposedly happened in the 02 or 03 series. (Apparently housemate belinda admited something illegal and the producers covered it up)

• Hi, I've added information under '2003' about Belindagate. I also anonymously added some information about the "Uncut" problems in 2005. (btw I'm the webmaster of http://www.behindbigbrother.com so feel free to pick my brain) - sebiv 10:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Though I've never heard of the incident refered to as Belindagate an article Belinda Thorpe explaining the incident has existed for some time. The crime was not covered-up, and Belinda had not acommitted the crime, and it had long been finished-with by the court system. Asa01 00:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Richelle?

Where did you guys get the info that Kate's name is Richelle? LordMooCow 09:04, 4 July 2005 (GMT+10)

At http://au.messages.yahoo.com/news/entertainment/739/ there is a posting saying that her name was published in The Sunday Telegraph. - Barrylb 6 July 2005 06:03 (UTC)

So no other housemate knows? Weird. LordMooCow 20:25, 4 July 2005 (GMT+10)

Kate sad a number of conversations in the house regarding her name, and she seemed disturbed that her real name had not been used.

Housemates in the rewards room

In the Friday Night Live section, it describes the 3 prizes. I deleted a part of a sentence about the rewards room. It said this

Week one winner Glenn took friend Logan. The first male/female couple to enter the room was Rachael and Tim.

I personally think that's unnecessary. If you list the first two people, why not list them all? Also why would we need to know the first male/female couple. Post your opinions here, put it back if you want, but with EVERYONE who has been in the rewards room, rather than the first and the male/female couple.

LordMooCow 08:53, 3 July 2005 (GMT+10)

Sims links

220.236.73.77 \ ChrisW, Please stop editing this article to include your Sims web site. Whilst it may be a notable in itself, this article is about the Big Brother television series, and not The Sims. Longhair 11:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

220.237.193.213 \ ChrisW, Please stop adding links to your website. Multiple times the reason why you shouldn't do this has been explained to you, with links to the relevant Wikipedia policy articles, yet you keep ignoring it. If this continues there'll be no other option but to have you banned. Meesham 15:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Linkspam tug-o-war

I've gone ahead and listed User:ChrisW and his associated ip addresses on Vandalism in progress (see here [1]) to put an end to his anti-social behaviour. Several attempts at explaining policy and attempts at passive communication have failed.

A summary of his behaviour

• Repeated link spamming of the Big Brother (Australian TV series) article
• Vandalism of Meeshams' and Chuqs' user pages
• Impersonation of myself
• Personal attacks

No more Chris. You won't listen to us. We've tried, many many times. -- Longhair | Talk 11:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is again being vandalised by ChrisW, now via the ip address of 211.31.126.229. How do I relate this ip address to Chris? Here, he is editing the Neighbours article where the user with the ip address logs in whilst editing. -- Longhair | Talk 08:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Listed at Vandalism in progress (again) -- Longhair | Talk 09:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chris has vandalised the links section again. Barrylb 12:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stub?

I'd like to suggest we remove the stub indicator. The article seems quite complete now. Any objections? Barrylb 18:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed the stub tag. It's clearly no longer needed due to recent expansion of the article. -- Longhair | Talk 18:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

InsideBigBrother

I've removed link to http://www.atienmedia.com/insidebigbrother/ -unofficial Big Brother Australia forum.

I suspect the site owner is trying to advertise their own site. On the website there is a forum with only two users. The PO Box on http://www.atienmedia.com/ has a ACT address and the IP address used (203.213.13.74) is also located in ACT according to http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm -- Barrylb

They are at it again... I've removed the link to insidebigbrother.com, added from IP address 203.191.167.40 because they are again trying to self-promote a site with few or no genuine users. The site forums claim to have 2165 users but a look at the user list shows they are all fake (no names, no posts, all created on 01 Jan 1970). Barrylb 15:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Barry,

I was wondering if you could please refrain from removing the link (www.insidebigbrother.com) from the Big Brother (Australian TV series) page.

http://www.atienmedia.com/insidebigbrother/ and http://www.insidebigbrother.com are completely different sites owned by different people. They have nothing in common.

I understand that you do not think that it should appear on the page, but I have just started helping with the insidebigbrother website and would like it listed on this wikipedia page for everyone to enjoy. The content on insidebigbrother relates entirely to Big Brother, so there is no reason why it should not be able to be listed. I could understand if the site had nothing to do with Big Brother, but this is not the case.

Wikipedia is all about free speech and free content.

We are hoping that people will enjoy the insidebigbrother.com website throughout 2006, so we would appreciate it if you could please leave the hyperlink on the Big Brother (Australian TV series) page.

Thanks in advance,

203.191.167.40 07:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree to this. Although your site relates to Big Brother, Wikipedia is not for promoting new websites or for self-promotion. If your site is worthy of adding to Wikipedia, then someone else will add it.

See this link Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer where it says:

1. Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for the promotion of products, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. Likewise, if you're here to make sure that the famous Wikipedia cites you as the authority on something (and possibly pull up your sagging PageRank) you'll probably be disappointed.

Also see Wikipedia:External links#What should not be linked to where it says the following should not be linked:

2. Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates.

Barrylb 09:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to add my support for not including this site in the links section, for the same reasons Barrylb has discussed. If it's notable/useful/popular, someone without a direct connection to the site will add it. --Qirex 10:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Not long ago there were a heap of links to Big Brother related pages, but they were all taken down. These were not all added by people who own Big Brother site. There is no reason why the link should be taken down.

The link is not harming anyone. It is just informing people of the website and hopefully people will enjoy going to the link.

If you could please refrain from removing it, that would be much appreciated.

Thanks, 203.191.167.40 03:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Damien (as you identified yourself on my talk page) - I provided you with reasons explaining why you should not be adding the link. You have not given an acceptable response. Please stop adding the link. I have added a warning to your IP addresses's talk page. Barrylb 07:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

New format

I'm not really sure about this new format with the old housemates in a new page and the seasons reversed. Personally I feel it's actually more cluttered this way, and IMO the old format was much more easier on the eyes. Considering every other Big Brother page (plus the Idol pages) use the old format, I don't why this one shouldn't use the old format as well. Cyclone49 11:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I made the changes. At the time I thought the page was looking stale and needed a lift. The old housemate details, whilst still valid information, is mostly redundant now. I find every other international page on Big Brother a little crowded and ugly-ish as well :( Ideas? -- Longhair | Talk 11:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I notice the UK Big Brother crowd have split their articles into separate pages covering each series. This article will eventually get quite long if the series continues. What do you think of their idea?

• Big_Brother_UK_series_6
• Big_Brother_UK_series_5
• Big_Brother_UK_series_4
• Big_Brother_UK_series_3
• Big_Brother_UK_series_2
• Big_Brother_UK_series_1

and so on.

-- Longhair | Talk 12:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a bit premature at the moment. Considering it's only going to increase by a couple of paragraphs each year, it probably shouldn't be done until the article gets large enough to warrant it. I've noticed the UK did have quite larger articles on each season back when it was on one page, so it probably did need to be seperated, but I think we should wait a while before we do it with this article. At the moment the information on each season is quite small, so each article would be barely be more than a stub. Perhaps if the information on each season gets extended quite a bit it might be a good idea to do the change you sugegsted. Cyclone49 13:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spin-off shows?

I don't think that Uncut, Friday Night Live, Uplate, etc are "spin-offs" as defined on Wikipedia, ie "a new series which contains either characters or theme elements from an old series". These shows are all part of Big Brother, they are not a new series. Celebrity Big Brother is the only show I would call a spin-off. -- Barrylb 28 June 2005 10:07 (UTC)

I agree, there are really just part of the same show. The headline should probably just be changed to something like "Other Shows" Cyclone49 28 June 2005 11:04 (UTC)

Just to note that apparently there will be a spin off show in 2006... a celebrity version of FNL (celebrities instead of housemates). I think it's a bit premature to be adding it to the wiki page though. --sebiv 18:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My deletions

I am deleting this bit from "Criticisms":

despite the fact that the rules state there is no television viewing in the house (although the rules also state that Big Brother can change the rules at any time, and since Big Brother himself allowed the screening, this can be included in "changing the rules").

Claiming there is some of problem with the producers of the show showing a program when "the rules state there is no television viewing in the house" seems silly. Clearly the rule is meant to refer to ordinary broadcast television, not the special videos and broadcasts that Big Brother shows on the plasma screen as part of the show's normal proceedings. All series of Big Brother have featured live and video images over the plasma screen be it Gretel talking to the housemates or farewell massages from evicted housemates. MinorEdit June 29, 2005 00:58 (UTC)

Criticism / What the?!?!?!

This entry under "Criticisms" has me puzzled:

• The unpreparedness and the subsequent poor handling of the Merlin Luck affair by producers and host Gretel Kileen in 2004.

It seems rather POV to me. Was this really a criticism? Speaking of POV, I saw the show and thought Gretel handled it very well. The person who did not handle it well was Merlin. He was staging a protest, but wouldn't speak. Not too good a protest then, as all the points he presumably wanted to make all went unsaid, and nothing was discussed. Gretel handled it so well, that she in fact extracted an apology from Merlin when he returned for the following day's Nomination show. Actually I did hear one criticsm from none other than George Negus, when he indeed claimed that Gretel was not prepared for a politcal protest on Big Brother. Clearly an assertion I disagree with. I can only assume that this former 60 Minutes reporter has never watched the show or seen Gretel in action: she is clearly an extremely intelligent woman and skilled live TV presenter, and has dealt with any unexpected eventuality on the shows I have seen. I'm going to evict this entry soon if no strong objections. MinorEdit 13:03, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

The incident deserves a mention, but not in criticisms. -- Longhair | Talk 16:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I personally thought she handled it quite badly and I was laughing the whole time during the Merlin incident, but you are right, it shouldn't be in critisisms. Cyclone49 23:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I missed it, but it did make headline news and those I know spoke of it at the time. Perhaps a mere mention of it during the 2004 series section, without referring to the hosts reaction will see this fit in easier? -- Longhair | Talk 03:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Strike that. It's already in the article. -- Longhair | Talk 03:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Interviews

This is more a question about the show, than the article - In a departure from usual procedure, candidates were not required to send in videos of themselves as had been the case for prior auditions. Instead, the producers toured major Australian mainland cities and conducted interviews.. I find this strange, seeing as they wouldn't have found their previous 2 winners (Reggie from Hobart or Trevor from Broken Hill) had previous seasons been done this way. -- Chuq 06:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Who knows why the producers changed their methods? Perhaps they thought it would be quicker and easier than sitting thru all those tapes? Perhaps they figured people from smaller places who really wanted to apply would travel to the auditions? Possibly they figured that after four seasons where people could send in a tape, all those likely to do so, had done so already? Maybe they wanted to open things out to those without access to a digital camera or without the inclination to send in a tape but willing to attend an audition? Perhaps they thought they'd get a different breed of person applying this time. Probably all the above are true to some extent? The recently evicted Kate (BB Aust 2005) indicated on her eviction that she finally auditioned this year because of the switch from sending in a tape to attending auditions. MinorEdit 06:58, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE move that "spoiler" regarding the winner

I went to wikipedia to send a weblink to a co-worker to tell her of BB Australia. Though I expected there to be up-to-date news regarding the winner of the season, I didn't expect it to be given away without any warning. Under the line that says "Spoiler warning" the VERY NEXT LINE gives away the warning. (Quoted below). Just less than 15 words away gives the winner. If this had come at the END OF THE ARTICLE or somewhere lower that I had to look to find, then the ending (which I have yet to watch) would not be ruined for me. Very VERY frustrated at the lack of understanding regarding this.

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

The Winner of Big Brother 2005 is 'Logan Greg', who, because of co-currently entering the competition with twin brother 'Logan David', shares his AU$ 865'000 prize money. Runner-up, Tim, who was tipped to win, went away with the usual prize winnings.'

Update by same author. I now see this has been changed. I'm not vain enough to think it was due to my typings, but thanks regardless whoever did it.

No problems. I'd fixed that "spoiler" only just last night. Seems it was added again this morning. It's useful information, but I agree it doesn't need to be so prominent and loud. It's about time the entire article got a good going over. -- Longhair | Talk 03:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your help, Longhair. ((from)the original author of this mini-rant)

Gretel's dummy spit

One of the more classic moments I recall was in the first series, when more than 3 housemates were up for nomination and gretel was having trouble presenting the numbers for voting. When she initially got no help from the producers, she totally lost it and it was so funny. Does anyone else remember more details and think this is worth mentioning? - Shiftchange 00:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Reading in the house

The article says that 2001 was the only season where people were allowed to bring in reading material but I remember Chrissie reading a book in 2003. Does anyone else recall that? Barrylb 07:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

www.insidebigbrother.com

Barryb and Longhair,

If we can sort this matter out amongst ourselves (as advised by Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution) that would be best.

Otherwise I will be making a complaint. www.insidebigbrother.com is an unofficial site such as www.behindbigbrother.com. There is no reason why one should remain and not the other. If insidebigbrother.com is removed for the reason of "self promotion" then why is behindbigbrother.com not removed for the same reason?

I have been an active member of insidebigbrother.com and helped contribute to the website through articles. I would like to see the site remain on wikipedia.

As I have mentioned previously, it offers unique content and also services such as the inside big brother tipping competition - something that other sites do not have.

I do not feel the reason of "self promotion" is valid when removing the link. It is dissapointing to see this kind of behaviour on wikipedia, which is governed by many users.

If you still feel that insidebigbrother.com should not be added as a link, and you believe that behindbigbrother.com should be added as a link then I ask that we seek mediation from a sysop.

Thanks,

David - a fan of insidebigbrother.com (and also behindbigbrother.com too for that matter).

behindbigbrother.com has been around since I think Season 1, reporting on BB news. insidebigbrother hasn't, and has gone as far as to create many fake forum users in the hope of building credibility. Wikipedia includes links to websites of some established worth, and does not act as a link farm to promote every site hoping to gain a wider audience. -- Longhair 06:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made an entry at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature to get some outside opinions. -- Longhair 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Create fake forum users? Sorry but there are no fake forum users. (There was an attempt to import the bulletin board software from the previous hosting company powered by active forums which failed.) -- Generally speaking, I do not see how "creating many fake forum users" would in fact build credibility without the actual posts in there - which there isn't. I will say that the site would not waste time on creating fake users.

I do also believe that insidebigbrother.com has established worth, you can view the various articles that have been written for the site, or view the comments posted by visitors to the site about the articles - in addition to the forum.

The site is also in the unique by the way it offers big brother tipping, something that other australian big brother sites do not offer. I would like to point out that the tipping feature is of worth.

and yes, the site does use google adsense and displays advertising, but so does behindbigbrother.com. The site isn't run to make a profit, it is run as a professional website giving others the options to participate in tipping, discussions or just reading the latest news. User:WikiDavid 05:33, 3 January 2006. (UTC)

Please tell us - how many real users are there? How popular is your site? When was your site first established? Why hasn't someone added it to Wikipedia who is not closely associated with managing the site? Barrylb 08:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Barry,

The insidebigbrother.com site was first established in mid 2005 so we had our own domain name and moved from free hosting. People have added it to Wikipedia who are not closely associated with managing the site. Doing a search via google you will also see that it is added to other big brother related websites and not by people managing the site.

As for the question "How popular is your site?" - that data should not be needed to suffice a link on wikipedia. I see that question as intruding, and one that I don't feel I need to answer. "How many real users are there?" - again I believe that to be intrusive - and 'users' is a broad descriptor.

And now a question for you if that is okay,

• Why does behindbigbrother.com stay, and insidebigbrother.com get removed?

If you say "because it has been around for a long time" and "it is popular" I do not see those as valid reasons. I believe it is about the quality of the website, and the services they have to offer. Behindbigbrother.com is a great website and I believe it should remain, but insidebigbrother.com I also think is a great website and should also remain.

(Both sites are very similar, yet insidebigbrother offers services such as tipping which we had a programmer write for us. Isn't it best to give potential users more choices? offer them tipping?)

I honestly cannot see why insidebigbrother.com is being removed, it is not spam - it is content rich with specialised programs that we had programmed for us. Why do you take it as spam?

Regards,

WikiDavid 11:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)WikiDavid

behindbigbrother.com is notable, period. They've been referenced in the media, and have had relatively high profile clashes with the BB production team themselves. Hell, Mike Goldman has even mentioned them during his late night show. What claim to fame does IBB have? -- Longhair 11:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Insidebigbrother.com doesn't have a claim to fame. Does a website need a claim to fame to be listed on wikipedia nowadays?

I don't disagree that behindbigbrother.com is notable, it is a great site. What I am trying to point out is that insidebigbrother.com offers BB fans services like tipping and etc, which behindbigbrother.com does not. Therefore, should be included as another big brother resource on the Australian big brother webpage. WikiDavid 11:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)WikiDavid

Hang 5. I'll install any old CMS software, whip up some appropriate images, and list my site here as well. In fact, I'll make one for every interested editor. Linkspam overload. Geddit? -- Longhair 11:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Longhair, you are making a lot of assumptions and coming across quite rude to be honest. The sarcasm in your last comment wasn't really appreciated, but once again the assumptions are incorrect. We had a programmer design the site from scratch, so no we did not install any old CMS software. - Im not sure what you mean by "I'll make one for every interested editor" or linkspam overload. I will discontinue the conversation now and wait until a mediator is involved. WikiDavid 11:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)WikiDavid

Rude or not, I can see for myself, you've merely installed a CMS (or paid for the task to be done, which is crazy, read the docs), paid for some customisations, and came here looking for an audience. How's that wrong? What if we all did that? -- Longhair 11:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

David, you say "The insidebigbrother.com site was first established in mid 2005 so we had our own domain name and moved from free hosting." Where was the free site hosted (ie what url) before you got your own domain name and when did you start that free hosted site? Using Google I could not find anyone linking to your site. Can you give me an exact search term? Barrylb 12:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I too would be happy to see IBB included in this article if a provable long-term history like you say can be sourced. Otherwise, it's merely linkspam, and will be reverted as such. -- Longhair 12:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Another question David - the poll on the front page of the site showing 11792 votes cast seems like rather a lot of votes. Over what period did you run the poll? Barrylb 12:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiDavid has chosen to take the matter to mediation. See here. -- Longhair 13:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am the webmaster of Behindbigbrother.com. I don't want to turn this into war of the fansites, but on repeated occasions I have found insidebigbrother to be copying directly from my website. Here is an example: This news story, "FNL gets pre-BB6 spinoff" was directly copied word-for-word by insidebigbrother here (they just edited out the credit to the user who submitted the story). Insidebigbrother was born out of an imitation of behindbigbrother.com - they use the same news engine as us and conveniently started using Google Adsense a few days after it was put on behindbigbrother. --sebiv 17:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

On the chance that the news story is deleted I have also created a screenshot. --sebiv 17:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your input. There's not much we can do about your claim to copyright infringement other than recommened you seek your own legal advice. What we're trying to determine here is whether or not insidebigbrother.com is a site of note in regards to the Big Brother series, or just mere linkspam. Several questions remain unanswered which I trust will be replied to once User:WikiDavid's block expires. -- Longhair 17:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention to pursue the matter however I feel the example helps add to the picture of insidebigbrother. --sebiv 18:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sebiv, as you said this is not a war of the fansites. There are 100's of Australian Big Brother fan websites and there is no reason why we can't all operate. As for the above article you are mentioning this was provided directly to insidebigbrother.com from a fan via the "submit news" feature on the site. It was not taken directly from any website. It was also submitted to us (and published) one day prior to when it appeared on your website making it impossible to be stolen from you. Obviously, no-one knows where all the fans get their news from but it's a little egotistical to imply that it was taken from you.

21:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have to do better than that - anyone can fake a submission date on an article. I wrote that article myself, and whether you're going to pass the blame to an anonymous user doesn't change that fact. --sebiv 10:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't have to do better than that. There were going to be no site wars here remember :) -- Longhair 10:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

haha, I find it so amusing that all of these assumptions get thrown around - I think it says a lot about the maturity of you guys.

* "Insidebigbrother was born out of an imitation of behindbigbrother.com" (We actually found this really bad fan site in the USA and imitated that, sorry)

* "they use the same news engine as us" (The same news engine as you? We had ours created from scratch, so no it is not the same)

* "and conveniently started using Google Adsense a few days after it was put on behindbigbrother" (No, we have been using Google Adsense since 2002 on our other two websites (Which are PR7 authoritative sites by the way))

I don't believe wikipedia is a place to throw around empty assumptions.

behindbigbrother.com is more popular than insidebigbrother.com - insidebigbrother.com is a new website. That I do not dispute, but it would have been great if this could have been a more intelligent debate, and not "i reckon yous copied this from the other website" etc etc.

Dave 23:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Resolve

See above? And can't we resolve this matter on the actual mediation page itself rather than duplicating info everywhere? Thanks for you time spent making sense of this matter. It's much appreicated. -- Longhair 13:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Normally how I work it is you make your statements on the mediation page, we bash it out on the talk page then I make the final suggestion on the mediation page. This leads to the mediation page getting less cluttered I have found. I think this is going to be a fairly easy one to resolve so if its ok by you can we do it here? If you really want we can do it on the mediation page, after all, its your mediation :) - FrancisTyers 13:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I've been before the ArbCom before, and assumed (perhaps incorrectly) you did things the same way. No problems. I see resolution forthcoming. -- Longhair 13:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We're much more informal than the ArbCom ;) - FrancisTyers 13:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)