Talk:Edith Bowman/Archive 1

Archive 1

RFP

I have submitted an RFP to hopefully stop this tide of vandalism ;) Lan3y - [[User talk:Lan3y|Talk]] 15:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a guess it was the usual anti Edith Bowman obsessive trolls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.225.140 (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record

The radio DJs who added this false material seem to not understand: when they vandalise this page, they are destroying a valuable resource. Is the official stance of BBC Radio 1 that it is OK to vandalise public resources? For instance, anyone can scrawl graffiti on a wall, does this mean that they should because they can get away with it? Would the BBC endorse such an action from one of their employees, because that is exactly what they did when they decided to vandalise this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Wikipedia also lets them get away with it. That is the fundemental problem with Wikipedia. 152.78.254.3 12:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

We do not let them get away with it. And you piss the point, anon. The point here is that representatives from media organisations should not be defacing the website - read my official letter of complaint below, but I'll write it here it as I think it bares repeating:

Would Scott Mills and Mark Chapman create an account on Kuro5hin or slashdot and then proceed to add malicious or ridiculous information? There are similarly easy ways of gaining accounts on these websites, methods in which you will not be identified. The point that Scott and Mark were apparently trying to make was that anyone can edit the website with impunity.

Perhaps I should put this a different way. You can go to a public space where there is no surveillance underway, grab a can of spraypaint and then vandalise the wall. You would do this with impunity. Does this mean that the DJs of radio shows should broadcast that they are vandalising public property because they can get away with it?

Food for thought: we'll see what the BBC has to say. If they don't respond, I'll see if DavidGerard can get a response from them. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

They only 'got away with it' if you believe the Register article. Those at Radio 1 got warnings posted on their talk pages and official complaints sent to the BBC, many other users got warnings on their talk pages and those who refused to stop got blocked. All the nonsense added was removed quickly. So who got away with what, exactly? David Johnson [T|C] 22:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Offical complaint to the BBC

I have made the following official complaint to the BBC:

I wish to make a formal complaint in regards to your radio show "The Scott Mills Show". On January 19 they made various edits to the free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia that were false and/or ridiculous (for instance, they wrote "Edith has been romanticly linked with an ironing board." on the Edith Bowman article).

I can provide exact links of where they did this, we maintain an audit log of every change that we make. They also had to create an account "Joshworkinghard". When they log in to the site, they are expected to follow certain site policies: these can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines One of the policies is our policy on adding absurd or ridiculous information, which we class as a form of vandalism. They appear not to have followed this policy.

My complaint is that a media organisation appears to have decided that it is OK to vandalise our website, with the participants seemingly paying no thought to the consequences of their actions, or the reputation of the BBC. After all, I was not aware that the BBC, a respectable institution, condoned and encouraged vandalism!

Would Scott Mills and Mark Chapman create an account on Kuro5hin or slashdot and then proceed to add malicious or ridiculous information? There are similarly easy ways of gaining accounts on these websites, methods in which you will not be identified. The point that Scott and Mark were apparently trying to make was that anyone can edit the website with impunity.

Perhaps I should put this a different way. You can go to a public space where there is no surveillance underway, grab a can of spraypaint and then vandalise the wall. You would do this with impunity. Does this mean that the DJs of radio shows should broadcast that they are vandalising public property because they can get away with it? I think that the answer here is fairly clear.

So, to summarise: I would like to make a complaint about the conduct of your employees, Scott Mills and Mark Chapman when they vandalised various pages, of which I can provide detailed evidence. I would like to know what the BBC's position is on the deliberate vandalising of Wikipedia, or of any other website that are publicly available. Does the BBC encourage or condone such actions?

Finally, I would like to request that you cease and desist from such actions. We provide a valuable service to the public, and while we have some issues of vandalism from individuals, we NEVER expected to see such an august institution as the BBC participating in such petty and irresponsible actions.

Cordially,

Chris Sherlock

Wikipedia Administrator

Hey Chris, will you also be sending letters of complaint to the vatican and Sinn Fein headquarters after they both editied the biography of Gerry Adams, or do you only get involved in tiny, safe non-events? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.102.40 (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my god, what a baby. Get over it. Skinmeister 15:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that the BBC condone vandalism. Does this mean that Scott Mills and Mark Chapman will be creating a slashdot or kuro5hin account to deliberately vandalise those websites? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I sent the following e-mail to the BBC network abuse e-mail address on the day. I was at the time not aware that they had gone on to create an account and continue their vandalism (had I known this, it would have been more strongly worded):

Hello,

The IP address 132.185.144.120 has been used on a number of occasions to deliberately introduce incorrect information into or otherwise vandalise Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/) articles. The last such event was on the 18th of January when a member of the Scott Mills show vandalised an article then discussed it on the air.

The vandalism of articles which occurs after they've been referenced on national radio is difficult enough to control, without BBC staff contributing to it.

The Wikipedia community would be grateful if you could investigate ways to educate staff about Wikipedia, encouraging them to make useful edits rather than commit vandalism. Continued vandalism from the IP address concerned is likely to result in the IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia, which would be unfortunate as useful contributions have been made from the IP address is the past.

Thanks,

David, on behalf of the Wikipedia community.

--David Johnson [T|C] 23:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely, even though the vandalism was absurd and ridiculous, the hype surrounding the wave of vandalism has increased the number of users of this encycloedia. An increased number of users could only increase the number of additions and corrections to the articles on this website. I think you need to take it on the chin and deal with it. Its all publicity.

Any feedback yet? Edith will be mine. Oh yes. She will be mine.--Crestville 00:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This is pathetic, get over it. ACK-OA Alkoholicks 09:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I don't believe the merge from the article about the radio show 'Colin and Edith' to an article about one of the presenters of the show, should've occured. It doesn't gell with this article and the subject itself only refers directly to content of the radio show as apposed to information regarding Edith. I believe the information should be returned to its own article and expanded upon there. ~~ Peteb16 22:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed the added 'split' proposal and fully agree with it. ~~ Peteb16 16:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it's slighlty annoying that the merge was proposed for ten days before it went ahead. I was uncertain but with no complaints, I felt it must be the right thing to do.

For what its worth, my reasoning was that both The Jo Whiley Show and The Scott Mills Show had been merged into their repesctive dj's. Colin and Edith is a show that is coming to an end, the Colin Murray article links straight to the relevant portion of this article, and the info on the page was very stub-esque.

Issues such as its position in the page can be resolved with furhter editing and intergration. --Robdurbar 19:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that a distinct article is needed for the Colin and Edith Show - afterall, it seems unsatisfactory (perhaps even biased) to place the information about a joint show on one page and linking from the other. It'd be incredibly bad practice to duplicate.

I'll also cite precedent here, viz., the previous occupants of the early afternoon slot: Markand Lard have a page at Mark and Lard for the show. This seems the best solution to the dual presenter problem although I can see your reasons for the merge (if I'd been about a bit more I'd've probably opposed it though.) MikeMorley 20:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see why you felt it should be merged however it's stubesque status doesn't necessarily mean it can't be expanded on to make a valid article. The current information provided is short however I'd like to see if it were possible to expand on each section of the show maybe referring to past CD Burners and Five Decades songs. Plus 'Take on me' isn't mentioned at all. ~~ Peteb16 21:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine; I'm not particularly against splitting; just (slightly) annoyed that objections wern't raised whilst the merge tag was there! Nevermind, eh, it all goes to boosting the old edit count... --Robdurbar 17:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've split the two articles again and tidied up Colin and Edith so it justifies an article of its own. I hope everyone is happy with this ~~ Peteb16 14:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to be picky...

... but I've noticed some edits went in this article today along the lines of 'Bowman began hosting the show solo on 14 August 2006." Now, at the time of writing this - and of those edits going in - it's not the 14th yet. Anyone else faintly amused? (I've left them in because I can't be bothered to put them all back in tomorrow after 1pm when it becomes true! MikeMorley 22:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Romantically involved with Tom Smith

This article states that Edith Bowman is 'romantically involved with Tom Smith', yet the Tom Smith page says he is living with Jo Whiley! Anyone know which is true? Robferrer 14:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Given it was unreferenced i have removed that claim. Thanks/wangi 14:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the Jo Whiley one is definately a lie. As for this - I know I've read it in the Guardian so I don't think it'll be too hard to turn up a source. --Robdurbar 16:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

See theregister news article. She may have wrote that herself! — Jack · talk · 20:00, Tuesday, 27 March 2007

Fair use rationale for File:Edith Bowerman.jpg

File:Edith Bowerman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect date of birth

Two different DOBs stated (one in the main article and one in the infobox) 77.101.93.204 23:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there an official source that shows which one is actually true? ~~ Peteb16 23:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Zane Lowe picture

It seems completely unnecessary. The infobox picture is good enough on its own. What does the second picture add to the article? SteveRamone 20:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I boldly removed the picture. It served no purpose. If you want to reinstate it, explain why. SteveRamone 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Barefoot?

I removed an unreferenced sentence about Edith presenting Hitlist UK barefoot, which was put in again in a different form almost immediately.

Is this really a notable point? It is obviously true (I've seen the show myself) but I fail to see the relevance to her media career. I will remove it, and if there are any objections I am up for discussion. Man from the Ministry (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if this was true and was documented somewhere, say as a factoid in a newspaper gossip column, it's far too trivial for an encylopeadic article like this one. It also appears out of place in the context in which it is repeatedly being written into. I believe you're right to remove it. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

YouTube link removal

1 link removed - TV footage - No indication from clip information or uploader profile that uploader has rights to the material concerned, or is connected to the production entity responsible for it. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the previous version of the article, the youtube video was probably a 'reference' for the information I removed (see above). Good catch, I missed that one. Man from the Ministry (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I've removed the criticism section since all the references were based off Facebook hate groups and forum posts and cannot really be taken seriously. All current Radio 1 DJs (such as Jo Whiley, Chris Moyles, and Scott Mills) have their opponents, but citing a Facebook group as a reason to criticise does not exactly hold any water, no matter how many members said group may have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarfy (talk • contribs) 21:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Football club

about 9 minutes ago 4:32 pm wednesday 15 april edith bowman received a text message from a listener who requested three little birds as he hoped every little thing wil be alright for manchester united in the champions league tonight and edith replied there's no need to worry we'll be alright. this seems to imply she supports manchester united. if you do some research and find a refrence surely this could be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.182.157 (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oxtail soup

I've removed the oxtail soup comment since it was invented way before Edith was born and was obviously added by a troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.130.127 (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

new job announced adam buxton 6 music

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2012/adam-buxton-and-edith-bowman-6-music.html --31.126.249.186 (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC) --31.126.249.186 (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edith Bowman. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004155351/http://www.famemagazine.co.uk/2008/05/01/celebrities-show-true-colours-in-charity-fashion-campaign/ to http://www.famemagazine.co.uk/2008/05/01/celebrities-show-true-colours-in-charity-fashion-campaign/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)