Talk:Scott Mills (radio show)

message: 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
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 02:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, vandalism of Wikipedia is not a victimless crime. Wikipedia and those who want to use it to gain information are the victim. How would you like it if someone vandalised your project? I doubt you would. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia isn't designed for fun and jokes.  Cycle~ (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offical complaint to the BBC 

message: Moved to Talk:Scott Mills; that is where the merge tag directs you Robdurbar 17:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: Isn't he the "nastiest man in the world" or "angriest man in the world" rather than nasty pizza man (although that is what he is) Pickle 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Angry Pizza Man

message: In the article it says "Scott begins the show with a catchphrase. On Monday - Thursday the catchphrase is "Alright Treacle"". I haven't heard him say this for a while, I don't even think he says it any more and for this reason I have removed. It could be mentioned somewhere else in the article though. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catchphrase 

message: I have been through the article and done my best to make it more encyclopaedic in language and accurate in grammar, and removed the many sentences and phrases repeated almost verbatim in multiple sections.  However, I think it could do with some more work from a fresh pair of eyes. There is still a lot of unsourced material on this page, especially regarding the format, which really needs someone to find independent verifications.  Also, when adding to the article, I often used the term 'programme' rather than 'show'.  I was  unsure whether to continue with the latter term for consistency in the article, but as neither is a very scientific term, I felt alternating between the two made the article more readable-does anyone have an opinion on this? Please change my 'programme' edits to 'show' if you disagree with me.  Jomunro (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. I had a look on Answers.com and under 'programme', one of the entries is "A scheduled radio or television show.". So I'd say programme is the right word to use. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 00:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy-editing

message: The paragraph on Scott Mills: The Musical needs a rewrite to state what actually happened, with references. At present it is pretending that it's a future event. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  obsolete 

message: The first paragraph on Radio 1 controversy doesnt need to be in this page as it is about Chris Moyles not scott mills. So, not really relevant. 122.57.213.230 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure it was about Mills' show. --AntL (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversy 

message: The past features section is rather long and messy. How would others feel if the section was reduced to a paragraph or two? --AntL (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past Features section