Talk:Sara Cox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Official complaint to the BBC[edit]

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 02:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that I hope you take BBC to court. I hope they publically apologise for this outrage. Now come on, do you think that is a bit over the top? Rather then go to the BBC, why not e-mail Scott Mills? scott.mills@bbc.co.uk. At least the majority of his emails are read, and if he had not apologised in some form then you could make a huge deal out of it. Seeing as most of the listeners of Radio 1, (no offence) will almost certainly not come back.
Last thing... why is this in Sara Cox article talk page? Lukelabern 14:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God, you sound like a laugh to have at a party. :|

Authenticity check: A search reveals that the phrase "regarded by many" appears in the text. Is the phrase a symptom of a dubious statement? Could a source be quoted instead? Perhaps the "many" could be identified? Might text be edited to more genuinely reflect specific facts?

Wetman

Room 101[edit]

The appearance listed occured before July 2008. The episode that screened was a repeat, as Room 101 ended in 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.139.95 (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy case contrast?[edit]

How is the campbell case a contrast to cox one? They were both made by a person against a newspaper for taking photos of them. The only difference is that cox settled out of court (reportedly receiving £50,000) thus making the cases very similar. It would be a contrast if the court had ruled against cox. 82.46.49.45 (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sara Cox. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sara_Cox&oldid=1208286238"