User talk:Wiki edit Jonny

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! (I notice that you have been signing your posts but I wasn't sure if you knew the correct way to do so.) — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before editing talk pages again in the future, please familiarise yourself with WP:NOT, especially WP:NOT#FORUM. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 12:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about the breach of etiquette with the X Factor website comment. I considered at the time that it was not a comment for the discussion page. You're right, it shouldn't have been added. Wiki edit jonny 22:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you're the other main contributor to The X Factor-related articles, I thought I'd ask you as I haven't had a reply on the talk page. The X Factor (TV series) currently says that it's a UK and Irish show, but it's produced in the UK, it simply allows Irish contestants and Irish viewers to vote, therefore I think it should be changed to British, and the series 3 and 4 articles be moved so they don't include Irish in the title. I wondered if you would agree with that or not? — AnemoneProjectors (?) 10:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a tricky one. To call it 'British' means that it is only English, Scottish and Welsh (as they are the nations that make up Britain). 'UK' refers to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so by simply calling it a 'UK talent show' would save the need to call it 'Irish'. Does that help? Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 18:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British can still apply to the whole of the UK (see British). The main reason I asked is because it's not produced in the Republic of Ireland, therefore it's technically not "Irish" in that sense of the word. I also want to move The X Factor UK and Ireland series 3 and The X Factor UK and Ireland series 4 to The X Factor (UK series 3) and The X Factor (UK series 4) respectively. I'm not really sure why the "Ireland" part was added because people in the Republic of Ireland have always been able to vote and audition so there's no reason why series 3 and 4 should have Ireland in the title when 1 and 2 don't. The section "The X Factor around the world" explains Ireland anyway. Do you support these changes? — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support changing the page titles, because it is only aired in the Republic of Ireland, therefore, it is not Irish. There are no auditions in RoI, there are only auditions in Northern Ireland, which comes under the banner of the UK. However, I still believe that 'British' means the island of Britain i.e. England, Scotland and Wales. The article for 'British' says that it is 'a term once used as collective description for both Great Britain and Ireland'. The article for Great Britain also says that it consists of England, Scotland and Wales. It is only with the term 'UK' that it refers to Northern Ireland as well. But I think you're right, it is incorrect to call it 'Irish'. Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 21:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the moves now. The whole British thing is complicated but it does say that 'British' can refer to something from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But let's forget about that issue. The main X Factor article says there have been auditions in Dublin. But I just wanted approval from another user to get rid of 'Irish' and you seemed to be the best person to ask! Thanks. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 22:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. So does that mean that all the internal links to series 3 and series 4 articles will have to be updated? Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using AWB to update them all now. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it is necessary to have the section about the X Factor promotional trailer? To me, it seems a little pointless because it doesn't include anything anyone needs to know. It is also a bit out of date because we're now in the middle of the series, with the promotional trailer long gone. Let me know what you think. Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 20:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it's necessary, I agree with you. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 21:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete it then. Thanks. Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 22:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Job done. Cheers for your help. Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 22:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. By the way, I'll always respond if you post on the article's talk page, and that way others might too. I only messaged you before because I was getting no response there :) — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 22:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I copy and paste this conversation onto the article talk page then? Jonny - Wiki edit jonny 22:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I wouldn't bother. If anyone objects to your removing the section they'll either put it back or bring it up on the article's talk page themselves. Then you can mention that we talked about it on your own talk page, and then it can be discussed further there. Remember, you can be bold in editing, and if someone disagrees with your edit then it can be discussed in order to build consensus. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:The X Factor series 4 judges.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:The X Factor series 4 judges.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:X Factor Emily.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Dermot O'Leary.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed the "Bleeding Love" review from the album but there are some comments about the album that you might like to add, such as "Good things are worth waiting for and this is no exception. The debut album is likely to surprise critics." I was going to do it myself but am too tired at the moment to put it into the right words! — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 23:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine, seeing as the comments are about the single and not the album. I'll add the ones about the album tomorrow, got to go to bed now. Wiki edit Jonny 23:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about this review of "Bleeding Love"? I know it's a bad one but a) it would keep the article balanced and b) I love the line "it sounds as much like Gwen Stefani's "Hollaback Girl" as a ballad can." :) — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 14:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that earlier and it made me laugh lol. Yeah, it's good that it provides a different opinion. I'll get working on it now... Wiki edit Jonny 16:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I include the comment saying: 'Lewis wisely restrains her vocals, never devolving into those vocal acrobatics that have historically plagued Christina Aguilera.'? It's highly relevant because Christina and Mariah (Carey) have received criticism for their 'vocal acrobatics' that makes their work 'more impressive than expressive'. However, the comment isn't neutral because it is defamatory of Aguilera. Wiki edit Jonny 17:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never liked Aguilera so I say go ahead ;) — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 18:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw that you had some trouble with the viewing figures citation format on The X Factor (UK series 4) article. It was simply because you did not put " </ref> " after the citation link, so therefore it did not format it properly. I have fixed it now, but just in future in case you would like to know (it's always handy to know). I've tried to add the viewing figures each week, but last week's weren't published in The Guardian for some reason. I'll do my best to try and keep adding the updates. Happy editing. Eagle Owl 18:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I had/have nothing to do with the viewing figures. My edit was to move the Future shows section up as I feel it's more important now we're past the auditions stage in the series. When I moved the section up, it made the references section disappear. And the edit before that by user 86.136.148.108 had the Future shows section below the references, at the very bottom, in a chaotic format. But I think it is user 86.136.148.108 who had a part in the omission of '</ref>'. Thanks though, best wishes, Wiki edit Jonny 10:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, in a Heat magazine interview some time ago, Chris Moyles said if Sharon Osbourne left, he would do The X Factor in full drag. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 10:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, very strange. :) Wiki edit Jonny 10:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 17:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that two media have shown Moyles to say entirely opposite things — I think a medium's been making up quotations again... tut tut tut. Wiki edit Jonny 18:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Heat interview (referenced in the above link) was weeks ago, so maybe he changed his mind since then. ^anemone|_projectors 20:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that figures. Nice new signature btw Wiki edit Jonny 21:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it took me ages to figure it out! ^anemone|_projectors 21:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Leona Lewis showcase America.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be arsed. I've got better things to do than squabble over a poxy illustration. Delete it if you want. Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sent me to read this to say that you can't be bothered to do anything about the image? Wow. J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief note to let you know that I have undone your edit regarding fish/fishes. For an explanation, please see this discussion. RN1970 (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gutted you want to delete my article Leona Lewis on The X Factor, especially as you are interested in Leona Lewis and The X Factor. How about a collaboration to try to make it better rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water? Leonapedia (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an addition to the deletion page for the Leona Lewis on The X Factor article which you might like to look at. Leonapedia (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God, I just wanted to tell you that you have done a really good work with your template of the Music Industry!Olliyeah (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Olliyeah! It means a lot to hear something like that after the numerous days I spent building it! I see you're a major fan of Christina — I'm a big fan as well. I mostly edit on the Leona Lewis side of things though. I've actually always meant to get round to editing on the Christina article but I don't think I know quite enough about her to get started just yet. I mean, I know how she was found and about her vocal range, and I've got all her releases. Hmmm, maybe I'll pop by some day and get involved. Thanks though, Olliyeah :) Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have The X Factor (UK series 5) on my watchlist and therefore get to see a lot of your edit summaries for that page, and I have to say I'm concerned about a few. Edit summaries such as the following are not helpful:

• oh for pete's sake! You cannot be serious?! [1]
• thanks for that, smart Alec.[2]
• I'm starting to get angry now. STOP DOING IT. This is your final warning.[3]
• what the hell was that about?! [4]
• Reverted edit by Kanabekobaton - what are you playing at?![5]
• please don't add stupid and UNSOURCED statements [6]

It's absolutely fine to revert someone who makes an unhelpful edit, however rather than accompany that with edit summaries such as those above, please keep your edit summaries less incendiary. Edit summaries such as "I'm starting to get angry now. STOP DOING IT. This is your final warning" will rarely stop someone from making an edit and are more likely to provoke the other editor.

You were right to revert the first edit I listed, however a better edit summary would have been something like "revert - the seating places of judges is too trivial". Thanks for your time. Mark83 (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, my edit summaries can be a bit blunt. But, 95% of the edits made to the article are by non-registered users who either add rubbish, make a mess, or vandalise the article. On the rare occasion that someone actually makes a decent edit (that adds value), it is a breath of fresh air! I acknowledge that my edit summaries are sometimes harsh, however, with all due respect :) I am not prepared to say "thank you for your time" to someone who says "The seating arrangements for the judges have changed this year. The order of this years seating is...".

With regards to the summaries that warned severely, that user repeatedly deleted the X Factor template from all X Factor articles, with no explanation. Each time I reverted it, the user undid it, again, with no explanation. It got to the point where I had to warn that user because it was just getting absurd.

I know I should separate what I would like to say and what I should say, but since AnemoneProjectors left, I have been pretty much the only user working full-time on the article – it being the main article I edit. It gets wearisome when all you seem to see are edits that, although in good faith, are just silly/detrimental.

You said you have The X Factor articles on your watchlist - why don't you join me and we can edit the articles together? It would be such a help to have another, non-amateur user to help shape the article. Please let me know. Thanks, Mark83 — Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please just think twice about your "blunt" edit summaries in future. I know how frustrating it is to see articles you've worked hard on vandalised and/or edited in unhelpful ways. But instead of "thanks for that, smart Alec." sort of edit summaries try to keep to the policy/style reasons of your edits and reverts. Cheers.

I was saying "thanks for your time" to you, for reading my comments - not suggesting you should be putting that in your edit summaries! (see where the quotation marks end) :)

This is the only X Factor article on my watchlist, I will be happy to try and catch more of the vandalism.Mark83 (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. Sorry, I was reading too fast and missed the closing quotation marks. In assurance, I will keep a tab on my edit summaries in future :) I will try never to repeat it; but let me know if the old fingers get carried away on the keyboard again! haha. Shall think before I type now :D — Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the "tried out" thing. It's not a big deal at all, but since you asked me to help out on the article I just think that it's better to be encyclopedic twice (i.e. repeat ourselves saying "auditioned") than have less than encyclopedic such as "tried out". Wikipedia would never say Barack Obama or John McCain "tried out" or "had a stab" for the US Presidency, I don't see why we should suspend encyclopedic language for X Factor topics. Mark83 (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

overtaken by events! [7] Mark83 (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I would have gone with your judgement anyway, after that rationale. Am trying to find a new template to say that the article's about an ongoing series rather than an upcoming one... do you know if there is one? — Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one – {{future television|Wiki edit Jonny}} ...? — Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the channel part of the page because STV and UTV are part of the ITV Network, don't treat them separately. Also, TV3 Ireland is not the primary channel of first showing as Ireland is not part of the UK. Kieranthompson

Hi, i've just noticed your hidden comment on Template:The X Factor UK and I was wondering why it should be Male-Female-Male-Female? I mean, is this in a policy somewhere? I really feel the template would be much better if the judges were listen by order of their seniority. Simon-Louis-Dannii-Cheryl, what are your thoughts on this? Cheers! JS (chat) 01:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Good question – the main reason is because from series 1–3 the judges were listed in male-female-male order, on the show, and in any publication: "Simon Cowell, Sharon Osbourne and Louis Walsh". With the addition of Dannii Minogue in series 4, the judges' list was spoken as "Simon Cowell, Sharon Osbourne, Louis Walsh and Dannii Minogue". Since then, it has been taken that the judges are listed in male-female-male-female order of seniority, to strike the best balance between seniority and the sexes (we have to be equal with these things!). Subsequently, this is why the current judges are listed as "Simon Cowell, Dannii Minogue, Louis Walsh and Cheryl Cole".

Hope this helps. Thanks. Jonny — Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see! That seems like good logic to me. Thanks for clearing things up. Happy editing :-) JS (chat) 23:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did a fantastic job on the series 5 article in my absence and thought you should know the series 6 article is up and running, and it could really do with some edits from you :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please please please come back, The X Factor needs you! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Anenome. Yeah, I desperately want to come back but I find I am one of those people who are either "all or nothing". If I do commit to the article, for my own peace of mind and sense quality control I fear I'd probably end up editing like an addict! I know it's lame but my lifestyle has changed now since I'm no longer a student, and working full-time now... yadda yadda ya. But honestly, I will try my best to find time to do some real shaping to the articles. It is one of my first passions, after all :) Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Did you see Danyl Johnson on last week's episode? Totally astounding. He's gone viral on YouTube now and the States are going crazy for him. Apparently he's being flown over to be on a show on NBC this week. I think it's amazing how YouTube has changed the way in which reality TV contestants are plucked from obscurity; well... caterpaulted, really!

He's the one to watch so far. All the good editors are leaving Wikipedia, and all in projects that have very few good editors. I never had a problem with Wikipedia when I was working full time. So what job did you get and can you get me one? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you get time could you give an opinion at Talk:The X Factor (UK series 5)#We should have a colour for the contestant who recieved the lowest votes for that week thanks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wiki edit Jonny,

I wondered whether it might be possible to get permission to comercially re-use the above image of Simon Cowell in a juice recipe book, to be published later in the year. It would be used as a small inset image next to the juice recipe that he is famous for. If you could message me back, that would be fantastic.

Many thanks, Alexyander (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, be my guest :) Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]