User talk:Nightfactoy

Image copyright problem with Image:Chanelle Jade Hayes.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Chanelle Jade Hayes.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 22:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copyright tag added to page

I have changed this some time back, adding a copyright tag as required.I have removed the tag from the page of the image in question.Nightfactoy (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT KEEP REVERTING CHANELLE HAYES WITH DUE REASON AND EXPLANATION.

OK I will leave a comment next time. I did think the reason was obvious but perhaps not to all. There has been a lot of graffiti on the page over the past few days and It is sometimes tedious to keep removing it and commenting as well each time. I will try to do so now every time I revert so that people understand.Nightfactoy (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop adding fiction and flatterng material to the chanelle hayes page. Chanelle was in a sex tape.

It's not a sex tape as there is no sex in it. Also the source and reason for this tape has not been revealed yet. Said to be part of new TV show "Fur TV" (comedy show), but not confirmed and contextualised. According to Chanelle's Agent "all will be revealed in time" so we will wait and see. Whatever the contents of this tape (when the full unedited version is released) Chanelle has many other videos for interviews and magazines that are not on the page so I don't see why this one should take presidence. All content currently on the page is sourced and referenced, written in a objective manner. Any non-sourced, unreferenced, subjective material will be delted when seen.Nightfactoy (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chanelle: Wannabe Popstar

I really have a problem with the way you are dealing with this page. I add episode details AS I watch the show, it is not just made up. Comments from the show are accurate and honest, something which the page should be about, it is NOT a Chanelle promotional website! I find it very childish that you delete these very accurate and neutral episode guides, and to class them as graffiti is just plain ridiculous. If you were such a great page editor you would do the episode updates yourself, however you seem blinded by Chanelle's celebrity and obviously have no idea about being a fair and open minded fan, so any attempt by you to update them would lead to just a pure Chanelle Appreciation Page! It is people like you that are ruining Wikipedia, and it saddens me that it is getting to the point where it is the psycho fans who rule the roost! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.172.137 (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it due to erroneous information. Like your comment above it was full of subjective slurs on Chanelle. The current episode descriptions are just there for a taster for the show. If people want to add objective descriptions of further episodes that's fine of course. I am trying to keep the page clear of dislikers who only edit to vent their dislike of Chanelle. The comment above is a clear example of a skewed and distorted attitude towards the subject matter. What is needed is a clear head and a constructive frame of mind when editing.Nightfactoy (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous information? Give me an example of anything on that page that was innacruate. Like I said, I wrote each episode guide as I watched the show, even rewinding a few times to make sure things were accurate. Each episode guide was fair and subjective, with view points from both a fan and non-fan point of view. Any comments you regard as negative, were merely a true representation of the show and of things that were actually seen or said, they weren't things that were just made up. As it happens, I am a fan of Chanelle, and I love the show. However, I'm not stupid enough to think the sun shines out of her behind. Have you actually seen the episodes? If so then you should quite easily be able to see that the episode guides were very accurate. If not, then you really have no say about what is or isn't true. And if you have seen the episodes, then why don't you update the guides?

What is needed is a fair and balanced page, not some shrine which people are scared to edit for fear of someone undoing a perfectly good article.

If you were so unhappy with the guides why didn't you just edit them slightly and more to your standards instead of removing them completely? What does that do other than remove two perfectly good episode guides?

I Want It

I have left a link on the Discussion page of this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:I_Want_It) for you to verify for yourself the date the single entered the UK Singles Chart. If you have another source then please verify it and we will use that instead, otherwise we must use what is available. It is very relevant to the article as it is about the single of which the article speaks of. Thank you. ChanelleHayes (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Release date of the single is all that is needed: 12th May. People can deduce from that that the single entered the charts at the end of that week: 12th - 18th, entering the official UK Charts at No. 63 on Sunday 18th (not 24th as stated by user Chanellehayes). So no change is needed. I have undone comments in line with this. Please, there is no need to change this, especially with erroneous info. Nightfactoy (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have written on the discussion page of the article, just because a single is released on a Monday it does not guarantee charting the following Sunday. Many singles in the UK Singles Charts have taken weeks, sometimes months, to enter the charts. The information I have provided on the page is to do with the article and just reassures anyone who is not familiar with how the Singles chart works. Not everyone is from the UK and not everyone will be aware of how singles chart. If I had added something offensive or clearly nothing to do with the article then I would understand your stance in removing it, however it is perfectly acceptable to be included on the page, and is usable by anyone who visits Wikipedia. Please do not remove something unless you feel it is out of place or so wrong that it can't be edited. I have no problems at all with any of your previous edits on this article, and therefore I would expect the same kind of respect from you regarding other peoples use of the article. ChanelleHayes (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since you have changed the date now to the correct one, not 24th, I will leave it as it is now. What I am trying to do is keep the page ordered and free of erroneous info. Also to keep it simple and clear for readers to understand. A song will chart the following week only if it didn't reach the charts on the previous week, but this one did reach the charts in the first week. Meaning it to be of even more importance to get the date right. I think you can see from the standard of articles that I have edited that I have shown good tact and consideration in developing the pages, that is my aim anyway. I take people edits as they come. All I ask is that people respect the page and don't give false/subjective information out of some dislike of Chanelle. Can we keep discussion related to pages in their own associated discussion area please. Nightfactoy (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last comment on this matter in your talk page, and I will only put it here as it is in relation to the above comment. You say;

"All I ask is that people respect the page and don't give false/subjective information out of some dislike of Chanelle."

and I agree with this statement and share its sentiment. However, I do not see how a date that a single charted could be considered subjective. It is fact. I put a wrong date and I put my hands up to that, but all you had to do was edit the date, not remove the entire sentence. I do not dislike Chanelle, quite the opposite. I am open minded enough to know she isn't perfect, however. She is your idol, perhaps, and that is fine, but it doesn't mean it should cloud your judgment when editing Wikipedia pages about her or any other page. I hope this is an end to this matter and we will carry on with our respective Wikipedia outings. ChanelleHayes (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am just trying, as I keep repeating, to keep the pages free of errors. I am so used to graffiti attempts that I have to be careful when someone puts an erroneous date (out by a week, meaning the single to be uncharted in the first week, which is untrue). As I say I am trying to keep the page balanced and objective in the way info is displayed. People may disagree but most people don't I find, it is just the odd few. As you can see I have left your edits in on several instances. It is not about being a fan it is about seeking valid and unbiased portrayal, however you are entitled to your view.Nightfactoy (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

If you continue to revert Chanelle: Wannabe Popstar (TV series) to keep inappropriate links in the article and tags out of it, you will be blocked. It has been explained to you on the article talk page why both the links and the article tone are unsuitable, and you are additionally removing edits that cleaned up the article to bring it more into compliance with the Manual of Style. I strongly suggest you make yourself familiar with the three-revert rule, and note that three reverts are not an entitlement. Consider yourself warned. EyeSerene^talk 17:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above also applies to your reinsertion of unsuitable links on Chanelle Hayes. EyeSerene^talk 18:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning - edit warring and bad faith accusations

I'm warning you for edit warring at Chanelle Hayes for removing sourced information, and additionally for accusing me of attempting to defame Hayes. MickMacNee (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning - misue of minor flag

In addition to the open warnings above, I am warning you not to label reverts and removals of sourced information as minor edits, see Help:Minor edit. MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diff for the record :[1]. MickMacNee (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Edits to Chanelle Hayes

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Chanelle Hayes, you will be blocked from editing.

Hi, Please don't change the Chanelle Hayes page, there is a discussion on consensus to change needed prior to your edits. If you do continue to revert you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please constructively join the conversation about new edits on the talk page. Thank you! Fr33kman^{talk APW} 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you expect me to discuss with every wanderer who decides to contribute their biased info on the page? In my experience people never listen in these discussions. Do you want the page to fall into a list of nonsense 'facts'. Is this what Wicki is all about? I am beginning to loose faith in the objectivity of Wickipedia. How can one possibly keep a page objective with these sort of obsticles to good intentions?Nightfactoy (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chanelle Hayes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. In fairness, regardless of your intentions; I have to warn you of the 3RR rule. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 20:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a war from my perspective. Just defending my edits. I repeatedly revert edits because certain people repeatedly put the same biased info on the page. Is this what you want me to do leave biased info on the page? Surely that isn't a good thing? Nightfactoy (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say, for the record, that there is a lot of edits on the page that I wouldn't have done but have left, as they do no harm to the general content. Also in the spirit of collaboration and good will. The people who show no goodwill do tend to stand out a mile, and have to be edited to keep the page objective. They may provide references etc. but their edits are aimed to deceive unfortunately. I hope the official Wicki editors see sense on this issue.Nightfactoy (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continually removing sourced material from Chanelle Hayes, against consensus and despite previous warnings not to do so. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

EyeSerene^talk 08:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Chanelle Jade Hayes.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Big Brother Newsletter – June 2019

Sent by DannyS712 (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 08:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Big Brother Newsletter – July 2019

Sent by User:ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Big Brother Newsletter – January 2020

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Big Brother Newsletter – July 2020

User:TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]