Jump to content

Talk:Jonathan Ross

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

Clean up

[edit]

An article with lot's of information - that's repeated, an presently messy! Rgds, - Trident13 11:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which genius replaced all the Rs with Ws? XD I'd fix it myself if a. it wasn't hilarious (albeit unoriginal) and b. I could be bothered actually going through and changing them all back ... 80.192.131.182 17:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This line: "Taking over presenting of The Film programme in 1999, he began making cameo appearances, playing himself in the Spice Girls' film Spiceworld (1997)" doesn't make sense. It sounds like he began making cameos after 1999, even though the film was released in 97. Leedrick 04:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition: First paragraph of broadcast career section:
".... he met fellow researcher Alan Marke, and the two devised what would prove to be a breakthrough hit for Ross in 1987, The Last Resort with Jonathan Ross. The pair based their concept on the successful American show Late Night with David Letterman, and formed a new production company called Channel X .... "
8th paragraph:
"Ross founded the production company Channel X with Alan Marke in 1987, which went on to produce such successes as The Last Resort, The Incredibly Strange Film Show and One Hour With Jonathan Ross"
I suggest that the first sentence of the eighth paragraph be removed entirely, and the following sentence edited, so that it reads simply: "In 1995 Ross left Channel X despite its profitable nature. He was quoted in a 1998 article as stating:"
Also, is the fact that "He was born the day after Gilbert Harding, the English journalist and radio and television personality, died." Really notable? I don't think so!
82.32.24.146 16:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish

[edit]

Is Jonathan Ross jewish? Is there a confusion here with the actor called Jonathan Adam Ross who is Jewish? Source please. --Dumbo1 21:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but his wife is. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Friday Night with Jonathan Ross on 20 May 2009, he said that he is "not religious". Should that not be added to his profile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.178.216 (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Ross' knob

[edit]

Should there be mention of Karl Pilkington's fascinating discussion of Jonathan Ross' penis in episode two of the Ricky Gervais show? --71.107.254.235 04:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think anything related to Karl Pilkington is of utmost importance. It should be added at once. --Dremits (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who? Rodhullandemu 17:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

This article has been moved around a lot recently: first from Jonathan Ross to Jonathan Ross (Celebrity), then to Jonathan Stephen Ross, then to Jonathan Ross (English TV presenter). There are still a lot of links at Jonathan Ross (currently a disambiguation page, because of Jonathan Ross (senator)) that need to be redirected here, but I'd like to be sure of the consensus about the article name before I correct them. I agree that disambiguation by profession is better than using the middle name, but I'm not sure we need "English TV" in the title; I think Jonathan Ross (presenter) or Jonathan Ross (television presenter) should suffice. (I also know that some Wikipedians dislike the use of the abbreviation "TV" for "television" — hi, Terence!)

Comparison with other disambiguated members of Category:British television presenters may also be illuminating: there's Kaye Adams (presenter), Rick Adams (television presenter), Gordon Burns (television), Jon Bentley (TV presenter), et cetera. I think (looking at the category and its subcats) that "John Smith (television presenter)" is the most common.

What do other editors think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Apparently the article was at Jonathan Ross (presenter) at some point before June 20, 2005 ([1]), but I can't tell whether it stayed there for any length of time or if it was just a temporary move. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
If nobody objects in the next day or so, I think I'll move the article to Jonathan Ross (television presenter) and take care of the redirects... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. All the redirect links now point to Jonathan Ross (television presenter). I didn't change the links in articles, because of WP:R#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. I'll leave you alone now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it now stands there is no disambiguation page. Here are the current redirects:
* Jonathan Ross → Jonathan Ross (television presenter)
* Jonathan Ross (disambiguation) → Jonathan Ross → Jonathan Ross (television presenter)
I will undo the change to Jonathan Ross which does not require any move. When the move is decided on then we will know where the disambiguation should remain. -- Patleahy 21:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanorama S3

[edit]

FYI, Japanorama is no longer the TWO seasons as mentioned.

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Jonathan Ross (television presenter) → Jonathan Ross — Since this is the most notable "Jonathan Ross" on Wikipedia, I propose this article be renamed to "Jonathan Ross". There is already a disambiguation page for the other uses which is being referred to by this article. Rebroad 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
  • Oppose - I don't think it is clear that Jonathan Ross (television presenter) , a media personality known little outside his own country is more notable than Jonathan Ross (senator), who served in a national government and is still being written about 100 years later. -- Patleahy 21:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Jonathan Ross is a major celebrity. The article says he is the highest paid TV host in Britain. The senator was in the Senate for a year. I don't know if he's in Wikipedia because he accomplished anything or because people have decided to put a mini-biography together on every U.S. Senator who ever lived. If that's the meaning of "still being written about 100 years later", it's not much. I'm against recentism, but even if these two had been contemporaries I doubt they would be comparable. Joeldl 08:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Until this discussion, I had no idea that there was a senator named Jonathan Ross. A Google search reveals no entries for him in the first ten pages. If he's "still being written about" it must be in a very tiny font! :-D -- JediLofty User | Talk 09:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is a subject that has been discussed before. Jonathan Ross (television presenter) is as famous in the UK as Johnny Carson was here in the USA. In the UK, the term Television Presenter is the preferred term to describe his claim to fame. In the US, we might say TV Host. Since the article name sums him up perfectly I say leave it.LiPollis 16:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - The British TV and radio presenter is the OVERWHELMING primary use of this name. Check Google if anyone needs to confirm the obvious; the following are the Google results for "Jonathan Ross":
    • Jonathan Ross, the British TV and radio presenter gets the Google results at number 1,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,12,15,17,18,21,22,23,24,25,etc,etc.
    • Jonathan Ross, the 19th century senator gets zero Google hits from the first 3 pages.
    • If more proof is needed, "Jonathan Ross" + BBC = 375,000 results. "Jonathan Ross" + senator = 11,300 results. That's a 96.4% (!) majority for the British TV and radio presenter. Crazysuit 18:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments:
I made a mistake when I put the note about the move we are discussing on the article page for Jonathan Ross (senator) and not the talk page. I have not moved it to the talk page. I have also removed the note on the article page for Jonathan Ross (television presenter). This is now in line with the instructions at WP:RM. I apologise for my mistake. -- Patleahy 19:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The notability of the UK celebrity is evidently great; he is one of the most recognisable figures on British television, and has been for some time. The argument is not so easy to make for the US senator. We have full details of his education, and positions filled, from the cradle to the grave, but no sign that he actually did anything as senator worth noting, other than simply being a senator. Against that backdrop, I cannot see any conclusion other than to declare that the TV presenter is much more significant than the US politician, and the move the pages as requested. Yes, Google hits are biased towards recent figures, but sometimes recent figures really are more well-known than older ones. This article has been renamed from Jonathan Ross (television presenter) to Jonathan Ross as the result of a move request. Concomitantly, Jonathan Ross has been moved to Jonathan Ross (disambiguation). --Stemonitis 20:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name... again

[edit]

I'm not going to formally introduce this at requested moves while the above request is still active but I'd like to bring up the notion that this article should be at Jonathan Ross (broadcaster). The reason being he is a presenter on radio, not just television, (though it is for discussion whether his television presenting career is more notable) and a film critic. The subjects of "presenter" disambiguated articles tend to be just radio and/television presenters but his film critic job brings in a third element. David Frost (broadcaster), Andrew Collins (broadcaster) and Richard Skinner (broadcaster), to name a few, all follow this pattern. Thoughts? WindsorFan 18:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this – I misread the above discussion.WindsorFan 12:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extras appearance

[edit]

There's no mention of his cameo appearance in HBO and BBC comedy 'Extras' by Steven Merchant and Ricky Gervais. Should be added somewhere!

HALO 3

[edit]

It is TRUE that ross recorded a cameo for halo3! ive added a brief sentance. Lord Cuthberton —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, he is definately in there somewhere - as a Marine I believe. But I have no proof for this. However, note that Nathan Fillion, Alan Tudyk and Adam Baldwin also Make Celebrity Cameos[2]. I'm guessing it was probably supposed to be a secret? JamesR87 11:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

[edit]

Is it in any way relevant to add that Jonathan was born a day after those two mentioned blokes died, or that he shared a birtday with Peter Cook? If no one objects I'll be removing that part monday evening. Allthecoolnamesweretaken 19:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speech problem

[edit]

Why is there no mention of Woss's -- sorry, Ross's famous speech impediment? I don't know the name for the condition that makes him substitute "w" for "r" (my mum said it's a form of lisp, but the Wiki article doesn't seem to say so), but I think it should be mentioned as it's part of his TV persona -- even he makes light of it. I think it deserves a place on Wi-- sorry, Rikipedia! Dave-ros (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's called rhotacism and Ross' is referred to in the article Friday Night with Jonathan Ross. Since it's most related to his television appearances, of which this is the most well-known, I doubt there's much point repeating it here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a bit calling it a speech impediment that you removed for NPOV...we could call it a speech disorder if that sounds better than you, but I don't think it's accurate to say that calling it a speech impediment is an NPOV problem -- it appears to be the accepted term for when a person cannot pronounce certain sounds. I think it merits inclusion into the page because this is one ingredient (among others) that makes him unique. Clearly Jonathan's done well for himself, he's not embarrassed by it, and I don't see any reason why we would shy away from mentioning it. Meddlecascade (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is already mentioned, in the "Personal Life" section, as is the nickname "Wossy", and I don't think it bears repetition. I don't see it as an impediment because that connotes disability. Neither do I see it as a disorder, for the same reason. --Rodhullandemu 21:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's in the "Personal Life" section I think makes this argument moot. Right now it's buried in a paragraph about his kids' names so I'll add a line break and we can call it good...or continue the discussion.Meddlecascade (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook removal

[edit]

The article states he has afacebook profile with 8000 friends. Can I remind everyone this is an encyclopedia and not a trivia magazine. The inclusion of the facebook and how many friends he has is against Wikipedia policies. Perhaps the person who added it, should go and add the same about other celebrities stating how many friends others have. Please remove it. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Irrelevant bollocks, and now removed. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC

Birth

[edit]

He's from Leytonstone as he has said on his programs various times.

BORN in Camden, GREW UP in Leytonstone, as his biog (referenced) makes clear. --Rodhullandemu 23:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why...?

[edit]

Why has that picture been chosen? Is it supposed to make JR look like a rapist? I recommend finding another one.

FreemDeem (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a living person, we a limited to copyright-free images; please feel free to go out and take one and upload it here. --Rodhullandemu 18:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sense error in Russell Brand prank calls row section

[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} please delete "both" Cck973 (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, sorted.--EchetusXe (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improve article

[edit]

I have spent a short while improving it. If someone else wants to go further I suggest re-writing the broadcasting career section which looks a bit bland now, just reads 'On date and then he did this, then this, then this' etc.--EchetusXe (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over "sometimes" or "often" controversial

[edit]

Both weasel words but WP:NPOV and WP:V suggest we go with what is supported by the sources. Since a rather silly edit war has arisen (and will probably end up in WP:LAME) over which to use, and one editor is a floating IP, I have protected the article for three days while you sort this out here. --Rodhullandemu 16:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this debate and agree. What a silly edit war and I can't believe I'm commenting on this, but here goes. The word was originally 'occasionally' then it was changed to 'often' a few days ago. That seemed a bit misleading to me so I tried to find a more suitable word. Perhaps it might be a good idea to leave it out altogether and just have 'he has been involved in controversy'. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter page

[edit]

I've added an external link to his Twitter Page. I've said it's authenticated, but the only real proof is some pictures he took of himself infront of his PC, which displayed his Twitter page (if that makes sense). It is, as far as I can tell, genuine. Look through the posts for the pics before deleting the link is my advice/opinion/wish/hope/etc :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.59.175 (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshop is great, isn't it? The problem we have is that these images are original research since we're expected to draw a conclusion from them. Now, if he tells someone in a newspaper interview that he uses Twitter, that's fine. Until then, and that we don't regard blogs as reliable sources (since anyone can claim to be Ross), it's got to go. Sorry. --Rodhullandemu 00:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He spoke about it on his TV show and on his radio show at the weekend. He also took pictures of his office, which look unlike any other office on the planet. It has been reported in numerous newspapers as being him, notably after he leaked the news that he would be presenting the BAFTAs next month. It is him. MultipleTom (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May well be him. But how does having this link in the article get over WP:ELNO? We don't link to such sites because they have no encyclopedic value. See WP:NOT. --Rodhullandemu 20:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia permits links to the subject's blog though, doesn't it? Aside from the 140-character limit, what differentiates Twitter from Blogspot?
And enough "may well be him", please. It is incontrovertibly him. MultipleTom (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To deal with your points seriatim, whereas we may link to a subject's blog, the only things we would regard as being valid there are those that come from the subject himself- and even so, we would be caught by policy on self-published sources, which are not necessarily regarded as being reliable. Twitter is, as far as I can tell, a recent record of text messages which more or less reflect current chat. If you seriously think that linking to that fulfils the purpose of an encyclopedia, then I think you've failed to understand what we are about. There are thousands and millions of fansites around better equipped, and more up to date than Wikipedia. Wikinews, for example, but even so, we regard what the subjects of articles say about themselves to fail the acid test of reliability and notability. Wikipedia is an inappropriate medium for Twitter linking, and as long as there is breath in my body, will remain so. There's trivia, and there's this crap. If you really think Wikipedia should link to it, may I humbly suggest you're in the wrong place. --Rodhullandemu 23:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of interview with major stars

[edit]

It has been reported that no people in showbusiness will entertain his show. Tom Cruise has rejected him he stated he has no wish to be involved in the controversy. Most sensible people of medial direction will reject any interface with Jonathan Ross he has become a media pariah, quite rightly so. This should be included in the article. It is quite a unique situation.

except that's untrue, as Tom Cruise is appearing on the show tonight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.224.185 (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and, of course, highlights the need for reliable sources, as opposed to otherwise. --Rodhullandemu 00:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Nobody can seriously regard the Daily Mail as a reliable source for anything but arthritic grumblings and spittle-flecked jealous rantings (sorry, I meant to say, as a reliable source for the genuine concerns of its Middle England readership). SilkTork *YES! 12:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity?

[edit]

As much as I like Jonathan Ross, and as much as I detest having to source the Daily Mail, Ross's integrity as a film reviewer must come into question when he is so chummy with film stars (and film star wannabes) on his chat show. His review of the embarrassingly contrived and terribly acted Lesbian Vampire Killers came on the same Film 2009 show in which he had interviewed its stars in a cloyingly ingratiating manner. If this were on Sky it would be less of a problem, but the Film franchise surely deserves better?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1163268/Consistently-abominable-Lesbian-Vampire-Killers.html

Guardian review, which also believes the film is anything but "fangtastic"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/mar/22/leasbian-vampire-killers

Guv2006 (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot say this ourselves; please see WP:SYNTH, WP:OR. If anyone else has pointed this out, we can cite them if they are a reliable source. Rodhullandemu 13:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error in "Hannah Montana comment" section

[edit]

The "Hannah Montana comment" section incorrectly quotes from Jonathan Ross's comment on a radio show. (The incorrect quote has also appeared in a number of publications.)

The quote is given as:

"If your son asks for a Hannah Montana MP3 player, you might want to already think about putting him down for adoption before he brings his, erm, partner home."

However, Ross actually said:

"If your son asks for a Hannah Montana MP3 player, then you might want to already think about putting him down for adoption in later life when they settle down with their partner"

It is important to get this quote right, as Ross was saying that the hypothetical gay son would adopt a child later in life - ie. the gay son would be the adopter rather than the adoptee. In contrast, the misquote implies that Ross was suggesting gay children should be 'given away' for adoption, which has been the source of the accusations of homophobia.

Original quote available to hear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isM9mj20c6M

EightPass (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've included the original quote although I left out speculation on what Ross meant by it because of a possible conflict with WP:ORIG. MaesterTonberry (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Error in 'Personal life' section

[edit]

The article states that Jonathn Ross and his wife featured in a Neil Gaiman short story; the story appeared in the collection 'Smoke and Mirrors', not 'Fragile Things' HuzzahHenry (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Americana

[edit]

There is no mention of Americana the 3 part documentary series from 1992 which Ross wrote/narrated. Please add a bit about that. Lowbrau (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if you could add a bit more information and perhaps find one or two references. Also, you could try writing an article about it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have now created a very basic article, see Americana (1992 TV series). Feel free to add to and expand this. TheRetroGuy (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the BBC

[edit]

It has just been announced that Ross is leaving the BBC. Reported as breaking news on BBC News channel. It may be best to wait for an article to appear on a news website before including in the article. SimonMayer (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've covered it. Handy that the page was semi-protected to begin with, saved the usual drama. WFCforLife (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When exactly does Jonathan Ross cease to work for the BBC?

[edit]

The date on the article is incorrect. Can it be updated to the correct time (or sooner?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.36.100 (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comic book writing

[edit]

Can we not add it to his occupations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.143.111 (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna / black baby comment

[edit]

Does the comment about Madonna's adopted son at the 2006 British comedy awards qualify as a controversy? The video is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXEO9P3IBEE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poikkeusreitti (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think only if commented upon by reliable sources, but such references are not unusual in UK comedy. Rodhullandemu 22:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Executive at Microsoft

[edit]

Ross is now an exec at Microsoft - an executive producer for the Xbox Games Divison, apparently. 129.180.175.45 (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jonathan Ross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonathan Ross. 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: 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) 08:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jonathan Ross. 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: 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) 17:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonathan Ross. 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: 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) 22:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of § Homophobia accusation

[edit]

Hello; the section "Homophobia accusation" has been removed by 90.255.179.206; I reverted this as unexplained content removal, and the IP editor reverted my restoration. Does anyone else have an opinion on whether this section should remain, or comments? Thank you. Tol | Talk | Contribs 23:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section

[edit]

So there's a rule against WP:CSECTIONs. Jack Upland (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathan_Ross&oldid=1252184339"