Talk:Michelle McManus

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

little if any success as a recording artist?[edit]

I have no idea who Michelle is, and only came to this article randomly, but if she has had singles debut at #1, a less extreme statement "moderate success" seems more appropriate. Transcendentalstate 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she had a UK number one after winning the competition, and then she was dropped by her record label after her next single didn't make the top 10. WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden 18:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, she had success, followed immediately by failure. Is there a word for that? "Moderate success" doesn't really fit that as it implies neither great success nor great failure. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 18:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a word for that? Yep there sure is, my friend. It's called 'Celebrityitis' and most of the UK seems to be afflicted with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.73.105 (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost 8 stone?[edit]

That's a lot indeed. I was just searching the web for information on what weight she started from and for before and after pictures.

So far I've found this. It states that she has gone from 22 to 13 stone - does this mean that:

  • she's dropped another stone since
  • the 8 stone is a little imprecise
  • the 22 and the 13 are a little imprecise

It took me a while to figure out the sequence of pictures. Then I figured that, if they're in any order, then it appears to be reverse chronological....

I see she's 5'1". So her ideal weight is about 7st (depending on whom you believe) to about 9st 6lb ... but to shake off from 58.2 to 34.4 is certainly good going.... -- Smjg 14:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NEW COMMENT: I don't get this - surely dropping from 22 to 13 stone is a drop of 9 stone isn't it? What do you mean, dropped another stone since? Either I'm being a bit thick or there is some issue here. (by Jim) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.219.213 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 29 July 2006

You seem to have answered your own question there.... -- Smjg (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acting role in Womack vs Womack[edit]

I don't understand how "the late Jessica Tandy" can be in this series, when she has been dead since 1994. Sah10406 22:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joker[edit]

Some joker has been messing with the article - see references to Burger King, the "fatness" DVD, the target weight of "45 stones" and a few other ones in there.


And the "she was considered ugly enough to fulfil this role without any make up" True?

I certainly consider this to be a true statement, but this is WP so I guess anyone can just put what they like down.
She certainly is fat and ugly, so no errors there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.0.26 (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need an infobox?[edit]

I've just started here and I am looking for articles to improve. I think this artice needs some improving. For one, an infobox with a picture or at least some image of the woman in question. Is this required, and can anyone find images that are copyright appropriate?--Bionic-Sun 18:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do need an infobox. An image isn't necessary but if a free one can be found, it would be good. I had a look of flickr but none of the images of Michelle are free to use. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 19:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the infobox I put there? --Bionic-Sun 19:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, I added some more info. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 22:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"Sympathy vote"?[edit]

Can someone please let me know why it is fit for the article to express the fact that she won the talent show because of a sympathy vote!

This is an opinion - and should never be included in an encyclopaedia!

Matty2002 15:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Release date[edit]

How could the "All This Time" single be released on 17 November 2003 when she didn't win the competition till the 20th December 2003? It reached the charts on the 11 January, which would suggest that it was released in the New Year.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Here is an image up for use if welcome.

File:Micheel.jpg

--Spainton (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Here is an image up for use if welcome.

File:Micheel.jpg

--Spainton (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Image[edit]

File:Michelle2007.jpg
You may use this image.

--Spainton (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to believe that this image won't be summarily deleted, like the two previous images you listed here? Or that the regular editors of this article aren't just as capable as you - if not more so - of locating validly licensed images that have been uploaded?
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image would look find on this article --Spainton (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason to believe that this image won't be summarily deleted, like the two previous images you listed here? This isn't a comment on whether the image would look "find", but whether the license is up to scratch and the image isn't just some dodgy screengrab pillaged off Flikr. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 21:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much flag for making me laugh tonight!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Spainton is the latest in a long line of Nimbley6 sock puppets; it'll be blocked soon and another sock/troll will popup in its place. The Nimbley6 troll seems to have an obsession with Scottish topics, images, infoboxes, sub-headings, and atrocious spelling and grammar - so it's fairly easy to spot. On the whole I just revert it; sometimes it can be amusing engaging it in a discussion, though.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nominations of Different Beat, Dancing to a Different Beat[edit]

An article about a song by Michell McManus, Different Beat, has been listed for deletion on the grounds there isn't any evidence this song has been released. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Different Beat. Thank you.

My hope is that this song has been released and I can request speedy-close/keep. However, an internet search didn't come up with anything. Help me out here folks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article about an album by Michell McManus, Dancing To A Different Beat, has been listed for deletion on the grounds there isn't any evidence this album has been released. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing To A Different Beat. Thank you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My hope is that this album has been released and I can request speedy-close/keep. However, an internet search didn't come up with anything. Help me out here folks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have speedy deleted both articles based on the lack of sources for the album and questions raised about the article creator's motives. I agree with davidwr: if the article can be sourced, it should be duly recreated. However, like him, I couldn't find sources on the Internet, nor a sales listing on amazon.co.uk. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Damn shame too: 1) Lots of time wasted on this, and 2) she sounds like a more-than-merely-notable artist, it looks like that project fell through or got delayed. Sigh. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since there now seems to be confirmation that the second album is called Different Beat (per the primary source mentioned in the article) I've added that, and redirected both Different Beat and Different Beat (Michelle McManus album) here. People interested in the album or musician might want to watchlist those. --Amalthea 00:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No risk of that. The album has less chance of being released than I have of getting a record contract. Has anyone else heard the rumour that her massive chin has been recording drill n bass records under the name 'The Malus'? --Tortwebster (talk) 05:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major cleanup project[edit]

All articles related to this artist needs to be referenced. In particular, all claims of fame need references.

Also, all songs and albums that need disambiguating need to have standard formats, I recommend

... (Michelle McManus album)

and

... (Michelle McManus song).

All disambigation pages will need to be updated accordingly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Well do it then you lazy bum! Have made a start.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in non-notable singles[edit]

I think non-notable singles should be merged into this article until they warrant their own article. If they are later put on an album, the content can be moved to that album's page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic agree. Can we salt the frequently recreated articles as well? This sock is nothing if not persistent. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the article, a locked redirect, with or without previous edit history, might be in order. I'm not sure the appropriate forum if there is no current article. If there is a current article, AFD can have that as an outcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see any justification in this having an article. It's worth mentioning on this page - as it already is. The infobox (which is about all the article consits of) isn't needed on this page.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree --78.148.234.52 (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected it to Different Beat, but didn't merge any information. Amalthea 12:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early Michelle song[edit]

As seen here, Michelle had a song out in 1996 titled "Standing Here All Alone" [1]. Shouldnt it be included in the singles box, charted at #69 in the UK. --84.13.96.163 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily the same person. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse it is, its in the page with All This Time and The Meaning of Love which are both Michelle singles. --84.13.96.163 (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think if Michelle McManus had released a single in 1996 (when she was 16) she probably would have used the name Michelle McManus not Michelle as it was Simon Cowell who got rid of the McManus part, just like he did with Leona Lewis on her first single. I think back in 1996, some singer came along and released a song using her first name only, and it wasn't Michelle McManus. It wasn't a success and she didn't release any other singles. In fact, here is the CD cover. I highly doubt it's the same person. The chartstats website has just assumed it's the same person because it's the same name. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I just found out, that singer was called Michelle Narine. So I was right. I'm listening to it on Youtube right now. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Image[edit]

thumb|right|Michelle McManus. Found this image and looks and seems free to use. --92.27.182.162 (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image was uploaded to commons by a sock puppet of Nimbley6 (a former editor who was so disruptive they were indefinitely blocked; after continuing to disrupt Wikipedia by sock puppeting they were then banned); all previous images uploaded by this editor have then been used in articles by Nimbley6 socks here on en.wiki. The image's metadata suggests it's a scan of a magazine, which is a common Nimbley6 practice. All images uploaded to commons by YesYesYesJAIHO have been deleted as blatant copyright violations; I see no reason why this image will be any different.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear oh dear! Mate, go and meet the girl - take a picture - and that will be fine (find!)!! --Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite! The sad thing is, if Nimbley6 actually did this no one would believe the photo was genuine. Since they're banned now, they can be reverted without comment anyway - past efforts to inform them about policy have failed to produce any improvement in behaviour, so good faith is irrelevant now. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Michelle Image (Which is Free unlike previous posted)[edit]

File:Michelle McManus.jpg
Michelle Image from Flikr. Some Rights Reserved. For use on the Article.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by NowIKnow24 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC) --NowIKnow24 (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the Flickr user also uploaded an album cover to Flickr and licenced with with a CC licence, I'd say that's not their photo. In fact, you're probably Nimbley6 and that's probably your Flickr account. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 86.133.112.211, 8 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

Remove the pointer to the web site, it's no longer associated with this person 86.133.112.211 (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, done.  Chzz  ►  23:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

New Album[edit]

"Early 2010", any update on this or has someone added the details for nothing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.108.181 (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea if this is real or not. Different Beat has been in the article for a very long time and the release date keeps moving on and on and on. A quick Google search brings up some results, but I didn't go into any. AnemoneProjectors 01:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duet?[edit]

Could it be worth adding this to the Discography section under Featured Artist? https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=michelle+mcmanus+tom+urie&pbx=1&oq=michelle+mcmanus+tom+urie&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=144l4686l0l5337l20l14l0l0l0l0l949l5227l1.4.2.3.0.3.1l14l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=793c92bef9ad073d&biw=1280&bih=709 92.22.15.111 (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another TV Credit[edit]

I have another TV credit - article locked so can't add it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b018jq2x/Is_Mise_Michelle_McManus/

"Is Mise Michelle McManus": First broadcast BBC ALBA, 9:00PM Sun, 25 Dec 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.142.237 (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

As per WP:DOB (a section of the WP:BLP policy) I have removed the uncited exact date of birth from the article. It should not be restored unless it is not only cited, but cited to a source or soures which make it clear that the date has been widely published, or else published with the subject's approval. This might be clear if the sources is itself notable and widely published, or if there are multiple reliable sources, or if the sources says or plainly implies that the date was published with the subject's consent, or in other ways. The day and month of birth of a living person are of little encyclopedic value, while making them public can contribute to identity theft and other problems. The year suffices to place the subject in chronological context. See WT:BLP#Dates of birth and info boxes for discussion. DES (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michelle McManus. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michelle McManus. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Michelle McManus. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michelle McManus. 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) 11:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not an actress[edit]

Playing herself in 1 cameo role on 1 occasion does not make her an actress. Please list any sources for any other roles that she did here before simply keeping adding the same unsourced claims?Simply-the-truth (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are citations for two plays in which she appeared. Please stop vandalising. 173.224.116.232 (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
please do not attack me as a problem editor because I disagree with unsourced claims you want to add. Add sources here so others can discuss first?Simply-the-truth (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
there are sources for her being a former presenter, not as an actress? No songs released for last 6 years either so a former singer as well?Simply-the-truth (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading dialogue, even when playing oneself, is acting (see: Larry David). She is also cited as a stage actress per BBC News. Again, stop vandalising. 173.224.116.233 (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

if you can add relevant people and sources that agree playing yourself is acting then happy to revert, but if you cant then its a no im afraid. Please follow wikis guidelines, what you think is acting is npov and not what is allowed. Please also stop the attacks. I am not vandalising I am asking for relevant sources re wikis rules on living subjects, please be polite and discuss hereSimply-the-truth (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE Discuss here, happy to add as an actress if relevant sources are found, please lets discuss and agree on the best way forward on this issue?Simply-the-truth (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The best way forward is for you to stop vandalising. There are references supporting her status as an actress. 173.224.116.233 (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
STOP the personal attacks. All you had to do was find a list refs for the claim. I have done this for you, your welcome. I have reported you for being a sock and abusive as wellSimply-the-truth (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SHE HAS NOT HAD A RECORD CONTRACT SINCE 2005 OR RELEASE ANOTHER ALBUM SINCE THEN, unless you can show this is untrue then stop reverting it— Preceding unsigned comment added by Simply-the-truth (talk • contribs)

Uninvolved editor's opinion: 1. using words such as those proposed by "simply-the-truth" violates the requirement for Wikipedia to retain a neutral encyclopedic tone and results in readers being presented a negative opinion of the subject. (WP:NPOV)
2. If she was an actress at some point and that can be shown with reliable sources, then there is no ground for removing it. (WP:RS)
3. "unless you can show this is untrue then stop reverting it" - Even if we ignored the language neutrality issue, that's still a textbook example of Ad ignorantiam reasoning - which is a logical fallacy and incorrectly shifts the burden of proof. Also, the concerned editor should stop his bad faith attitude, that doesn't work on WP. 135.23.202.24 (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This had now been sorted and agreed I think— Preceding unsigned comment added by Simply-the-truth (talk • contribs)

has subject ever released another albumn[edit]

Vandal is taking great offence to me stating this FACT in the lead, please list sources for any other albums she has ever released??Simply-the-truth (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection[edit]

Due to recent edits on this page, which I would argue is nothing more than a user wishing to engage in an edit war with other users, is it maybe time to look at getting this article protected against such disruptive edits? The user in question, "Simply the Truth" clearly has something against McManus and this shows in the edits, disrupting the article and trying to disguise many aspects of McManus's career and success, such as the creation of her own record label. Please let me know your thoughts! Goodreg3 (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the personal attacks and assume good faith. Any editor an edit facts that are true etc, not just you. To threaten me with being blocked instantly is just funny, you do not have that power. This is not your article alone, that you accuse others of edit-wars when that is what you are doing. Please provide any source at all re Mcmani records ever being set up, I mean any roof at all, ever? That is all that is needed to then put this claim on the subjects page? Turning on the lights once years ago is not notable re wiki rules. This is done by many people every year, there is no need to mention it. But please stop acting like you have a divine right to decide what is allowed on this page, who can edit etc, and stop the aggressive stupid threats, Lets just work together on this page and agree on any changes etcSimply-the-truth (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

McMani records??[edit]

Can anyone at all provide any sources at all that this record label was ever created and/or traded? Literally anything at all, apart from the subject saying she planned to set it up, in one interview, ten years ago? A certain editor has taken great offence to the fact that as there is no sources for this label then it cant be listed on the page as having existed. So, anyone at all, any source at all ever would be useful?Simply-the-truth (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references you request have now been added to the article. Goodreg3 (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You added a gossip mag and a DM article, neither allowed as you know. The subject herself saying, 10 years ago, that she was setting this up is not proof that she did. Please stop with you childish vandalism on the article, following me around trying to cause problems wherever I post. You have had enough warnings already, im sure many more will lead to a ban for youSimply-the-truth (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the subject says she wanted to set her own record company up to release new material. The fact that she hasnt released any new material in over 10 years should show that the record company was never set up?Simply-the-truth (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are prepared to keep this going then I feel sorry for you. I'm prepared to spend my time more constructively. You refer to two out of five provided sources, so you are just clearly going to keep reverting any edit as you please. To this extent, you will end up getting blocked eventually so I'm not going to keep wasting my time on you as Wikipedia and Wikipedians who actually want to benefit the whole Wikipedia community have absolutely no time for trolls like you. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So thats a NO then, you dont have any sources at all, you just want to be a vandal and a troll and keep reverting to unsourced made up claims, lol! Yes, you are so much better than me! Thats why you are constantly being warned and blocked, what a foolSimply-the-truth (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, dear. Constantly being warned and blocked? Please, present your case and evidence to support your argument on that one. I pity you. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could stop your constant vandalism and reverts so easily. Just PROVIDE ONE VERIFIED SOURCE that the record company was ever set up. Its that easy, just 1 source and we can add it to the article??????Simply-the-truth (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michelle McManus. 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) 23:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_McManus&oldid=1206442491"