Talk:Mike Magee (journalist)

Lack of sources

There still seem to be no sources which support the biographical information. Nobody has written a biography of this person. Where does the information about his biography, personal life, occult activities come from? If not from a reliable third-party source, it is still all a WP:BLP violation. I am renominating for deletion. This article should not have been recreated. GlassFET 16:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

One Mike Magee or two

What sources do we have that confirm that Mike Magee the journalist is the same as Mike Magee the occultist? Any? GlassFET 22:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The subject is well aware of the article and has not objected (except to its deletion [1]. Also I strongly suspect it was him that added most of the occult section (yes I know that's frowned upon). If you email Mike Magee at The Inquirer he will confirm he is the same person. Also he'll have a field day with this in The Inquirer as usual. Probably with a headline like "Whackypedia says there's two of me" going by past form... For the record I know him slightly. Citizensmith 22:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The occult stuff is interesting, and I figured it was Magee or someone who knew him who added it in, it's just that we need published sources for it. If those were provided we could add this back in.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I really do object to any suggestion that I added anything in. I didn't. For the record I can confirm my date of birth and name, and all anyone with a small degree of nous has to do is compare the www.shivashakti.com WHOIS entry to the address of the INQ. The new page as it is, however, is vastly superior to the tommyrot that was there before. And I thank you all for that. Mike Magee.

Sorry Mike, for that suggestion - my mistake I really meant to suggest someone in direct contact with you and able to verify some of the info personally had added it - which was later confirmed. I realised my mistake in attributing the edit to you directly afterwards. Citizensmith 18:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Massive deletion

I've deleted about 90% of this article, stripping it down to a stub class. We know he founded The Register and The Inquirer so I left that in, and we also know he was named one of the 100 important people in UK e-commerce (there's a source for it) so I left that in too. Other material (such as the stuff on the occult, if it's true) can be added back in (even drawing on the pages in the history) but only if reliable sources are provided.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

________________________________

Under Wikipedia rules it is not enough to delete material if Wikipedia 'experts' do not know about it. Wikipedia 'evidence rules' are not an arbitary 'every fact needs a source' or face deletion. Specifically it defines it as material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged" as needing a "reliable source". Therefore first test of the evidence is the question "is it likely to be challenged?". Where there are not reliable references made in the article, the information is unlikely to be challenged. In this case the information I wrote is completely true. There is enough evidence for me for a law court to define it as true. What seems to have happened is that someone has deleted something they thought could be challenged and then another has gone for a massive deletion on that basis. I said when you tried to delete the Magee entry last time using similar shady tactics, I would write you a biography that you couldn't disagree with and would be interesting. I did this. My original post had all the links and was done by the book with all the references and the articles he had written on Tantra. For the record I am another IT reporter with occult links. It does happen if someone were to do a biography on me, they would get the same split interests. Anyway I have worked with Magee on a number of occasions in both areas of his expertise. I also submitted this page to him for factual checking before posting. It was he who provided me with some of the dates and book information. I think the original edited copy should be put back in.

[User:Magus007]] June 28, 2007

Please understand, in deleting the sections provided I was actually hoping to help save this entire article from being deleted because I think Magee is notable enough to have an article--i.e. I was not using any "shady tactics" in removing the material. With all of the unsourced biographical material you had included, I think the chances for deletion were much higher. Wikipedia has strict rules about biographies of living persons (see WP:BLP) so the standard for sourcing is pretty high. I don't doubt that the article you created is generally accurate and as I said above the occult stuff is interesting and would be fully worthy of inclusion if properly sourced. Rather than simply listing various publications Magee has to his credit though, can you, or someone else, actually cite those publications directly (i.e. within the article) to establish his work in occult or other areas? That would be helpful, even if the sources are not accessible online. As you probably know your version of the article is fully accessible via the history pages, and much of it could be added back in if and when the sourcing was improved. In that sense my deletions need not be permanent, and so long as the article does not get deleted there is no rush to put this stuff back in without sources because Wikipedia has no deadline. I hope this helps.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added back a lot of the earlier deleted stuff with edits and added some decent sources for verification. His work within tantra & the occult has been very important and influential within that subculture, thus it certainly belongs in the article. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

History merge

Please do not simply remove the request for a history merge. Here is the history. The article was deleted via AfD. It was restored to user space at User:Citizensmith/Mike Magee (journalist). It was edited by that user and then cut and pasted into place here. All the previous history has been lost and the article is not solely the work of the editor who cut and pasted it. Please fix it. The history will also be available in the deleted article. This article has a long history, and that history should not simply be discarded in violation of the GFDL. GlassFET 15:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Sorry I missed the history merge reason. It just looked like an inappropriate db template got stuck in there. Thirty Hail Marys ... richi 16:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Just hope it gets fixed. GlassFET 16:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I did not edit the article or trim it down to its current size. This was done by other editors. Also note that the reason given by others for the mass deletion of info was that it was (in their opinion) not verifiable and therefore could not stay. It subsequently passed an AFD (Keep) partly because of the mass deletion. Also the subject (Magee) has stated clearly that he prefers the article in its current shortened form (although he didn't object to the lengthier one explicitly). Citizensmith 15:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is asking for the article to be lengthened. It's just that even in it's shortened state, the exact wording is derived from numerous previous edits and was not the work of the editor who cut and pasted it or the editor who removed the bulk of the article. In any case, it has now been fixed to my satisfaction. GlassFET 15:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Magee (journalist). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090307061349/http://www.itexaminer.com/ to http://www.itexaminer.com/

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) 12:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)