This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ianmacm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
God bless us one and all. I wanted to upload this to Wikipedia but couldn't because it would have copyright issues. So here is the most fun thing on the television.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Amazing. After that dramatic, tension-fuelled opening, I found the action-packed narrative scenes only heightened the overall sense of stiffled outrage and social displacement. By the end I was emotionally exhausted. One of Carole's best, I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The music is "Song for Lorraine" by Spyro Gyra; yes, they did things other than Morning Dance (song). And although 1080 lines is supposed to be full HD, it is now being superseded by 4K resolution. Planet Earth II was shot in 4K. And I can shoot in 4K as well! Unfortunately, 4K videos are too large to upload and play on most computers at the moment, so I have reduced this one in size to 720p, which any computer not fit for the dustbin should play. It is some Christmas lights and can be downloaded here. For the technically minded, this video is 22.2MB and the original 4K version is 130MB.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
More apologies - just saw your post on the King talk page. Not sure what I have done wrong. It is 6am in Glasgow and I never quite made it to bed. Not particularly interested in either but irritated by incorrect details and repetition of words and punctuation. Ditto unfair details when one sided putting one side but not the other.62.128.211.247 (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
IP Location United Kingdom United Kingdom Glasgow Iomart
YouTube
I provided more links to support my changes on YouTube page. Please, do not remove. Follow the links and read through. It is really hard to find a scanned printed book that discusses this stuff. Also, see talk page for YouTube article. Mikus (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
None of the bullet points in WP:NOTHOWTO applies to my recent changes of the YouTube article. I provided specific info, not how-to. Also see the talk page for YouTube article. Mikus (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
UUCP/Usenet Logical Map — June 1, 1981 / mods by S. McGeady November 19, 1981
on Usenet this text-map word-wraps, your revert does not fix this.
Do you know how to fix the word-wrap instead of reverting? A jpeg of the the text seems a simple fix.Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Guitar youtube.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi, could you please explain why you reverted my edit to Amber Heard's page? You cite WP:BLP, but I don't see any contradiction between my edit and that policy. My edit was well sourced, and affirmed by the parties in question. Thanks. Tossrock (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The reason why this edit was reverted because of concerns about BLP and its overall suitability. The source from People (magazine) is typical glossy supermarket magazine stuff ("they walked arm-in-arm" etc) and doesn't really meet Wikipedia's standard of reliable sourcing. There is also an element of WP:NOTNEWS here. What Amber Heard is doing seems to be a perpetual fascination for the tabloids, but as WP:BLPSOURCES says, "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, I didn't realize People didn't meet the standard of reliable sources - is there an up to date list of acceptable sources, or only guidelines? I think I took the fact that parties in question effectively affirmed it as primary sources via their instagrams made me think it was reliably sourced. As for the NOTNEWS standard, I guess I took the existence of other material of that nature (past entries in her dating life) as indicative of what types of information was acceptable. Thanks for this discussion. Tossrock (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
People (magazine) is a glossy supermarket magazine. It uses a breathy "ooh, isn't this interesting" tone to report on what celebrities are doing. If celebrity A goes out on a date with celebrity B, it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards of notability unless it is covered in more mainstream sources.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Could you please help me by defining what makes People unsuitable as a source? You say "glossy supermarket magazine" - are any magazines sold in supermarkets considered unreliable sources? For example, National Geographic is a glossy magazine sold in supermarkets, but is frequently cited as a reliable source on this encyclopaedia. In fact, People is cited many times as well - for example, in Johnny Depp's page, it is cite numbers 21, 98, 103, etc. From even a cursory inspection of commonly cited sources on celebrity pages, it's clear that People is regarded as a reliable source. So, I'm inclined to believe you're sadly misinformed about People being an accepted, reliable source on this encyclopaedia, and merely justifying your reflexive deletion of my edit, which was unjustified based on wikipedia content standards. However, even leaving aside People as a source, it has also been reported in the Los Angeles Times - see here: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-entertainment-news-updates-april-amber-heard-and-elon-musk-downplay-1493054147-htmlstory.html Thanks for the discussion. Tossrock (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not particularly disputing the reliability of the story, as they may well have gone out on a date together. The Los Angeles Times has repeated what People magazine said, and this is churnalism. The LAT hasn't done any reporting of its own. Strictly speaking, this is an article related issue which should be discussed at Talk:Amber Heard. There is a thread at Talk:Amber_Heard#Amber_Heard_and_Elon_Musk.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)07:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
File:Clinthill limo.png
I appreciate you adding the non-free use rationales for those two articles, but it looks like you removed the very basic one that had been provided for the Zapruder film itself while doing so. Do you think you could go back and re-add that? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I am conducting a GAR of YouTube. I notice you are by far the most frequent editor of the page, with a total count of 811. Do you have any comments about the article's status? dannymusiceditorSpeak up!11:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
KAT!!
Hello,
I have seen that you have reverted my edits on KickAss Torrents wiki page, stating the reason "katcr.co as a look alike site" katcr.co is not a look alike site its the original KAT now, as you can see it have the orignal KickAss Staff members who brought up and are developing the site and it is still is under development but its the real KickAssTorrents — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Groot (talk • contribs) 14:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is not an unofficial mirror. However, as I said in this edit summary "The new version is built from a clean start. It lacks all of the torrents, source code and user accounts of the old version, although it is created by some of the people involved in the pre-July 2016 site." The consensus on the talk page is not to portray katcr.co as exactly the same site when it is not. All of the torrents and user accounts of the old version were lost when the old site was raided, so some of the people involved started afresh and created katcr.co.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at 2017 Manchester Arena bombing shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Stop this and discuss on the talk page, or you will be blocked.Esnertofidel (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah whatever, I'm out on this one for the time being because of the repeated and silly attempts to add it. Do you really think that this is vitally important for the reader to know unless she actually gets arrested and charged? I don't.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)20:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, I also reverted for WP:BLP reasons, as it was using WP:OR in the wikilink to imply that she had called for ethnic cleansing of Muslims. She did use the phrase "final solution" which was silly and unfortunate, but subsequently corrected herself. Anyway, it's the proverbial storm in a teacup as there are far more important things to worry about, unless she does get arrested or charged.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)21:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I like the way that Esnertofidel warned you about 3RR, then took it up to 9RR before getting blocked, and also the way that the 3RR warning left by Esnertofidel for you is exactly the same as the 3RR warning I left on his/her talk page: the standard template with "Stop this and discuss on the talk page, or you will be blocked." BencherliteTalk12:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Judging by the track record of Katie Hopkins, it would be surprising if she hadn't said something that was deemed to be silly, offensive or controversial about the bombing. She is the Daily Mail's resident shock jockey as far as those pesky Muslims are concerned. I doubt if she'll be arrested or prosecuted over this because everyone makes mistakes when responding to breaking news, but you never know.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)12:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm now close to a personal Guinness World Record on this article. Although I've spent a lot of time on articles about US mass shootings, this is probably the longest continuous period that I've ever spent on an article.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)13:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Manchester
When was it decided to take out that he was a Muslim? That was included as long as I could tell. Considering he was inspired by radical Islam I think it's clear he was a Muslim.El cid, el campeador (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This revert runs afoul of the 1RR restrictions on ISIL topics. [1] so kindly undo your revert as it constitutes edit warring. Your revert also tossed out several good updates to other sectios of the page Legacypac (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I properly cited statement that Manchester attack was Islamic terror. You won't allow rain being call wet not to offend clouds. Your reversion is not wiki policy. P.S. such multicultural pretense about islamophobia makes jihad terror more likely.-Yohananw (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Lucius dei.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I'm not an expert on company law, but have gone by the diagram at Alphabet Inc.. YouTube now has two levels of ownership, because:
Google owns YouTube.
Alphabet Inc. owns Google.
The infobox isn't the best way to make this clear as it has only a single field for ownership. Since this is article related, it is better to open a new section at Talk:YouTube to get input from a range of editors on the best way to handle this.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)04:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Andy Murray shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tvx1 15:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
It isn't an edit war as I have no intention of hitting 3RR over a content dispute with an editor who can't be bothered to discuss on the talk page. Please grow up and take the templates elsewhere, you are supposed to be an experienced editor, not a complete newbie.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)
I know, but I had no option but to warn you as well. It's clear that it's other user who is continuously reverting and refuses to contribute to the talk page. I have warned them as well, but since you have already made three reverts as well I had to warn you just to be correct and to avoid being accused go holding some bias or grudge.Tvx1 16:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Escape Orbit (talk·contribs) and I have both contributed on the talk page already. It's depressing when editors revert repeatedly without any attempt at talk page discussion, thinking that WP:BRD is unnecessary. This is an attempt by a user to get their own way without any form of discussion, and the burden of proof is on the editor who wants to include the material.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, you removed an entire controversy section in the bio. Both incidents which you removed received press coverage repeatedly therefore I am failed to see how this could fall under WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Recentism. As per WP:PROUD, I can see that negative information can be included if properly sourced. Before I add something to bio, you have something to suggest how better we can include the removed information? --Saqib (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLP articles should not have sections titled "Criticism/controversies" or similar, because they are poor writing style. As discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Waqar_Zaka and Talk:Waqar Zaka, neither the January 2017 assault nor the June 2017 controversy involving Aamir Zaki seem to be all that notable to the point where they must be mentioned in his bio. They run into problems with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Even if something has received a lot of news coverage, it is not necessarily encyclopedic information, because today's headlines can fade very quickly and lead to problems with WP:10YT. I realise that the article Waqar Zaka is looking a bit thin at the moment, but don't think that boosting it with a collection of news clippings about him is the best way to expand the article. This is basically what Waqar Zaka (or someone claiming to be him on the talk page) wanted to do.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay. On a similar note, what do you have to say about mentioning of arrests and corruption charges in BLPs? --Saqib (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm not an expert on Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL. What does concern me is that the article needs to ensure that the material is encyclopedic, and not simply a series of news mentions relating to him. One of the unofficial rules that I apply to a BLP article is that if it doesn't give the subject's date of birth or where he was born, grew up, went to school etc, there are sourcing problems. Zaka seems to have this problem, which is making it difficult to write a rounded biography of him. Arrests and charges are covered by WP:BLPCRIME, because unless they lead to a trial and conviction they lack proper context.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)09:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your valuable comments John. Could you please advice whether this line " However, a dispute with the then Director General of the ISPR Major-General Shaukat Sultan saw her departing from ISPR" from this article fall under WP:RECENTISM or WP:10YT? Also, I assume this section Khawaja_Muhammad_Asif#Controversies needs some trimming. What do you think can stay there? --Saqib (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for writing to me. You wrote the following, and below I reply to you directly.
You've posted exactly the same wording over at Talk:2016 Nice attack and many other articles. This isn't a good thing to do and is a form of talk page spam in an attempt to draw attention to your argument. Article titles are often the result of WP:CONSENSUS from a discussion. The only way to change the article title and get it to stick is to get consensus for a requested move.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again for writing. Please take a minute to actually read the comment itself. Your point is addressed right at the top. The comment is furthermore not an "argument" but merely articulates a concern that is relevant to discussions of several events. On the contrary, the concern raised by the comment is the possibility that what has been summarily called an "attack" is actually an argument in the guise of disinterested reporting on an event. This concern has been posted in the talk page of such discussions, so that it does not get in the way of any article (but is at the same time available to those who care enough about an entry to read and register concerns about its background or accuracy). It is merely one unobtrusive bulletpoint among many. (It is of some length only because I wanted to register the concern with some explanation.) Feel free to dismiss the concern. But I want to register the concern in an unobtrusive bulletpoint of the talk page where relevant for those who might care enough about an individual event to consider the way it has been characterized. The concern may be inapt. But calling expression of this concern "spam" isn't fair, since it is not pushing anything nor is it obtrusive. It rather pauses to consider a point fundamental to more than one article that much discussion has simply glossed over. One of the things that gives wikipedia so much potential as a source of information is the opportunity for many individuals with diverse understandings of a given topic to raise questions and concerns via the talk page without fear of being railroaded or silenced, even if those concerns do not end up getting reflected in the substance of the article itself.Alfred Nemours (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Once again, it isn't good practice to post exactly the same comment on multiple talk pages. This spreads out the debate and is basically spamming for attention. Personally, I can't see the point of the fuss over the word "attack", as it is a common English word and easily understood. It's also a good idea to avoid adding a wall of text to any talk page as people are disinclined to read them or reply to them on a point-by-point basis; see also WP:TLDR.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)20:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Whicker's World. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Re: Amityville Horror: Okay with me. Just thought I'd put it in there, as the storyline mistakenly says that a shotgun was used; however, it's not a vital point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkt183 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Re this edit: the main reason it was reverted because it was unsourced. It's been a while since I watched the 1979 film version, but I'll have a look to see if this is correct. In the actual case of Ronald DeFeo Jr., he used a Marlin Model 336. This makes sense, because a lever action rifle can be reloaded quickly. It isn't anything like as easy to reload and fire a shotgun quickly (unless it is a pump action shotgun). The DeFeo case can also be compared to the case of Jeremy Bamber, who used a .22 Anschütz semi-automatic rifle. Jay Anson's book and all of the films should not be taken as an accurate representation of the DeFeo killings in 1974.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia: Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding whether the murder of Jo Cox can be classed as a terrorist incident. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Murder of Jo Cox".The discussion is about the topic Murder of Jo Cox.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --This is Paul (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Writing, cleaning up, and expanding articles about YouTube, in particular, these articles
Putting {{WikiProject YouTube}} on the talk pages of articles involving YouTube, and assessing articles with the template. This helps to categorize articles!
I don't know, but I suspect it means that you said something that was rude or unacceptable, so it was removed. The greyed out edits have been revision deleted. You have also been accused of making death threats, which is very unacceptable. It looks like you have worn out your welcome on the English language Wikipedia as well as the Farsi language Wikipedia.😭--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)09:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for starting a wiki page in her honor. I feel it was her legacy to leave behind the videos and online posts in hopes of helping others suffering from depression and bullying. Since I learned of her Death I have thought of her daily. I would almost say haunted by her memory. Thanks again
J.Y.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.20.227.213 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Amityville osuna.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
For you to remove my edit for categorizing the topic as terrorism is just shameful. So if it's done by a white person, it's just a shooting; but by a Middle-Eastern, it's terrorism. NO MATTER WHAT RACE YOU ARE, YOU CAN STILL BE CONSIDERED A TERRORIST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O' Chrispy (talk • contribs) 22:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what edit this was and can't remember doing it. Anyways, terrorism implies some political or religious motive. If you are referring to the Las Vegas Strip shooting, investigators have already pretty much ruled out the theory that he had a political or religious motive.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)23:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I am well aware that my information about Adam's online posts had unreliable sources and I would like to thank you for bringing it to my attention. However the information should not be entirely deleted as its essential in looking into the mind of Adam in his last years. I will include more reliable sources
Blysbane (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC) -Blysbane
The problem here is that we have no sources so we can either user what we have or we cannot talk at all. The same problem occurs with advertising, often they are the only source. BernardZ (talk)
I can see the problem here, because the mainstream media isn't the slightest bit interested in whether Torrent Project is online or not. It is worth mentioning in the article that it seems to be down as of October 2017 (a reader with a browser will soon find this out anyway), but speculation about new sites, whether it will return etc isn't suitable, particularly if it uses Reddit or similar, as in this edit.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)13:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree its speculation but due to the nature of the problem, I think the wikipedia is better with the information in clearly specified that it is speculation then not, do we go to mediation or do we do a compromise?
I can't recommend the use of Reddit as a source for anything on Wikipedia, it's as simple as that. The reality is that the people over at Reddit have no more idea whether Torrent Project will return than you or I do. Another problem is that when torrent sites go offline, numerous people will jump on the bandwagon by creating lookalike sites with similar sounding names. This leads to problems with WP:EL, because only links to the official version of the site should be given. If Torrent Project has gone, it's gone. It isn't suitable to list someone's lookalike version as the real thing if it is not.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Your points are good but I do feel the wikipedia is better off with the speculation then without in this situation
You deleted my information regarding Adam Lanza's online history on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. While you do make a point that the common source is wordpress, I will add more reliable sources regarding Adam's online posts. Adam's online posts should be mentioned in the article due to their Correlation with Adam's possible motives. This valuable information, especially Shocked Beyond Belief, Smiggles, and Kaynbred are not mentioned anywhere else in the perpetrator's article.
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "TORRENTPROJECT". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 1 November 2017.
The request for formal mediation concerning TORRENTPROJECT, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
To which previous talk page discussions are you referring? (I assume they have been archived? Could you supply link(s) please?) Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it's in the archive, either here or in a related article. The consensus of past discussions over this issue at various articles is not to say "he is a sex offender" in the opening sentence, because this in itself does not establish notability. If Fred Jones from Wigan was convicted of a string of sex offences against boys, it would not mean that he had his own Wikipedia article purely on the basis of this. The opening sentence establishes King's notability in the pop music industry, and then mentions the sex offences.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
a) Thanks. b) Interesting. c) I can see where you're coming from. d) I am somewhat in two minds about this (i.e. I don't completely agree with you, but on the other hand, I don't completely disagree, either.) e) I will go away and think about it some more before commenting further, (if at all - at this point I can't think of anything useful to add). f) Thank you very much for your informative response. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to do as you suggested - but not very experienced. Michael Jackson article had similar problems with same vandal but someone else corrected. Dont want to edit just to revert. Jacksonlegend (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Not so long ago, I had been thinking "It's been awfully quiet at Jonathan King recently". Then in the space of a few hours, two red user names turned up with a great interest in making major changes to the article. And of course, it's not the first time that this sort of thing has happened.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)04:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I tried to start reverting and then thought why bother! Changes clearly intended to influence future trial which may be a good thing. Over and out. Jacksonlegend (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I had a very naughty thought during all of this. A lot of the current version of the article was written by SlimVirgin, and I simply haven't had time to read through all of the claims and counterclaims being made about the recent edits. This would require going through them and the sourcing a line at a time. Even if I did this, we would still be left with the longstanding questions regarding how to approach various issues. I have tried to stick to what mainstream sources such as the broadsheet newspapers have said, as they are regarded as "blue chip" on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)13:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a bit naughty to say "Sorry squire, it was SlimVirgin wot wrote a load of this" but this is correct and I'm not fully up to date with all of this material. And amazingly, I do have things to do other than cross check everything that has ever been written about Jonathan King in various sources.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh boy indeed. I don't know what to suggest here, as I am very busy at the moment and cannot cross check everything in King's article. Even if I did do this, there would still be the long running objections about the inclusion of certain things.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm busy as well... and not very interested in the minutiae of King's career. At some point, if the protagonists avoid being blocked, there may be a need to protect the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Everyone's Gone To The Moon - Jonathan King.ogg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Everyone's Gone To The Moon - Jonathan King.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Chris Langham is not one of my regular stamping grounds, but I can see that our old friend "Simply-the-truth" has turned up there. I'm worried about the WP:TENDENTIOUS editing shown by this user, and can hear the sound of an axe being ground with some of the edits and edit summaries.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Great (1975 film)
You asked about the release of Bob Godfrey's "Great" on DVD: the last I heard there was going to be a version on DVD and Blu-ray, but it was intended to be a limited-edition release offered only to people who signed up early, as a thank you for funding the HD transfer - it'll never be available in shops. Both the HD transfer and the subsequent Blu-ray release seem to be experiencing long delays; there's nothing to suggest they've actually been cancelled altogether, but I think one would be unwise to expect them any time soon. There's also been an indefinite delay in adding closed-captions to the version available on Vimeo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shasarak (talk • contribs) 09:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. Some while back I suspected that pressing the DVDs and Blu-rays might be uneconomical if it was for a limited run. Also, DVDs and Blu-ray have both been declining in the past few years in favour of streaming and downloads. So it looks like Great (1975 film) may never have a physical release on disc.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)11:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
info boxes
Hi mate, please compare the infoboxes for Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall. That was why I was confused, as so very different. Which one is correct? Same with Max Clifford and Chris Langham? No offence meant at all, just trying to learn what is allowed on Wiki. Thanks in advanceSimply-the-truth (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
This is using an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. People often say "article A has this, so article B must have it as well." This is not always a valid line of reasoning. What seems to have happened here is that someone has noticed that Template:Infobox person has fields for criminal convictions, but I don't think this is ideal and could run into problems with WP:NPOV. If a person has a criminal conviction, it may not be the most notable or important thing that they ever did, so it doesn't need to be in the infobox. This tends to imply that being a criminal is their primary source of notability, which in the case of people who meet WP:GNG for their own articles is wrong. A WP:BLP article is a biography, not a rap sheet. If you look at the edit history and talk page history of Rolf Harris, there is a consensus not to say "he is a padeophile" in the opening sentence, or to have the convictions in the infobox. Personally, I would not put criminal convictions in an infobox for a BLP article as Template:Infobox criminal is more suitable for this.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Barbie
Hello. I'm new to Wikipedia so still getting the hang of this! I noticed you'd deleted my edit to the Barbie page. I do see the issue. I hope you understand that I mentioned the Fashionista line because it responds to criticisms of Barbie being too thin / 'ideal bodied' and not ethnically diverse enough. I may clear up the whole 'Controversy and evaluation' section as it's been noted on the talk page that it's a bit of a mess and could do with breaking into categories. I may one day create a page dedicated to Barbie lines, as I also have a soft spot for the Generation Girl line. Squitchtweak (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Squitchtweak
There is a problem with attempting to mention every line of Barbie dolls because there are so many. Another problem is that some people on the social sciences courses have made an entire career out of saying that Barbie is oppressive because she is white, too thin etc. Mattel is aware of this, and has tried to make the range of dolls more diverse. People often think that there is only one type of Barbie doll based on Barbara Millicent Roberts, but there is now a bewildering array of dolls in the Barbie range.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
Hello, Ianmacm. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
I added a comment on the article. If you don't like it, discuss it on the talk page rather than remove it without talk page input. This is better than just removing it. I say this because you are the protector of the article and remove entire edits many times.
I added that the Australians used this to try to change anti-terrorism laws. British Columbia lowered flags to half staff in honor of their killed. Nigeria thanked the police, which is very unusual.
I assume you are referring to this edit: I can't recall removing it because it wasn't recently, but if I did, it was beacuse a laundry list of reactions from foreign politicians adds little in the way of insight. Every mass shooting produces a laundry list of this kind. As for the Nigerian reaction, why is this so notable? It is standard condolence stuff. There are no good reasons for including what Australian and Nigerian politicians said while excluding the numerous other comments that were removed. British Prime Minister Theresa May used the shooting to comment on gun control, so it was not unusual.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Whicker's World. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.
.svg){kind=small}
