User talk:Ianmacm/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

File:Fulla in box.jpg

This file is currently the subject of a deletion discussion at Wikimedia Commons, Please contact that project URGENTLY if you do not want the image deleted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that 2008 is over a year ago, before recent events prompted a review of

previous transfers.

Something you could do to help is dig out the original mail that you got about the image that you mention in the description. Also was an OTRS filed on it by them?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A photograph showing what Fulla looks like is fair use in Fulla (doll) and Barbie for identification and critical commentary. The photograph is not copyrighted, but the doll itself is. If the photo is considered unsuitable for Commons, fine, but it will be used in these articles with a fair use tag.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:File:Buntstifte 01 KMJ vertical.jpg

This file was moved to Commons from English Wikipedia, but some description information may have got lost in the process.

As you are noted as the original uploader, or in the history for the file, it would be appreciated if you could help in reconstructing this information.

Thanks for you assistance and keep uploading 'free' media :)

If needed I can try and track down a dewp admin to assist. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a vertical version of the German Commons image at [1]. It is GNU, and was going to be in Color, but is not currently used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll try and a dewp admin to help me with this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no real problem here, as the image is GNU and is not being used in the English language Wikipedia. It could be deleted, as the current lead picture in Color is File:Colouring pencils.jpg, which is a featured picture.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment censoring in YouTube

The objectionable-word hiding-unhiding option I talk about shows up on the video's page that everybody sees (htp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=###########) just above the comments list, not on the uploader's video-edit page (http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_edit?ns=1&video_id=###########). Jedi787plus (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, found it. I was getting confused here, because this option does not show up unless a drop down box is clicked.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

YouTube Edits

Once again, there are MANY videos on YouTube that are 3D. I have told you this as well as at least one other editor, yet you ignore it. 3D is definitely an old technology however that has nothing to do with the argument, so I don't know why you bring it up. Before you correct somebody's edits, you should know what you're doing and what you're talking about (especially when citing policies).

Since I have added the section back into the article while abiding by Wikipedia policy and with the support of other, more experienced editors, this argument is now over. As a means to avoid going around in circles I am going to not tell you to not contact me again. RyanGFilm (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:CONSENSUS if you are new here. All edits are subject to review by other users, and should be discussed if differences of opinion arise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you revert my edit one more time I will file a 3RR report against you. I have added the information and kept it Wikipedia compliant. Other, more experienced editors have shown you your errors in judgment and interpretation of the policies. You are editing based on opinion and not policy (of which you're trying to twist in your favor). I have gotten a moderator involved and he ruled in my favor. If I file a 3RR report against you, the chances of them ruling in my favor are great since I, as well as other users have discussed this issue with you and pointed out that you are wrong in your revert edits. You have been warned and will not receive another one. RyanGFilm (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please let's have a sense of perspective here. I have deliberately avoided a WP:3RR situation because I wanted so see what other users said about this issue on the YouTube talk page. Let's also look at what User:Bignole actually said. He did not breach WP:CIVIL by describing me as an "inexperienced editor", but pointed out that the information about the 3D videos was worth a mention in the article and I agree. What I do not agree with is a long explanation of the technique that is best explored through an external link. Putting back exactly the same material each time looks like WP:OWN. As the guidelines say, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Steorn

Mr. MacDonald, the Irish Times [2] reports that you are a associated with the University of Alberta Canada as a emeritus professor of electrical engineering I have been unable to find an such person associated with the engineering department. Would you be so kind and provide a link to U of A demonstrating your association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.61.224 (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A case of mistaken identity here. I am not Ian MacDonald at [3] and live in the UK, not Canada. I am also not a professor of electrical engineering or anything else.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your quick reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrito (talk • contribs) 18:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

YouTube GA on hold

Looks like we have work to do. :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Getting the article back to GA status has been one of my wishes for some time. There is nothing badly wrong at the moment, and reviews sometimes cause relatively minor problems to be turned into a big issue. I'll have a look at the issues raised.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson (WP:NPOV)

I don't know where you get that what I said is in blatant WP:NPOV violation... I was just elaborating on what someone else added and then just summarizing what is ALREADY posted in the article! If you say that what I said is NPOV, then check out the section about the abuse cases, especially the first one... 1993. It basically says the same thing I said! Someone else had added... the singer cited monetary interest of some of parents and persecution out of vengeance. This did not sound grammatically correct... however it is a statement he did say at one time. Again, if you think what I said, was an NPOV violation, then what is said in the 1993 Child Abuse case should also be considered to be NPOV too! What I said, is TRUE and was just a summary of what is said in the other section below. There's more redunancy in the article too! Someone really should take a real good look at the whole article and consider revising to where it's NOT as repetitive and it's more grammatically correct... there's ALOT of inconsistency in the article that needs to be looked at and scrutinized with a fine tooth comb to be sure it follows ALL of your rules/guidelines and is set a better style than it is currently in! Again, I was just summarizing what was already posted and what I know is true and have seen in the news in the past about the investigation, etc. Maybe it wasn't appropriate for the lead? But is the rest of it really appropriate for the lead, especially since it's mentioned in more detail later? What is supposed to be in a lead? I don't understand how things can be posted by some users and it stays, but, yet, when I post something, it's considered inappropriate, etc. I give up!!! What's the use? I guess I am not Wikipedian material! NiteHacker (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, Michael Jackson is a Featured Article, and one of the requirements is article stability. There have been too many changes to the lead recently, many of them poorly thought out and in violation of WP:LEAD. Although the wording is firm, I stand by the claim that this edit has blatant WP:NPOV issues. It is essentially a pro-Jackson commentary, and is unencyclopedic in tone.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be back

Ping. — Please comment R² 00:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Barbie doll modern.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Barbie doll modern.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Black Kite 01:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I hardly think that changing a completely incorrect cc-by-sa tag to the correct fair-use one is picky, but I'd just point out that not having a correctly formatted rationale will just mean that one of the NF bots will come back, tag the image again, and nag you again. But because I had a spare 15 seconds, I did it for you :) Black Kite 09:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Usually I write image tags and rationales in plain text rather than using templates. Thanks for the edit. While editing Barbie, I have gone to great lengths to ensure that the images do not fail WP:NFCC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I think most of the images are fine - as far as I am aware the images of pre-1977 Barbies are not non-free anyway (though I stand to be corrected on that). I find it's easier to use {{Non-free use rationale}} for non-free images just from an easy-to-read standpoint (and of course WP:NFCC#10c). Black Kite 09:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your an expert

You've done a consistent great job on the Michael Jackson page. I was wondering if you could give your insightful opinion on List of Honorific titles in popular music page, and on to this page .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_honorific_titles_in_popular_music_(2nd_nomination). Thank You very much. ITalkTheTruth (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The Big Country

Hi, I appreciate your good intentions when you recently reverted my edit on The Big Country, and thanks for the link to WP:YOUTUBE. I looked at that reference and noted the following excerpt,

Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis.

The subject video of the opening credits of The Big Country, with that great music, has been on YouTube for two years. So it seems that YouTube and the copyright owner don't object to it being there, since otherwise it would have been deleted in the last two years. Perhaps this is a case where a link to a Youtube video should be allowed? --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright fusspot, and simply pointed out that links to clips from films and tv shows on YouTube are often copyright violations. The reason why this video has been on YouTube for two years is that the copyright holder probably does not know that it exists, which is unsurprising with millions of videos to check. On a broader note, there is a WP:EL issue here, because Wikipedia articles about films do not normally give links to trailers etc. These are best approached through a separate Google search.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Re "The reason why this video has been on YouTube for two years is that the copyright holder probably does not know that it exists, which is unsurprising with millions of videos to check." - Oh I wish that were true (LOL) , but unfortunately I've seen too many of my favorite videos deleted in much shorter time than two years. The Big Country is a major picture by a major company, United Artists, and I expect they would be on top of copyright infringement if they wanted to.

BTW, you may already know this, but YouTube has a tool for copyright holders.

The Content Identification tool is the latest device from YouTube, allowing copyright holders to identify and manage their content easily on YouTube. The tool creates ID files which are then run against user uploads and, if a match occurs, the copyright holder's policy preferences are then applied to that video. Rights owners can choose to block, track or monetise their content.[4]

The beta version of the Content Identification Tool came out in 2007.[5]

2) Re "On a broader note, there is a WP:EL issue here, because Wikipedia articles about films do not normally give links to trailers etc." - Thanks for that info but could you help me out by directing me to the part of that reference that discusses that?

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, my belief is that YouTube's Video ID tool concentrates mainly on pop videos, recent tv shows and films. Personally I don't have any objection to this link, but other users may remove it if they see that it is an unauthorized clip from the film. Since the music from The Big Country is important part of the film, there is an audio clip in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Re "Thanks, my belief is that YouTube's Video ID tool concentrates mainly on pop videos, recent tv shows and films." - This seems to support keeping the link in, since it is part of a film.

2) Re "Personally I don't have any objection to this link" - Thanks.

3) Re "but other users may remove it if they see that it is an unauthorized clip from the film." - That is a possibility, and I would feel they would do it with the same good intentions that you had.

4) Re "Since the music from The Big Country is important part of the film, there is an audio clip in the article." - The editor who put it in did good work, and apparently was able to get the copyrighted material into Wikipedia. The external link to the opening credits with the music, would be a nice complement to the audio clip for those who want to hear and see more, and it would take up little space in the wiki, since it would be only a link in the external links section.

With the advent of the Content Identification tool, it may now be acceptable to modify the guideline WP:YOUTUBE to make it easier to get links, just links, to more copyrighted YouTube videos into Wikipedia. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Some editors are very strict about YouTube and see it as a dumping ground for all manner of copyright violations. Since Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, any copyrighted material quoted in an article needs a properly written fair use rationale. This is difficult with YouTube videos, since they are hosted off site. Suggestions for changes to WP:YOUTUBE would require a consensus, and could be raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion, info, and advice. Best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

elvis being treated diffently to the beatles and michael jackson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson michael jackson wikipedia page it says he has estimated sales between 350 million and 750 million records worldwide i agree with this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles The Beatles sold between 600 million and one billion records internationally I agree with this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis it say He is one of the best-selling solo artists in the history of music, selling over one billion records worldwide

that is wrong so change it since both michael jackson and the beatles pages have been changed like we said we will give each of these artist the same treatment

Im just saying that relible sources such as emi (beatles 1 billion) and sony (michael jackson 750 million) that are saying that they have sold this much

but elvis sales remian at over 1 billion even though their are much more reliable soruces for both the beatles and michael jackson which claim they have sold that amount—Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 19:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

See the talk page comments. Nobody knows exactly how many records Michael Jackson sold, let alone how many he sold compared to Elvis Presley and the Beatles. All that we have learned at Wikipedia in the last few weeks is what an inexact area this is. Many of the figures quoted in the media contain a large amount of speculation and guesswork. The current wording in Michael Jackson on record sales represents WP:CONSENSUS, and is unlikely to be changed for fear of setting off a fresh round of edit wars.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Im just saying we should change elvis presley wikipedia page from over 1 billion to claimed sales of 1 billion or estimated sales between 300 million and 1 billion http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/1760014.stm http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=30-years-after-his-death-why-elvis-aaron-presley-is-still-the-king-uh-huh-huh&method=full&objectid=19639018&siteid=66633-name_page.html

like we done for both michael jackson and the beatles

Michael Jackson (Article Size)

Ok im not happy with the progress of this issue. When i tagged the article several weeks ago yourself and several other users engaged in discussion and removed the tags for splitting/reducing size having agreed that would be a good move forward. However progress is excrutiatingly slow and if anything the article appears to be growing in size. It was against my better judgement to remove the tags as they would have encouraged people to debate the size of the article and maybe something would have got done. I am turning to urself as a large contributor to the main article to help me take a lead on the issue and help reach a consensus about what is the best way forward. Debates like this are much more important than say the debate over the number of record sales because if the situation continues there users might find that it takes so long to load the article that they never get to read the number of sales anyway. I don't think people have ever gone through the article before and remove fan cruft and other duplicated information. now certainly seems the time. aslo see the active dicussion on Michael Jackson's talk page, i have left further comments/suggestions there...(Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

Personally I don't like leaving tags in the lead section of articles for any length of time; they are best used as a temporary measure. What has happened is that since Michael Jackson's death there has been a surge of interest, and far more people than usual have read and edited the article. This has led to some fancruft and the article is now too long. Until things quieten down in the media (which has taken longer than expected) it may be difficult to reduce the article length substantially without setting off edit wars.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Zimmer buggles.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Zimmer buggles.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Zimmer buggles.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zimmer buggles.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Youtube

Hi, I saw u made this edit, strictly speaking China include two countries: People's Republic of China and Republic of China. Although in daily speech, when people say China they may be likely referring to People's Republic of China; much like if someone says "I am watching Korean TV drama", he/she is likely referring to South Korea tv drama (since North Korea does not export any TV drama). But we all know that, strictly speaking, Korea does not means South Korea. The similar concept applies to China. I know the reference didn't specific which China blocked Youtube, but we all know that Republic of China didn't, People's Republic of China did, and the reference is referring to PRC. That's why there is need to clarify the link. Da Vynci (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Referencing YouTube

I've seen youtube videos linked and I believe I have seen them refenced in cases where they were very pertinant such as number of views of the Evolution of Dance video. So, what is the scoop on referencing youtube, or perhaps, some other, more strict video hosting sites, such as how to sites with pro submitted material; what is hte name of that one...192.156.234.170 (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Oh yeah, eHow.com was the pro submitted one I was thinking of. 192.156.234.170 (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the question is, but the charts are in Social impact of YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Could I refence a YouTube video. Say an article was on a product and there was a video strictly dedcicated to that product in a technical, non advertising way. 192.156.234.170 (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As a rule, Wikipedia is not keen on YouTube videos as links or citations, see WP:YOUTUBE. It is best to stick to text based material from reliable sources as far as possible. Also, other users may remove links if they think that any advertising spin is involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

lol love the personification of Wikipedia; it is not keen; of course any content that is

• A advertising/spam
• B in violation of any copyright such as with the uploader or just the video
• C not entirely pertainant

would not be appropriate, but I said objectionable as in technical and non-biased. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not quite sure what you have in mind here, as you may know already, YouTube links are often removed on sight by some editors. Is there a specific link that you had in mind?

Yeah, a video I plan on making about a specific thing to use as a reference for that thing. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Archimedes greece 1983.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Archimedes greece 1983.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As your stamp image was tagged as being unacceptable, you might like to offer an opinion about changing their guidelines for stamps such as yours which would be considered commemorative stamps. Any opinions on this issue could be very helpful: It's discussed here.]--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

JANET!

The article is on the main page today. Would you mind keeping an eye out for vandalism? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know that, thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

CARTOONS

YOU SHOULD BE ASKING TO REMOVE THE BLASPHEMOUS CARTOONS INSTEAD OF SUGGESTING A NAME CHANGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Me umar 91 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

See the reply at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A'ight

Youtube just made some significant changes-the details: Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

omg how'd you get the picture of you to pop in on your page? Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The peek is created by adding the code {User:Krimpet/peek} to the edit field of the page. To make this work, add the same brackets at the start and finish so that there are four brackets in all.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Search suggestion

What does it take for your name to become a search suggestion when you start to type it in? Because ever since the other day when I brought up the loading bar thing and the @ comment thing; my user name has been a suggestion. Start typing in 1danielchristensen; when you get to the 1dan it's there and by 1dani it's the only one. 192.156.234.170 (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC) User:Daniel Christensen

This is refering to youtube. but google too. User:Daniel Christensen

I have to admit to a certain amount of ignorance here. Usually search suggestions are coming from within the browser software, and it may be possible to clear the cache by deleting private information such as the history. It is also possible to turn off search suggestions in Google, see [6] for a page about this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No; it is not that; it's not a "history search", I know all about that;go type in 1dan and you will see it, too. Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I managed to get 1danielchristensen in YouTube but not Google. Possibly try this on other computers (eg library, Internet cafe). If Google or YouTube are suggesting these searches themselves, there may not be a lot that you can do about it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude it's not suggested anymore; how could that be? Did you do something? Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Walter Sedlmayr

Two things:

1. Sourcing is not the problem, relevance is. I could probably find a reliable source to support the statement that Bichon Frise hair bears a closer resemblence to sheep's wool than other dog furs. I might struggle to justify including this in the article on PeTA.
2. You do not get to make edits like this when you've left a message like this. It's hypocritical.

81.111.114.131 (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See [7].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please respect WP:CONSENSUS on this issue. The English language Wikipedia is not going to play straight into Wolfgang Werlé's hands by removing reliably sourced information about him. Wikipedia content is hosted under State of Florida law, and is not subject to German law.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the two issues of the mention of his name and the subsequent lawsuit. I am not removing his name, or the brief mention of the lawsuit from the article. There is no consensus to support your hanging the lawsuit story on Sedlmayr's biography. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have gone to great lengths to listen to your concerns on this issue. Like Virgin Killer, it cannot be swept under the carpet because it has received reliable coverage in secondary sources. I've agreed that Wolfgang Werlé is not worth a separate article, but this affair cannot be removed entirely from the English language Wikpedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dumb suggestion

When you type in 1dan this user http://www.youtube.com/user/1DanielaCarla#p/u is suggeted and they have extrememly little recognition. Much less than even I have. She has 2 subscribers, 24 videos and less than 100 channel views. Somethings messed up. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

GPG

It seems like you should just point to a key server for your key. Y'know, just look for an ID, like BCCB1E27317262D2 (or in your case CE554D0858E75134). It's shorter than a URL even.  :-) FWIW, I exported yours, if it wasn't already there. It's kinda pathetic that my keychain has all of 22 keys in it (including yours)... all my correspondents should just generate and use them (I don't know that no one else I write to has one, but those are everyone who has indicated it specifically. LotLE×talk 09:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lulu, I know it's a bit weird not to have the public key on a keyserver. There are a couple of reasons for this: a) I hardly ever send or receive PGP mail, and the public key is given mainly to secure my identity on Wikipedia. b) since the file is on box.net, it notifies me by e-mail when someone downloads it. This is fun, because it shows if anyone is interested in the key. It does get downloaded occasionally, but not very often.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

LAST WARNING

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

Stop

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

This is all very well, but how about a serious discussion about the Shows on YouTube, instead of playing games. Is there something you would like to say about YouTube, rather than clogging up my talk page with vandalism templates?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Roll tide wiki.ogg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Roll tide wiki.ogg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. +Angr 15:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Please avoid removing audio clips, pictures etc before allowing one week for users to update the FUR.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"sourced in article"

[8] I'm not saying it wasn't sourced, I'm saying that I fail to see how it's more important to the article's categorization than, say, Category:Irish-American musicians. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about the relevance in comparison to other categories. The story is sourced, eg at [9]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well then I'm just confused as to why I got reverted then. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I initially thought that this edit had removed the category. People have been adding and removing a range of categories to Brittany Murphy, but this was a mistake on my part so I apologize. Hit me with a trout etc.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy new year

HI, Ian..I was looking for your account. Thanks for the mail..Best wishes to you and yours for 2010. Off2riorob (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. People are no longer taking bets on who it is, but how long he can hold out now that everyone on the Internet knows.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

He ought to get over it, if he wanted privacy he should at least not gone in his sports gear, they managed to suppress the baby p.. thing in the British press and here on wiki it was also repressed even though it was common Internet knowledge, I suppose it does have legal issues, was he breaking the aw? Anyway..he has very expensive lawyers so.. best take care, best regards to you and thanks for the heads up. Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProjectGoogle

OK, I'll join the group.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Grant

Yes, I could see your excellent attempt at explaining this to the IP, it did cover all the bases about why we cannot have the speculation in the article. It is still available in the history for them if they want to see it but we cannot have any speculation or allegations on any page as it stands. I might think about making an editnotice effectively quoting your comment, that should deter people. Regards, Woody (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: WhatPort80

Although some material on WhatPort80 is directly copied from the lest intense ED articles, there is also much original content on WhatPort80. For example, if you check the articles that "Michaeldsuarez" created on WhatPort80 and compare them to their corresponding ED articles, you'll see that those articles has little in common with each other. Due to the SFW nature of WhatPort80, the most intense ED articles don't have corresponding WhatPort80 articles. Most of ED's drama and trolling related articles can't be rewritten on WhatPort80, so we're mostly working on the meme and Internet related articles. It may also help if you view WhatPort80's deletion log; a lot of inappropriate has been deleted. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

paranormal survey

Hi John, Ian or ??? Please give me ideas about how I can let people know about the survey then. I certainly not trying to promote the survey host company. I pay them to gather and store the data; not vice versa. Cheers Rosemarybr (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been a problem in the past with people using the page to promote their local paranormal societies etc, which is not what the page is for. There are too many groups and individual researchers to mention them all. Strictly speaking, anything in the main body of the article needs reliable sourcing, which usually means mainstream media coverage. Unless your paranormal survey has this, it is hard to mention it in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I understand this. Guess the original media coverage doesnt count then? Presumably, I could use the External Link at the bottom of the page. Would you advise me to start a new subheading or just use the External Link heading? Cheers Rosemary Rosemarybr (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It could be added to the external links section. However, it still looks unsuitable per WP:EL because it is not really adding to an understanding of the subject. If the link is added, other users may remove it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of this. R

File source problem with File:Speechless cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Speechless cover.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Chase (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't see much wrong with the tagging, it is stated that the image is copyrighted and the copyright holder is assumed to be Universal Music Group, which is Gaga's record company. Anyway, I'll have another go at the tag.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to provide a web source for this image because as it has not been announced as a single yet, this cover is likely fan art. –Chase (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this did go through my mind after the question about whether it was an official single. This image is in quite a few places on Google Image Search, but if it is not official it is probably best left out of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change

I have opened up a discussion about the current status of the article Scientific opinion on climate change, whose title, lack of subject defintion in terms of reliable secondary sources makes me believe it to be a content fork, so I have initiated a discussion which can be seen at Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Content_Fork. I don't expect much support at this stage, but I am concerned that criticism of the articles title and definition are not being taken seriously, and need to be opened up to a wider range of editors capable of viewing this article from a broader perspective. With this in mind, I would be greatful if you contribute to the discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

He Ianmacm, Thanks for reply to me query. I respect your view but i have to disagree because i think the term Cultural Icon emphasizes just how important that individual was in term of their profession just the way they insert the word in elvis's bio. Maybe we can come up with a different term that makes the same point maybe "international icon" because unlike any other musician in history he was celebrated worldwide across different races religions languages and colours. Let me know what you think Bro.

http://www.realbollywood.com/news/2009/06/michael-jackson-lost.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/25/michael.jackson.world/index.html

http://themoderatevoice.com/38609/michael-jackson-a-local-icon-across-asia/

http://www.ibtimes.com/prnews/20090917/michael-jackson-the-icon-new-book-release.htm

http://www.persian-forums.com/f299/tribute-michael-jackson-king-pop-35590/

http://www.etonline.com/index.html?page=9&tag=michael-jackson

www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=10659620

www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/06/26/77037.html

www.visitjamaica.com/Article.aspx?id=22400

www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-156852172.html

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=106881

www.vo2ov.com/Tribute-Michael-Jackson-King-of-Pop_382559.html

www.vo2ov.com/Tribute-Michael-Jackson-King-of-Pop_382559.html

http://www.canada.com/entertainment/there+another+Jackson+icon+Internet/1770826/story.html

Thats just a few of the links available online

Thank You Buffalo (````)

Can you help us out please

Hi, you seem like a person who knows a little about technical stuff, can you help us with a picture problem: [10] Thx - 83.108.194.198 (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Filtering technology used by Exetel

Hi, I notice that you've reverted information about the filtering technology used by Exetel in Internet censorship in Australia. While I don't necessarily disagree with your reverts, I would like to see some more information about filtering technology in the article. I've asked for help on the talk page: Talk:Internet_censorship_in_Australia#Filtering_technology_used_by_Exetel. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks. cojoco (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Nymf _talk/contr. 20:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want an edit war, so spare me the templates. I am acting in good faith here. If Gaga discussing this with Barbara Walters is not good enough, it is the regular editors of the article who are having the problem. Please let's not get stuck in a circle on this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This editor has not broken the 3 revert rule yet. You're on the verge of breaking it yourself Nymf. Nevermind, it is another editor. SpigotMap 22:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See also User talk:Abrazame. Frankly, I'm the one who is "Speechless" over this saga.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Andy Murray

I apologise (honestly!) for being pedantic on this point but firstly, there never was any consensus and secondly, I'm concerned that listing it the way it is is just plain wrong - which is why I provided a link to prove that point. I'm 100% behind you regarding the issues about Murray's nationality, I've watched all the fighting about that issue on his page for several years. But, this isn't about Murray, this is about Towns and Cities - and it's somehow (and bizarrely IMO) become involved in the entire Murray / Nationality debate. Nobody says (example) "Swansea in the United Kingdom" - it's "Swansea in Wales" - and that same usage applies here...or it should but because everyone is so sensitive over the issue of nationality we've decided that even if it's wrong, it's right. What WOULD be correct (albeit less than complete) is removing the Country / Sovereign State altogether. Just saying Glasgow and London.

Andy Murray plays professional tennis, but he has caused more debate over the WP:UKNATIONALS issue than anything else. There is a slim consensus for giving the UK for both cities at the moment, and if the previous form of wording is used, there are likely to be people raising the issue on the talk page on a regular basis. This is why I was in favour of keeping the current version of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the reply - appreciated. David T Tokyo (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple youtube accounts

Looks like you can't have multiple accounts anymore since they manditorily connected your google account to youtube. so you'd have to make several emails to do it. i used to have like 20 useless accounts on my same email. Daniel Christensen (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't claim to be an expert here. Is there anything about in the tech blogs etc?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of YouTube

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of YouTube. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of YouTube. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please understand LINKROT

WP:LINKROT saith: "Do not delete a URL solely because the URL isn't working any longer. Recovery and repair options and tools are available." Your comment here (the "may have to be removed" part) was inappropriate, IMO.--Elvey (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My main concern here was to keep the link active. The link mentioned [11] is still inactive, so it was not adding to the article. It was me who repaired the link, and I had allowed a fair while to see if there was a temporary problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. (Belated kudos.) But you see my point, right?--Elvey (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally I would not change/remove an external link unless it had been down for some time. This one had been down for a while. Ideally links like this should be uploaded to WebCite, but many links are not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

DO NOT delete external link solely because it had been down for some time, or even permanently. Period.--Elvey (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If the link is down and it doesn't look like it will be coming back and isn't recoverable. By all means by bold and remove it. Dead links shouldn't be left in an article for extended periods of time if no one is going to recover them. SpigotMap 22:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with SpigotMap here. Wikipedia articles should not be graveyards of dead links. Whenever possible, links should be active, or there is little point in giving them to the reader. It is a fact of life on the Internet that some links die permanently. When this happens, there can be no great objection to removing or replacing them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinions are like arches - everyone has one. But you both are advocating violating the rules: WP:CITE#Preventing_and_repairing_dead_links. The rules, for good reason, do object to blanket removal. DO NOT simply delete an external link solely because it is dead. By all means, use the techniques at WP:CITE.--Elvey (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be having an unnecessary debate here. WP:LINKROT says "Do not delete a URL solely because the URL isn't working any longer" which is fine. However, if you were faced with a dead link and no way to recover it, common sense says that removing or replacing the link is the best option. Provided that this does not remove verifiable information from the article, it is hard to see the problem with doing this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who comes around, the link you would have deleted might otherwise still be useful. Such a link indicates that the information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with enough information to find the reference, even if you can't or didn't bother. I can't force you to agree not to do something destructive though.--Elvey (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Brendan Burke Speedy Keep

If your comment was directed at me, I was actually curious, not sarcastic. I hope I didn't come off as trying to be the latter.Luminum (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its rules and regulations, but seven days of this backbiting could do a lot of harm. My guess is that the article will eventually be kept, so let's get it over with.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Einaudi primavera.ogg

Thank you for uploading File:Einaudi primavera.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Nyman piano.ogg

Thank you for uploading File:Nyman piano.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done tidied this up.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Music Samples

You might want to consider using {{Music sample fur}} in respect of the audio samples you uploaded.

In practical terms, it takes nearly identical values to the album cover fur template.

Using this template, will make it much easier for those reviewing such samples :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not familiar with this template but will take a look. Usually I write a FUR in plain text.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Dnepropetrovsk maniacs

I understand that the shock video is notable and its existence is reasonably well-sourced. The claim that there are many reaction videos on YouTube requires some source, however. A quick look for such videos didn't show any such evidence. (Of course, they may have been removed or perhaps I'm just bad at searching.) Seems to me that unless we can show some evidence of reaction videos, the claim (which isn't all that notable, it seems to me) should be removed. The best such evidence would be a notable source discussing the fact that there are many such videos.

Reaction videos to "Two girls, one cup" are comparatively easy to find — at least, I found Joe Regan's video easily enough. Phiwum (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This came as a surprise, as there is a large number of reaction videos on YouTube, and a link was added to the article to show this.[12] Just as it would be difficult to discuss 2 Girls 1 Cup without mentioning the reaction videos, it would lead to an incomplete article not to mention the reactions to the Yatzenko video. It is understandable that CNN/BBC etc have not run breakfast news items on this, and Jimbo Wales banned any link to the murder video from Wikipedia. Mainstream media coverage may have escaped this case, but the reaction videos are notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

e-mail

I've sent you an e-mail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied. SilkTork *^YES! 14:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: This revert

I'm quite willing to discuss the issue on the talk page, and I welcome outsiders (who neither have an account nor an article on ED) to jump into the issue. So it would be quite appreciated if you'd leave a comment there. :) --Conti|✉ 22:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with ED in any way and have tried to keep a neutral stance on this issue. Problems will occur if other people are accused of bad faith (ie lying). Joseph Evers is widely cited as ED's owner, but I agree that some of the evidence is hard to verify. The ED folk can be secretive, as the anonymity in the ninemsn interview showed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he is widely cited by ED as the owner, that's the joke, after all. And yes, bad faith/good faith is a problem when dealing with members of a wiki that is all about making things up for the fun of it. I've explained in length at the talk page why I think the whole thing is a hoax, and some neutral comments on all that would be quite appreciated, as I said. Who knows, maybe I'm just genuinely paranoid. :) --Conti|✉ 23:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Short of seeing the accounts of ED, it would be hard to prove one way or the other who owns the site. Also, "own" could be hard to define, what does this actually mean in financial terms? I'm not a business expert. Are you saying that Joseph Evers does not exist and is a fake person?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. Read the talk page for detailed information. When ED talks about the guy, it's always done in a wink-wink-nudge-nudge sort of way ([http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:This_Month_In_Lulz/February_2009#February_4th:_ED:Upgrade_2009 he's always on mysterious 'business trips'], no one can ever reach him, etc.), and trying to find some actual information on the guy only yields things that simply make no sense whatsoever if put together. The article about him on ED started out as something entirely different, before reference of him owning ED were added to it, and so on. I could go on and on and on, but it should be enough to say that there's simply no good, reliable source about him anywhere out there (I don't count an interview of an ED member to be a very reliable thing about anything), and that should be enough not to include that information in our article. --Conti|✉ 23:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We are clearly getting into deep waters to imply that Joseph Evers is a fake person. I have no evidence that would prove this one way or the other. I'll raise this on the Dramatica talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it is much appreciated. --Conti|✉ 23:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)