User talk:Ianmacm/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

"Streisand effect" and "allegedly"

My use of "allegedly" was clumsy. She lost the law suit, yes. But the Wikipedia page says "[Streisand] attempted to suppress the California Coastal Records Project's photograph". However in the autobiography, she claims that it was an individual she was suing, not the official site. This makes sense, as why would the official California State site put her name on the photo, which she claims was her only objection? Perhaps the individual sourced the photos from that official site and reposted them? The WP page implies she attempted to suppress an official record, whereas she claims she took action against an individual who posted (what was perhaps that same official) photo appending her name. My "alleged" was meant to cover that bit of "grey" only. Certainly the answer to this is not found by virtue solely of the legal result against her, as you suggest. My alleged really meant "rumours say she sued an official website" (with the rumours making it to an actual Wikipedia article!). It was meant as a neutral "alleged", since I couldn't find a definitive answer yet. Can you think of a better way to get that subtlety into the lede, since Streisand claims she sued an individual not a State body, and the generality of the legal finding in and of itslef doesn't go to this particular point? I agreed "allegedly" is not the right word: too legal. Walton22 (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It comes down to Streisand's own view of the matter, which is a WP:PRIMARY source. It's ok to point out that she had a different view, but the view of the court was that the action that she took against Adelman and Pictopia was wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I was only referring to accuracy about WHO she was suing, not the finding itself. The article made an erroneous implication I think. I have now edited the lede to fix, I believe. Accept your revert of my "allegedly". Walton22 (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Streisand's legal action against Adelman (who took the photo and posted it on his own website layer42.net) the action led to massive publicity that would never have happened if Streisand had done nothing about it. The photo was very obscure until the legal action occurred, as it contained nothing that would have easily proved that it was her house. This is made clear in the court ruling.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The story that gave rise to the expresison "the Streisand effect" is clearly not a fiction. Her rebuttal just challenges some assumptions around the story, but doesn't annul the main thrust. As far as "The photo was very obscure until the legal action occurred, as it contained nothing that would have easily proved that it was her house" she does claim in her book that her objection was that the photo was captioned with her name, and my edit reports that. Walton22 (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

But, if as you say, Adelman took the photo, then the reference in the lede of the WP article to "California Coastal Records Project's photograph" surely needs to be edited away? Walton22 (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm worried about the wording at California Coastal Records Project, as it gives the impression that Streisand sued the project rather than Adelman. It is clear that Adelman took the photo for the project and it was intended to be used by them; it wasn't a personal project of his.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I have edited the lede of Streisand effect to make it clear Streisand sued Adelman, not the project. Maybe you can edit similarly at California Coastal Records Project. Walton22 (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I have been reading through the court ruling. Adelman is described as the creator of the California Coastal Records Project; the project was not directly linked to the government in California as is sometimes wrongly stated. It also says "Nothing on the California Coastal Records Project website lists the address of the plaintiff's residence or the longitude and latitude of specific buildings on her property... Image 3850 carries a label or "tag", but only as it is displayed on the California Coastal Records Project website: "Streisand Estate, Malibu". Once a person has gained access to the California Coastal Records Project site, it is possible to search by that tag to reach a screen which displays image 3850. A general Internet search for the tag, using a search engine such as Google or Yahoo, will not direct a searcher to the image posted on the defendants' site." There are various conclusions from this:

• The website did not say that the photograph was of Barbra Streisand's house or give its address. It would only have been accessible to someone who was looking at the California Coastal Records Project website, and would not have shown up in a web search.
• Barbra Streisand was right that the image tag said "Streisand Estate, Malibu" although it did not name her personally.
• The image was not easy to find on the Internet in late 2002/early 2003, and it was largely Barbra Streisand's legal action that drew public attention to it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  Very interesting. I saw your edit to California Coastal Records Project. You seem to be wanting to do NPOV. I do too. Walton22 (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  Notice you have rewritten my copy. Reads well to me, and if you are (probably) a more experienced editor I assume it is a better fit for WP? So I can learn, please let me know if you have time what the issues were with what I wrote? I was reluctant to direct quote too much as I thought this might be an issue, and thought rather one should parphrase too, but I notice you quote a lot.Walton22 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I tried to edit the text down to the key point that Barbra Streisand makes in the book, which is that she says that she wanted the lawyer to remove the name tag from the website, not the photo itself. There is quite a lot of quotation from Streisand in her own words, because she says in her book that Wikipedia doesn't give the facts. This is because prior to the book (and yesterday for me) it was a big surprise to learn that she had looked at the Wikipedia article and disagreed with what it said. Wikipedia wants all biographies to be accurate, but sometimes WP:AUTO problems can occur. The only source that we have for Streisand's side of the story is her account in the book. At the time of the court case, it looked as though she wanted to remove the photo from the website rather than just the name tag. Personally I believe that this would have been reasonable. However, something seems to have been lost in translation during the legal action, and she says that she now regards it as a mistake that the court case came to be seen as being about the photo rather than the accompanying name tag.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

All understood, and thank you Walton22 (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

On reflection, I wonder about omitting her reference to security concerns and past intruders which I included. Perhaps you would consider adding something? I think it's a telling part of the 'rebuttal'. Walton22 (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Done: The photograph and the latitude and longitude coordinates were, when taken on their own, not much worse than the sort of thing that Google Maps and Google Earth do today. Taken in conjunction with the name tag, it did provide a way for a potential intruder to identify the location of the home.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Re your edit at my suggestion. Is the situation still exactly as you describe there in terms of visible information on the Web, i.e latittude and longitude co-ordinates of her home? While it is good to cite her security concerns, WP should not provide an instrcution manual on how to use the available information, especially letting know that it is "easy". Ironically, this could end up being a "Streisand effect" in itself, hopefully not with consequences worse than bad publicity. Walton22 (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  Have made an edit. Walton22 (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right and this an interesting point. Streisand says in the book "Suddenly there was a photo on the internet with my house, my name, and the exact coordinates where I lived. That put the safety of my family and myself at risk. We had already experienced several incidents with intruders over the years. So I hope you can understand my concern." Also, the complaint filed by her lawyers in May 2003 makes clear that the giving latitude and longitude of the photos was one of the reasons for the legal action. While the Wikipedia article should be a bit cautious about this, a determined person will be able to find the coordinates.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I think my edit just now is in the interest of caution. Walton22 (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Content Approval Review

Greetings Ianmacm,

I hope you are well,

I'm contacting you regarding your article - Westgate shopping mall attack

I have added the names of the great people who you identified on your article. I hope that is fine. Also, I will be creating three pages for Taff Groves, Peter Bach and Lorcan Byrne and add a link to their pages on your article. I hope this is fine too.

Thank you,

Best regards, Workdave254 (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I was concerned that this edit was giving a name check to people who appeared in news stories but were not overall notable figures in the event. As for creating pages about these people, this would have significant problems with WP:BLP1E.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Well understood and thank you very much for your response.

I'm greatly greatful that you created this article in detail and while going through it, I thought I should add the few names, Mr. Taff, Lorcan and Peter who I noticed you had their titles right.

Actually, I'm from Kenya and also having victims of the attack(wife and kid - escaped with minor injuries and noticibly, the 3 gentlemen happened to have assisted in their escape) I can confirm for sure they are the real people who you have highlighted.

Also, thank you for highlighting the issue that I may face with WP:BLP1E. If in order, I will appreciate your further input on how I can achieve in writing the pages without any problems.

Again, much appreciated. Workdave254 (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Gladiator

Thanks for educating me about the problems with my edits on the Gladiator page. I have a question, though. How did you know about my edits immediately after I made them? Is there a system in place that alerts certain editors when potentially problematic edits are made? Wafflewombat (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Not really, I was having a look through my watchlist and saw these edits. Generally speaking, per WP:FILMPLOT there isn't a need to include deleted scenes, and if they are included they should be sourced. Quote: "The plot section describes the events of the original general release. Plot details in alternate versions released theatrically or on home media may be described in other sections if appropriately sourced."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Do you happen to know why I didn't receive a notification when you replied? I checked my notifications settings and can't find anywhere to turn off/on notifications for when someone replies to one of my comments/posts. I'm a new editor and I'm still learning all the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Wafflewombat (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflewombat: It will generate a notification if you use Template:Reply to. However, I don't usually do this as I assume that users are watching a thread that they have contributed to. Some users get annoyed if they are pinged.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Lord Lucan discussion

I don't know, given your helpful work on the various Savile articles, if you have done anything on the Lord Lucan case, but in light of a recent article that talks about a new possibility that the wife may have been overlooked, I wonder if you know how I should have phrased the paragraph I have added about it, or how the article should reflect her version of events from now on, which has generally been accepted as fact. I hasten to add I am not casting aspersions on the late Lady Lucan's character. Even the author of the article finds the possibility too unbelievable like something out of a Agatha Christie story. ~~ 80.43.251.32 (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I've never been involved with Lord Lucan but will have a look.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Come on Ian. Admit it... he's in your cellar, isn't he. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

He is probably riding Shergar somewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

2011 Reno Air Races Crash reversion

Um, did you even read it? Explain to me how you're supposed to steer the plane away from the spectator area if you're incapacitated or unconscious, it's a no-brainer buddy and you shouldn't need "original research" to even know that in the first place.

Maybe watch the Mayday episode which covers the disaster ("Death Race") next time, and you'll see that once the pilot fell unconscious due to the G-forces, he made no attempt to steer the plane away from the spectator area.
XenithXenaku (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This edit was reverted because it had problems with WP:HIJACK. Statements should be specifically supported by the reference given.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Galloway

If you can't accept that Gorgeous George is a "controversialist", then who on earth is? FFS! Arrivisto (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I've often seen him described as a maverick in news stories, but have yet to see him described as "a controversialist". This is wandering off into WP:OR territory.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Probability of a sequence of 26 reds or blacks occurring in a row

Hello, regarding the change I made suggesting that the probability of a sequence of either red or black occurring 26 times in a row is 2×(⁠18/37⁠)²⁶, since the probability of the first occurrence of a red or a black is not 1, but 36/37, then the probability of 26 occurrences in a row is not 1 x (⁠18/37⁠)^26-1, it's (36/37) x (⁠18/37⁠)^26-1, which is 2×(⁠18/37⁠)²⁶. Please explain why you think the original formula is correct. 2A02:2F04:A001:C400:450:9681:1692:82EE (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed before at Talk:Gambler's_fallacy#Monte_Carlo_Casino_Odds, and there is some ambiguity in how the problem is defined. For a straightforward situation where red or black occurs 26 times in a row, the probability is 1 in 66.6 million, because the probability is 18/37 each time. The actual Monte Carlo story says that black came up 26 times in a row. What the wording in the article is trying to say is that it would have been just as unlikely for red to come up 26 times in a row. To expand, assuming that a red or black has already occurred, the probability of it becoming a sequence of 26 is 1 in 66.6 million. This is what a previous editor wanted and it is the current wording in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you revert April Fools jokes, as you did at User:Jimbo Wales. TheTechie (formerly Mseingth2133444) (t/c) 18:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:APRILFOOLS. I do try to find them funny, but they look unprofessional on Jimbo's user page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it was just a joke TheTechie (formerly Mseingth2133444) (t/c) 19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Is this an April Fools' joke?? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You didn't see? "as you did at User:Jimbo Wales. ^{[April Fools!]}"

So yes, it is. TheTechie (formerly Mseingth2133444) (t/c) 19:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought he must have changed his user name. :( Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Who's "he" here? TheTechie (formerly Mseingth2133444) (t/c) 19:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, who is he. I'd certainly like to know! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The Reckoning

I have tried to turn some paragraphs around, as some moments/sources came after the series broadcast, like for example, the video footage showing Coogan had once met Savile, and in particular tried to elaborate how Louis Theroux felt as to whether he thought the series was in "bad taste". If you think my edits could use any minor corrections e.g. to grammar and spelling, or matters of factual accuracy, one at a time, you could perhaps, as you has usually done, make your own changes? Hope this looks sensible to you. Many thanks. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, by the way, you should consider creating an account as you can keep track of your edits, edit semi-protected articles etc.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Re this edit: it is worth pointing out that Savile's anger at his short appearance on the final TOTP in 2006 is largely a fabrication of the TV drama. Savile was already booked to appear at the Lochaber games for this weekend so he could not be in the studio and had only a few pre-recorded inserts. There is no evidence that this was a deliberate slight, he just wasn't available.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I was already aware. As the drama is fictionalised and not a documentary, I felt it had to be included, same with the “fingers crossed” claim which sounds a bit unrealistic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jimmy_Savile&diff=prev&oldid=1179757625&title=Talk%3AJimmy_Savile&diffonly=1 92.17.198.220 (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The fingers crossed comes from Chapter One of Dan Davies' book: "The man had been found lying in bed. There was a smile on his face and his fingers were crossed." This is cited to "Roger Bodley, speaking in the foreword of the catalogue for Dreweatts' auction of Jimmy Savile’s possessions".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Was obviously hoping for some good bids. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have added the details being fictitious in the production detail; one can only hope the “smile” was a spasm, depending on how long he had been dead for.” (Shudders) 92.17.198.220 (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

reverting policy

This is an odd revert. Policy is MOS:CAPTION. If a caption forms a sentence it has a period. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Please don't try to create a local consensus. Spicemix (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would not put a period in a caption unless there was more than one sentence. I think this is in line with most captions in books, magazines etc.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Reversion of link to Pirate Bay

Hi, I saw you reverted my URL change to the address to The Pirate Bay website (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Pirate_Bay&oldid=prev&diff=1230705309). If you try to use the "thepiratebay.org" address, you may have your computer ridden with malware (the main webpage even try to convince the visitor to install Adobe Flash Player!!). I'm using Microsoft Edge 126.0.2592.68 (Chromium-based browser) on Windows 11 with strict tracking prevention and everytime I do a test on "thepiratebay.org" to download any torrent, it opens a new tab to install a "something.torrent.exe" and don't even open a page with the correct torrent selected on the search results.

However, if you use the "https://tpb.party" address, you get a working website that is not full of malware: it gives you right away the ".torrent" file (and not the "something.torrent.exe" file). Also, "piratebay-proxylist.com" doesn't show "thepiratebay.org" as a valid address; Bing Search puts "tpb.party" on the first search result; Google Search and Yandex Search don't even show "thepiratebay.org" on the first page of the search results.

Try to really use the URL provided by another editor, specially if that editor explained the reason behind the change, before reverting the edit.

Kind regards,  joaopaulo1511^(talk) 03:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The reason why I reverted this edit is because I looked at the TorrentFreak website and could not find any evidence that The Pirate Bay had changed its official URL. For practical purposes, thepiratebay.org is still the official URL. TPB has always had numerous mirror versions, but these are not official versions and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL applies here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

New Labour category

This category would benefit from some clarity as to whom it applies then. It has politicians, but also officials, advisers and publications. If it does not apply to people who supported Labour during that era, does it apply to donors during that era? Rodericksilly (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Elton John is known primarily as an entertainer. He has expressed support for the Labour Party, but WP:CATDEF says "The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. For example, Italian and artist are defining characteristics of Caravaggio, and so of the article on him, because virtually all reliable sources on the topic mention them." It would be stretching things to say that supporting the Labour Party is one of the defining characteristics of Elton John's career. This could be raised on the talk page for further input.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

MJ

Hello! I saw the reverted edit on the Michael Jackson page. I mean this very respectfully, but have you actually read the MJ piece that was linked? It seems only 15 seconds or so passed between the post and reversion. Again, this is not a negative observation but perhaps you should read the MJ PDF document and the historical facts stated within it. It seemed to be very unusual exposure documented from 1987. However I am fine with your decision. No war here at all. Cheers. Malcomsbridge (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I was worried about due weight here. It doesn't seem to be something of key importance that has to be in the article. As ever, please discuss on the talk page if you want further input.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds reasonable. Many thanks. Malcomsbridge (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Removing names of mass shooting perpetrators

Hello! I noticed that you reverted my edition of mass shooting pages omitting mass shooter names. I do understand reason behind it, but do you have any idea where i could propose changing policy about naming perpetrators so that their names can be omitted at places where it is not necessary (especially first paragraph where it, in my opinion, has highest chance of being seen by viewer) without violating this policy. I would also propose a total ban on naming juvenile mass shooters, just like it was done in the article about Belgrade school shooting. I believe it is a step towards denying them notoriety, and there is evidence than many of them crave exactly that.

Space2006 (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a common argument and it has been proposed before. "We mustn't give them the notability that they craved". However, Wikipedia is not censored and the names are easily available in the news story citations of the article anyway. You could raise this at WP:VPR.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Space2006 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I must say that you have changed my mind regarding this topic. I just added name of assailant at Belgrade school shooting and as of now that hasn't be reverted. I am still strongly against turning majority of attention to perpetrators, but I do think naming them on Wikipedia won't do much harm, even if they are minors, because that means their name is already widely known. As for Wikipedia:VPR, I had not raised the issue, and I am not planning to do that. Space2006 (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi, you recently opposed my propose page rename for 2019 El Paso shooting (and that’s fine) but I am a bit confused. I was under the impression that it did not matter as much what other Wikipedia pages of similar kin were named if the common name given by reliable sources differed. When I’ve tried to change article names based on similar articles, I was told this was not good reasoning, and reliable sources take priority. Is this not true? Macxcxz (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

As WWGB pointed out, most of the supermarket shooting articles don't give the name of the supermarket. For example, it doesn't add great value to know that the 2022 Buffalo shooting was at a Tops Friendly Markets, although it is mentioned in the lead section. Wikipedia articles have their own naming conventions that are not necessarily the ones that are used in a news story.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Do you know how I could go about proposing the mass renaming of supermarket shooting articles? When looking at other categories for mass shootings in indoor venues, the vast majority either include the name of the business or the type of venue in their name. For example, see the following where the majority of titles include the names of the businesses or type of venue: Category:Attacks on shopping malls in the United States (16 out of 21), Category:Attacks on office buildings in the United States (9 out of 12), Category:Attacks on nightclubs in the United States (14 out of 15), Category:Attacks on hotels in the United States (7 out of 7), Category:Attacks on hospitals in the United States (6 out of 12), Category:Attacks on restaurants in the United States (17 out of 26), Category:Attacks on churches in the United States (13 out of 17) and Category:High school shootings in the United States (50 out of 51).

Clearly, pages in the category attacks on supermarkets are an outlier for no apparent reason. I think it is clear they should be brought in uniform with other pages relating to attacks on indoor places in the U.S., which overwhelmingly include either the name of the place or type of place in their titles (On average, 79.3% include place name or type in titles, based on those listed above). Macxcxz (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:VPR is a possibility here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your assistance. Macxcxz (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: Sandy Hook infobox

Agree wholeheartedly with your recent revert. (Thanks btw.) Was just looking into those edits myself and delving into the 2 cited sources. So far as I can tell, those exact/minutely-detailed specs aren't actually mentioned in the cited sources. Also, yeah, unless all that detail is referenced in the main article? it's not really supposed to be shoehorned into the infobox... PS: "guncruft", what a great word. - Shearonink (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The same user has been doing this at various articles. Unfortunately I haven't got the time or the energy to get involved with all of them, but there may be WP:OR being added here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Why yes there is some OR... The one that has really caught my eye (and I now see yours as well) is this, which I subsequently reverted. Have asked for discussion on article talk, as you have seen but no go yet. I have tried to engage on this editor's talk page but... Also, something odd - an anon has come along three times shortly after this editor's edits and corrected/adjusted them (see [1]). - Shearonink (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Personal photo permission

Hi john, your photo on your page isnt working. Thanks! Flidbouillon (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means, could you be more specific?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Your userpage says 'heres a photo of me', and then does not follow with a photo. Here is the text exactly as it appears on your page:

>Hello, my name is John. [citation needed]. I live in London. [original research?] Here is a picture of me: { {di-no permission}}' Flidbouillon (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks, this isn't meant to lead on to a picture of me. It was added a long time ago and is similar to tag bombing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Phillip Schofield

Why did you revert my edits with no explanation this is supposed to be a free platform where people add information you don't have free right to just remove people's contributions just because you feel like it kindly stop interfering Tad102 (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It was explained in this edit summary. The edit added information which is not in the source given here, which is WP:HIJACK. I also think that parts of this section have problems with WP:TOPIC because they are not really about Phillip Schofield, but that's another story.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Betty Davis Eyes

Why were my changes removed ? According to the regulations regarding songs, about being noteworthy, then either none of these are relevant, since this was NOT a use of the song itself, but a humerous reference to it, in another song, which was a single released in the UK in 1986 which is significant enough that it has it's discussion in the wikipeadia entry...

"Dickie Davies Eyes" b/w "I Left My Heart In Papworth General" and "The Bastard Son of Dean Friedman" (12" only) had been released as a single in September 1986 and reached no.86 in the UK singles charts.

It is, as far as I, and many others are, concerned, as significant, or in fact MORE significant than the "parody" in SNL that is referenced. It is of note, that number 86 in the UK singles chart at that time was quite an achievement for a track by an indie band since indie tracks in those days did not get any significant airplay on any national radio stations, which the exception of John Peel.

Indeed, in 2023, the track experienced something of a resurgence, reaching number 32 in the charts ...

https://www.officialcharts.com/songs/half-man-half-biscuit-dickie-davies-eyes/

some months after the passing of Dickie Davies. Jamspandex (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Jamspandex, the paragraph mentioned only the album and was wholly unsourced? We'd need to have some secondary source(s) to establish notability? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

What does this even mean ? stating that it was "unsourced" ? If something is a parody of something else what other sources are needed ?

In addition, there are more than enough precidents regarding Half Man Half Biscuit songs, for example, in the UK childrens program Trumpton, this is referenced in their song "The Trumpton Riots" and is indeed referenced in the wikipedia entry for the Trumpton ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumpton

specifcally ...

- In 1986, the English indie band Half Man Half Biscuit released an EP, The Trumpton Riots, whose title track describes an insurrection on the streets of Trumpton.[8]

- Half Man Half Biscuit also referenced Trumpton on the song "Time Flies By When You're the Driver of a Train", a parody of the "Train Song" from sister programme Chigley, on the album Back in the DHSS. The lyrics of the parody cite such things as drug use and football hooliganism.

And again, for the Reference to the snooker commentator Len Ganley, his wikipedia entry includes

- He was the subject of the Half Man Half Biscuit tribute song "The Len Ganley Stance".

If you want to argue that the text is not correct, and should perhaps be something more like "The title of the song was parodied in the song title for Dickie Davis Eyes ..." that would be fine, but that is different from removing the entry altogether. Jamspandex (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Jamspandex, have you read Wikipedia:Verifiability? You know what a "source" is, right? By the way, I removed nothing. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You are very patronising, of course I have read that and know what a source is. The point is that when something is clearly a parody of something else that stands as it's own source, you do not need someone to actually *state* that A is parody of B. For instance in the entry for the song of Hiawatha

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Song_of_Hiawatha

it discusses the many parodies, but for none of them does it require a source of someone stationg that any of them are parodies - that is the point of a parody, in that if it is not obvious, then it is not a very good parody.

Of course I know you did not remove anything, that is why I am posting on the Ianmacm page, rather than your own. Jamspandex (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Also the reply is simply incorrect saying that the paragraph mentions "only the album", I even included the text in my response, which I will repeat here ...

"Dickie Davies Eyes" b/w "I Left My Heart In Papworth General" and "The Bastard Son of Dean Friedman" (12" only) had been released as a single in September 1986 and reached no.86 in the UK singles charts.

And there is a wikipedia entry for The song specifically, which redirects to the entry for Back Again in the DHSS. I can presumably easily make a separate page for Dicke Davies Eyes if that is the trivial issue that people are concerned about. Jamspandex (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Good luck, Jamspandex. Sounds like you know best... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I should have said WP:SONGCOVER. The problem with this edit is that it was unsourced and did not provide any indication of notability. Simply being true is not enough, because there are many song covers/versions/parodies and they would not be notable enough to mention unless they were discussed in secondary reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd assume that WP:SONGCOVER applies equally to parodies, pastiches, "answer records", and so on. They all need secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

"The Combine Harvester" is a notable parody song. "Dicke Davies Eyes" is not so notable and without sourcing it is likely to be removed again. WP:ONUS applies here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

"But what I want the most, Is all they acres of land..." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The song "Dickie Davies Eyes" doesn't have the same tune as "Bette Davis Eyes" and in my view the link is at best loose and tangential. This is why WP:ONUS applies here. There needs to be at least one reliable secondary source discussing why this is a notable parody song, because it probably isn't. There is one line in the lyrics saying "but she's got Dickie Davies eyes" and that is all. Classic WP:POPCULTURE trivia if you ask me.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)