User talk:Tony ingram

License tagging for File:Rosie Dixon-Night Nurse.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rosie Dixon-Night Nurse.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Darkmoor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darkmoor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkmoor until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Logan's Run, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I own the Logan's Run Annual myself, why on Earth would I make that information up? Tony ingram (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you made anything up, but we publish information based on reliable sources, not merely what we know to be true. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of the thing on my shelf, how am I supposed to prove that to your satisfaction!!? And I've provided a link to a site that has all the Look-In pages up somewhere, on the Logan's Run talk page. Is that "reliable" enough, since my owning physical copies of several issues clearly isn't? I'm sorry, but I'm rather annoyed about this. Tony ingram (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to review your link, but as you raised the subject at the article's Talk page, hopefully other editors who can review your link will chime in. I believe the article's also listed under a few projects that you can speak to to solicit additional feedback if you would like. While I understand that it's frustrating to have information you added removed, please try to keep in mind that for reasons that are hopefully understandable, we can't just assume that information editors add will always be accurate; hence our reliance on sources that readers can use to verify published information. DonIago (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Sounds like pointless bureaucracy for the sake of it to me, which is certainly not likely to encourage anyone to contribute anything. I certainly shan't bother again. Tony ingram (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you want to handle it, that is your right. Sorry you feel that way. DonIago (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how I want to handle my personal veracity and my knowledge of my subject (British comics, a subject I have devoted a considerable number of years to researching) being questioned by strangers? How would you handle it, then? Tony ingram (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked? I'd suck it up, understand that Wikipedia is attempting to be encyclopedic and that statements here should be backed up by reliable sources, and find one. You claim you're essentially an expert on Britich comics...what's to stop me from making the same claim about physics? We can't simply take an editor's word for it that they're qualified to speak about a particular subject. This is discussed at length at WP:V. Making the effort to find a reliable source seems, to me, a more productive use of your time than dwelling on the fact that your information was removed for lacking one, especially when it's not an attack on you or a matter of questioning your credibility. DonIago (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are basically saying, since I've already told you that I own a chunk of the material in question myself, that I am not a "reliable source", and that, to me, is questioning my credibility. I've been writing about British comics for years, I used to edit a bloody magazine about British comics, why would I add information on the subject if it wasn't correct? I've given you a link, but you are apparently "not in a position to review it", despite having evidently been in a position to remove my information without checking it's accuracy first. I find that offensive. I find your attitude offensive, high handed and rude. I would like to formally register a complaint about it. Tony ingram (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying no editor is a reliable source. As I said, if I claim to be an expert on physics, or the environment, or religion, or anything else for that matter, would you feel satisified that I was a reliable source? I hope you can see the problem here. Please stop looking at it as some sort of attack on you. Editors add incorrect information to articles all the time...sometimes because they're vandals, sometimes because they're misremembering, sometimes because they genuinely believe things that, it turns out, simply aren't true. Mistakes happen. The only way to deter these mistakes is to ask for sources...and I'll admit that the more adamant an editor gets that they shouldn't be required to provide one, the more dubious I tend to become of their claims.

If you want to register a complaint regarding my conduct, you're welcome to open a filing at WP:ANI or a related venue. If you're more concerned about the article in particular, then you've already started a discussion at the article's Talk page, but you can also look into dispute resolution.

Given your apparent willingness to issue personal attacks against me despite my willingness to discuss this issue with you and try to work towards a resolution, I think I'll take my leave now. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How the Hell can I be "misremembering" what's in a book sitting about two feet from my computer? Tony ingram (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I'm a regular volunteer over at DRN and was tempted to say this there, but DonIago is a friend and I don't want this coming across as something I'm saying while wearing my volunteer's hat since I could been seen as having a conflict of interest. What you're seeing as mindless rule-following both is and isn't that. Here's the deal: Wikipedia is a very real, very serious encyclopedia, but what we don't have, like paper encyclopedias like Britannica, is a board of paid professional editors to make decisions about what will be included and what will not. What we have instead is a set of rules and procedures which prevents this from being just a place, like Wikia (which is not to say anything bad about Wikia; as a fanboy I'm very fond of Wikia), where people can post anything that they want to post. Those rules protect and define Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia and, indeed, are enforced pretty strongly, not because people love rules or being rule cops but because those rules define who we are. Just about the most basic of those rules is the verifiability rule which says that everything in Wikipedia must be documented with an inline reliable source so that average readers can look under the covers to prove that everything being said here is credible. In order to make that work sources must, in turn, be reliable and for that reason, "reliable source" is a defined term which means something very different from what the simple English meaning of the term "reliable source" means. Though there's more — a lot more — to it than just this, reliable source means a reliable, third-party, published source in which the type of work, the creator of the work, and especially the publisher of the work all have an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That, especially combined with a bunch of other rules about what and how things can be here, really makes Wikipedia a pretty limited venue for information but that's okay because that's what encyclopedias are. It's also the reason that Wikia's such a great place. There without the constraints that encyclopediaism impose, you can get things like the Breaking Bad Wiki and the Song of Ice and Fire Wiki and the One Wiki to Rule Them All which are chock-a-block with the details, speculation, and unsourceable material which cannot be in Wikipedia. I hope that helps. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC) PS: In looking at what you've said most recently at DRN I'm afraid that you're about to run into another common mistake made by newcomers: The fact that there's something in another article doesn't necessarily mean that it should be in that article or that it meets Wikipedia standards. The fact that it's there may very well only mean that no one has noticed it or has bothered to take the time to remove it. — TM 17:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very used to Wikias, thanks-I've contributed to several for some years, including the Albion British Comics Database which I built myself. The thing is, on those Wikias if someone has a query about information added they will usually open up a discussion rather than simply removing someone's work and then talking about it, which to me seems a more respectful approach given that everyone who adds something is freely giving their time in order to hopefully make what they think is a worthwhile contribution. Looking back, I probably was unnecessarily aggressive, for which I apologise, but I was offended and I still think that basically assuming people don't know what they're talking about as a default position is just bizarre. I guess the other sources I cited on the other page (the Price Guide and the other website) are also useless, then? There's not a lot more I can say, in that case.Tony ingram (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it was the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide price guide which is widely used here in the Colonies, I'd be prepared to go to bat for it (I've been reading and occasionally collecting comics for over 50 years), but I'm afraid that I'm not so familiar with the British McAlpine one. However, if we're talking about this edit, I doubt that a price guide would support all the information in that edit (though I could very easily be wrong since I'm not familiar with McAlpine). If it does, though, you might be able to make a case for it. While peer-reviewed scientific journals are the exemplar for sourcing here, reputation counts for a lot and if McAlpine is the go-to guide for comic information in the UK then it might very well be good enough. But only for what it actually says. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Addendum: The website probably isn't going to make it, see SPS for why. — TM 18:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you are now saying that a Price Guide published in Britain is likely to be considered a less reliable source of information about a British publication than an American one would?

OK, this is ridiculous and I'm just getting more and more wound up again. At this point I would like to formally request that I be barred from editing WP. This site is a joke and I no longer wish to be associated with it. I'm just going to end up losing my temper again. Tony ingram (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Direct quote from the McAlpine Price Guide: "Logan's Run Annual. Brown Watson; 1978. David Lloyd art". In 1996, it was priced at £3.50, if anyone cares. And the Look-In entry just lists Logan's Run in a lengthy list of strips featured in the title which were drawn by Arthur Ranson, between The Bionic Woman and Worzel Gummidge. Again, if anyone cares.Tony ingram (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply saying that I, personally, am not familiar with the McAlpine guide and can't help to support a case for its reliability; it may or may not, indeed, be reliable. I can't bar you or block you, either, because I'm not an administrator. There are a few admins who will consider such a block: you can see a list here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for your patience and participation at WP:DRN. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 21:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS-- I've added the content and source we discussed at WP:DRN to the article and you can see it here. If you feel it is incorrect you may change it and/or discuss it further with Doniago on the article talk page. Meanwhile I've closed the case at DRN. Let me know if there is anything else I can help you with. Just put a note on my talk page. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That is very, very much appreciated. The only change I would make is to link to the David Lloyd article. I'll do that now. I was getting very frustrated so checking in and seeing this really made my day. Tony ingram (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So ...

... does this mean that there are two people on Wikipedia who watched last night's Dr Who and thought: "Isn't that the bloke from Porridge?" --VeryCrocker (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I remember him from the first time he was in Doctor Who, over thirty years ago. At least this time he wasn't wearing a white disco outfit and a mop on his head! Tony ingram (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Razorjack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Carroll (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]