User talk:Ianmacm/Archive 10

Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Swenzy and View Count Scandal

Hello, I would like to speak with you to resolve the issue of the swenzy and youtube Wikipedia article. Thanks Rogerroyal (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

OK fine. My main concern is the attempt to describe the December 2012 YouTube situation as a "scandal", because YouTube did not say this. What evidence is there (beyond speculation in the blogs) that there was an attempt to create fake viewcounts for YouTube videos? Also, (while assuming good faith), I would like an assurance that all of the edits to Swenzy were made by people who did not have an affiliation to the subject matter.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The only person who edited that Swenzy article was Me. I made the article with 8 weeks of building it from a draft, interviewing dozens of reporters who wrote about swenzy, and reading hundreds of news articles about swenzy. I am not affiliated with the company. And your right, The situation shouldn't have been named "scandal", it just should've been "2012 View Count Enforcement", we can add the sources that shows of all the millions who's video got taken down the same day and quote YouTube's statement of all the videos being removed for "gaming their system". I interviewed Swenzy a few days ago, Swenzy founder admitted to having a connection with the view count "enforcement'. They admitted to powering celebrities's youtube videos. AP articles clearly state that celebrities are gaming views. Billboard released a statement saying what they believe happened. YouTube never said the videos lost billion of views BECAUSE of migration. They just said they enforced their view count policy, which was botted views. It's all documented. It sounds like your defending YouTube, and I'm trying to keep this neutral as possible. It's up to you if you want to update the YouTube article and keep the information accurate. I edited the swenzy article in terms of neutrality and the "claims"/"allegedly" statements. I want Wikipedia articles to be informative and as accurate as possible. Rogerroyal (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

In 2008, when Girlfriend (Avril Lavigne song) was the most viewed video on YouTube, there were allegations that there had been gaming the system with bot views of the video. Similar allegations have been made many times since; the December 2012 claims were rejected by reliable sources, as YouTube said that they were the result of migrating YouTube viewcounts to Vevo. Also, I'm not defending YouTube or getting paid for saying this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"WHERE" did YouTube say that the result of the drop in 2 billion views from record labels were due to migrating videos? I want you to show me proof. The only thing YouTube released was a statement that they enforced their view count policy which resulted in millions of videos getting deleted for gaming views. Not just record labels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerroyal (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I am equally interested in seeing the reliably sourced evidence that Swenzy (or its predecessor SocialVEVO) was behind the "December 2012 YouTube scandal".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I interviewed Swenzy: https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_the_company_who_many_buy_into_their_hoaxes_and_YouTube_views_hysteria,_Swenzy

Read the daily dot article about socialvevo in the references. There's no evidence that YouTube ever changed or reinstated their statement and said major labels lost 2 billion views because they "migrated". Rogerroyal (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Nor is there any reliably sourced evidence that Swenzy or the "mysterious internet marketeing company SocialVEVO" was involved in December 2012, beyond hearsay in the blogs.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

So now your rejecting your claim that YouTube deleted those 2 billion views because they were migrated videos? I still stand by statement. Like I said, its documented and it's there. It's up to you if you want to update the article with useful and information. If you don't want to make the article neutral, then its all you. Rogerroyal (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The way to make the article neutral would be to give both sides. YouTube and record company executives denied that 2 billion views were deleted in December 2012, and said that they had been moved to VEVO instead. There is still little evidence supporting the "fake views scandal" which the Daily Dot claimed had occurred. The migration claim comes from Billboard.[1] The Wikinews article is a form of original research, and does not make a link between Swenzy and the "2012 View Count Scandal", beyond some coy hints with no detail given. The Daily Dot article which set off this saga says that some videos were taken down as a result of violating TOS item 4, Section H, which bans the use of automated tools to inflate view counts. For a Wikipedia article, there is a problem with accusing Sony, Universal or other major record labels of faking view counts, because it would be WP:LIBEL to accuse (or imply) that a major record company had acted in bad faith by cheating the system in this way. The "fake views scandal" theory is effectively implying that major record companies cheated the system. The Daily Dot article is too weak a source for such a serious claim.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well the truth is that those labels do inflate views. There's tons of AP and news articles that suggest it is happening. And I understand that big claims require big evidence but since it's widely reported, maybe add it under controversy? And I would like the article I wrote about Swenzy to be changed so it doesn't sound like advertisement or non-neutral. I don't like being accused to have a connection with the company when it's not true. Like I said, YouTube announced they enforced their view count policy, and 2 billion views got deleted from major labels. The big labels said it was migration, YouTube continued to state, it was inflated view counts, never backing up the labels claims. You do the calculation. It's very weird and strange if that type of information doesn't get put in the YouTube article.. Talking about neutralizing the swenzy article... Rogerroyal (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The news articles which basically rehash what the Daily Dot said are not adding anything new. The "fake views" theory about the two billion views was challenged immediately, and even the Daily Dot appeared to backtrack on it with the update to the story. It would be undue weight to imply that two of the major record companies deliberately lied and cheated to inflate their view counts when this is not explicitly stated by reliable sources. The fairest thing to do is to give both sides of the argument, but it would risk WP:LIBEL to imply that Universal and Sony had lied on the basis of sloppy evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Giving both sides of the argument would be fair for now. I asked an AP journalist to investigate it. Since the news reports stated that YouTube lost FAKE views and some sources never changed their story. It would be weird to not add this as it was a BIG controversial story then and as well as it is today. Rogerroyal (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If the Daily Dot had not made its dubious claim about the two billion views, it is unlikely that any of this would have happened. Some of the news stories about the fake views saga (eg here in the Daily Mail and here in the Huffington Post) are classic churnalism. This is the phenomenon (particularly prevalent online) of repeating almost verbatim what another article has said, without any further fact checking. The fake views saga picked up a lot of churnalism, but x number of hits on Google does not equate to truth, and Wikipedians are always advised to take this into account. There is little doubt that some people attempt to create viral videos by faking the view count, and that this is banned by YouTube's Terms of Service, which state in 5H "you agree not to use or launch any automated system (including, without limitation, any robot, spider or offline reader) that accesses the Service in a manner that sends more request messages to the YouTube servers in a given period of time than a human can reasonably produce in the same period by using a publicly available, standard (i.e. not modified) web browser." When YouTube believes that a video has violated 5H, the video will be taken down and the uploader will receive an e-mail saying that the video violated 5H. In the case of the Universal and Sony videos, these were not removed from the site and are still available, and according to Billboard and the record companies, the two billion views were moved to VEVO, not deleted. The Guardian criticized the Mail and the Daily Dot for appearing to suggest that the two billion views had been faked. As mentioned previously, if this is not the case, it is a potential WP:LIBEL of Universal and Sony, because it implies bad faith, lying and cheating on their part.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I feel like this debate can go on for years... The Daily Dot didn't just publish an article without having proof. The Daily Dot received actual evidence of what they were writing before they published their article. I have the same evidence that was given to them before they published the article. Like I said, I can share it with you. I just added "Yasha Swag" into the Swenzy article. He's the same guy who did Purple Ninja as Beeki Vendi and is Simon Z (one of the founders of Swenzy). He botted close to 10 million views and his video front paged on MSN now, FUSE TV, Pop Dust, and many blogs. The music video was taken as legit until the Daily Dot exposed it. Look up an artist called "BAKER", who also inflated millions of fake youtube views quickly and ended up being covered by Billboard, MTV, and many news sites as "legit" future music star. If it wasn't for an anonymous tip that his views were faked, He would have been as famous as "Avril Lavigne". See my point here? This is the reason why you can't just conclude something that is written on Billboard or MTV, because the information can be false. In this case, YouTube never confirmed what billboard stated about migration to VEVO. I don't think your understanding this very well. 70% of viral videos on YouTube are botted or inflated, it's not an exaggerated claim, almost everyone on YouTube cheats. I believe that this view count controversial story should go on the YouTube Wikipedia article since it's widely talked about. You can add both sides and make it neutral so it won't look like your picking one side. So you're not accusing the labels, yet your not denying it. It would be very criminal not to add that part. I would suggest reaching a higher authority person because such topic has been widely reported on news media and it's strange that you don't want to add it. I saw news reports of wiki staff being paid for articles and other shady practices here at Wikipedia. Sounds like your avoiding a neutral point of view here and your starting to scare me a bit. Rogerroyal (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I really can't comment on the claim that 70% of YouTube viral video view counts are inflated, because this is original research, as is inside information from the Daily Dot. Neutrality would require giving both sides, particularly as accusing Universal and Sony of faking view counts without proper evidence is an unwise thing to do. There are two separate issues here: a) do people attempt to create viral videos by using bots (yes they do); and b) Did Universal and Sony fake two billion views with this technique? This is more controversial, because the record companies say that the views were moved to VEVO, not deleted as the Daily Dot claimed. I'm not paid by YouTube to say any of this, but do have concerns about making a serious allegation against Universal and Sony on the basis of a Daily Dot story.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Your STILL not getting it... It doesn't matter what the record labels claimed happened, it's all claims. YouTube never confirmed what they said. The views from the record labels videos were "YOUTUBE VIEWS" not Unviersal views. YouTube said they enforced their view count for gaming views, and the big drop happened. Billboard tried to cover their butts since they received so much press and phone calls, saying it was migration. But it doesn't matter what billboard said, YouTube never went public and confirmed that. If it was true, YouTube would have said something, it was a big topic. This is a YouTube article, Not a record label article. So I would suggest adding the controversial topic, And I don't mean "accussing" them of faking views even though that's how it really went down. Just mention the controversial topic and that's it. No need of accusing or taking sides. It's big enough to be on there. 50.162.190.150 (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added this to YouTube, see also the article talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies for fixing my article :) I appreciate your help! This was my first actual article :) And ianmacm, I saw the view count part in the YouTube article, thanks. 50.162.190.150 (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ianmacm. You have new messages at Talk:Archimedes.
Message added 08:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Discussion on mass revert for the contextual images at Archimedes Codrin.B (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Archimedes.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Bach Prelude Fugue BWV 542.ogg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan King

Thanks for joining the crusade Pedohater (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on a crusade to do anything on Wikipedia. It is clear that Jonathan King needed a good deal of work for WP:NPOV issues after the issue was raised at the BLP noticeboard. Most of the good work was done by other editors.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't have put it better myself! Which is probably why I kept getting blocked as Dave has now been (he started it) LOL Pedohater (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:USERNAME? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
From this edit, the user claims to be a sock of a blocked user. I've therefore removed his comments from the article talk page. More than that, the edit suggests to me a WP:COI SPA. DeCausa (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I see you're one of the involved editors. I'm trying to bring an objective and balanced view to the article by removing opinion or slanted comments and incorrect facts. Please see my comment on the King talk page before making changes. By the way I'm not a very experienced editor and clearly will make mistakes. LudoVicar (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I get your point since it says "King IS..." but I think most people will remember him for his TV shows. I've corrected numerous silly inaccuracies all of which could have been clarified in a second on Google. Can't believe no mention for Leap Up And Down Wave Your Knickers In The Air - surely the low point in his career? In fact I suspect millions hate him for inflicting that on us (and must have been quoted in the media saying that). LudoVicar (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I think I need to take a valium before editing this article:) Generally speaking, major changes to the WP:LEAD section should be discussed on the talk page first, as they are likely to be reverted if they go live without a WP:CONSENSUS. There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing in this article in the past month and it has been at WP:BLPN twice.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Copy of my reply to another editor on that article who has reversed all my changes - clearly they don't want it improved..... I see you've reversed all my edits so I assume you and the other editors are not interested in my contributions. I have no problem with that. The graduation date is clearly in Music Week (which was then Record Retailer) and all the other music papers; I was looking at Record Mirror which has a picture caption which says on Friday 23rd June 1967 "Jonathan King BA attends an awards ceremony at Cambridge University where he receives his honours degree in English - then rushes to Southampton to co-compere As You Like It" whatever that might be. Sorry if that doesn't meet your rules or agenda. LudoVicar (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

My sign off on the talk page. I had no idea it would be such a minefield trying to edit an article. I'd not tried before and only fiddled with details although even then my edits were reverted. I won't bother again. To answer the editor who considers me a sock puppet, lovely words, just let me repeat why I made some of the small changes to the lead (thank heavens I didn't waste time doing more). I thought his first hit sold in several countries but will bow to your research that it only sold in two countries though even there I can't quite see why it needs saying. I assume all other wiki entries on other singers specify similar. I find "string" of releases and "novelty" records odd words to use in a factual encyclopedia but bow to superior literacy. I assume the 4 hits "in the 70s" avoid his productions or those which don't feature his vocals although, again, I can't work out why the 70s are specifically singled out unless it's to remove his 60s and 80s productions and cant see why it deserves mention anyway. Basic research shows he discovered Genesis and produced them independently long before placing them with Decca or even leaving university. Why he is described as "working for" companies he didn't work for and those companies that released his other independent releases are ignored I cannot understand. It's not even negative to him. It's just wrong. I would have thought any editor with a Book of Hit Singles could have verified that, or is that not online? I bow to superior editing experience that 10cc were far more significant than his Rocky Horror Show or other acts. I believed Wikipedia was meant to state facts and not opinions on quality or significance. He never presented Top of the Pops as far as I remember but was on every month doing a US chart rundown but I certainly won't be checking my old music magazines to find proof. And I quite understand that his Old Bailey convictions are a far better story than his acquittal and as such deserve mention in the lead if wikipedia is meant to be a tabloid site. As for further details lower down the article, I wont bother reading or checking as my changes - even if sources detailed and provided - would be bulk reverted by editors wanting a more accurate article. I'm sorry, I just dont have time to bother scanning magazine pages into e mail. I apologize if my edits are similar to anyone else's but I'm nobody's sock puppet and wouldnt dream of accusing any other editor of being one either although that appears to be the default position. As I leave I would suggest any editor genuinely wanting an accurate article gets his autobiography and finds confirmation or proof of lying for any significant facts, as I would suggest they should do for any person warranting an article on Wikipedia, if they really want to contribute properly. Finally might I politely comment that certain editors might think about developing good manners and not bulk erasing changes, made in good faith, or chucking accusations of vandalism about? People in glass houses... LudoVicar (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that any of your edits were WP:VANDALISM, but there is a need to ensure that people approaching the article without first hand knowledge of the subject matter can verify what is being said. It is known that sources like SongFacts and IMDb are not ideal, and that mistakes do creep into articles sometimes when they are used. Also, the website King of Hits, which has been used to verify quite a few of the statements in Jonathan King, has issues with being affiliated to the subject matter involved. There have been attempts to ensure that there are no unambiguous errors of fact in the article, and anyone (yes, even Jonathan King) is free to provide sourcing that will correct them. Unusually, Wikipedians have e-mailed BASCA twice to ask whether Paloma Blanca won an Ivor Novello Award; on both occasions the answer was no. This remains a puzzle, so it is not in the article for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Well over to you and other editors. I will freely admit if issues such as whether a minor award was ever given to a (I have to say crap) record becomes a major wikipedia discussion warranting minute examination - I'm happy to be out of it. And I would add that, if King is lying about that, it balances the inaccuracy about his graduation date and he deserves all the vandalism he gets. LudoVicar (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The graduation year of 1966 was removed after this was challenged. As I said on the article talk page, we now live in an age where what can be found in a five minute Google search determines what people know about a subject. Anyone who has been round the block knows that material that turns up in a web search is not always reliable. Unfortunately, most Wikipedians do not have access to specialist print archives or libraries, so they tend to go for the online sources first. It is a pity that BASCA does not have a full online list of past Ivor winners, as for example there would be no arguments about which films released in 1975 won Academy Awards.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems ridiculous to me and I wish there was an online source for all past print articles which would clear up many flaws for history although even many of those articles seem to get facts wrong. 'twas ever so, I suppose. the old chinese whispers syndrome. wikipedia needs editors without agendas who are dedicated to seeing neither those wishing to inflate images or to destroy them get corrected. But it will no longer be me. minefield. LudoVicar (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
If you do have any print sources on the Ivor Novello Award, please could you fish them out. The puzzle has arisen because the award is for songwriting, not performance. Nobody (certainly not me) is trying to destroy King's reputation over the Paloma Blanca issue, but since it has been raised, there is a need to source it so that other readers can check that it is true. This happens in many Wikipedia articles every day, and the [citation needed] template is used for this purpose.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Swenzy Article

Are you going to finish fixing the Swenzy article? I think you guys were getting it to be where it's suppose to be like, I hope you guys don't abandon it :( Please help finish fixing it when you're available 50.162.190.150 (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is lucky not to have been WP:G11 deleted soon after its creation. It has multiple issues which other editors are unlikely to have the time to fix. There remains the issue of whether Swenzy is really a limited liability company and registered trademark - it probably isn't, unless you know differently - so the whole basis of the article is unsatisfactory. The fake FBI seal also suggests that truthfulness is not high on Swenzy's list of priorities. The Internet hoaxes have some notability, but the current version of the article has too much puffery and spin.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Bob Godfrey/Henry's Cat

Regarding Bob Godfrey: The British Film Institute and IMDB sites, plus the UK Radio times magazine, state 1983 as the debut year of the animated Henry's Cat TV series. The Bob Godfrey and Henry's Cat pages have been subject to persistent unexplained and unsourced revisions for some time. A link to the British Film Institute site page on Henry's Cat: http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/series/8578

(Etheldavis (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC))

Thanks, this is a blog source, but fills in a lot of useful information about the show.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that blog post. Fascinating! Thank you! I do have the Radio Times covering the debut date of the Henry's Cat series from September 1983. The entry for 12 September lists the first broadcast of the first episode. The unexplained revisions to Wikipedia have been happening for quite a long time, and although I have no evidence, i suspect that they originate from a common source, via differing IP addresses.

(Etheldavis (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC))

DJ Scorpio World's No. 2 Hardcore-Techno DJ from Torquay

Obviously you don't know much about the dance music scene because asking who DJ Scorpio is, is the same as asking who Judge Jules is dj's don't put their real name on websites only there dj name of which if you type in DJ Scorpio there is loads of articles about him as well as pictures of him he has been a pioneer in Hardcore dj'ing since at least 1990 and sometimes works with the world no.1 DJ The Producer a.k.a. Luke McMillan these dj's are real dj's not fake commercial dj's like Dave Lee Travis, Tim Westwood and other radio so called dj's etc. Who just play one record after another instead of actually mixing them in. In a recent survey in Torquay Scorpio is ranked the 3rd most famous person in Torquay who people have heard of amongst the other notable people in Torquay, only Agatha Christie(Crime Writer) and Peter Cook(Comedian) (who just by less than 50 people difference) are above Scorpio in this survey with Lauren Pope 4th (Page 3 girl not known for dj'ing) and Miranda Hart 5th (Actress who hardly anyone in Torquay has heard of). Scorpio has played at all the major dance organisations like the world renowned Helter Skelter, Dreamscape, Dance Planet, Obsession, etc.[1] StatoatTBC (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Discogs is not a reliable source. Establishing notability for a person would require more than their profile on Facebook etc.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Facts about Torquay

The reason I know so much about all the facts about Torquay, Torbay and Devon is because I work in the information department for Torbay Coucil and have done for Devon Council aswell and Torquay is twinned with Hamelin and Hellevoetsluis and the Kingskerswell area of Torquay is also twinned with Lonsee and not Torbay as Torbay is no such town Torbay is the sea covering between Brixham and the south-end of Torquay as Torquay also goes into Babbacombe Bay and also Torquay was and still is the county town of Torbay as it was a county between 1968-1974 and the County Hall is the new Torquay Town Hall/Torbay County Hall ca.1911. And the reason I put statistics are for the whole of Torquay is because parts of Torquay come under South Hams and Teignbridge District Councils such as Compton (South Hams), Combeinteignhead, Stokeinteignhead, Abbotskerswell, Stoneycombe, Netherton, Coffinswell and even part of Kingskerswell, etc (Teignbridge). And if you was to travel 38 miles south-west of Torquay you would be near Truro not Plymouth which is 28 miles from Torquay. Most of the info I put on already has the citations in place i've just added further info. which is all true and verifiable through the Herald Express and Torbay Council archives. Thanks StatoatTBC (Torbay Borough Council).StatoatTBC (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:V applies here. It says:

"In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view".

While editing Wikipedia, even if you were expressing the official views of Torbay Borough Council, WP:V would still apply. See also WP:USERNAME.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

  1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
  2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
  3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
  4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
  5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Flashdancewhatafeeling.JPG

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Flashdancewhatafeeling.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

More About Suspected Vandalism of Henry's Cat page...

The Bob Godfrey/Henry's Cat pages are still being subjected to periodic "blitzes" of uncited and inaccurate information, I believe from a common source, although with differing IP addresses. Is there anything we can do to protect these pages?

(Etheldavis (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC))

I've left a message at User talk:2601:9:3300:7B:81E5:88BF:300A:2CD8. The page may need a request at WP:RFPP if this continues.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Amityville 3D book cover.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Amityville 3D book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Your reversion of The Hidden Wiki at Special:Diff/598694541/598695057

I am not suggesting that the site does not have links to child pornography. I am pointing out that the main page is kept free of it by the community. I left in the part where the source says that the site has those links. If you dispute that fine, but then why is all the unsourced information about credit card fraud, identity fraud and counterfeiting allowed to stay? Did you take a look at the other improvements I added? What can I add that you approve of? 92.78.156.133 (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Specifically, is there any other aspect of the edit that concerns you? 92.78.156.133 (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of it was original research, eg mentioning proxy gateways which are not in the sourcing or strictly relevant. The Hidden Wiki is known for offering links to .onion sites with questionable legality. The sourcing is very limited, but some of the material added was not supported by the citations given.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Please check the Ars Technica source which reads, "these sites are visible only to Tor users or those using a Tor gateway such as tor2web.org." I was correcting the misinterpretation of the source material with that fix. I would like to make the improvements in a way that you can agree with, so I want to know what material you dispute. 92.78.156.133 (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
OK sorry about that. There are very few reliable sources which mention THW, so there is not much to go on, which is why the article is a stub. My main concern was the change to the WP:LEAD section, which read "The main page serves as a directory of links to other .onion sites, provided they are free of child pornography." Given that one of the main sources of controversy is the site's linking of material with questionable legality, this seemed to be misleading. The phrase "Its main page provides a community-maintained link directory to other hidden services kept free of child pornography by convention" is also rather vague to a non-specialist reader. The main page contains no web content as such, and is simply a list of links to other sites.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL

Don't understand your reference to that on JK. If there was to be criticism of it it copyvio would be more on point. Also, I disagree with the reference to "pointy". There have been 2 major profiles of JK in the press in recent years, this was sourced to one of them. That sentence actually summarised the main point of that article. DeCausa (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I felt this edit came across as rather anti-King. It is fair to say that nothing that King has done since his release from prison has been a critical success, but the wording in the Independent article does not go into details, or name specific reviews. The actual wording in the source is "Critics may have ignored his creative output" which is a broad statement begging a [who?] response. Rod Liddle and Matthew Moore, for instance, did not ignore him. This could have tighter wording.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair point. But stepping back from the detail for a moment the whole point and the main theme of that Walker piece was how he has been cut out of popular culture by the mainstream media and how the world (the paying public, the media and artistic "establishment", etc) has ignored him, or at least has deprived him of the success he once enjoyed. There have only been two major pieces on him in the years since his release: that Walker piece and the Chalmers profile from 2012. It seems to me if that was the major theme of one of the two main articles about him in the last decade, or almost, then we need to capture that in the article. But I don't think we have at the moment. DeCausa (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Like most self-published works, King's creative output post 2005 has not hit any heights either critically or commercially. To be NPOV, this needs to be expressed carefully to avoid further accusations of bias. The Independent source, while broadly correct about his lack of critical success post 2005, is rather vague in its attribution.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I am still trying to think of a satisfactory wording for this. It is not entirely true that critics have ignored King post 2005, and nobody really expects self-published works to be a huge critical and commercial success.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's the main point we need to convey, although its the corrollary of the main point. What that Walker piece is all about is how he's been blocked out of the mainstream and ignored. Ok, Rod Little wrote about him and Vile Pervert got some attention, for the wrong reason, but his books and films haven't been reviewed in any mainstream sense. He relies on youtube, his own websites etc to distribute his films etc It's clearly not his choice that he self-publishes and posts on the internet. As I say, that is the central theme of thd Walker article, and our article should reflect that more directly, IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The key theme of the Independent article is King's frustration at not being able to work in the mainstream media since 2005. The phone just doesn't ring any more. Unlike Roman Polanski, who has had a reasonably successful career since the 1970s, King has been unable even to host a radio or television show on an obscure digital channel. This annoys him, and deliberate attempts to shock like Vile Pervert - The Musical and the Shipman song are the result.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Exactly (and being "ignored" by critics is just part of that). The outcome of all that is he makes no money on his films and the books just cover their costs. I think the article, somehow, needs to get that across more clearly. I don't think there is a NPOV issue with that because he's the one complaining about it. DeCausa (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Please could you raise this on the talk page for broader input, otherwise I could do it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I understand your point about no archives to check and I do find Wikipedia an invaluable source for bare bones which I can flesh up from our own archives but when stuff is missing or simply wrong like his hosting the Brit awards it is worrying. Hope this is the right place to put this (your link sent me here).109.157.17.216 (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Transparent. Do you really think it is believable that a Mail journalist is going to be "worried" about inaccuracies in Wikipedia? And especially that it doesn't repeat the it-was-all-Max-Clifford's-fault nonsense. DeCausa (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not interested in who 109.157.17.216 is, as even if it is a certain person with the initials JK, it is agreed that basic errors of fact will always be corrected. As far as I can see, all the Mail wanted to do this week was to work itself into a fresh lather over King, who had written a monthly column for Inside Time defending Jimmy Savile. Recently I purchased the Kindle edition of 65 My Life So Far to see what it had to say about various issues. It confirms that he wrote a column for The Sun called Bizarre, although bizarrely enough it does not say anything about him winning an Ivor Novello Award for Una Paloma Blanca (it does say that the single was initially banned by Boots because the B-side was an advertisement). As for Max Clifford (whose trial is ongoing), King can be forgiven a certain amount of schadenfreude, as he has consistently blamed Clifford for setting off the events which led to the 2001 trial (again, this is all in the book). Personally, I would be surprised if a Mail journalist knew that King did not present the 1990 Brit Awards, which seems to have been the result of someone at Wikipedia getting the wrong end of the stick over its entry in IMDb. 109.157.17.216 is to be thanked for pointing this out.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Socking, by users who have had accounts blocked, is socking, and it doesn't matter who's behind it or what information they claim to have. It's a fundamental abuse of Wikipedia. DeCausa (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
As discussed previously, there would be no objection to Jonathan King having ONE user account which was clearly identified as him, and using it to point out sourceable errors of fact in the article. At first, I gave 109.157.17.216 the benefit of the doubt and thought that it might be a Mail journalist, but then had second thoughts. Users with a detailed knowledge of what JK did who are able to correct relatively minor mistakes that are not obvious to a non-specialist reader should be regarded with suspicion. It does also seem unlikely that a Mail journalist is bothered about the Clifford/King link. 109.157.17.216 has got the benefit of the doubt this time, but please don't WP:SOCK or use pretexts to make edit requests.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Need to register in order to be able to even read tweets

If you go to the Twitter home page there does not appear to be an option to continue into twitter without signing in or signing up. Just how did you manage to view anything whilst logged out? Please let me know. Please accept my apologies if I have misunderstood something here.

Thanks in advance,

Mike D. (Redacted) (email address redacted)

81.178.244.176 (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

When you go to the home address https://twitter.com/ it shows a login page. The username of a registered user is the name of the user preceded by the @ symbol. So for example Barack Obama is @BarackObama, and the page for his public timeline is https://twitter.com/BarackObama . @BarackObama would be used to send messages to Barack Obama by placing it in a tweet. If you do not know the name of the user, Twitter Search can be used to find tweets related to the search keywords. The top of the Barack Obama page also has a search box. Hashtags, the # symbol, can also be used to highlight a particular mention, eg #barackobama. This and more is explained in the Twitter Help Center, although it is not explained in detail in the Wikipedia article as it would have WP:NOTHOWTO issues.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Need to register in order to be able to even read tweets

Ian,

Thanks for the further explanation. I now realise that for a non-registered user the way in after the home page is to select the 'directory' option which in turn brings up the 'search facility' from where the name of the person whose tweets one wants to read (say Barack O or Will Wheaton, for example) can be found and then their profiles can be seen. This seems quite user unfriendly and particularly convoluted, but as you point out it is not up to wikipedia to provide instructions on how to use facilities such as twitter!

Regards, Mike

81.178.244.176 (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Editing War for 2001: A Space Odyssey

Ian,

I apologize for my persistence on trying to post this excerpt for this connection between HAL and IBM, but I am doing this as a class assignment for the Art Institute of Seattle, and I am not trying to present it to promote Rob Ager. My name is Thomas Beck, and I am in no way, shape, or form related to or even personally know Rob Ager. I was told this same correlation by my uncle many years ago when I was first reading Arthur C. Clarke's book, 2001: A Space Odyssey. I am strictly presenting it for informational purposes and not to sway public opinion about Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick or trying to promote Rob Ager as I said. We (my classmate and I) posted this material under the Hoaxes and Conspiracy Theories section for 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) because it is that. We cannot know if there is really any intention that was hidden by Clarke or Kubrick. I just wanted the information available because it is intriguing and allows the fellow viewers of Wikipedia a chance to think critically.

Sincerely, Thomas A Beck

Thanks, there is quite a bit of sourcing about the HAL/IBM link, which Kubrick and Clarke always denied.[2] There is no need to mention Rob Ager, who is by no means the first or only person to point this out. Nor can it really be described as a conspiracy, because this takes it into the realms of WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Twitter History

This was my update today 3/28/2014: In March 2014, Twitter and Billboard, announced a plan to create a Billboard Twitter Real-Time Charts, Billboard charts, expected to be published in May, with continuously updated lists of the songs being discussed and shared the most on Twitter in the United States.[61]In 2013, Twitter users "sent more than one billion tweets about music, with 100 million of those tweets coming from music-related accounts". Also, in 2014, "people using music services sent more than 40 million tweets about the music they're playing".[62]

In no way do I see this as being deleted - you have not entered any argument or discussion on my Talk Page before deleting my entry, and this has 2 legitimate newpaper article references. Please explain yourself and who you are; I have no vested interest in this.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This is too long and reads like a press release for the companies concerned. It would also be better to wait until the service is launched rather than saying that it exists as a plan to do it, it will apparently be launched in the next few weeks. Wikipedia articles should avoid mirroring news content simply to be up to date.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ian, I have deleted the Mashable article reference, which I also wondered where the statistics for Twitter usage were coming from. Thank you for your consideration. However, I think the announcement of this partnership is worthy of note, and with the amount of news coverage, it appears to be solid. I hope you agree.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

One of the articles that made me wary of "X announced plans for date Y" is Vevo. When the site launched in 2009, it had plans to go worldwide soon after, but has still not done so. This is why WP:CRYSTAL applies in this type of situation. Press releases ≠ future certain events:)--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I acquiesce and have deleted the announcement. Although I have observed similar edits on other pages, it is probably best to proceed with caution (particularly on this page that appears to have suffered from vandalism). Thanks for discussion; until next time.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Amityville: Origins

I have additional sources for the article on Amityville: Origins. Can I add these with the proposed article inlcuding links to 11 news items related to the author as well as link for the book?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3886382/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3886382/news?ref_=nm_phs_nw

Powe1123 wiki (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

IMDb is not an ideal source either, because it is an "anyone can contribute" wiki. The impression that I got from the Amazon page is that this is a novella by a relatively unknown and possibly self-published author. If the book is self-published, it probably fails Wikipedia's standards of notability unless there is some solid secondary sourcing mentioning or discussing it.

I am sorry for the confusion. The IMDB page only lists the news articles about the author, I can click on the link that goes to the actual news articles that were published industry trades and the like. If I direct link to the industry page article, would this be acceptable? See below example http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Timur-Bekmambetov-Directing-Michael-Bay-Heatseekers-Paramount-35134.html This link discusses the author's material being worked on Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter director

I have the orginal source material at the various sites. IMDB just lists the link where you can see them. Would that be accepaptable? Powe1123 wiki (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This book has the word "Amityville" in the title and is loosely based on the events involved. The real worry is that there are no reviews of this book in newspapers etc. The sourcing given does not discuss the book in a review context.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

seabrooks

It is a theory, it has not been stated as truth. Maybe all other pages with "possible theories" on should be cleaned too??? Very unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichieBoy1987 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfunny.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


I think you mean....HILARIOUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichieBoy1987 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I managed to avoid laughing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hatnote

FYI : Per WP:Hatnote, it's standard procedure to add a hatnote to any person named "John Doe" if there is another article named "John Something Doe". The confusion does not arise for people who look for Hans Zimmer, they will find him without any problems. The confusion arises when somebody looks for the not so well known painter (who might have been credited as Hans P Zimmer or without the second given name) and types in the search box "Hans Zimmer", he will be directed to the composer and thinks that there is no article on the painter. That is the actual reason why hatnotes were introduced at Wikipedia. Kraxler (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The chances of someone getting this person mixed up with Hans Zimmer the Hollywood film score composer are very remote. This is particularly true in the English-speaking world.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 01:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edit to Google

I understand that Google Inc. is inconsistent with the title, Google, but then why is the name in bold in RadioShack RadioShack Corporation and not simply RadioShack, even though RadioShack is its common name (WP:COMMONNAME)? --WikiWinters (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

During the article, Google is referred to as Google rather than Google Inc. Incorporated companies in the U.S. are not usually referred to as Inc. even though this is technically correct. I went for consistency with the article title here and will look at how other articles handle this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I should also note that Yahoo! is given the bold title, Yahoo! Inc. --WikiWinters (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
After looking into this, I wouldn't complain if the Google Inc. was put back. The article Apple Inc. uses Inc. in the title, although it is not the company's WP:COMMONNAME.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems like WP:COMMONNAME deals more with article titles, not the bold terms that are placed in the beginning of articles. If you look at the bold terms in the articles of people, you'll notice that the term in bold is almost always the person's birth and/or legal name, yet almost never their common name. --WikiWinters (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible Libelous Assertion On Henry's Cat page

Hello! I am concerned at recent unsourced edits to the Henry's Cat page in which an editor claims that the character was based on a named friend of the creator. I am unable to find this information anywhere on line. As the character of Henry's Cat was lovable but also lazy and not very intelligent, I am concerned that the edits might actually be highly contentious. The Henry's Cat page has been subjected to a long campaign of unsourced and inaccurate edits for a very long time, by, I suspect, an editor using multiple IP addresses. I have tried to talk to this editor, but have received no reply. I am not very experienced in the ways of Wikipedia, and would be grateful if you could take a look at the situation. I have removed the assertion (although the editor is persistent and may have reinstated it by the time you view the page), so please check the page history. Many thanks.

(213.122.75.74 (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC))

The claim in this edit is unsourced and dubious, and it has rightly been removed. There is a problem with unsourced material in Henry's Cat, and the article needs constant watching. Also, it might be helpful for you to register an account to have greater editing rights and keep track of your own edits. The problem with IP addresses is that they can be constantly changing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Tiresome roboreverting

Hi,

your reversion of my change, seconds after I'd made it, on the grounds of "crystal ball" speculation, created an edit conflict with my edit to add the reference. Please give people a chance to tidy up their edits before trashing their work.

The reference is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27245579 ; I'd appreciate it if you'd add it yourself Mk270 (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that I was a bit quick on this, but the reverted edit had issues with WP:CRYSTAL. It is unclear whether Constance Briscoe's mother will succeed in reversing her lost 2008 libel action, or if and when it might come to court. There have also been suggestions that other cases in which Briscoe was involved will be reviewed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Henry's Cat

I have long had concerns about the Henry's Cat page, which has been subjected to many alterations and "slow motion" (and some NOT so slow motion!) edit wars. Do read the full edit history for the last year! Horrendous! I have a great fondness for the show myself, but have decided to avoid the page for the time being as it is difficult not to participate when these kind of situations persist. One of the editors uses multiple IP addresses, and if you look at the edit histories, makes repeated (and unsubstantiated) changes to many articles in the cartoon/children's TV Wiki listings.

(Etheldavis (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC))

Many of the problem edits come from someone with a IPv6 address. I would urge anyone who wants to edit this article to register an account to keep track of their edits and make clear who did what. If there are any more reverts of the same material without talk page discussion, I am likely to request page protection.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Mitchell, Simon. "djscorpio". DJ. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "djscorpioatdiscogs" ignored (help)