This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ianmacm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello Ianmacm. Seems that this IP had two acting Ian's passing away. I am glad that it was an editor named Ian that caught and reverted one of their edits :-) Cheers and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk16:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes I'm still alive. I'm also reminded of the occasion in June 2013 when an IP editor said that Roger LaVern of The Tornados had died. I had to revert it due to the lack of sourcing, but it looked to be a good faith edit. Sure enough he had died, but it wasn't in the local newspaper until four days later. A scoop for Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Classic stuff. Joshua Rozenberg got it wrong about PJS, though, writing back in April "I suspect that the claimant may live to regret having taken on the media if – or, as I suspect, when – the names of those concerned become known to us all."[1] The 4-1 victory in the Supreme Court was decisive, as 3-2 would have been seen as a split vote. One of the things that the media hasn't mentioned so far is that this is pretty much a complete vindication for Max Mosley. If the 2016 UK Supreme Court ruling had been in place at the time of Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd in 2008, it would have been very difficult if not impossible to publish anything about the now-famous SM session. What will the Sunday newspapers find to write about now that Lord Mance and his friends have spoiled all the fun?--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)20:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that Joshua Rozenberg was suggesting that the courts would allow the material to be published. The UK courts eventually allowed Spycatcher to be published, but we may never know who was involved in a threesome in a paddling pool filled with olive oil. For me, it is problematic that the 2016 UK Supreme Court ruling allows only two logic states for the public interest: Yes, it is in the public interest, and no, it isn't in the public interest. There should be some shades of grey (but perhaps not fifty) involved. On a scale from one to ten, the olive oil saga rates very low for the public's right/need to know the gory details. However, PJS and YMA haven't done themselves any favours by plastering themselves all over the glossy supermarket magazines telling everyone how happily married they are. This is why Ross Cranston originally turned down the application for an injunction in the High Court. Lord Mance is made of sterner stuff, and has effectively made it impossible to publish anything criticising a person's sex life.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)21:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The Sun expresses some serious displeasure here. I wondered if this was worth adding to the article, but didn't want to set off a WP:NFCC deletion debate or other arguments about its suitability.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)08:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The current version of the article doesn't mention the unusual use of olive oil at all, and as far as I can see the court transcripts don't either. Balsamic vinegar wouldn't have been as much fun, but it would have made a huge quantity of salad dressing.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)09:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
"Why did the tomato blush? - Because it saw the banner headline and four-page-centre-spread in the Sun on Sunday." fnaar, fnaar... 09:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The Sun also said this in its editorial, but personal attacks are unlikely to get very far. If the case went to Strasbourg, the judges would end up citing Von Hannover v Germany, which says "The Court considers that a fundamental distinction needs to be made between reporting facts – even controversial ones – capable of contributing to a debate in a democratic society relating to politicians in the exercise of their functions, for example, and reporting details of the private life of an individual who, moreover, as in this case, does not exercise official functions." This is all good stuff, but as Kathy English pointed out, it can be used by very wealthy people to bludgeon the media into submission.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The Roast of Ianmacm
I've been having a really shitty day mate, just found out some really awful news. The only way I could even muster a smile was to edit one Wikipedia article to poke fun at my friend... yet you took that away. I didn't even realise the edits go public my friend, I started panicking the minute I realised the damage I'd done. My grin turned instantly to a frown once I received your hate mail. 40 years old and I'm still put down by words on a digital screen. It's funny how deep our insecurities lie. Thank you, Ian, for ruining my day, my week...and my life. My only choice of happiness and you stripped it away, word by word. I was going to start ripping into you, bending your mind as insults hail down upon your head...but I shall simply leave you with this: You're a big bumhead!
Re: Reversal of my addition in the Streisand effect. I am always wanting to improve my edits - how can I do better? What would have made it allowed?
I am happy to include different citations, but I need context as to why the one I chose (major media outlet, covered both incident and reaction specific to the article) was unsuitable.
I am also confused as to Original Research - I seem to run a cropper of it regularly - what was original about it? I could list other sources that reached the same conclusion. If it is because it was from a newspaper, what could be chosen other than a major newspaper, leading in my country? It would be on-par in Australia with The Economist for commentary and research (as used by another example).
Regarding controversy not being universal for inclusion, what is the threshold I should use? Other, surviving, example include a blog about lunches at a primary school.
There has been a discussion on the talk page in the past about how and when to include new examples. Otherwise, there is a risk that the article will become bogged down with unclear or non-notable examples of the effect. The list of examples has been pruned in the past because it was becoming too long. Specifically, I reverted this edit because the source given does not say that it is an example of the Streisand effect, so there is an element of original research. I also had some concerns about the long term notability of this incident, as barely a month goes by without someone adding a new example of the effect based on news media coverage, which can lead to problems with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I'm not sure that the Peter Dutton example has enough long term notability, but you can raise the issue on the talk page if you disagree.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. You're right - I should have trawled the talk page a bit more thoroughly. Your response will make me a better Wikipedia contributor! Kalon~enwiki (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that nowadays barely a month goes by without the media using the term "Streisand effect" to describe a controversy. If a new example was added to the article every time this happened, it would soon be of excessive length.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)04:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, the status of thepiratebay.se is still unclear. The Swedish government has been trying to throw TPB off the .se domain for quite some time, and looks as though they may finally have succeeded in 2016, although the site can appeal against the current ruling. For the time being, the site is operating at .org, which was its original domain. This is confirmed by the site's Twitter feed, although the purists would like a more reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
The link to ISIL is speculative at the moment. I'm more interested in mass shootings in the USA than in Syrian politics. Please don't badger people over this issue.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
How do I start an article?
I've decided to start articles about Andy Malkinson, Glynn Razzell and others - how do I do it? I've been told by another editor not to edit the King article. Acquaduct (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Clint Mansell Lux Aeterna.ogg
Thank you for uploading File:Clint Mansell Lux Aeterna.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
I am going to edit war this because the next person might decide that a Russian, Chinese or Iranian judge should be able to determine the acceptable content on Wikipedia. It is a US based site dude. Read our Constitution before you try to say what can be posted here.Varith (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Varith, wouldn't that apply only at the Russian, Chinese or Iranian versions of Wikipedia? You seem to be arguing that because en.wiki "is a US based site dude" all editors have to respect any legal restrictions handed down by US judges, but can safely ignore all others. Is that correct? Or does that one-sided restriction apply only to UK editors? And what exactly do you mean by "our Constitution"? Not this one, I'm guessing. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Varith seems to be referring to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I'm not trying to override anyone's right to freedom of speech, but the sub judice template exists to protect both users and Wikipedia from potential contempt of court issues during a criminal trial. This is especially important in the age of the Internet. There won't be any problems if people stick to things that they have found on CNN and BBC News, but if people start turning up with things that they have found on Twitter, heard from a conversation in a pub etc it could lead to problems. Wikipedia has never been blamed for screwing up a trial but there is always a first time. It is a fact that the defence lawyers at a trial look at what Wikipedia has said, and they will play the "my client cannot get a fair trial" card if they find prejudicial material.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)19:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi John, I wondered as a contributor to the article whether I could seek your view on this thread. I thought the conversation was going seriously off topic as the ip seems to just want to float a conspiracy theory. Did I do the right thing or should I have waited for someone else to close the discussion as has been suggested? Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It's too early to say as we don't know the outcome of the referendum yet. The polls did narrow after Jo Cox's death, but this might have happened anyway. There is a risk of post hoc ergo propter hoc here. It is media speculation and is hard to source reliably.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that's pretty much what I thought to be honest. I was concerned about the direction they wanted to take the conversation, particularly as they posted another conspiracy theory here. That being the case then my postal vote probably went straight in the bin! This is Paul (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Having crossed paths
but not swords, with you twice today I figures that I should introduce myself. Hello I am carptrash, and yes, it is a slow day today. Carptrash (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It was reported in The Sun on Sunday and has been picked up by other media organizations, so it is not ideal to begin with. Assuming it is true, in this form it has problems with WP:FUTURE and WP:BLPCRIME. As we know, the investigation into allegations against Paul Gambaccini and Cliff Richard dragged on for many months without any charges being brought. Since Savile's death, the UK police will investigate even the most dubious allegations of historic sexual abuse, even at the risk of producing a shambles like Operation Midland.[2] It's far too early to say how the Evans allegations will turn out, but you were right to remove it in this edit because of the tabloid sourcing. It also has problems with WP:RECENTISM unless anything substantial comes of it.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
June 2016
Re this edit summary You're removing well-cited non-controversial claims about what is widely considered to be an Islamic terrorist attack. Citing a conservative news outlet as your sole rationale for doing so makes it difficult for me to believe your edits were in good faith. Update the entry as new facts become available. Please don't remove or censor information because it doesn't correspond with your world-view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceran (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
As I've already said over at User talk:Ceran, please assume good faith. I'm more interested in what investigators have to say about the motive than what Mateen said during the attack. Identifying the motive in mass shootings is rarely as simple as the media thinks it is.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)19:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Seconding about inappropriate removal. You just reverted a good faith edit that ISIL claimed responsibility for the Orlando attack on the grounds that because the CIA was of a different opinion, it didn't belong. That is, at least, an NPOV issue. At the very least, the rationale for the revert should have led to moving the text out of the lead (which I wouldn't have much of a problem with) and not to deleting the text which is what actually happened. This discord between action (revert) and rationale (that the text didn't belong in the lead) is not a good sign. TMLutas (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
There has been a lot of debate about this and we are never going to know what was going on in Mateen's head at the time of the incident. The U.S. government preferred the phrase "act of terror" to "terrorist attack".--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Pulse painted black
Re [3] (1) if color matters at all, the color at the time of the shooting must be more significant than the color now. (2) "Currently" is time-sensitive. Are we expected to regularly reverify that it's still black? ―Mandruss☎05:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I thought that the wording was too long for a caption, but accept the point about WP:RELTIME. The image in the infobox is scraping the barrel to a certain extent because in addition to being painted black, there have been various structural alterations such as a canopy, as shown in the latest Google Street View. The 2006 image is on the borderline of being worth using in the article when the caption should read "This photo was taken in 2006 and the club looks nothing like this nowadays. However, it is the only copyright free image that we could find." I'm not going to edit war over this.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Jonathan King
What do you think about the "record producer of the year" claim? It's been re-added by an IP - with a misleading edit summary - but I'm reluctant to make too many reversions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The sourcing is this screenshot so there is a problem with "not in sourcing given". There seems to be a long standing fascination with getting "Leap Up and Down (Wave Your Knickers in the Air)" mentioned in the article, but none of the material added in this edit is actually in the source.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)19:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
If I referred to "not in source", it was to do with the sales figures for the "Leap Up and Down" single (later removed) rather than with the Music Week claim - but, at best, the claim that he was top producer according to some Music Week chart tally doesn't seem to me to be worthy of inclusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that this isn't particularly noteworthy and it seems to have an element of puffery. The exact wording is "Jonathan King, top singles producer in the Music Week 1971 chart survey" which is a passing mention in a news article. The wording "record producer of the year" has shades of the Ivor Novello Award for King's version of "Una Paloma Blanca", which had to be dropped because there is no reliable sourcing and BASCA denied it in e-mails. As for the sales figures of "Leap Up and Down (Wave Your Knickers in the Air)", the sales figure of 450,000 is completely unsourced, although it may have reached number 12 in the charts. Sales of pop records are often wildly speculative and have set off many arguments.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. But isn't Wikipedia behaving just as badly? And one of the advantages of Wikipedia is that it doesn't simply reflect mainstream media. It is a terrific source of information about very obscure subjects not touched on by mainstream media - or the BBC. Just because nobody in mainstream media yet appears to have bothered to comment (I suspect that is because it is old news - the Savile/DLT edits and lack of inclusion of Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter and the others is old news now) does not mean we should ignore it here. Or does it? Wotthefact (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia allows its editors to go wrong with perfect confidence as long as a) they follow Wikipedia guidelines and b) they follow what "reliable sources" have said. My hands are tied on this issue because a complaint on the messageboards of King's website does not meet WP:V or WP:DUE. The trick here is to get the mainstream media to mention it, the same as they did with the removal of "It Only Takes a Minute" in 2011. King was a good friend of Mark Thompson, but I'm not so sure about Tony Hall, who got one of his underlings to reply, but at least they did reply, providing confirmation of the removal. Top of the Pops has anoraks who know everything about the show, so they spotted immediately that the USA chart insert had gone missing. As the Radio Times archive shows, TOTP in this period was 35 minutes long, so if the repeats are shorter than this something must have gone missing. The average person watching BBC4 repeats of TOTP is not an anorak and is unlikely to know or care about any of this. A problem.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I admit to being a bit of a Top of the Pops anorak and would think that there are enough people like us to warrant confirming this has happened and needs adding! Wotthefact (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but it is in WP:RGW territory again. I had a look at Google News results for Jonathan King and it is thin stuff recently. Will anyone in this part of the "official" media show interest in the removal of a three minute slot from a BBC4 repeat of a 1982 edition of TOTP? Also, I had a look around on YouTube, and although there are some bits and pieces from the banned editions of TOTP, such as "Una Paloma Blanca" introduced by Jimmy Savile here, there isn't much in the way of entire episodes. TOTP was repeated on UK Gold some years back and many of the YouTube videos were taken from these repeats. The BBC has tipped a large amount of its pop music archive down a memory hole, so viewers' off air recordings may now be the only way of watching these editions of TOTP.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Could you explain the following mentioned in your comment on King? "King says that around two years after Joe Loss gave him the award". Why Joe Loss? Is the connection with Vera Lynn just coincidence? NewKingsRoad (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it is a coincidence. We are talking about an individual song released as a 7 inch 45 RPM single that charted in September 1975. This means that the 1975 award ceremony would not have been the relevant ceremony if it had been held in May 1975 or thereabouts.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)09:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I really can't answer that. What is clear is that every time BASCA is asked about it, they are just going to say no. Jonathan King has a very knowledgeable fan club. LudoVicar was able to find a copy of Record Mirror relating to something in 1967 here. Without similar newspaper cuttings it is now very difficult to say that King won an Ivor Novello Award. If a person claimed to have a knighthood and Buckingham Palace had said no several times, it wouldn't be in a person's Wikipedia article. As suggested previously, perhaps King was so upset by the loss of his Ivor Novello Award circa 1978 that he reported the burglary to the police and listed the award as one of the items stolen. Perhaps he appealed via the media for its return. Or perhaps not, given the way that he writes about it in 70 FFFY.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)13:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time and for the link on my talk page. It is odd that Joe Loss is named as giving him the award. Perhaps King attended and saw Loss give an award to someone and his memory has become confused. It does happen I suppose. Many odd things about King's place in music history. NewKingsRoad (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
At no time have I said that it was impossible for King to have been given an award, but as the evidence came in it became less and less likely.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Back in the 1990s, I watched Top of the Pops 2 as regular as clockwork. What I didn't know at the time was that the BBC's archive of Top of the Pops is nowhere near complete because of the BBC's stupid policy of wiping and reusing the quad tapes used to record them. "Una Paloma Blanca" from 4 September 1975 has had an amazingly luck let off considering that only nine out of the 1975 editions survive. This set me off thinking about how many of the 1965 editions survive. "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" is on YouTube here and it comes from TOTP on 29 July 1965.[4]. The Radio Times listing is here. I couldn't find out how many editions of TOTP from 1965 are still in the archive today, but given that many episodes of Doctor Who are missing from this era, it looks to be sheer luck that this edition of TOTP is still around today and available on YouTube, in case the BBC burns it in an incinerator for having both Savile and King in it.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The 21st Ivor Novello Awards were presented by the Songwriters Guild of Great Britain and sponsored by PRS; they were held at the Dorchester Hotel, London. NewKingsRoad (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I've assumed that the list of 1976 award winners on the Ivors website is correct. It contains "Bohemian Rhapsody" and "I'm Not in Love", 1975 songs which no-one is arguing about. The question is why BASCA would have overridden the guideline that the awards for individual songs are for songwriting, composing and the associated publisher. By overriding this, why not give an Ivor Novello Award to "Whispering Grass" by Windsor Davies and Don Estelle as well?--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)12:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Eric
Look, yuo and I both know that you aren't going to get anywhere on Eric's talk page. Maybe he did something wrong, maybe he didn't but poking him will achieve nothing (unless, perhaps, your intent is in fact to outright incite him into some breach). Either it (whatever your complaint it) goes to ANI or you drop it. - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I stand by every word. Eric is (or was) a good editor but a) he is subject to the same rules as everyone else, and b) nobody is forced to do Wikipedia if they don't want to. The smart thing to do would be to walk away.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not interested in another dramafest at ANI about Eric's incivility, it's all been said before. He is now cutting off his nose to spite his face.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)13:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
All said and done, Carrite is right that editors shouldn't call each other idiots in edit summaries. However, our convention is if you put a message on somebody's page, and they revert it, we AGF they have read it and taken it on board, and it's not worth edit-warring over. Unless Eric does something stupid like log on after having had "one too many" and call Jimbo Wales every epithet known to man (and maybe a few made up ones) in a public place, it is best ignored. BTW I have seen you around doing good work on BLPs Ian, so thanks for that. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I very rarely comment on other user's talk pages, and even more rarely criticise other editors for their actions. However, if you look at Eric's contributions and edit summaries in the last few days, it is pretty much a non-stop stream of WP:CIVIL violations. Eric needs to decide whether the game is worth the candle.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see much over the past week other than a bit of work on Robert Southey and getting involved in mild scuffles with people already known to have a grudge against Eric and somebody who is now blocked as a sock and said something much worse. Then there was the kerfuffle with Biblioworm that he self-hatted and walked away from. To cut a long story short, I think trying to get any sanction from Eric on ANI or anywhere else for events over the past week would be a very hard sell and leave everybody profoundly exhausted. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Team america march.ogg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Team america march.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Please use the article talk page instead of reverting. With the charges this afternoon, the article is very much about a current event (specifically the five new individuals freshly implicated in the attack and being charged this afternoon). Although it's hard to predict, the article is quite likely to change rapidly as new information emerges. Some of the previous content will have to be reviewed. That is what the tag is for and why the French article has kept the tag in place. They have experience of the previous two recent attacks. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't have any worries about reverting this because it is a clear violation of the Template:Current usage guidelines, which say "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence." It is a common mistake to assume this. What matters is the rate of editing, which isn't excessive at the moment. What the French language Wikipedia is doing isn't really relevant here.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)19:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It's an extraordinary and ridiculous thing to say on another user's talk page. However, it does fit into the pattern of E.M.Gregory's conduct during the deletion debate of 2016 Ramadan attacks, which has shown pretty much a complete lack of WP:CONSENSUS building. There is a case for reporting this to WP:ANI, but this might simply increase the drama.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)04:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
It looks like it has wandered into WP:BADGER territory because it is not an attempt to discuss article improvement in a constructive way. However, ANI threads can often be drama festivals that generate more heat than light.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)07:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you help me? E.M. has turned the ANI discussion topic around and is now talking about me hounding him. I would like a fresh set of eyes to look at this, because while I do follow him around, what I've been doing recently is mere constructive edits. And I'm getting pretty fatigued from defending myself. Thank you. Parsley Man (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
This commentary is right out of my psychology books "New Harbringer", Psychology Today, Patricia Evans et al. This was a psycho-analytical examination. Just so you know I am central Asian, Tatar muslim, and German Jew by heritage - who focuses on critical analysis. Can I have a copy of what I wrote = to go over it with Xtra, LGBT editor at Canadas premier gay newspaper, maybe the wording can use improvement. Also, I can have a retired University of Toronto Professor of Psychology reviews - to verify that the perspective is middle of the road & valid. How do you feel about these options — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Iwanow (talk • contribs) 11:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
That's all very well, but please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that most of this wandered off topic and had very little to do with the actual shooting in Orlando. If you have a university education, please bear in mind that Wikipedia articles are not essays based on personal analysis or commentary.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)12:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, this has become something of a slow edit war. I haven't disputed that there is anti-semitic material on BestGore, but it needs coverage in secondary sources.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Re [5], if that argument about {{Start date and age}} is a community consensus, shouldn't the template doc say so? If not, should you make it? My argument would have been, "Not many people need help with that arithmetic, and we avoid unwarranted clutter in infoboxes." Later,―Mandruss☎10:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
There have been discussions before about this on talk pages for mass shootings. Some users don't like "start date and age" if a) the event was a one off and b) the reader is quite capable of doing the math. Personally, I would adjust the template doc so that it was made clear that "start date and age" isn't suitable for one off events.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
You could go propose that at the template's talk page, but I understand if you feel you have more important fish to fry. ―Mandruss☎21:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed we've been going rounds on the Archimedes article, I've also noticed most of your activity on the article has been reverting content rather than finding a good way to include it. I wanted to talk to you about WP:OWNERSHIP and how you could possibly avoid this by allowing other editors to contribute content or allowing other authors to make changes to the article even if the don't necessarily fit into your opinion of how things should be presented. Thanks,
Gsonnenf (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Ianmacm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This is in regards tp https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YouTube&oldid=753182633 - Stop preaching the "original research" matra - the combing issue looks right into your face from the picture I attached. I linked to a discussion of bad YouTube deinterlacing, so "original research" is no more. This is an important usability issue related to interlaced uploads, and YouTube users - both uploaders and viewers - need to know that uploading interlaced content may result in sub-par viewing experience. Mikus (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
The wiki article you linked does not prohibit using forums as source of info. The word "forum" is not even used in that article. Yes, it does list types of sources that are "in general, the most reliable", but does not prohibit using forums. Moreover, it says: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." The forum thread that I used as a reference conforms to these requirements. I am reinstating my changes because they clearly are not original research. In future I suggest you to better study wikipedia requirements before shooting down someone else's edits. Mikus (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:SPS says "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I've also replied on the YouTube talk page.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think the issue is so much about his birth name, but more about whether or not he claimed in his autobiography to have killed someone. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, I saw the Telegraph article. My first thought was that this was similar to the Violet Blue saga. Whether CJ de Mooi (not C.J. noted) is the name on his birth certificate looks like it has been questioned, but anything said about him should meet WP:BLP guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)13:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is off the hook on the charges of vandalism and poorly sourced material being added to the article. What seems to have happened is that some users became confused by material available in reliable sources (BBC, Guardian, Telegraph etc), and assumed that it was reliably sourced even though it may have been traced back to something that originally appeared in the Daily Mirror. I'm still a bit confused about how the words "I fully suspect I killed him. I’ve no idea what happened to him." came about, but accept that the most likely explanation is this Mirror article leaking into other sources via the all too common process of churnalism. If other sources do not attribute the material clearly enough, it can acquire the shine of being reliably sourced even when it isn't.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The issue would have been resolved much more quickly if the article subject had responded to this helpful suggestion on (apparently) their user talk page - which (I assume) they did not do. The whole issue raises the question of how far editors, who rely in good faith on news stories about living people published in what we always regard as reliable sources, need to double check the accuracy of those stories themselves. It also points to the difficulty of paraphrasing. Any editor who read these two paragraphs in a press report -
In an extract from his autobiography, he wrote: "He caught me on the wrong day and I just snapped." The 45-year-old former rent boy added: "I fully suspect I killed him. I've no idea what happened to him."
- would reasonably assume that the second quote was in the autobiography together with the first quote, rather than coming from a separate interview not mentioned in the article. By the way, have you seen this? - translate as necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
From what I've read, the Daily Mirror serialised the book in September 2015. During this process, de Mooi may have been interviewed to promote the book by Emma Pietras. An average Wikipedian acting in good faith could have got the impression that the words "I fully suspect I killed him. I’ve no idea what happened to him." are in the autobiography when they are not. Even the BBC now seems to be confused over this. The news article in Dutch suggests that the man who died in 1988 was a German called Norbert Dichtl, but this could be just a piece of tabloid speculation. As the Dutch police pointed out, many dead people are pulled out the canals in any given year and if they are tramps or drug addicts it may be hard to identify them. They never had a specific person in mind when they filed the extradition request, and could easily have looked back to death records from 1988.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)11:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The entire Dutch canal network is quite extensive and the things that fall (or are pushed) into it don't tend to move very far? Surely the Dutch Police had some idea where this incident was alleged to have taken place? Has de Mooi himself ever said? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
It's all way too vague. One thing that occurred to me is that if de Mooi's passport showed that he was in Amsterdam in May 1988, it would narrow things down. However, I think that this was intended to be a passing anecdote in a showbiz autobiography and has somehow been blown out of all proportion. It did cause publicity for the book, though.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)12:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Another thing which has occurred to me is that if CJ de Mooi was unhappy with the wording used in this Daily Mirror article on 7 September 2015, he should have rebutted it immediately. Unfortunately, we have now got to the stage where these words have appeared in numerous reliable sources and people may think that he said them because they have been quoted by the BBC and other sources.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)12:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
