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.
Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.
Whatever else the editor is doing, I think this was an improvement, "enjoying" aside, inasmuch as it replaced a picture that wasn't of the cocktail with one that was. Would you consider reverting yourself? Pinkbeast (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Done, this image is more encyclopedic and useful than the others. There is a tendency to add photos to food and drink articles that aren't very useful, but the snowball image is OK.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of recordings with a flanging effect until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯02:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
As I said over on the talk page, there is a problem with WP:DUE. The Roy Moore article cites the Washington Post[1] and there are numerous reliable sources dealing with these allegations, so WP:WELLKNOWN applies. It's early days for the Laurence Krauss allegations, and most media sources are repeating the BuzzFeed allegations.-♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
So, you abandon the whole "court" and "convictions" business for Moore as well as ignore the fact that most media sources were repeating WaPo's allegations. Interesting. 69.34.51.170 (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I would assume it is normal to explain (even briefly) why edits are reverted. I have spent some time doing editing in good faith, and endeavouring to integrate/link the 80 or so individual cases seen on the casefile page. Knowing more about that would be appreciated. Thanks. JabberJaw(talk)06:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
This is one of the spammiest editing sprees that I have seen for a very long time. It simply isn't necessary to promote an obscure Australian podcast in this manner. I was sorely tempted to refer this to one of the noticeboards. Most famous crime cases have numerous documentaries, but they are not usually mentioned unless they are covered in reliable secondary sources. Please don't restore this material.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
Not sure you checked out the net effect to make sure you find it acceptable (I have no opinion), but here it is for your convenience. Thanks for caring about "old news" articles. ―Mandruss☎08:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Template:Current says "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information." This is now very true of the Orlando nightclub shooting. Immediately after the shooting, the world's news media decided that Mateen was a closet gay, had used gay dating apps, been a regular at Pulse, chosen it because it was a gay nightclub, and his wife had known that he was planning the attack. By 2018, all of this had been either discredited or called into question. People may not realize this if they are still reading news reports from June 2016. I'm not entirely happy about saying that Mateen did not know that Pulse was a gay nightclub because this is speculative and trying to prove a negative. However, the 2018 evidence suggests that Pulse was chosen simply because it was the easiest available target at the time, not because it was a gay nightclub, or the patrons were Latinos. We wouldn't be having these discussions if he had attacked EVE Orlando; Mateen's cell phone records suggest that he had considered this as a possible target on the night. Sometimes, as with the Luby's shooting, the victims are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nobody knows exactly why George Hennard did it, but he was an angry wacko a lot like Omar Mateen.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.
If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone.
If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!
http://podkomisjasmolensk.mon.gov.pl/pl/index.html
What and who give you the right tocorrect the work of bothers about which you know nothing?
Breakthrough on Cause of Death of the Polish President in Russia in 2010: Highly Respected British Expert concludes internal explosions took place.
The Polish Airforce One, a Russian built and serviced Tu-154M, carrying the official Polish Delegation led by President Lech Kaczynski, crashed in Smolensk, Russia, on April 10, 2010, killing all 96 people on board ("Smolensk Crash").
In January 2018, one of the world's preeminent aviation accident investigators Frank Taylor announced his conclusions at the same time stating beyond any doubt that just seconds before the crash several explosions took place in the left wing and fuselage of the Tu154M. Frank Taylor began his cooperation with the Polish Subcommittee for Re-investigation of the Smolensk Crash nearly 18 months ago and came to unequivocal conclusions after long-term research and after his latest visit to Warsaw.
A member of the International Society of Air Safety Investigators (ISASI), Frank Taylor was elected as "ISASI Fellow" – the highest honor bestowed by this professional society. Frank Taylor is one of only 35 ISASI Fellows worldwide. He has 44 years of experience with air crash investigations. In 1998, he was awarded with the prestigious Jerome F. Lederer Award for his outstanding contributions to aviation safety. The award was given in recognition of Frank Taylor's great achievements and major contributions to the field of air crash investigation. Frank Taylor is also the founder and former director of Cranfield University Aviation Centre. Till this day, Cranfield University Crash Investigation Programme is recognized as one of the best in the world.
Based on a careful analysis of many detailed photographs and a review of the results of thousands of hours work by the Polish Subcommittee for Re-investigation of the Smolensk Crash, Taylor concluded that he "had no doubt whatsoever that explosions occurred," that the destruction of the left wing" could not be the result of a collision with a birch tree," and "the left passenger door driven into the ground could simply not happen in this way in a normal speed crash."
Frank Taylor therefore totally repudiates the official Russian explanation of the Smolensk Crash as a controlled flight into terrain due to pilot error. The Russian version of events, announced at the time of the crash and presented in the official Russian report in January 2011, was subsequently adopted in July 2011 by the first Polish investigative committee led by Jerzy Miller, as well as by the administration of Donald Tusk. Recordings, which were recently published by the current Subcommittee, suggest that Jerzy Miller days after the crash directed his team of investigators to reach similar conclusions as the then on-going Russian investigation.
The findings of the Russian committee of T.Anodina and the Polish committee of J.Miller from 2011 have been questioned by the Polish Subcommittee for Re-investigation of the Smolensk Crash. Through independent analysis, Frank Taylor reached the same conclusions as the present Polish Subcommittee for Re-investigation of the Smolensk Crash.
For further information please contact Chairman of the Polish Subcommittee for Re-investigation of the Smolensk Crash Antoni Macierewicz, Ministry of National Defense, Klonowa 1, 00-909 Warszawa, Poland, or Vice Chairman Prof. Wieslaw Binienda, USA, Tel. +001 330-808-0018 WBinienda@mon.gov.pl
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.
Hi, since you commented on the dangers of bites from Hexathelidae spiders at Talk:Hexathelidae, I thought you might be interested to know that Atrax and other similar spiders have now been moved to a new family, Atracidae. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The family name has changed but our old friend the Sydney funnel-web spider is still Atrax robustus. Unlike the Aphonopelma johnnycashi, there are no new species here. This shows that even experts sometimes find it hard to pin down where the lines should be drawn for the different families and species of spider. The Sydney funnel-web spider remains the only Australian spider from Atracidae known to pose a significant medical threat. Here it says that "there have been no recorded spider bite deaths in Australia since 1999", although here it says "A 22-year-old man has died after being bitten by a poisonous redback spider during a bushwalk on Australia's east coast in what is believed to be the country’s first fatality from a spider in almost 40 years." As with our other friend the Steatoda nobilis, it's unclear whether this death was caused by a spider bite, or an infection resulting from a spider bite.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's clear, as before that the popular press and websites greatly exaggerate the danger of spider bites, and we have to watch people adding such information to articles here. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
thanks for that. How I operate regarding blp and wikipedia is I raise a concern and only when it is obvious under wikipedia policy and guidelines and I have done my duty, wikipedias failure to correct it is then out of my hands and it's own failure. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom evidence
Hi Ianmacm – I have removed all links to off-wiki content in your evidence submission in accordance with the announcement at the top of the evidence page (The Arbitration Committee reminds participating editors that any off-wiki information should be sent privately to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org rather than being posted publicly on case pages. Arbitration clerks have been instructed to remove and revision delete any material related to off-wiki information from case pages.). You're free to submit any material to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org for full and complete consideration by the Committee. Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 17:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Amityville main theme.ogg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Amityville main theme.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).
Orphaned non-free image File:Amityville main theme.ogg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Amityville main theme.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).
As I've said, it usually leads to long and circular debates if people get into arguments over this. British is my preferred choice because English is not a nationality. This shouldn't be changed without first establishing a WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
However most Wiki persons pages typically begin with their nationality, and on Wikipedia 'English' is considered one (e.g: "The Beatles are an English band", rather than British band). The thing is if Richard had been born in England he would have been considered English no problem, but because he wasn't he somehow isn't considered English even though taking everything into account he is. It's all very strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sellsomepapers (talk • contribs) 18:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I asked that you get consensus before removing the picture of Wendy Carlos. I acknowledge that you have some valid arguments, & I believe I have valid arguments as well.
Perhaps the best place to address this is in the deletion discussion on Commons. If deleted on commons, then no picture. If there is a picture, than using it is fair game. I think that its addition to the article outweighs its problems. I know the argument about pre-transition photos. I think it appears pretty androgynous, so is probably during transition. I think it is a better representation than the teenage photo.
I'm not an anti-transphobia zealot but would not use this image in the infobox regardless of its CC status (which is dubious). We need an up to date image, and this dates from the early 1970s. Infobox images are prominent and are one of the first things that a person sees when they look at the article. This means that infobox images have to be chosen judiciously.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that we need to find a more recent image, & I have been on the prowl for one. I suspect that there are pictures that would would meet the condition of Template:Non-free promotional & could be loaded to en.wikipedia, such as http://www.wendycarlos.com/photos/wndy.jpg, which, according to http://www.wendycarlos.com/photos.html: "This one was taken sometime in the Fall of 1980, for promotional and magazine use ..." However, I want to be better able to document that this indeed was used as promotional material first. As I have alluded to on the talk page, I sent an email to the address listed on wendycarlos.com asking for an image that would meet Commons's or Wikipedia's requirements. I think that it is unlikely that we will get something, particularly in light of her Serendipity LLC's virulent efforts to eliminate anything that remotely hints at copyright infringement of her music. But hey, I figure it was worth a try. Peaceray (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
This is an old problem and was discussed in this New York Times article. I can't count the hours spent arguing over what the infobox image should be at Michael Jackson. The current image isn't fantastic but is limited by the CC requirement. The really smart celebrity releases at least one free to use photo to prevent this sort of thing from happening.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)07:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Just watch what you're saying about Mr Doe, Ian. I know John personally and he doesn't even use a smartphone. Wigan is lovely at this time of year and the mobility shop there does a great line in zimmers. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
2017 Las Vegas Shooting: Difference between revisions.
Revision as of 09:14, 3 September 2018 (edit) (undo) Master Wikiman (talk | contribs)(Undid revision 857829263 by Ianmacm (talk))
You twice reverted my amendments to the Wikipedia page "2017 Las Vegas Shooting". In an Alert message, you have described the changes as "wandering".
The changes added:
1) additional facts originally omitted;
2) qualifications of factual statements which are presumed to have occurred, which have not been actually proven; and,
3) corrections to actual misinformation.
As for misinformation, the reverted article states:
1) "After Paddock used a hammer to break two of the windows in both of his suites,[1] he began shooting through them at 10:05."
It is factually incorrect to claim that the LVMPD Interim Report (footnote) established that "Paddock used a hammer to break two of the windows in both of his suites."
Neither the "Interim," or "Final" LVMPD Reports found as fact, or declared that "Paddock used a hammer to break two of the windows in both of his suites," as stated in the reverted Wikipedia page.
Both "Interim," and "Final" LVMPD Reports on the October 1 Las Vegas mass shooting, are silent as to how the Mandalay Bay windows were broken out, and silent as to the construction of the windows, and whether the windows had a hurricane laminate. Both reports indicate ONLY that a small, hand held sledge hammer, or maul, was found in Mandalay Bay, Room 32-135.
2) Campos never reported the stairwell door as being "barricaded."
Campos came up the stairwell to the 32nd Floor and thought the access door to the 32nd Floor was "barricaded," as he could not open the door. Campos then went up to the 33rd floor; took an elevator back down to the 32nd floor; inspected the stairwell door at the end of the 32-100 hallway, and found a screwed "L" bracket between the stairwell door and the door frame, securing the door. Campos then called Hotel Security and reported the "L" bracket securing the door to the door frame.
3) The reverted page claims that it was reported that Paddock may have been a heavy drinker.
This is a true statement regarding a news paper report, however this claim was refuted by Marilou Danley in her interviews with the LVMPD and FBI, as indicated in the LVMPD Final Report. This claim was also denied by casino mogul, Steve Wynn, on a 2017 broadcast of Face the Nation, which I did not include in the amendments to this page.
Perhaps I do not understand Wikipedia's use of the term "wandering," but I cannot see how the correction of these serious inaccuracies in the Wikipedia page, "2017 Las Vegas Shooting," are deemed to be somehow inappropriate.
I therefore request that the changes I made be adopted.
This edit made various changes to the article without discussing them individually in the edit summaries. WP:ES explains how to summarize edits so that other users can follow them. There were also problems with introducing words such as allegedly, reportedly and apparently. These can be seen as expressions of doubt. There is also a need to ensure that the text is supported by the inline citations which follow it. I'm not sure if this is the case for all of the material that was added. Initial news media reports cite Joe Lombardo saying that Paddock used a hammer to smash the windows,[3] and it is shown as a small sledgehammer here. It isn't a special hammer for breaking glass, as some have speculated. The statement "Neither the LVMPD preliminary report, or final report state how Paddock actually broke the windows in Mandalay Bay, or discuss the actual construction of those windows" isn't given a secondary source although it may well be true. However, the article cannot engage in WP:OR about how Paddock did or did not break the windows unless it is directly addressed by the sourcing. Since this is related to the content at 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the best thing to do is to start a thread at Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting for input from a range of editors, not just me.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)11:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Karl Jenkins - "Theme from Palladio" (sample).ogg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Karl Jenkins - "Theme from Palladio" (sample).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).
I attended every day of the trial and pre trial hearing as did dozens of others including Theroux and journalists. The reference to deliberate lies seems to refer to the police officer who said in court she knew nothing about Williams Thomas and her notes from two years earlier then emerged. The situation regarding KM was because surprisingly his claims were allowed back in despite him being incapable of communication now due to strokes and later disclosure of his medical and psychiatric history. That was what infuriated the judge - that those had been deliberately withheld from her; had she known about them she would never have allowed the claims back in. Jacksonlegend (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I dare say you did attend the trial every day:) I can't comment on the full trial without seeing the transcript, but it is obvious from the summary transcript that Judge Deborah Taylor was angry about a lot of the things that happened, including the failure of the police to mention the involvement of Mark Williams-Thomas and the full background to this. The judge uses the word "misled" to describe the Williams-Thomas situation, which is strong language for a judge but maybe not quite the same as saying that they lied on oath. As for KM, King now has the satisfaction of being able to say that his evidence was ruled to be unreliable and inadmissible.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)08:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Quote: ‘The duty of disclosure is a continuing one and disclosure should be kept under review. In addition, prosecutors should ensure that advocates in court are properly instructed as to disclosure issues. Prosecutors must also be alert to the need to provide advice to, and where necessary probe actions taken by, disclosure officers to ensure that disclosure obligations are met. There should be no aspects of an investigation about which prosecutors are unable to ask probing questions.’ Further, that those failures have led to the court not only being misled, but on several critical occasions, misled in open Court in a way which affected the decisions made." TL;DR: the judge was very angry about this. The phrase "misled in open Court" comes pretty darned close to saying that the police lied about the involvement of Mark Williams-Thomas, but maybe stops short of this.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Rather depends on the definition of a lie doesn't it? Dictionary calls it "a falsehood". Telling a falsehood, whether deliberate or unintentional, is lying. Misleading someone can often be by telling a lie, sometimes by ommission. 217.72.104.190 (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
A far greater satisfaction regarding KM must be that the jury pronounced King Not Guilty of KM's false claims before being discharged. Not widely covered in the media. Wonder why not. 217.72.104.190 (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I've been reading through the document again. It also uses the phrases "the inadequacy of her statement is troubling" and a "lamentable lack of joined up approach to the provision of information" to describe the failure to disclose the links with Mark Williams-Thomas. This is strong stuff from a judge. The female police officer involved "reported sick on 29th June 2018 with symptoms of mental illness, connected with, although he could not say entirely the result of, concerns about the aborted trial." The judge was beyond unhappy about her performance and was close to accusing her of incompetence or lying. As for KM, the not guilty verdicts and that fact that his evidence was ruled unreliable/inadmissible is a major boost for King. It is a vindication of his claim that the saga was flawed from the start. It doesn't necessarily prove that KM perjured himself with outright lies (we may never know this) but does show that if all of the facts had been known, the case would not have come to court. By the way, I haven't yet had the delight of reading King's new book Guilty--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I won't revert again as you have warned me not to! And you may be right as the only proof of the chart I could find was on King's own Twitter page. 31.54.201.145 (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem as ever is secondary sourcing. 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." So although it may well be true that King's new book Guilty briefly topped the Pop Culture charts on Amazon, there is difficulty with sourcing it. Now it is time for a musical interlude. Johann Sebastian Bach failed to live long enough to arrange "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" for the harpsichord, so I had to do it instead. Click here to listen (click to play). Not available on Amazon:)--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
September 2018
Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit to Rolf Harris. While I agree it's certainly possible that more people know him from his performances, but I used that infobox as includes both the information presented in template:infobox person and the information about his crimes. I agree that he's not just a criminal but using infobox criminal allows for more information to be displayed, and the name of the template will never be shown to readers. dmartin96905:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
It's silly and over the top to imply that Rolf Harris is known primarily for being a criminal. We've had various debates about this type of issue on the talk page. Also, Template:Infobox criminal says "Choose this template judiciously. Unwarranted or improper use of this template may violate the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view and Privacy policies. This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapist, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. It is also appropriately used in Nolle prosequi cases of perpetrators dying during the commission of the act or shortly thereafter, common in a suicide attack or Murder–suicide. Infobox criminal is rarely used where notability is not due primarily to the person being a convicted criminal." Amen to that. I've also seen attempts to use Template:Infobox criminal at other articles where it isn't appropriate. Obviously Harris's career was ruined by the 2014 trial, but that doesn't mean that it was the most notable thing that he ever did.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon AKA Tommy Robinson
You insist that Tommy Robinson is the common term to use when relating factual information about Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.
Four points
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was the person convicted of multiple crimes not Tommy Robinson. If you tried to check court records under Tommy Robinson you could not discover the cases against him.
No legal change of name or registered stage name has been accepted in UK law for Stephen Yaxley-Lennon to be recognised as Tommy Robinson.
Wikipedia is not here to placate or mimic the press but deliver facts.
The article, as it was edited, made it perfectly clear in the first paragraph that he is known as multiple aliases including Tommy Robinson.
WP:BRD is another of the key policies here. If you get reverted, the thing to do is to start a discussion on the talk page, in this case Talk:Tommy Robinson (activist). The purpose of the discussion is to establish a WP:CONSENSUS. You can also suggest changing the article title, but unless this is uncontroversial there should always be a discussion first. WP:COMMONNAME makes clear that Wikipedia articles use the most common name in media coverage. If Bono ended up in court, he would no doubt be charged under his legal name of Paul David Hewson, but he is generally known by the name Bono. Tommy Robinson has been receiving a lot of media coverage this week, and all of the headlines use this name, eg BBC News here, which also points out that his real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. I can't override Wikipedia policy on WP:COMMONNAME and neither can you. It isn't worth climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man to point out that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is his real name when the opening sentence of the article does this already.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Before contributing
to one of the articles I saw your assumption that new editors tend to be connected to the subjects so checked on past editors and saw by far the most contributions were by yourself. Are you trying to deflect attention from this? Just asking - please don't take offence.ArtemisVamp (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm only one person, see WP:SOCK. Making the same edits with different accounts, VPNs etc can stick out like a sore thumb. As for this edit, I cant see why the word "potty" in the comments is worth mentioning. It has obvious problems with WP:DUE and WP:SPS. Many online articles have a comments section, but these aren't usually worth mentioning. The ongoing fascination that some new users have with this article is remarkable.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Moors Murders
It is not a nice topic to talk about but some of the pictures taken were of that nature. I could reference it; it is in the Beyond Belief book which I have (p. 335). There are even interviews on documentaries about the Moors Murders with officers and investigators which you can find online in which they verify this. Also if Hindley claimed she was running a bath when Downey was murdered it isn't really that she was "presumably killed" by Brady given that she claimed he'd forced her to participate in three abductions and murders before that date. I doubt she thought it was her grandmother that did it. Best regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, I was going to mention this on the talk page but didn't get time yesterday. I was worried about the use of the word "pornographic" in this edit because it might imply some type of sexual posing in the photographs or sexual activity with Downey. The photos show Downey naked and with a scarf in her mouth to gag her, possibly to prevent her from making a noise while she was being strangled. The porn angle needs proper sourcing. As for Beyond Belief: A Chronicle of Murder and its Detection by Emlyn Williams, I'm not a great fan of this as a source because it is a semi-fictionalized account as the article says. It is probably the best known book about the murders but it should not be used to establish anything that might be controversial. Hindley always tried to downplay her role in Lesley Ann Downey's murder because it had disgusted the country so much, and in some versions she seemed to be implying that it was all Brady's fault. The tape shows that Brady and Hindley were in the room together at some point, and Hindley always had difficulty denying what was on the tape. The exact sequence of events with Downey's murder may never be known, but it is believed that she may have been strangled with a piece of string.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with your observations about Williams' book. He very obviously used his imagination in many areas. As a matter of fact, in Ann West's book (which I also have), she stated that while he was in the process of writing Beyond Belief, he barged his way into her home demanding an interview after pushing his way past one of her other children, then made a comment like: "She had to share a room with her brothers didn't she? There's not a lot of room in these council flats, is there?" When Alan West grabbed him by the scruff of the neck and showed him her bedroom before wordlessly shoving him out the front door, he said he demanded an interview or was just going to make things up (the door was then slammed in his face). Speaks volumes as to his ethics. I have a better source (at least one) but they are in magazine format. One contains the transcript of the tape and it was all done very obviously by force and against her will. If you want I'll find a better reference for you. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. One of the transcripts I have is in issue number 10 of Ultimate Crimes from June 1995. Pages 4-5. ISSN number 977-1358-851002. I can transcribe it if you like, or just the pertinent info you may require. I scarcely use these magazines as references, although to me they are reputable sources. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Writing, cleaning up, and expanding articles about YouTube, in particular, these articles
Putting {{WikiProject YouTube}} on the talk pages of articles involving YouTube, and assessing articles with the template. This helps to categorize articles!
Updating the project page, and spreading word about the project
and more!
It seems you might be interested, so please stop by! Thank you.
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Ianmacm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Hi I've now edited that reference to link to the appropriate page number (22), which shows his middle name is Bruce. It's written on the left, halfway down
--Leonstojka (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
[4] is OK as a source and it's probably correct, but it is a little bit obscure, as it is a yearbook with no direct link to the author of the books. But I'm not going to argue about it.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)07:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Historical artifacts
... Like the cartoon you mentioned are contextually and historically important to the knowledge base in article space. I think I see where you are going with that. I would agree that in essence WP:Is Not Censorship, nor is it a place to make strident POV statements that attempt to present an entrenched and disruptive influence in discussions. Of course, racist or bigoted attack language and grossly insulting comments directed at other editors are never to be tolerated. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Someone, somewhere, in the past few days has made a salient point that WP is often habituated by sensitive user/ editors. Young kids who might be exposed to really graphic images of very tragic and often horrifying images, and even in extreme cases horrifying words. We can't be censorship, but we cannot be gratuitous either. This is why consensus debate is still important. At the risk of inviting opprobrium, I would give an example... Linking to a speech that a notable fascist leader has made which is intended to enhance the context of an article. In the context of history we know that that fascists philosophy led to horror and destruction, but people are still swayed by that shit as much now as they were then. Therein lies the danger. Its analogous to having a gun in your house and waiting to see if your toddler will find it. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I was surprised to discover that Scrub Me Mama with a Boogie Beat from 1941 is public domain, so the whole thing is on Wikipedia. Apparently "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1963 and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed."[5] As for whether it should be on Wikipedia, the usual position would be WP:NOTCENSORED. I do wonder though, if Wikipedia would host the whole of Triumph of the Will if it was out of copyright, which it isn't.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)04:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I would hope someone sensible is nearby any child who would access either of those. I wrote the Gene Tracy article years ago, and that "gentleman's" comedy was very often highly offensive to me. I didn't put anything in there except known and cite-able facts about him. Nothing (at that time) called him out for his often racially based comedy, so I didn't add anything that indicated it. I thought there should have been a mention, but just because we know something... At the very least, this kind of discussion is important. I could never see the point of editors wasting 10 000 words arguing about soccer sweaters. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Times change... Louis Jordan sold millions of records, but I can't remember the last time I heard "Gal, You Need A Whippin'" Maybe for the best, because that's a song I would never ever want a kid to hear. I just thought of a good example of something I did back in 2005. One of the first big projects I took on was a complete re-write of the Nathan Bedford Forrest article. What was there was a cut and paste from another website, and so recently, when I have been able to spend time doing WP again, I went over to that article. I was a little dismayed to find the word "alleged" sprinkled around in there, rather liberally. I went to the talk page and left a message to the effect of "I hope I never wrote the word "alleged" at any point in this article."
Writing history is like one of those weird gaming dice with 20 sides. Which page will you land on? In the case of the Forrest article, I just had to do a prose edit and match it up with the citations that were there. The rabid apologists for historical figures (Hitler, Jeff Davis... Louis Jordan) are generally fringe types. How much gravitas is due? On the other hand, it comes back to how easily swayed certain other people are by "powerful" images/ ideas that are ultimately destructive. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Merry
Happy Christmas!
Hello Ianmacm,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that
Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"
My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk22:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
^Cite error: The named reference lvmpdreport was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
_(14775718853).jpg)
.jpg)
