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.
Hi Ianmacm, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,
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!
Please do not re-add improperly sourced matierial. The user who added it has a history of making these edits and it's quite relevant to remove all content additions based on poor sourcing. Per: Wikipedia:CITE, I will continue to remove the unsourced information until it can be properly cited. - R9tgokunks⭕07:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I think you are overreacting here. I would have a far bigger problem if the material was wrong. It's not as if it was libellous material that should be removed on sight, and to be honest I don't see the sourcing as unreliable either. It was written by people who know what they are talking about. Are you sure that you are not allowing your dislike of a particular editor to cloud your judgement on this matter? Why don't you like the sourcing? Do you think it is wrong that the film was released on Blu-ray in 2007 and on 4K in 2018? Nobody had a problem with this until you came along and decided that it must be removed because it was added by some editor who you seem to dislike intensely. The standard practice in these situations is to ask for a better source, not to remove the material.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)07:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Per your message, I've removed the sources. I'm a compromising person, and I'd rather not start an edit war. It would be a definite violation of WP policy for anyone to re-add them, though. You can find better sources if you like. People who revert known disruptive edtiors are not beholden to improve sourcing. The sources are very unreliable as they are linked to a fan review and a fan database with no journalistic clout. This is the very reason why IMDB is not used as an inline source. This is clearly against WP:RS. And nobody had a problem because nobody was paying attention to the sources to begin with, otherwise they would have been removed. These edits slip through all the time, on a daily basis, which is why I am the one to revert them. Also, honestly, unsourced matierial is removed outright all the time, from people with even more expierience than I. It's common practice. Don't be surprised if you see it happen again on a different article. - R9tgokunks⭕08:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
You still haven't explained why the sourcing is unreliable. OK, it isn't The New York Times, but it was written by people who know what they are talking about. Here is a review of the 4K version on Forbes. The original Blu-ray version was released in 2007, and this is harder to cite, but the review here isn't problematic.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)08:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I see you've been editing since late 2005, same as me. No offense meant... but I thought you'd be a tad more privvy to how it's against policy. The review is obviously problematic and fails WP:SOURCES. An expieriencdd editor, in my view at least, should be able to recognize this via the appearance of the page, the ownership, and the credentials, etc. Just do research! :) Look at the "Editor-In-Chief." It's the same person who wrote the review. Look at his "staff" page ([[1]]). There are only 2 staff members, the creators of the site, and he is one of them. Clearly this is against WP:NOTRELIABLE. He has no journalistic credentials. He lists things he has worked on, but no proof or secondary sources to back it up. The only links on the page are to other parts of the site, partner sites, and his social media profiles and the Amazon listing for his book. Clearly anyone who has no journalistic credentials and profiles their credentials only with links to Twitter and Facebook is not a valid source. He pratcially runs the site himself. This is common with afficianado/fan sites. This practically crosses into Wikipedia:SELFPUBLISH territory. There is no way to fact check anything on the site and no connections to journalistic entities. This is akin to getting someone like Chris Stuckmann from Youtube and sourcing him. Per WP:VERIFY: Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content." - R9tgokunks⭕09:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a risk of assuming that sources are "always wrong" if they are websites with only a few staff. Just because it isn't The New York Times doesn't mean that the person writing it is a complete idiot. Anyway, I agree that the sourcing isn't super duper blue chip, but still maintain that it was written by people with some idea of what they are talking about. Another problem with "reliable" sources is that nowadays many of them have surprisingly few staff and they are simply copying and pasting material from news wires and publishing it under their own banner headline, a practice known as churnalism. In many cases they haven't bothered to do any independent fact checking and it is wrong to assume that they have. This article is worth reading if you are tempted to believe that modern newspapers and news websites have actually checked the material themselves; they usually haven't.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Zapruder Film
Thank you for leaving a comment with your revert of a change I put into the Zapruder Film. I have attempted to respond to your comment on the Zapruder Film talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danallenhtn (talk • contribs) 18:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry you got dragged into that, it should have been apparent from their very first statement of "I have no faith in 'credible' sources" that nothing good was going to come from it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I do try to assume good faith, even though this ended up as deny recognition. I particularly liked "Daisy refers to Aster Amellus/Michaelmas, referenced in Virgil's Aeneid (Roman Odyssey). Genus Aster is 'star'. In terms of flower symbolism it means goodbye/farewell." This is exactly the sort of thing that Leon Vitali dismissed as balderdash in Room 237. And of course, Arthur C Clarke denied that the meaning of HAL 9000 was to be one letter removed from IBM. Kubrick's films have always ended up with interpretations that were not intended.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Dialectic
Hi, thought I should note that after made the edit you reverted, I realized that someone else had already wikilinked the term "Hegelian dialectic" into the subsection, making my wikilink to the triad redundant, since the Hegelian dialectic is the application of the triad, and those two articles should probably be merged. I can see why it seems like original research to you, but to me it seems like WP:Blue.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I mentioned your comment in passing in my ANI on user:Levalbert . User has done some sneaky talk page renames that will need to be undone by someone with more permissions than me. Meters (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
The effort you put in was phenomenal and i found the information in it very precise. Thank you for a great page. This was a hard subject to talk about but i think you handled it perfectly86.151.220.133 (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I feel we may have got off on slightly the wrong foot.[1] Regardless, I accept that you were acting in good faith; and I want to try to stem any risk of bad feeling developing. If you will forgive me for mixing my metaphors, this olive branch has two leaves:
I propose we see whether we might be able to come up with a solution that satisfies both of us. I.e. that satisfies my concern that the notable, on-the-record matters in the article receive WP:DUE coverage while adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines/etc; and your concerns, whatever they might be.
Wikipedia is a small world, and we're liable to cross each others' tracks elsewhere. So, I hope that however we resolve this, we will in future see those tracks as the footprints of a helpful friend rather than anything less favourable.
One of the reasons why I reverted is due to the exhaustive listing in the infobox of even the most minor convictions dating back some years. This isn't necessary, and I still dispute that Robinson is primarily known for being a criminal. Robinson was regarded as something of a fringe far right figure until 2018, when he hit the big time with the controversy over his imprisonment for contempt of court that the UK media was not allowed to report. This set off international media coverage and turned out to be his big career break. This BBC News story shows that as recently as June 2018, a British person might have needed to have it explained to them who Tommy Robinson was.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this. A lot to unpack, there. For instance, the question of "minor" vs "major" convictions seems not to be relevant to the question of inclusion; rather, notability is. Also, I don't think it's consistent to assert that Robinson is best known for his imprisonment for contempt of court while simultaneously asserting that he is not primarily known for being a criminal. But I'll put those thoughts aside for the moment (I may return to them in later comments), because I want first to understand your perspective even better, if that's OK.
I am genuinely unsure where you, personally, draw a line between "minor" and major. Would you characterise violent assault as a minor conviction? A six-figure fraud that saw the judge cite Robinson for "Thoroughly dishonest conduct" with him the "instigator, if not the architect... This was an operation which was fraudulent from the outset and involved a significant amount of forward planning."? Entering the US on someone else's passport in the knowledge that he himself was barred from visiting. (Judge: "You knew perfectly well that you were not welcome in the United States. You knew that because you tried before and you had not got in, and you knew the reason for that... What you did went absolutely to the heart of the immigration controls that the United States are entitled to have. It's not in any sense trivial.") If so, are you satisfied that those convictions, at least, should be mentioned? I ask this in hope that we may find some common ground as a starting point.
BTW, I'm not watching your talk page, so do please ping me if you reply. And apologies in advance if it takes me some time to get back to you. Thanks again, Zazpot (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Zazpot: The major/minor convictions distinction isn't the biggest issue, although a person would not normally meet WP:GNG simply because they had been convicted of common assault some years ago. Any third rate football hooligan would have a Wikipedia article if this happened. His notable convictions are contempt of court, the mortgage fraud and the passport fraud. The others are a mixed bag and do not need a recital in the infobox. It is making the infobox way too long.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
References
^My introduction to you as an editor came when I noticed that you had reverted some carefully-made edits of mine without contacting me with your concerns; currently you seem to be trying to organise a vote against those edits. Not an ideal first impression, unfortunately.
Is NPOV conflicting with RS
I am still somewhat new to the site and have questions. You seem to be one to answer them. So my question is, if we are suppossed to use reliable sources. I.E. news sources. 99% of which are nonsense propaganda(I'm including fox news in this as well). How are we suppossed to create neutral articles if we have to choose among biased articles with an agenda to push(again I'm including fox news so don't get any ideas). 2601:CA:8200:34A:3DC0:8421:5200:8BE0 (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Like all Wikipedia policies, WP:RS is intended to be taken with a dash of common sense. This is particularly true with mass shootings, where the rush for explanations of what happened can lead to "reliable" sources saying things that are either speculative or subsequently turn out to be wrong. I cited the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and the Orlando nightclub shooting as examples of where this happened. The Wikipedia template "Current event" 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. Please feel free to improve this article or discuss changes on the talk page." This pretty much sums up the situation with the Christchurch mosque shootings at the moment. As usual, the media has said some things about the motive that are not 100% accurate. The basic facts of the shooting aren't in much dispute, but the reason why the alleged shooter did it is less clear. His "manifesto" is wide ranging and rambling stuff capable of a range of interpretations. As I've said, it looks like at some stage we will see the alleged shooter smirking his way through a trial like Anders Behring Breivik in Norway and explaining why he did it. Fortunately there are other people on the talk page at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings who know that the "reliable" media is not infallible and can introduce inaccuracies while reporting on mass shootings. It is important to make a distinction between analysis coming from the media (which carries no official status as they can say whatever they like and usually do) and things said by official investigators and the courts. If you see media analysis being presented as fact, feel free to point this out on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Noah Pozner photo
You keep removing my addition re the Noah Pozner photo appearing at another shooting event. I think you don't understand the title of the actual article I'm adding that too. It is titled 'Sandy Hook conspiracy theories'. The purpose of that article is to document the conspiracy theories, is it not? I am not trying to prove that Sandy Hook was a hoax, proving it's a hoax is irrelevant. That fact remains that the photo was reported another and that it's included as one of the conspiracy theories, just like the many other conspiracy theories listed in that article. Otherwise that entire article should be removed. Can you see my point? I'm totally aware of the possibilities of why that photo could've ended up there in error, you don't need to tell me that. I would like your feedback pleaseThegman81 (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
This edit was reverted because it used realfarmacy.com as a source. This is pretty much a junk source and should not be used on Wikipedia. As I said in this edit summary, there is a famous case where a Bert is Evil photo ended up being used for real [2] presumably because someone found it in a web search and did not realize that it was meant to be a spoof. Overall, this needs reliable secondary sourcing discussing its significance, and the reverted edits did not have this.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
James Bulger
Hi.
I am curious to know why you keep editing the wiki page for James Bulger, specifically the part where it states that James Bulger was taken on a 2.5 mile, meandering walk to the Leeds Liverpool canal.
If you were au fait with the case you would know that the Leeds Liverpool canal runs alongside The Strand shopping centre, it’s not 2.5 miles away. Please stop correcting my edits. It is you who is wrong not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.50.56 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The two mile part is reliably sourced, this is why I reverted. In this edit summary, I mentioned this Liverpool Echo source which says "CCTV footage later showed little James being led away by Venables and Thompson, who took him more than two miles across Liverpool to the Leeds-Liverpool Canal." I'm not an expert on the geography of Liverpool and have assumed that this is correct. The reason why this is notable is that various people saw Bulger being led through Liverpool in a distressed state but did not intervene. This caused a controversy at the time, but some people assumed that Bulger was their younger brother. Here is a BBC News source which says "After abducting James the boys had walked him for two and a half miles. They were seen by 38 people, some of whom challenged them, the boys claiming that they were looking after their younger brother or that James was lost and they were taking him to a local police station." There are numerous reliable sources saying similar things. Overall, I have had to stick to what the sourcing says, rather than introducing original research. For input from other users, please raise this at Talk:Murder_of_James_Bulger.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Polymoog
Hello - Maybe consider Michael Iceberg's performances at Walt Disney World as a noteable user having a Polymoog prototype as part of his Iceberg Machine (Wikipedia) during mid 1970's thru 80's.
2003:CE:7F06:2830:E8E6:F19E:1633:C926 (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The article Michael Iceberg says that he had a prototype Polymoog, but other than that I couldn't find much sourcing. There is an interesting video on YouTube called 1976 Polymoog Film which is the original promotional film for the launch of the Polymoog. This shows various people giving a demo on the Polymoog, but not Michael Iceberg. I also watched "Michael Iceberg - In Concert from Disneyland" on YouTube, but he doesn't seem to have a Polymoog in this keyboard setup. One of the photos here does show him playing a Polymoog (top keyboard on the right).--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)03:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
James Bulger
You are absolutely correct, T&V did take JB on a 2.5 mile walk from Bootle to Walton village.
They left the strand, went immediately to the canal where they were going to throw him in. This did not happen so instead JB was dropped on his head and that is where he had the first injury inflicted upon him.
I have spent a long time researching this case. There are books, newspaper articles, documentaries on YouTube, statements from Merseyside police, all of which state that James was taken to the canal first, then taken on a 2.5 mile walk to the airway line. I urge you to research this properly or allow my change on wiki to be left as you keep changing it and it’s your info that’s inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.50.56 (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
This is OK, but it needs reliable sourcing. The 2.5 mile walk seems to have been established from CCTV footage, and should not be removed from the article without explaining why. Here is a source which says "Earlier, the court heard that by the time James had reached the Leeds and Liverpool canal, a quarter of a mile from the New Strand, he was in a distressed condition. Malcolm Walton said he saw a child, whom he later identified as James, clearly upset. 'He was crying his eyes out.'" However, the total length of the walk from Bootle before Bulger was attacked by the railway line in Walton and killed seems to have been 2.5 miles. Some of the media sources, including the Liverpool Echo, seem to have given the impression that the canal is 2.5 miles from the New Strand shopping centre, which it isn't. Here on Google Maps, you can see that the canal is only a short distance to the south and east of the New Strand shopping centre.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)02:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
If this link works, this pic will show you how close The Strand is to the canal where T&V took JB. It’s not even a quarter of a mile. This pic shows the ramp they walked down and clearly shows the strand too. Hopefully this will help you understand.
Thanks for the map. I've realised now that the canal is adjacent to the Strand shopping centre. I suppose that the Guardian cite saying a quarter of a mile is better than 2.5 miles, which is obviously misleading. As for the ramp, the sourcing doesn't say that they took him down this ramp, although they may well have done. The exact wording in the Guardian is "Earlier, the court heard that by the time James had reached the Leeds and Liverpool canal, a quarter of a mile from the New Strand, he was in a distressed condition. Malcolm Walton said he saw a child, whom he later identified as James, clearly upset. 'He was crying his eyes out.'" The key thing is where he was dropped on his head and received the bump to his forehead which eyewitnesses saw at around this stage. This may not have been right next to the ramp, and would need further sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)11:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, is it this person, who is a voice actress? I'm not sure who it is. In order to create an article, the subject should meet the general notability guideline. This means that the subject of the article should have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, eg CNN, BBC, broadsheet newspapers. In the case of Cynthia Martinez the voice actress, there is some coverage but the sourcing is not ideal. Wikipedia:Your first article looks at how to create an article. One thing to point out is that if the article had weak sourcing it would probably end up being nominated for deletion. It is a good idea for beginners to create a sandbox version of the article first, and to ask other users for input.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)04:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Erdos number
You reverted my edit on Erdos number, saying that it was against consensus. I object to that and argue that that per wikipeida's BRD guidelines "Cycle. To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring." This edit does address all valid existing concerns, and therefor is the next appropriate step according to wikipedia's guidelines. Therefor, I have returned the edit to the text. If you have additional concerns, please place them on the talk page. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The main reason why I reverted it is that there was an ongoing discussion on the talk page about whether to include it. This should have been allowed to run for a while. It can be seen clearly that many editors opposed including this.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion has reached a clear consensus that no direct link is to be placed in the lede. I did ask for that discussion to be open for a week, but the consensus against a direct link, which seems to be based primarily on arguments against jargon (and the argument that the Erdos number is not a "real" scientomentric index, which I think is invalid), is at this point overwhelming. Therefore I have proposed a compromise. If you are opposed to this compromise, you may start a discussion in the talk page to that effect. --Wikiman2718 (talk)
I really don't like to be polemical, but I feel the need to point out some things I find really annoying and a significant discouragement to contributing to Wikipedia. Finding one's careful work "reverted" is never pleasant, though sometimes inevitable... But when the removal of (sourced) content is made behind edit-summary claims of being a "copyedit" [3][4] ... well, frankly, I don't think we should be doing that. Please be kind, and I'll try to do the same :-) 86.190.132.158 (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
There were clear explanations given beyond "copyedit".As I said in this edit summary, the Yahoo movies link does not work for me at all. As a result, I can't verify what it says and other people might have the same problem. Can you point to another link or show me a screenshot of what you get from clicking on it, as I can't find anything related to Flashdance, as I can only get it to show the main page of the Yahoo! website.
For this edit summary, I would have to disagree that the 1976 Brutus Jeans commercial is exactly like Flashdance. This is an opinion expressed by an individual journalist and should not be quoted as a fact. It is one person's review of the commercial. "Clearly" is also one of the WP:EDITORIAL words to avoid.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Kindly note that my grievance was *not* about your legitimate editorial concerns, but the fact that you choose to express them in edit summaries of deletions incorrectly framed as "copy edits", rather than by engaging in talk page discussion, or other constructive editing, such as tagging dead links, improving pertinent text, etc. 86.190.132.158 (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
"get off my fucking laptop"
You said that my username is something that BoJo was alleged to have said. That is not true. He is alleged to have said "get off my fucking laptop".
You said this was speculative despite it being documented and removed it from the article. I'm curious where there are other speculative claims remaining in the article, like the feud with Cohen being a motive, and this particular one not even being allowed to be discussed despite its prominence in major publications. It is undoubtedly relevant to understanding the man given the attitudes at the time toward it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.181.155 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I've explained this at Talk:Howard Unruh. The Smithsonian article suggests that the failed gay date at the movie theater contributed to his poor state of mind in the 24 hour period before the shooting, but it does not say that it was the direct motive for the shooting. Unruh had been in poor mental health for a long time and held various grudges against other people, particularly the Cohens (incidentally, this has led some people to suggest that the motive was anti-semitic although I don't believe this either). The incident with the gate is widely held to be the straw that broke the camel's back and led to the shooting, but we will never know for sure as Unruh did not explain his actions clearly. He was deemed to be mentally ill and never stood trial. I am wary of saying that Unruh did it purely because of the failed gay date, because it is not a nuanced interpretation of what the Smithsonian source says. Also, I haven't removed it from the article. In this edit it was moved upwards in the "Background and possible motives for killings" section.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. I reverted this because the edit summary said "Incorrectly formatted external link or image". However, after checking the link manually, the archived version of the photo of King's graduation ceremony is working correctly. So I have undone the edit.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)05:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Murder of Rachael Runyan
Hi. As you are a long-time Wikipedia colleague and friend, and we have a mutual interest in Wikipedia's coverage of true crime, can you look over Murder of Rachael Runyan to make sure it's all OK with links, grammar, feminine pronouns are used properly and etc. please. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The AR-556 is Wikilinked in the paragraph and that article clearly explains how it is modeled on the AR-15, but has fewer parts and is lighter, with some performance differences as well. The typical reader of the shooting article is not likely to be aware that the two weapons of war are not all that different. Activist (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
As I said in the edit summary, there were concerns about WP:HIJACK. I was also thinking about whether this is a relevant detail. There are numerous types of AR-15 style rifle and the AR-556 is one of them. The Wikipedia article gives the weight of the SR-556 as 7.94 lb and the AR-556 as 6.5 lb, so it isn't all that much lighter. When writing articles about mass shootings, I try not to give too much technical detail about the guns used unless this is relevant to the shooting itself. See also Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting/Archive_2#Gun_details where this was discussed.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)13:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
[6], [7] was a violation of the 1RR restriction on the article. Please be cautions and consider alternatives to reversion. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries, it never crossed my mind that you were intentionally toying with the article restrictions. I can't say I'm totally satisfied with the answers I got on the talk page, but the consensus is clearly against me regardless. I do appreciate you getting into more detail there. VQuakr (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Please go change the 9/11 page to read "mass death by airplane" instead of terrorist event, then we'll talk. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite who only wants brown people painted as terrorists 142.59.217.7 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is some good advise - God grant me the serenity. To accept the things I cannot change; Courage to change the things I can; And wisdom to know the difference. 142.59.217.7 (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Please do not remove the word "terrorist" from the opening line of this article as you did previously. When the 9/11 page lists a terrorist event as a terrorist event in the opening line, the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting will follow the same protocol, regardless of the fact that the terrorist in this event was white and the victims brown. Please also change the 9/11 page as you did the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting page if you want to show me you're not a hypocrite. 142.59.217.7 (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
This is not vandalism, so please start a thread on the talk page per WP:BRD if you disagree on this. Shouting "terrorist" in the opening sentence is vague and unhelpful. The incident was a mass shooting (not a bombing, stabbing, chemical weapons attack etc) and investigators classified it as domestic terrorism which is fair enough given Page's far right links. See also the WP:LEAD at Orlando nightclub shooting. As for this edit summary, I am not the least bit interested in the race, creed or colour of the victims, only what the official investigators said about the motive as only they can determine this.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)14:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Like I said, if you feel that "shouting terrorist in the opening sentence is vague and unhelpful", then GO AND CHANGE THE 9/11 PAGE AND GET BACK TO ME ON HOW THAT WORKS OUT FOR YOU 142.59.217.7 (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Since this is an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, I have had a look elsewhere. Christchurch mosque shootings says "The Christchurch mosque shootings were two consecutive terrorist shooting attacks at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, during Friday Prayer on 15 March 2019." No great arguments here. However, there is no need to go on and on about shouting "terrorist" and then accusing other people of racism WITH CAPITAL LETTERS which is a dud tactic.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)14:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Your hypocrasy doesn't allow you to compare events regardless of color of the terrorist. You cannot see this terrorism as equivalent to the 9/11 terrorism. You can only look to other instances of hypocrisy. This further exposes your hypocrisy. You cannot find any validation in brown on white terrorism wikipedia pages, as they all call a spade a spade. So you look to other pages needing correction as validation. This is called PROPAGATION OF ERROR and if you really don't "care what color they were" you would be advocating to CORRECT the error on the New Zealand terrorist page, rather than PERPETUATE the error. If that event was close to my home, I would be on that page advocating its change as well, and maybe that's my next step after fixing this page. You can only go one page at a time, correcting blatant errors is difficult on single pages alone (as shown by your vigorous defense of falsehood in the face of truth as exposed here) 142.59.217.7 (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
That's not the case here, this individual is a self-proclaimed Nazi and the attorney general of the country in which the event took place described it as terrorism. You don't have a leg to stand on and you know it.142.59.217.7 (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Life would have been so much easier if Wade Page had left behind a manifesto ranting about how much he hated Sikhs and wanted to kill them. But he didn't, and as the police chief said, we can't climb inside his head and speculate about what he was thinking. There is enough evidence to suggest that this was domestic terrorism given Page's obvious far right links. This is why it was classified as such.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
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.
I received an email about the COPPA changes this week, and as a British person I wasn't quite sure what to make of it all. Some people have been predicting "The end is nigh" but we'll have to wait and see.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)22:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Comes back
What happened when YouTube comes back in the future?
This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well I. MarnetteD|Talk11:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I see you have previously contributed to the Talk page on the Fred Goodwin article. May I ask for your views on a piece I have added relating to his role in the BCCI liquidation. Thanks
Lord Mauleverer (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Supporters of Hancock
You claimed that, "not one single academic supports Hancock's claims". This is categorically false.
This is not an attack on you, but having read nearly all of his work, I can attest to the voluminous citations of peer reviewed work, and writings of his own field work with geologist, Dr. Robert Schoch and Dr. Danny Hilman Natawidjaja. These are only two of dozens of respected academics that have worked closely with Hancock in the past.
This is in addition to Dr. Firestone and the rest of the team that has proved the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. These are respected people in various fields that DO agree with Hancock in many ways.
I highly recommend you give his books a read. They are not meant, "just to sell" or to rip people off. These are thoughtful bits of work.
And on top of this, only a couple of years ago the Scientific American magazine had, on their front page, a major discovery that was thought preposterous when Hancock had said it was a possibility years prior. So, at least one of his major theories has been proven.
I've had a look at Talk:Graham Hancock and Talk:Graham Hancock/Archive 1 with the search box and can't find the phrase "not one single academic supports Hancock's claims" attributed to me or anyone else. What I did say on 23 September 2017 was "Mainstream academics do not accept Hancock's theories, and he does not submit his works to recognised academic journals" and I stand by this. The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis is a possible event which Hancock uses to support his lost civilisation theory, which is not supported by mainstream academics.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)11:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- I dunno if I'd be called a supporter... but the dude is definitely not a scientist. I've learned that. Thank you for correcting a foolish edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loneytunes (talk • contribs) 23:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
how do you do that thing with the bouncing wiki ball and the head
Good question, I had to check the HTML of the page because it was a long time ago that this was added. The bouncing globe is done by adding this markup to the page source:
The Government (click) Companies House website shows that a "David Amos Schneider" with a DOB of 22 May 1963 was a director of That Lot Creatives Limited.
I don't dispute any of this, but it is all rather WP:OR-ish, as it requires the use of primary documents and combining material from more than one source. The strict policy is WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." It 's clear that David Schneider is his WP:COMMONNAME and hardly anyone would know his middle name unless they went rummaging around in primary documents, which is discouraged by BLP policy.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)12:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hugh Bonneville
Hi, just noticed your edit in the history of the Hugh Bonneville article here after editing it myself. I've now added secondary coverage of the appointment as noted in Tatler. The previous citation to The Gazette did not confirm the appointee and the subject of the article were the same person. 2A02:C7F:B84D:2100:A5D0:A517:B34C:119E (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
File:Scott evans dekraai booking photo.jpg listed for discussion
Hey, I left a point of discussion in the Talk page of Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs. Considering that it seems like you are responsible for the majority of discussions on there, I'd like it if you could have a look or refer to people who helped you beforehand with translation of materials in the creation of the page. Thanks in advance :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.61.206 (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I have seen this but haven't had time to have a detailed look at it yet. The video with Sayenko's father is mainly him saying that his son is not guilty again. I will try to get a translation of what Suprunyuk is saying in the other video.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
