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.
Well, I think my help qualified me more for a maniac barnstar, but since I don't think we have one available, I guess this one'll do :) Anyway, if you need my ears for anything else in the future, please don't hesitate to drop a note. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 13, 2010; 13:12 (UTC)
photo permission
When the original uploader inquired me about this photo, I informed her that my files were all licensed under a creative commons sharealike license and were free to be used in any way before she uploaded it.
I also attached a creative commons licensing tag and a proper description template to the image, and have sent a photo permission email to the address requested. Hopefully this is enough to end the questionable status of the image. --weevtalk 2 meGNAA™20:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weev (talk • contribs)
Well, if it's a quote from something, I wouldn't know—I haven't watched Russian TV in ten years and don't really follow their trends and pop-culture. The search engine results suggest it's a popular slogan in multi-player games like WoW, but whether it's originally from there or was borrowed from elsewhere, I have no idea. You might want to post this question at WT:RUSSIA; maybe some real Russians will be able to answer it :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 13:34 (UTC)
The main concern here was agreement with what the source says. YouTube describes the content location as Taiwan on the site interface at [1]. Incidentally, one of YouTube's founders, Steve Chen (YouTube) is Taiwanese. I'm not an expert on the Taiwan/ROC debate, but the article Foreign relations of the Republic of China points out that the ROC term lacks widespread diplomatic recognition. Also, the average English speaker tends to use Taiwan rather than ROC, but it is the description of the YouTube content location that was the main guide here.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)12:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Most international organisations, as you said, do not recognise nor use the "Republic of China", instead using the "Taiwan" moniker, (if Wikipedia did that, we'd be using Taiwan instead of ROC, in the relevant areas, violating NPOV) however, in order to adhere to NPOV, and WP:NC-CHN, it is important to apply that term appropriately, when referring to the country. I thought Republic of China (Taiwan) would be the most appropriate usage, as it gives both the official and common name and, according to policy appropriate to use "when identifying the state in a general, non-specific way".--TheTaerkasten (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Smolensk plane crash wreck.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[2][3]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because images on Wikipedia need to be compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike or another free license, which allow anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.
If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. Note, if you did create this file, you may want to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, which will allow the image to be accessed by all Wikimedia Foundation projects (which include the various localized versions of Wikipedia)
If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.
I am a busy person and cannot play games. Per WP:TPO, the comments of other users on talk pages should not be edited. I do not WP:OWN the article Hans Zimmer, and it was semi-protected by an administrator after WP:SOCK problems. Any edits to this or other articles should reflect Wikipedia policies, particularly the WP:FIVEPILLARS. These are non-negotiable, so any edits that go against these principles will be removed. I have tried to make the article Hans Zimmer read less like a rehash of his IMDb profile and more like a Wikipedia article. If you can find sourcing that improves the article, please feel free to add it. But please, no sockpuppets, one account, one user.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)12:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm just kidding Wikiman, do not be upset... what is your job? Are you musician? Are you playing any instrument? Whould you please tell me how to find that one source is reliable? I'm copyediting some musicians article... is there any list of this reliable sources about Art? I'm looking for but i found just a little info! ... buddy how is my english? is that correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.15.156 (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
--KimEstlund (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Hello Ian. I work with Richard Marx and would love to give you an approved, owned-by-Richard, approved for editorial use image for his page. Just don't know how to go about sending you the pic! I am still trying to figure my way around wiki! :)
Thanks for asking about this, pictures of living persons in a Wikipedia article should be copyright free. This means giving them a Creative Commons license during the uploading process. To upload an image, select "upload file" from the drop down box "Toolbox" on the left hand side of the page (alternatively, visit here). Giving a photo a CC license means that no copyrights can be claimed on the image, and that you have the rights to do this, including the permission of the photographer who took the picture. Hope this helps, please ask again if you need more information.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sayenko suprunyuck.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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 NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
THe claim should not be on the page no matter how old it is. I just see no reason for it to be included especially since it was placed during the 1987 bad era section. The calim was made after his death. Mj is not able to defend himself against such allegations.It is known that people would often be offered cash and would say anything about MJ when he was alive now that he is dead you can say anything about someone and it would end up on your wikipedia page. * Rolling Over in Grave*
Hi!
I hope that you will be understand specific sytuation in east Europe.Remember all in this crash is big (very big) secret. The Soviets also tried for 60 years to conceal the murders at Katyn... Finally freedom and true win! But I remeber times when for true about Katyn massacreCommunists can kill you in Poland or Russia. It was forbidden. September 17, 1939 they attacked us from the east along with you when we fought against Hitler. They said they were going to trigger ... Do not be so sure about Russia and always try frind compromise bettwen Poland and Russia but please do not trust newspapers only russian!
Greetings!
--Swd (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
All that I have done here is to follow Wikipedia guidelines, as discussed on the talk page. The article 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash is in a hiatus at the moment, because the final report is due to be published in a few weeks' time. All Wikipedians can do is to reflect the material that has been published by reliable sources. I have tried to avoid edit warring over the lamps, but the consensus is that they are not a major issue and that the news story cited is too speculative.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia so sorry if I have made a mistake.
I edited an article on Oliver Heavyside I while back and when i looked today my edit was gone. I edited it again but it has gone again and it appears that it is you that is removing it.
Can I ask why?
Material added to Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. This was removed: "Heaviside died whilst living at in his aunts home in lower warberry road in Torquay Devon it was called Homefield and was later to become a hotel called the EL Marino. This closed in 1995 and has be left to become derelict by its current owner. The building is grade 2 listed and can still be identified by the Institution of Electrical Engineers blue plaque installed in May 1967 on the drive enterance." Some of this is correct, eg the house was in Lower Warberry Road and there is a plaque outside. Some of it is not so easy to verify. The best source for the life of Heaviside is Paul Nahin's biography. I'll have a look at how much of this text can be verified through the book, and also Alan Heather's book.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)14:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply.
OK now I understand.
Well I used to live at the Torquay property in around 1988 at the time it was a hotel called El Marino. My parents owned it. In 2007 I went to look at the place and it was totally derelict. I actually got in contact with Alan Heather at the time to try and find out more on the history of the place. He responded with a huge amount of information and pictures. So the information I have provided was from him and research I have done myself.
I have news paper articles from the herald express in Devon that did an article on Homefeild back in 2007.
If you need further info or proof then Allen was my main source of information and he would be happy to help I am sure.
"nonsense" is quite subjective. It's not so nonsensical from my perspective, which would constitute it as verifiable. Wikipedia facts driven by opinions...glorious —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hankybro21 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
On the poll you posted:
"Most of this is common sense, and needs to be in writing as a formal policy."
I just want to mention that there is already formal policy dealing with this that states:
Censorship
"Files and other materials which are not lawful for Commons to host on its servers in Florida will be deleted immediately upon being identified as illegal"
The proposed policy is a bit confusing in that it can appear as though there is currently not established official policies(as well as official guidelines commons:COM:PORN) that discuss the issue of sexual content.
Under current policy an image which is not obviously illegal (it's unclear whether it is porn or erotic art, etc) or whether an image may or may have "educational purpose" is decided on a case by case basis.
One of the major differences the new proposed policy proposes which myself and others object to is officially extending the criteria for "speedy deletions" to now include broad concerns of legality and relevance, which those in opposition feel should be handled through a deletion discussion and not through speedy deletion which is normally reserved for obvious vandalism, obviously illegal material, etc.
A while back there was a mass deletion of sexual content which is what triggered this issue. The situation can be read about here
If through reading the proposed policy you were unaware that current policy already exists on this then please accept my request to consider reviewing the current proposal with existing policy, and to reconsider your position.
To members like myself this is a very important issue. If you still support the current proposal you do not need to be concerned with me bothering you with trying to change your mind. If you already knew all this then please feel free to ignore this. Oh, and Merry Christmas.AerobicFox (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I was involved in the debate about this issue at the time of the Larry Sanger/Fox News brouhaha in April 2010. It is common sense that Wikipedia cannot host material that would be illegal under State of Florida law. The phrase "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" has caused some concern, but again there is an element of common sense. Just because an image is copyright free, it is not necessarily suitable for Commons if it is unlikely to be used in an article. As one user put it, "Commons is not an amateur porn repository". Provided that an image has some artistic or educational merit, there should be no problems. Wikipedia needs to protect its good name and non-profit status, so it should apply a test for whether sexual material is likely to be relevant to the project. There are bound to be "slippery slope" arguments put forward (there are plenty already) but I don't foresee problems as long as the policy is implemented sensibly.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)08:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
"Commons is not an amateur porn repository" is actually the name of this guideline which is what that user was quoting. Anyway glad you're familiar with current policy. Later. AerobicFox (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't want to set off further censorship arguments by removing it altogether. Unless some reliable sourcing turns up for the family history on Lady Gaga's mother's side, this should have a rest for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)08:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand, and I really dont think that RS' will come. Seeing that forums and the grossly unreliable ancestry.com was being used for referencing discussions, I had understood long ago that this was going no where. My opposes came when the talk page was being used as the background for a new article being created, and as a media repository. I did ask them not to add tabloidy shitty papers like Daily Star and cut down the ORs, but oh well. I saw what that user commented about me, and I donot take personal attacks and homophobic comments in a good light. — Legolas(talk2me)08:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Ian, the thread has been finished since I started the two-letter subsection, although I couldn't help indulging in one more update, then responding to another editor. I'm not seeing anything independent from you here. What are you doing on my talk page besides making friends with Legolas? DinDraithou (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Please assume good faith here. I offered a third opinion because this was going round in circles. The article Lady Gaga is unlikely to turn into a full genealogy of the Bissett family, so it was time to leave this unless some material with reliable sourcing was going to be added to the article.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)12:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
You didn't offer any opinion. All you did was collapse the entire thing, then try something else. Another more experienced editor had already come along and collapsed the uncivil exchange. Your actions simply followed Legolas' archiving of the thread, which he has no authority to do, and you yourself also lack any authority to do something like this.
In fact I consider the thread finished, but who knows who might have something to say within the next couple of weeks. You don't get to decide that someone shouldn't have their chance. It doesn't work like that. Later today or tomorrow I'll be making the thread look normal again and will expect both you and Legolas to leave it be, for its two weeks... unless you would like to comment in it. If you can't do that I might very well report you. Don't take too much courage, especially you, Legolas, from the fact that I was recently reported and warned, which mostly derived from another, completely unrelated exchange. All it looks like is that you have become aware of this and feel in some new position. You're not. DinDraithou (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Having seen this edit this morning, I am scratching my head over how it happened. I have no memory of doing this, and was not drunk at the time. I did look at the edit about the Bilderberg Conference. Since the account does not seem to have been hacked, I take full responsibility for this edit even though I did not want to make it. One possibility is that there were several tabs open on the browser and I pressed "rollback" on the wrong one. Apologies for the inconvenience.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)07:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Guitar youtube.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles03:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Lady Gaga photo
Why do sunglasses matter? It's apart of Lady Gaga. The pictures resolution is FINE and the pic itself is just fine. The sunglasses are apart of her fashion and her messages. The photo is just fine. Stop making it a big deal. Griggj12 (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
There needs to be a WP:CONSENSUS about the infobox image to prevent edit warring. Part of the talk page consensus from past discussions is that her face should be shown clearly. In any case, there should be a consensus, not a unilateral decision. You have now reverted two independent editors on this issue.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Zimmer's acclaimed works
Hi my freand, I have an offer about critically acclaimed works that i wrote for the article yesterday, in this matter we can use alone film scores won at least one award only in one of the four significant categories of awards (Oscar, Golden Globe, Grammy and BAFTA), do you concur with me? if so three of titles must be remove (The Thin Red Line, The Last Samurai and The Da Vinci Code), because this works have only multiple nominations, it can be a rule for honesty. are you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakhshi82 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
There has been a tendency in the past for people to add their favourite Zimmer scores to the WP:LEAD, which is only intended to be a summary. Although Academy Awards etc are important, they are not the full picture, as Zimmer has nominated The Thin Red Line as one of his personal favourites although it is not his best known by any means. It is difficult to single out Zimmer scores for special praise when there are so many to choose from. --♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)19:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I already spoke with you about this case, there isn't an absolute picture, the composer favorites or his best known works are not acclaimed works! Only way to reach the answer is award winning scores in most recognisable festivals. According to this rule people can't add their personal favorites beside this works. We can describe this topic on the talk page for future editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakhshi82 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I saw the talk page, about The Prince of egypt i was wrong, but as i said to you we should to have an rule for future editings, according four notable categories of awards Crimson Tide has won a Grammy in 1996 in a serious competition, please see the source. It's a great acclaim, we can add it to the lead, this is not a pretty reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakhshi82 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I reverted your revert of my edits. When the New York Times speculates, we report it as the New York Times is speculating that "blah blah blah".--Banana (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
There was no reason to delete my shormotivated the Tt sentence noting that there is to date no evidence that Sarah Palin, the Tea Party or Conservatism motiviated the Tucson shooter. The article has the reference to Palin under the heading of "Apparant Target" leaving the impression that there is a connection between the too. It is horrid journalism to even bring up Palin at this point with zero evidence that the motivation was Palin. The disclaimer is journalistically required, so I'm putting it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.114.125 (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
See above, there has been a *very* extensive debate about this. Geraldo Rivera summed up the current position, it may all be media speculation and hot air, but per WP:BLP caution is needed here.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Lead
1. Did you read the guideline to which I linked? "If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface." Please also see WP:SBE, a supplementary page explaining why it's misleading to present a descriptive title in this manner.
I also linked to my discussion with another editor, through which we arrived at the compromise from which you've reverted.
2. Again, please stop misusing the "minor" edit checkbox. "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." —David Levy17:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not contesting the article's title. Again, did you read the guideline to which I linked? You're correct that "usually it makes sense to have the article title in bold in the lead," but this is a situation in which it doesn't. —David Levy17:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thought for the day: editing Wikipedia is like sex, the people who are talking about it the most are not doing it. If I have got the policy wrong, I apologize, but I have acted in good faith. Revert if you like, I am not going to argue.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I have absolutely no doubt that you're acting in good faith, and I apologize if it seemed that I was suggesting otherwise.
Can you please self-revert? I don't want it to appear as though I'm edit warring instead of discussing this with you. Thanks! —David Levy17:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
About this - I don't see this as related to NOTNEWS. If someone is in the custody of the federal system, his location is encyclopedic. Loughner will likely be at USP Tucson until his sentencing. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps not strictly WP:NOTNEWS, but as another editor pointed out, his location is bound to change and there are doubts about whether he is here anyway. Overall, the image is not really necessary.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)22:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how there are correctly-sourced doubts about where he is. Is anyone stating doubts about whether he's reall at USP Tucson in the media? Are secondary sources contradicting the BOP?
Usually when someone is awaiting federal trial he is held at one federal prison until the sentencing is announced, then he or she is moved to another prison to serve the actual sentence. While serving the sentence the location can change.
I've added images of correctional facilities where people are housed to various articles about prisoners.. such as Martha Stewart.
I'm not arguing about the general principle, but the claim that Loughner is at the facility right now would need a cite, and also need to be kept up to date.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)22:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It's got a cite now from the BOP, the authority that is incarcerating Loughman. Once his location changes, the cite will be updated, and it will get a new access date. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't AGF ..the article isn't that long. To compare a thoughtful commentator like raban, who has written at length on the Tea party movemovent, and american politics , with a laundry list is absurd. your reason was crap in the edit summary. You have my contemptSayerslle (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
No Rabans quote is more thougth provoking , eloquent, you don't like his leftist eloquence. the article is not very long, why did you hurry to delete the quote, was it so hateful to you? why not answer about your politics? Sayerslle (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not going get drawn into a debate about my politics, because this was never an issue in the edit. I'm not Bill O'Reilly, I'm a Wikipedia editor. If you disagree with this decision (and I get plenty of things wrong), please discuss it at Talk:2011 Tucson shooting as it is an article related issue, not ad hominem.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)00:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been working on 2011 Tucson shooting since Saturday, and despite numerous editing conflicts, you are the first person to turn up on my talk page and launch into a string of insults. If you can't stand the pace on Wikipedia and have to resort to ad hominem as a tactic in editing disputes, please find a new hobby.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)00:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
As someone working on wp you know it can be exasperating to see ones edits removed, but , youknow, in the scheme of things, I apologise for the insults. Sayerslle (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, when this type of thing happens, I always count to ten, and remember that in a few days/weeks/months' time the article will probably be completely different anyway. This is particularly true of 2011 Tucson shooting, which has been very fluid since its creation. Incidentally, I didn't mean that the Raban quote itself was a laundry list, but in earlier versions of the article there were long lists of reactions to the shooting which were not really adding to the article. This does tend to happen in articles based on breaking news stories, and there is a need for things to quieten down. There is a certain amount of overlap between the Raban and Dupnik quotes, and by consensus the Dupnik quote is important because it was the first reaction that raised the political climate as a factor in the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)07:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Photograph of Jared Lee Loughner by Pima County Sheriff's Office.jpg. 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 see your revert. However, I did discuss it on the talk page and had a diff. This way, people can see how it would look by clicking the diff. If there is no diff, then people are arguing in the abstract. This is why I did it. I got the idea from a previous poster who did the same thing. Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree this was not edit warring, but too much material was removed in these edits. Let's wait for an outcome on the AfD of the Reactions article first.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Barbie doll modern.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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 NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
I came back to the page after working off some of the csd backlog and noticed your Lady Gaga comment, so I've blocked the account. Just thought you might like to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
OK thanks. It doesn't give me any pleasure to get users blocked, but it looks like this user had used up a supply of goodwill and ignored advice.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)09:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
There is some debate about what the Internet Watch Foundation is. It receives much of its funding directly from the EU, and has been described as a quango, which is a popular way the UK government finds of farming out "potentially controversial" decision making powers.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)14:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Strictly speaking you are right, the IWF is not a government agency or a private organization, but falls somewhere between the two, which is a classic feature of a quango.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)14:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Ian, how could you possibly know that I did this to appease the spelling warriors? Especially since I reverted the change the first time. No, it isn't the way you present it. Especially since my edit summary for the move is quite clear. I did it to match the city's name. If you disagree please revert it but please avoid attributing motives to me that I simply did not have. Not only that, but I didn't even know that the naming dispute edit-warriors even existed, let alone that there was a naming dispute in the first place. Dr.K.λogosπraxis19:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if I was a bit brusque on this. The issue has been raised before in the talk page archive, and frequently causes edit warring at Dnipropetrovsk, where the Russian and Ukrainian factions fight it out over the "best" spelling.[4] The main concern was maintaining the WP:COMMONNAME of Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs, since this has been the spelling used in virtually all of the news coverage. Requests to rename an article should usually be discussed on the talk page first to avoid misunderstandings. Although the Wikipedia article about the city has the spelling Dnipropetrovsk, the mainstream media often uses the spelling Dnepropetrovsk, hence the spelling of the Maniacs article.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)19:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I agree with your WP:COMMONNAME rationale. I had no idea that this was a disputed spelling. I would never have entered into a naming dispute of this kind for the benefit of one side or the other because there are so many better things to do here than to enter into unfamiliar disputes. Dr.K.λogosπraxis20:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Possibly, but there are so many Carphone Warehouse IPs that it is hard to be sure. Anyway, the consensus is against the image with the grey background, it is awful.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)20:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I tend to disagree. Firstly, the video quality of the excerpt is horrendous...even in the small frame that its in. And secondly, the full video should be there simply because of its value - it is the entire video of the subject that the article is focused on. If someone wants to watch it in a bigger frame, they can click on the video's information tab or navigate to youtube themselves. But providing a short (and low-quality at that) excerpt does the film a disservice, in my opinion at least.
Oh, just by the way, the video that is uploaded on Wikipedia is in pretty decent 480p. I'm not sure how that resolution is "small".--haha169 (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The embedded full film was Sintel movie 720x306.ogv. In the article, it was at 320px, which within a letterbox frame is very small. Sintel is somewhat longer than previous Blender films (15 minutes), and it is not ideal to watch the whole film at this resolution when it is available at up to 1080p on YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
In article Vocoder, you reverted the statements which can possibly find the reliable sources. I've already added {{Citation needed}} tag where sources don't covered, but you delete it without any preceding discussion or notification. It seems very unreasonable situation. Your action seems to be not gently. Please be cooperative. --Clusternote (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The most unreasonable situation is that: why you want to hasty revert it while I'm editing ? Please discuss it on Talk:Vocoder before reverting it, if you want to reasonably resolve your problem. --Clusternote (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
link removal on scunthorpe page.
Hello, you removed the link on the Scunthorpe page recently saying it failed EL, could you explain which part it failed specifically please ?
will do, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. And I have no idea what an edit war is, I can only imagine and it seems fairly pointless. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.197.92 (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
My message
Hi my friend, I want to know why you allow images of The Holy Prophet Muhammad to be displayed in this article? The pictures are blasphemy to say the least, and I tried to censor the article away (although with little luck). Looking forward to hearing from you in a professional and controlled, although non-dictator-administrator-powertrip-like-way :-) (User:109.70.49.30 01:53, 25 March 2011)
The cartoons were added long before I became involved with the article at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. There was a long discussion but the WP:CONSENSUS is to show them, so that people can make up their own minds. Personally I don't think they are brilliant cartoons anyway, and only the "bomb in turban" one by Kurt Westergaard has become famous and has been shown many times on the Internet. Most mainstream media sources (BBC, CNN, New York Times etc) have declined to show the cartoons, but the Wikipedia article is designed to look at the cartoons in a serious context and it is necessary to show the cartoons so that people can see what all the fuss is about. They are not worth a fraction of the trouble that they have produced, as the smart response would be to say "I find these cartoons offensive" and to leave it at that. The deaths that they have caused and the attempt to kill Kurt Westergaard did the reputation of Islam no favours, as it simply played into the Western stereotypes of violent Islamic fanatics getting worked up over some rather dull cartoons. The Jyllands-Posten intended the cartoons to be a statement about the importance of freedom of speech, but the response to the cartoons from the Muslim world has been critical and as the article points out, diplomats have asked media sources not to publish them. Removing the cartoons from the Wikipedia article would achieve little as people would simply upload them elsewhere on the Internet. I would rather that people came across the cartoons with a serious discussion of their background than in a personal blog with a load of crude "Fuck Islam" comments. Wikipedia does not shy away from controversial areas, and the cartoons are a legitimate source of discussion and coverage for an encyclopedia.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)08:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Stop using the word "kid"
Well, I am SO sorry. I was doing something right by getting rid of the evil word "kid" and having boys called boys like they should.--Capsoul (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for the Brunel edit- I'm not trying to irritate anyone for he sake of it (honest), and I was going to change it back after taking a screen shot. I was purely trying to make a point for my students- that they shouldn't use Wikipedia in their essays because many of the articles are littered with mistakes, probably due to the fact that absolutely anyone can edit it.
I chose to edit it in a glaringly obvious mistake, but what if it was something less obvious, like a minor date change on an obscure page? Everyone I know uses Wikipedia, and I'm a fan of the democratisation of knowledge (also of the volunteers who maintain Wikipedia). I just don't think it's a secure or rigorous enough system, and frankly I'm fed up of reading essays full of Wikipedia mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishtar101 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
WP has a defence mechanism against such vandalism, which includes blocking the users who do it, and who see the function of an encyclopedia as being a canvas for their vandalism. Do this again, and it's likely that it will be your account that is blocked. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Brittany Murphy
OK, I'm a newbie so tell me if I'm getting this wrong (The talk as well as the edit)
My argument is that the blog is not the source. The sources are the tweets and the certificate.
In the case of the certificate what is the difference between it and the death certificate to which you have not objected? I note that it is considered acceptable to cite books as sources without a copy of them being uploaded to a server deemed reputable, surely the principle is the same? Enquiries can be made as to the authenticity of the certificate in the same way that efforts would have to be made to obtain a copy of such a book.
In the case of the tweets, I understand that citing a blog as a source is unacceptable. I am not linking to a blog quoting Roger Neal, I am linking to copies of his tweets. As yet the tweets are still accessible on Twitter but that will obviously not be the case indefinitely. Are you objecting to the storage location or disputing the authenticity of the actual tweets? Would a link to an archive such as bettween.com be acceptable?
Finally, as I say I'm a newbie, in cases of dispute is the onus not on the objector to prove his case?
Why do you get the right to make an allegation in the page markup but I don't get to respond there? And surely you must see that a person can make a spurious allegation that a particular edit violates a particular policy and the casual page viewer who is obviously the intended reader will have no knowledge of the debate ever taking place. People won't consult the markup or discussion page unless they have a particular reason to.(W090584 (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC))
As a general rule, Wikipedia articles use secondary sources (media reports etc). Tweets are a self published source. There was some concern over the death certificate that you linked to, because it contained Brittany Murphy's social security number and home address, which had been redacted in the version in the article here. There have been various claims about Angelo Bertolotti that are beyond the scope of the article.[5]--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand. What better source can there be for a person's statements than that person's publicist (aside from that person themself, anyway)? To quote the SPS article "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." My contention is that Roger Neal IS indeed an expert in the field of Sharon Murphy's media relations - he is the foremost expert in the world in fact being the person she has hired to represent her. This is obviously not analogous to my claiming to be an expert on, for instance, archaeology and writing on the topic without any relevant expertise or qualifications. And you will have to explain to me what Twitter is if it is not part of the media. Many established media are after all using it as a means of dissemination. Roger Neal is a professional publicist and he uses his twitter account in the course of his business - check it out, he's not just tweeting about the weather.
As regards the BIRTH certificate (the death certificate was linked by somebody else), you still haven't answered my question - why was the death certificate link acceptable and not the birth certificate one?
To sum up, how do we resolve this dispute? Do I keep posting the link and you keep commenting it out? Incidentally if you would like to seek clarification from the Bertolotti family regarding the birth certificate of any other issue, I can put you in touch through an intermediary (W090584 (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC))
Read WP:RS and note especially the wording about use of blogs, self-published sources, and videos. Note further WP:BLP and the stringent requiremnets it places on sources. And note further that editors must remove unsourced or insufficiently sourced contentious claims. Collect (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles usually stick to material from third party sources. At the time of her death, Brittany Murphy's parents were widely reported as Sharon Murphy and Angelo Bertolotti. What Sharon Murphy or her publicist Roger Neal has said since then leads to WP:BLP issues as Angelo Bertolotti is still alive. It is clear that the birth certificate names Angelo Bertolotti as her father. At the time of her death, there were some comments as to why her death certificate listed her father as "unknown" when it was generally believed to be Angelo Bertolotti. In the talk page archive here, claims were made about Angelo Bertolotti being a convicted mobster that were considered beyond the scope of the article. In this article in The Sun (United Kingdom), there are contradictory claims about Brittany Murphy's relationship with Angelo Bertolotti. The Sun is not normally considered to be a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)20:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
"It is clear that the birth certificate names Angelo Bertolotti as her father" - It's not clear in this article because there is no link to the birth certificate, that is precisely why I am trying to add one. Your contention seems to be that this article should support the claim that Angelo Bertolotti is indeed Brittany's father, yet you object to a link to the birth certificate which supports this while not objecting to one to the death certificate which doesn't - please explain this. The death certificate HAS now been updated to include a reference to Mr Bertolotti by the way, would you like a link to that?
"What Sharon Murphy or her publicist Roger Neal has said since then leads to WP:BLP issues" - I don't understand. I've already stated that I am in contact with someone who is in turn in contact with Mr Bertolotti. Surely WP:BLP is about not making contentious claims against somebody. What contentious claims am I making against Mr Bertolotti? I am attempting to post a link to the birth certificate in order to refute a claim made by Sharon Murphy's publicist. Are you telling me that Wikipedia guidelines forbid refutation of spurious claims made elsewhere? Surely such skepticism is in keeping with the principles of Wikipedia and this debate?
Finally, once again, am I to understand that any Wikipedia editor can simply comment out anything he or she objects to based on claimed violation of guidelines without having to substantiate this before independent adjudication? What is to stop me from attacking your contributions in this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by W090584 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The article has given what is hopefully reliable information, namely that Brittany Murphy's parents were Angelo Bertolotti and Sharon Murphy. The material from Twitter here completely fails WP:V and cannot be used. It was removed from the talk page in this edit. The JPEG of the birth certificate here is a primary source. It adds little to what is already known, because the article gives Angelo Bertolotti as her father. The death certificate here was used in media reports, and has some information redacted.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)21:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Once again you have completely ignored my questions. I will reiterate...
1. What is the difference between linking the birth certificate and the death certificate? The birth certificate DOES add useful information - namely a citation as to the fact that Angelo Bertolotti is the father. If no citation is required what is the purpose of the previous citation regarding the death certificate? To illustrate that Brittany is indeed dead maybe?
2 How do we resolve this dispute?
I also note that you have visited JusticeForBrittany and read all my articles. It looks as if you followed me here from there rather than vice versa. I conclude that you are hostile and deliberately misconstruing and misrepresenting. There seems little point in further debate so it looks like I'm just going to have to keep periodically reediting, and as I say, making spurious attacks on anything you edit (W090584 (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC))
![[1]](http://www.webdoodles.org/webimages/youtube_content_locations.png){kind=link}
