User talk:Ianmacm/Archive 6

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Caption

Hi john, would you please help me? I want to write a caption for picture of Ennio Morricone in his article. "Morricone in conducting", it does make any sense? What can i write? One good description? May i please? Thanks.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I change that to "Morricone is conducting" nonce, which is better?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It could say something like "Morricone conducting". By the way, the licensing on this image does not give a precise source, so its copyright status may be challenged under WP:NFCC.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean "Morricone conducting" is correct? Without "is"?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
This would be OK in a caption. Another possibility would be "Morricone in concert".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks boss, thanks. You're very good man!--Bakhshi82 (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
John, i want ask you something, are you happy from the lead of Zimmer's article? do you want remove term like "critically acclaim" still?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not a great problem, although as mentioned in the past, it is best to avoid WP:PEACOCK terms. Nobody would argue that Zimmer's work has been critically acclaimed, so it is a "true" statement. At the moment, I am more worried about the possibility of factual errors in the discography and awards sections, as much of it is uncited and should be checked in case it has errors.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Activscunthorpe

hi why was it refused yes it has directory, but it is mainly a website with articles for Scunthorpe people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiebutty (talk • contribs) 17:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Scunthorpe.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Community section

hi what if I add this page instead were events are added by local people Www.activscunthorpe.com/community — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiebutty (talk • contribs) 21:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for YouTube

An article that you have been involved in editing, YouTube , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JC Rules! (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

WP blocking

Please don't threaten me with WP blocking again, or I will take further action (Pawelmichal (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC))

It is unhelpful to add edits without sourcing them. Edits like this one calling Giles Coren an "odious little bigot" are clear WP:BLP violations.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ianmacm. You have new messages at Shakehandsman's talk page.
Message added 19:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shakehandsman (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to comment

Based on your contributions at Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner/Archive_2#Fair_use_status_of_Pima_County_photo, you may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_29#File:Jared Loughner sheriff's office.jpg. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest to you

An article that you have been involved in editing, Falafel [[1]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Veritycheck (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nyan cat 250px frame.PNG

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nyan cat 250px frame.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 not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Aleppo soap

Thanks for your contributions to the falafel discussion. Your good sense would be welcome on the Aleppo soap article. In my opinion, many recent edits by the SPA User:Pdacortex have been puffery and otherwise not encyclopedic, and I have trimmed them quite heavily. He reverts. Can you help? Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Pawel Michal

In general, this may well be true. THe individuals concerned, however, have made libellous accusations on another talk page, and threats. Therefore this deeply depressing episode is best left behind, before it escalates. On reflection, your initial comments in July were well merited, and as a novice contributor, i apologise. Pawelmichal (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing comments from a talk page is best reserved for clear WP:VANDALISM. Even if you disagree with the comments, removing them can be misconstrued. If you disagree with the comments, it is best to leave a reply explaining why you disagree.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Salon shooting article

Hello! I added the year to your Seal Beach salon shooting article, as generally these mass shootings include the year in their name. (See 2011 Tucson shooting, etc.) Your new article is now located at: 2011 Seal Beach salon shooting.

Your article otherwise looks great! It is also a notable article, hopefully other editors will resist the urge to AfD it. Thanks for your contributions on Wikipedia! AlaskaMike (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Much as I hate WP:RECENTISM, this has received major news coverage and should easily meet WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! BTW, I added a category to your User Page. I'm the Category King, what can I say! :) LOL

AlaskaMike (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for everything you do on here! This little kitten appreciates all your hard work too. ;)

Pinkstrawberry02™ talk 22:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Please respond on Pinkstrawberry02's talk page. If for some reason you cannot, then please leave them a {{talkback}} and reply on your own talk page. Thanks for your understanding!

Re: Kitten

No problem! Hopefully I cheered you up. And yes, the fact you are able to get kittens is cute and fun. :) Pinkstrawberry02™ talk 22:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Seal Beach article

The Great Pumpkin cupcake, Specially made for ianmacm :) Enjoy!

Very nice job on the Seal Beach shooting article. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, following hours spent on the 2011 Tucson shooting, I had hoped not to be doing this again in 2011.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I live down the road in Long Beach if you want anymore pictures. Are you nearby? Malke 2010 (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I am in the UK:) Any relevant photos would be welcome.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Will do. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Dekraai had his arraignment this morning. The local radio station got a copy of his booking photo here:[2]. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, the infamous image of the grinning Jared Lee Loughner set off a blockbuster debate about its copyright status.[3] Images of this kind are probably covered by Template:Non-free mugshot, but the zealots insist that they fail WP:NFCC#1. Much as I would like to add one of the booking photos of Dekraai, it would be boring to have another long debate about whether a free image might reasonably be found. Hopefully one will turn up from somewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Spree Killing

First you revert at Spree Killer with an edit summery that says to see the talk page, but fail to say which one of the 48 open threads you want me to see. Secondly, you use are using wikipedia as a source by saying that the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre is also listed. In my opinion, it also does not fit the definition that is in the articles lead. If this is a matter of debate, could you please link the debate so that I could partake in it as well.--JOJ Hutton 17:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This issue has been raised several times, eg at Talk:Spree_killer#Definition_of_.22spree_killer.22. The "two or more locations" rule comes from the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics and has no official force outside the USA. Even within the USA, the term "spree killer" is often used by the media to describe a shooting spree at a single location. Many of the entries in the table at Spree killer do this, so it would be inconsistent to remove 2011 Seal Beach shooting without a broader consensus on what a spree killing actually is. This is a thorny issue, because the terms spree killer, rampage killer and mass murderer all have some degree of overlap. This is why a merger was suggested with List of rampage killers, but there is currently no consensus on this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Since both incidents occurred within the United States, the USBJ should be used as good source material for a definition of Sprees within the United States. Why then does the definition in the lead differ from what is listed in the body. As of now, its just an indiscriminate list of random information that has nothing in common with each other, per the listed definition.--JOJ Hutton 18:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
My personal view is to merge with the List of rampage killers to prevent this debate from cropping up on a regular basis. If there is a consensus to use the definition in the WP:LEAD, then we would have to be strict and remove quite a few of the single location incidents. This last came up after the 2011 Norway attacks. The Utøya island shootings alone appear to fit the definition of a spree killing, but is the island a single location? This is why the "tape measure" rule is less helpful than it first looks.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It just makes very little sence to define what a "Spree Killer" is, then list spree killings that don't really fit the definition.--JOJ Hutton 20:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, although the USBJ definition is more of a guideline than a standard that is widely followed. This is why I support a merge with List of rampage killers, because there is too much overlap between the articles at the moment, and it would avoid the debate about whether an act qualified as a spree killing or mass murder.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sources at Barbie

Please don't remove helpful edits even if they are not formatted quite properly. This edit was clearly a list of references that could be used for the article. That is helpful information. If you had a question about the purpose of the bibliography, you should ask the editor. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This seems to have been done in good faith, but it is far from clear what it is trying to say. I have left a message at User talk:Jsollowa.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a student doing a Wikipedia assignment - having her first edit reverted was, of course, not a positive experience. I try to err on the side of keeping good faith edits, I suppose, particularly on talk pages! Awadewit (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on YouTube. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. CIreland (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I will stop, but am disappointed by the failure to use the talk page and take on board what was said. The sourcing does not support what has been added, this is why it was reverted. The reasons why are on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Take it to a noticeboard and ask for help. It would have been better to do that earlier though, as you make it really difficult for admins if you go past 3RR. CIreland (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Youtube is unable to transform PAL AVCHD (MTS) files correctly

See Youtube Helpdesk claims: http://www.google.hu/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1&nord=1#sclient=psy-ab&hl=hu&nord=1&site=webhp&source=hp&q=PAL+AVCHD+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com%2Fsupport%2Fforum%2Fp%2F&pbx=1&oq=PAL+AVCHD+site:http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com%2Fsupport%2Fforum%2Fp%2F&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=54l25468l0l25779l17l15l0l0l0l2l245l2072l5.7.3l15l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a1373b1d0b04133&ion=1&biw=1280&bih=737 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.197.184 (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.197.184 (talk)

I did have a look at this, but it has too many WP:OR and WP:NOTHOWTO issues for the article. People have asked about issues like this before, and YouTube's response is that if in doubt, the video should be converted to WMV or AVI before uploading it. Some people have reported problems with uploading interlaced videos to YouTube, which is why YouTube recommends that they are deinterlaced before uploading.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


Interlaced? PSF is not Interlaced. Read this article: Progressive segmented frame(PSF). PSF is well known for utmost all video editing softwares and Video hosting services. There is no need deinterlace to watch PSF as progressive. All other video hosting services can handle perfetly the PAL AVCHD files, only Youtube can't handle it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.197.184 (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what the complaint was. Some of the references in the Google search are to 1080i video cameras. It would be best to contact YouTube directly about this. If a video format cannot be uploaded correctly, YouTube recommends opening it in Windows Movie Maker (or Windows Live Movie Maker) and saving it in WMV format.[4] This is the best solution that I can offer to the problem.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Did you read this article about PSF??? ====> Progressive segmented frame

All video editing software or video player can play PSF as progressive. Even the players and editors ( which were created before the invention of PSF) can play it as progressive material! The PAL PSF is an absolutly progressive format in interlaced container. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.197.184 (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did read this, but it is unclear why YouTube would have problems with this format. I have never owned a AVCHD camera, so cannot comment from experience on why YouTube may have problems with it. As YouTube says, converting the video to WMV before uploading is the best option. This is more of an issue for YouTube technical support than Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the discrimination of PAL countries. NTSC AVCHD camcorders are fully supported, only PAL camcorders have problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.197.184 (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

hi meaw

sorry i just wanted to do random things now ill stop meaw ^_^ idk how to use this anyway just got dared to do this lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmonolymeaw (talk • contribs) 19:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Youtube

No one who says it looks, and that which we put your, which is more wrong than my editing. Think before you write. I ask that you do not despise but my issue. Juancameneses11

Nothing personal, it was reverted to File:Logo YouTube por Hernando.svg because this is a better likeness of the press office versions at [5]. Insisting on having the newer version is not doing the article any favours.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 23:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ianmacm. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 01:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Courcelles 01:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Nyan cat 250px frame.PNG

hi. thanks for fixing that for me. i couldnt remember quite how to do it with word wrap. -badmachine 02:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sintel game

[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.49.191 (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is that the game is still in development and has not been launched yet, so it is WP:CRYSTAL. It is also a fan made game and does not appear to be endorsed by the film's makers.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Scunthorpe problem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Rapbel

Saw your edit here about Tile join. Can you show where this user's socks made similar edits? If he's going to continue this, and we can confirm it's him, then a ban should be proposed. Calabe1992 20:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The style is boringly obvious. After a lull TJ is back, he seems to have nothing better to do at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Fun, thanks. Calabe1992 20:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:The Amityville Haunting (2011).jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The Amityville Haunting (2011).jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

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 on 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. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk aboutabout my edits? 06:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Stella Artois, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wife-beater (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Robert Black

Hi Ian, many thanks for reverting Bbb23's disruptive editing on the Gennette Tate and Robert Black pages. Over the last few days Ive had the same problem with the April Fabb page, with constant reverting of the reference to Robert Black as a suspect. At the moment I have left the reference out because the edit war was silly, although I still feel there should be a reference to Black being a suspect in the disappearance of April - the latest reference to this being a report in the Daily Mirror (amongst others) in December 2011. My own personal research into this case with members of Norfolk Police confirms this, although I realise that this is original research. I really would be most grateful for your input on whether you feel there should be some reference?

I have to say that I find the behavior of this "editor" excessive, but when one looks at the number edits every day from this person.....well. Anyway I do look forward to your reply. With best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP policy is rightly strict on adding tabloid froth to articles. However, it is absurd to remove material cited to reliable UK sources (BBC, Guardian, Independent etc) saying that it has BLP issues. These are all sources that are careful not to introduce libellous material, contempt of court etc. They can do without Bbb23's "help" over this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:07, 6 January 2012 (UT
Hello Ian, Thanks for yours. The Independent and the Telegraph have mentioned Black in relation to the Fabb case, in fact one Indie reference is still listed in the April Fabb article; additionally Black is mentioned numerous times in Maurice Morson's book "The Lost Years" also referenced. Maurice is former head of Norfolk CID. I would still like your opinion on whether a reference to Black should be included on this page? See also the latest "contribution" on the BLP Talk, I refrain from comment! With best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Black's link to the 1969 Fabb case is somewhat more speculative than the 1978 Tate case, where he has long been considered as the prime suspect even though he has repeatedly refused to discuss it. The issue here is WP:BLPSOURCES, where possible it is best to stick to the BBC and broadsheet newspapers rather than the tabloids. The Independent source is suitable and within BLP, but other online sources (truTV etc) require more caution.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Ian, Many thanks for your advice. You are, of course, correct in saying the Fabb case is more speculative than the Tate case - one of the prime reasons being Black's driving record. I think, perhaps a cooling-off period before deciding what to do with April's page. Do have a good weekend. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

2011 Tucson shooting

This user helped promote 2011 Tucson shooting to good article status.

SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, can well remember the hours spent on drafting this back in January 2011.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Stomachion: Netz-Acerbi-Wilson article in SCIAMVS 5

In this scholarly article Netz and his co-authors repeat what are essentially the figures for Stomachion that have been agreed since Heiberg first published on the Archimedes Codex. It is clear that they set up a double square, not a single square. Netz, in his popular account of the Codex with Noel, berates Heiberg for his neglect of figures. Netz also argues that we come as close as is likely to Archimedes' original figures in the Codex. It is therefore a complete mystery why Netz opts in that book for the Suter Board, rather than the Codex Board. The Suter Board is associated with an unpointed Arabic text and is most obviously inconsistent with the Greek text because the diagonals of a square cross at right angles, rendering the surviving propositions in the Greek text trivial if they referred to the Arabic text. Suter conceded elsewhere that twice and equals are easily confused and that seems to be the explanation of why the Suter Board is mistaken. Netz does not argue for the Suter Board, he just adopts it; this is also what he did in working with Diaconis, Graham and others. It was Oldham, in a letter to Nature in March, 1926, who pointed out the reconciliation of the two texts. But he did not go into the geometrical or linguistic objections to the Suter Board.

I do not know whether you have a serious interest in the matter. I also do not know what you can do about the Wikipedia articles touching on Archimedes and Stomachion under Wikipedia policies, since it is certainly true that Netz has published his ideas in a popular book. It is just that his own scholarly article undermines the book, which, being a popular work, was probably not, strictly speaking, peer reviewed.

However, if you are interested, and would like to be sent the relevant material for your own inspection, do please indicate how that might be arranged.

From my talkpage

Yeah. I changed it. ;~)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Youtube

Most flash video is progressive, but i spoke about the input/original uploaded videos.


Read the debate about it on the youtube helpdesk: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=083f6bb887251181&hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.210.4 (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This is from a forum, so it could not be used as a source in the article. If an interlaced video is uploaded to YouTube it will be deinterlaced automatically. There are numerous complaints on the YouTube help forum about YouTube's deinterlacing, with some people saying that it spoiled the video quality. This is why YouTube recommends deinterlacing the video yourself prior to uploading. YouTube recommends no interlaced content on its Video encoding page. This - my guess - is because there are so many different video formats that it is impossible to guarantee deinterlacing them all correctly. This is a difficult area to write about because the only sourcing is the YouTube forum. When people complain about audio or video problems, YouTube's standard response is to recommend saving the video in Windows Movie Maker before upload, as this will deinterlace the video and create a WMV file which is a known format. Some people have reported problems with uploading Progressive segmented frame videos to YouTube, but this is rather too technical and rare a problem to mention in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited AMP v. Persons Unknown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BitTorrent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner

I apologize. The information is new to me and am trying to represent it accurately. Why, if others have posted much more in depth information regarding this, is it no longer posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21theUsername21 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly this looks like a crackpot theory, and a similar theory about Lee Harvey Oswald by Michael Eddowes turned out to be wrong. Per WP:FRINGE, theories like this should not be added to articles unless at least some mainstream sourcing can be found. It is easy to trawl the blogs and find people saying practically anything.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


Interesting. As far as I understand, the entire theory behind Wikipedia is for all sides of stories to be shown through users who desire it to be known. I have always been under the assumption that information can be expressed here that is not portrayed in the mainstream media, merely because it is not portrayed in other media outlets. This is the concept of social media. Do you disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21theUsername21 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Moon landing conspiracy theories has its own article because it has received significant coverage over the years. The purpose of Wikipedia articles is to reflect what has received coverage in reliable secondary sources. I could start a blog or website tomorrow saying that the Moon was made of green cheese, but it would be unsuitable as a source for the article Moon. I haven't been able to find much if any coverage of the Loughner conspiracy theory mentioned that is not blog sourced, which would lead to WP:SPS issues. Unless a mainstream source proposes a conspiracy theory, it cannot be mentioned in a Wikipedia article as this would give it undue weight.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Any additions, especially controversial, should have a reliable source. A website that everyone is allowed to give their opinion is called a forum. Wikipedia is not a forum, not a soapbox, and is not a platform for free speech. Jim1138 (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, since Jared Lee Loughner is a WP:BLP article, stricter than usual rules apply to the way that statements can be sourced. From WP:SPS: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you are entitled to your opinion in regards to visual similarities. I respect your response and sincerely appreciate you taking the time to clear things up for me. I was unaware of these restrictions on Wikipedia and am now informed.

It seems that with stricter internet standards imposed by big media and government agencies it is becoming increasingly difficult to raise concerns regarding issues such as this, as is proven by the fact that all videos related to the evidence of this particular case have been removed. From my standpoint, I always considered sources such as Wikipedia an effective way for smaller ideologies to expand through public viewing. If social platforms such as Wikipedia and Youtube are unable to express small ideas, I wonder how any underground theory could ever spread or gain the attention of the public due to constant removal from sight through the pressure of the affected corporations. Social media is the foundation at which regular citizens find the ability to spread concepts. The fact that opinions are unable to be expressed should certainly raise a concern in the realm of free speech.

However, I understand that Wikipedia is working to uphold credibility and this leads me to another question. Will this same material be removed if it is on its own page entitled "Giffords Shooting Entirely Unproven Conspiracy Theory" and begins by stating "This material has not been evaluated by any source holding a socially credible title:"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21theUsername21 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This material would run into WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG issues regardless of where it was added. Please read through these policies and try to understand why they are in place. The material at wellaware1.com is basically one person's theory, and has received no coverage in the mainstream media. Wikipedia does not publish original research, a category into which this material clearly falls. On a more general note, theories that require the use of impostors to work correctly look like thriller stories or science fiction. Agatha Christie can baffle the reader by devising a detective story where the murderer turns out to have been the bishop dressed as the chambermaid, but this sort of thing almost never happens in real life. If Brandan Lee Pittman (shown in the YouTube screenshot) is a real living person, claiming that he was involved in a conspiracy to murder Gabrielle Giffords would be potentially libellous. This would be true of any other living person named in this way. Any material accusing a living person of a crime would be removed from Wikipedia immediately on legal grounds, so this type of theory could not be proposed via a Wikipedia article.

Another point to bear in mind is the potential for a conflict of interest. The material at wellaware1.com is attributed to Ed Chiarini; if you are Mr Chiarini or are affiliated to him in some way, it would lead to a conflict of interest to use a Wikipedia article to put forward ideas with which you are personally involved.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

removing photo or article

Hi lanmacm, it seems that the Jeffrey Epstein article photo is in violation of the biography of living persons policy given that it is a mug shot with mug shot captions, when the person is known for more than his criminal activity. There are many notable or famous people with mug shots but that photo does not drive the article. Jeffrey Epstein's article seems to be event driven and to have a biased or heavily weighted point of view. Is it possible to remove this photo? Or remove the article? Thank you for your feedback. best, Turvill (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy with using a mugshot in the infobox of a BLP article, but it comes down to WP:NFCC. This could be raised at Talk:Jeffrey_Epstein. On the question of removing the article, Jeffery Epstein does meet the general notability guideline, but there is a tendency for the article to focus on the sex charges, mainly because they picked up a good deal of media coverage. I'm not happy about the use of the phrase "convicted sex offender" in the opening sentence, but the coverage of the trial itself seems OK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Disappearance of April Fabb

Hello Ian and trust you are well. Well the professional deleter, Bbb23, has been at it again. Someone restored the Robert Black para on the April Fabb page, which he promptly deleted. I restored it and it got deleted by him again, only for me to restore. I find this way of going-on to be silly in the extreme, noting that he has not altered the Black/Fabb mentions on the Black and Tate pages. He claims that the deletion was agreed at the BLP pages, which it wasn't - only discussed. Whilst the Black connection is circumstantial, it is worthy of mention, considering the Independent has published it several times? Would appreciate your imput and perhaps you could have a go at restoration - should Bbb23 have another go? With best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he's deleted the reference again!! David J Johnson (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I put back the material at Disappearance of Genette Tate because it is reliably sourced and easily covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. Back in October 2011, the BBC devoted a documentary to this issue.[7] Unfortunately, some people seem to have got the wrong end of the stick about BLP and have used it to justify removing material even if it is reliably sourced, which is against policy. The debate at BLPN did not lead to a consensus to remove this material, and I had no problems with putting it back in Disappearance of Genette Tate. As stated before, the link to the Fabb case is more speculative.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, I agree with everything you say. Of course, Black's possible involvement in the April Fabb case is more speculative - but he remains a suspect. That information is sourced by both the Indie and Maurice Morson's book.

My concern with the whole issue is that one certain person (with one hanger-on) seems intent on wrecking the article(s). There was no agreement on his deletions. Judging by the number of contribtions from this person, it is a pity they have nothing else to do? I would be grateful for your views on taking the matter further, or just to leave them basking in the number of deletions they can fit into a day? With best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could ask Bbb23 why this such an issue. Is he/she afraid that Robert Black is going to sue Wikipedia for defaming him? All Wikipedia has done here is to repeat material that is freely available in reliable sources, eg the BBC News website. The authorities have regarded Black as the prime suspect in the Tate case for many years, and it would lead to an incomplete article not to mention this. The article does *not* accuse Black directly, neither does the sourcing that it cites. I can't see much wrong with The Independent story either. Unless a clear risk of defamation is shown, there is no great problem with mentioning this. It is the poorly sourced tabloid junk that leads to BLP problems, not the mainstream media.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ian, I have left a reply on the BLP, which I trust you will agree with. I also agree with your comments regarding the pic of Genette. Do you think there should be a pic on the April Fabb page?? There are some good ones (from the original Police poster) on Goggle images, but I have no idea of how to get them on Wikipedia. If you agree, could you get the image on? Best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be useful to have a picture of Fabb, as long it could be tagged correctly. If all else fails, Template:Non-free historic image could be used. If you find a link that you like, post it here. This appears to be her standard "missing person" image.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Ian, this is the image I was thinking of. Can you get it onto the page, as I'm a not sure how to do his? Best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Could you post the link from the browser address bar, I can't see anything. Thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ian, There seems to be a very long address, but try:- http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=April+Fabb&h/=en&safe+strict&client+dell-usuk I hope this works. Regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

also there is the following address: http://elleeseymour.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04image5.png David J Johnson (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Not sure this will work David J Johnson (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Still having some technical difficulties with the links. If the article did have an image of Fabb, it should probably be this one, as it seems to be best known as part of the investigation. This Norfolk Constabulary page also gives some useful background information which could be used in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
mor
Ian, Sorry I could not help more with the pic. I agree that the Norfolk Constabulary page is a good start, although I still think that some mention of the "eerily" similar Genette Tate case should be mentioned. This is mentioned in Maurice Morson's book and he is ex-head of Norfolk CID. He also makes a lot of Black, but states that the evidence is missing. Strange that there has been no reaction to our latest comments on the BLP page yeT? Regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The main thing that the Fabb article needs is some more detail in the text, and an image of Fabb. There are clear similarities with the Tate case, but there does need to be caution about steering the reader into believing that it constitutes similar fact evidence with regard to other cases. Without the discovery of Fabb or Tate's body, it is unlikely that any trial will ever occur. Books by retired police officers also need some caution, as they often have their own theories about cold cases that would fail WP:BLP. The Madeleine McCann and JonBenét Ramsey cases have set off lawsuits. Even without taking this into account, I still feel that naming any individual as a suspect in the Fabb case creates a misleading impression, as the two people who were named came into the frame many years later. Robert Black's credit card receipts for petrol proved enormously significant in the Cardy case, while the Fabb case has no firm evidence beyond saying that it is similar to some other cases.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Ian, I don't disagree with anything you say. I just feel that the circumstances both both girl's disappearance, and Cardy's for that matter, are so alike that it is worth a mention. Otherwise, I am happy to leave references to Black out, despite the TV programme and Indie report. As you say the possible Tobin connection came many years later - and has been dismissed by Norfolk Police (?) Are you happy to "sandbox" a revised April Fabb page? With best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll have a go at rewriting the Fabb page. There is no problem with pointing out the similarities with the Tate case, but there does not seem to be enough WP:WELLKNOWN sourcing for naming suspects in the Fabb case. Many retired police officers had theories about the Tate case, but some would fail BLP by a mile. Wikipedia articles are rightly cautious in this area, so the Fabb article should avoid including material that has not been covered in multiple reliable secondary sources.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Your recent editing history at Disappearance of Genette Tate shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I am aware of 3RR. However, I would be more interested in hearing why this is a BLP violation. You are not Robert Black's lawyer, and this is part of a pattern of behaviour where you have decided that you know better than the mainstream media. Unless you are legally qualified in some way, leave it to the experts.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

New version of Fabb article

Here is a new sandbox version of the Disappearance of April Fabb. Over the years, cases such as the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and JonBenét Ramsey have led to a multitude of competing theories, as well as defamation lawsuits. However, the real problem in the Fabb case is that both of the "suspects" were named many years later with zero forensic evidence and little more than a hunch that they were possible contenders. Here, a police officer says of Robert Black: "We know he killed Genette Tate and April Fabb, and we believe that their bodies are buried somewhere in the Midlands Triangle." However, there is no hard evidence in the public domain that supports this assertion. Likewise, Norfolk police ruled out a link between Fabb and Peter Tobin. In view of this, I do not believe that it would help the reader to mention either of these theories in the article, as it might give the impression that there was at least some evidence when there is none at all, particularly in the Fabb case.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ian, Thank you very much for your efforts with a new version of the April Fabb article and for insertion of the pic of April.

As far as I'm am concerned your version should replace what is left of my original article. Thanks also for your help and advice. Best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ian, Just wanted to say thank you for all your efforts on April's page, they are much appreciated. With best regards, David David J Johnson (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Barbecue vs. "barbeque"

Why are you so insistent on reverting to a version that misleads the reader into thinking "barbeque" is accepted by major dictionaries? Given that the Oxford [8] specifically calls it a mistake, my edit is factually superior.

My edit that points out, helpfully, that the spelling "barbeque" is controversial at the very least. The reader deserves to know that.

Please stop reverting to a version that is less helpful and less correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleslinger6 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

When spelling variants occur, it is considered unwise to insist that one particlar version is correct. Barbeque has always been a common spelling variant in the United States, and is given in Merriam Webster. See also Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Enforce_American_or_British_spelling.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd also suggest that this is taken to the talk page of the article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ian'll Fix It!

Many thanks for your copyedit. I found myself caught between trying to remain faithful to the source but not wanting to give a direct quote from the Telegraph obituary writer. I quite agree with your point of view on the essential message here. But, he was a bit of an enigma, wasn't he. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, one of the things that I was going to say is that the Telegraph would probably not have printed this if Savile was alive, and nor would Wikipedia have included it if BLP applied. Obituary writers can have a field day with phrases like "he remained a lifelong bachelor" and "he never married", which can carry a multitude of meanings. For the sake of basic fairness, it should be pointed out that the tabloids never found anything worth publishing about Savile's private life, and not for the lack of trying.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hahaha, well spotted! shame we can't link to that one! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Update on Jeffrey Epstein Article

Hi Ianmacman, please see my concerns below to Rklawton. I am trying to resolve this and need advice as to how to proceed further. Thank you for your feedback. Turvill (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein Article

Hi Rklawton, Thank you for your post on my talk page. I know that this is a very controversial person we are dealing with. And obviously his crimes are serious and should not be overlooked. But I have, I think, some legitimate concerns about the neutral point of view of this piece. 1) where does it actually mention money laundering? This is a serious accusation and is libel if it cannot be found in the sources. I looked again through all of the sources that you cited in the lead and in the rest of the article but could not find it. Please let me know exactly where you found money laundering cited. Please let's remove it if we cannot find it cited. Or find a cite that acutally contains it and then put it in. 2) I am very concerned about having a mug shot in the photo with mug shot captions. Wikipedia as you know, is very conservative in its usage of mug shots. Otherwise, they would be used for such people as Al Pacino and countless others who have been imprisoned for drugs, crack, prostition, statutory rape etc. Mugs are not used when there are other salient aspects of the person. An article should not be event driven if there are other salient aspects. I am not in the business of whitewashing criminals. On the contrary. But I do come from the science community (with no connection to Epstein though) and his contributions to the sciences are notable. 3) I wanted to put in a defining line to The Program of Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University. What it is and that it was the first institute or entity that mathematically quantified the kinetics of an in vivo human cancer cell. This was a direct result of Epstein's funding and interest and I think I should be allowed to mention it. Nowastatosky (not spelling his editor name correctly) has reverted this several times on the grounds of WP: TOPIC, stating that if people want to know what it is, then the Program of Evolutionary Dynamics should have its own wikipedia article. THis seems ridiculous to me. He was completely dismissive when I tried to explain my point of view in good faith. Please see his talk page. The Program is not a household name like the Bible or The Eiffel Tower. So it is appropriate to have one defining line after it to benenfit the reader as to its significance and what it accomplished. Thank you for addressing the points above and letting me know the best approach to deal with this. I am hoping that we can be encylopdia oriented and impartial in our approach, not political or sociologically driven. my best, Turvill (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said at User_talk:Ianmacm#removing_photo_or_article, I'm not really happy with using a mugshot in the infobox, and it seems to come down to "Oh well, it's the only free image we could find." The other issues are more complex, and could benefit from a third opinion or a request for comment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

keep hiding information

keep hiding information from Wikipedia.. nice work...--Neogeolegend (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This looks like soapboxing. Per WP:TERRORIST, this is a word that labels and should not be used without a source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

just like a robot

stop talking like robot!! --Neogeolegend (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stay off my talk page until you have decided to contribute sensibly.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Response from Turville Re: Epstein article

Hello, thank you for your posts and for adjusting the mug shot to the more appropriate location. I am not as claimed, a pr crony for Jeffrey Epstein. I do though come from a science journalist background, had heard of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, and when I came across this article I was quite taken by the lob-sided presentation of this piece. It struck me immediately as slanderous vs. having a neutral point of view. MONEY LAUNDERING: the link that was added to back this, does not connect through. That is extremely problematic given that this is in the lead of the piece and libel if not properly sourced. I googled money laundering and Jeffrey Epstein and found the article url that mentions it but this is what I found, and I quote: "Yet a source tells The Daily Beast that Epstein’s legal troubles may not be over. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT, as an outgrowth of the 2007 Florida investigation, federal investigators are now looking into allegations of money laundering and other financial misdeeds. Villafana notes at the end of her letter to Lefkowitz: “You accuse me of broadening the scope of the investigation without any foundation for doing so by adding charges of money laundering and violations of a money transmitting business to the investigation. Again, I consulted with the Justice Department’s Money Laundering Section about my analysis...the duty officer agreed with my analysis.”

Something being "possible" in the press is not the same as something that actually "is" as claimed in the lead of the article. And just because the duty office agreed with the analysis is not evidence that money laundering is under investigation. So, so far the lead is misleading and false. Also, I think it would show a biased point of view if it were stated in the lead of the article that he "may be" under investigation for money laundering. We should just stick to the facts. Unless you can find an article that confirms that he IS under investigation for money laundering, I think it should be removed. PROGRAM for EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS: this was entirely established from Jeffrey Epstein's $30 million, as was the research that was the first to mathematically quantify the in vivo kinetics of human cancer cells. That was a major achievement in the field of cancer and I think it should be allowed back into the article.

Thank you for your thoughts. PS. I didn't use this talk page because I simply overlooked it and so went to your individual talk pages instead. I agree that this is a better forum, so long as it is a venue that editors look at. my best, Turville50.74.171.70 (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)