User talk:Ianmacm/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

King, Clifford etc

We're currently going round in circles on this and running into issues with righting great wrongs. There are cases such as David Mellor and Ryan Giggs where Max Clifford was one of the key players, but Clifford's involvement in the Jonathan King saga was peripheral and it would be wrong to give the impression otherwise. In this source (which is obviously not ideal), K says that he went to Clifford, who was not interested when there were no photographs. K then repeated the claims in an e-mail to the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) and the rest, as they say, is history. According to some sources, Clifford advised K to go to the police, which was common sense advice for such a serious allegation. What seems to have irked Jonathan King is that Clifford apparently had a framed letter on his wall from Surrey Police thanking him for his help in bringing the notorious paedophile Jonathan King to justice. It is understandable that King may have cracked open a bottle of champagne on hearing the news of Clifford's eight year sentence (one more than his), but Clifford was not much more than a bystander in Operation Arundel, which led to King's conviction.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Mr King appears to be a follower of your talk page! From his website today ("Charles" from what he posted on King's website earlier appears to claim to be one of the IPs involved in the article/talk page edits last month, for which the blocked long-term sock User:Ellymental was deployed in support):

Charles:Someone on Wiki says you've cracked open a bottle of champagne over Clifford's demise. True? They also say he had little to do with your prosecution.

JK2006: Funny they say that. They obviously know me well; I hated it when then home secretary Blind Blunkett said he'd cracked open a bottle of champagne when one of the people under his protection killed himself (Shipman). One of the reasons I wrote that song. No, not true, I would regard it disgusting to celebrate another human being's misery. Clifford started the activity when a man went to him (cuRt in the movie) about other people and then "remembered" me when Waxie Maxie told him he had no commercial story without a celebrity involved. That was his sole but lethal involvement. He boasts about more but that was the only connection.

This confirms once again the reason why JK attaches importance to Clifford's involvement. DeCausa (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It always amazes me when King says how boring he finds Wikipedia but seems to be bang up to date with the latest news. I stand by the comment above, which is obviously tongue-in-cheek in places. King seems to have a thing about Clifford and the framed letter on the wall. Even if Clifford did have this, it does not support the claim that Clifford played a major part in his conviction. It appears that the initial accuser K (who is not quite as anonymous as he first seems) went to Clifford but did not get very far. It was the e-mail to NCIS that set the ball rolling, not Clifford. (Link here)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, it appears that K was due to be a witness at the third trial, which was dropped. This means that the truth of K's allegations (and King's denial that he had ever met K) was not tested in court. Far from ideal IMHO.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, it isn't in dispute that it was K's allegations against another person, the former radio personality who was arrested in Prague, that set off the Clifford meeting and Operation Arundel. At Talk:Max_Clifford#Page_protection someone asks "Why?", and the answer is that a) I don't know and b) the reliable sourcing is unclear. King says above "K "remembered" me when Waxie Maxie told him he had no commercial story without a celebrity involved." An interesting claim, but how does he know this?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edit to Barbecue

I noted that my edits to this page were reverted (apologies they were done when I was not logged in). I'm concerned, and the page is tagged as such, that the positioning of BBQ versus grilling is specific to the USA. In many countries the stated distinction between grilling and a barbecue do not hold. It is therefore not correct to assert that there is a "generally accepted" distinction, unless this distinction is clarified as being specific to the USA. This was the point of my edit. In some countries the term "grilling" is different altogether (heating via an overhead grilling element, which is American English is, I believe, referred to as broiling). Could you please clarify your rationale for reverting the edits before I make them again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhysfrederick (talk • contribs) 01:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is currently in a poor state, with many unsourced assertions. The definition of barbecue is notoriously hard to pin down, and is not helped by sources which fail to make an adequate distinction between grilling and barbecue, which involves a lower heat, no flame, only a small amount of smoke and results in a longer cooking time. Edits in this area need reliable sources rather than personal interpretations; this is one of the reasons why the article has been tagged for multiple issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs

Hey, I see on archives that you are the one usually involved in all the information and discussions. I dont have a wiki account but please reply to me on my email (Redacted)@hotmail.com Anyway, just wanna say I'am extremely interested in this case and just wish that some western media would attempt to make a doc on these crimes. I have seen 3 Documentaries which I'm not sure you are aware of but they could help with further information to be added onto the article. I would also like to personally ask whether or not there is the murder video with english transcript embeded within the video that goes for the original running time of 8min + or is there only the transcript in descriptions. I was also wondering whether or not you are able to get in contact with someone who speaks fluent Ukranian and is willing to help in accurately translating the video as the old transcript seems quite rushed. Would also be a massive help if they could translate the new documentaries which are both on Ukranian. If interested please reply to my email. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.203.223 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

One of the notable features of this case is the lack of English language coverage. The only substantial western media coverage is the Chilean documentary in August 2010, which is in Spanish. There is a version with English subtitles on YouTube here. The main thing not currently in the article that I would like to mention is the length of the sentences. Suprunyuck and Sayenko were given life sentences, but there is no indication of a minimum term. The language spoken in the Yatzenko murder video is not Ukrainian but Russian, because Dnepropetrovsk is in eastern Ukraine. There is a passable translation of the words spoken in the Yatzenko video on LiveLeak.[1] Many of the words spoken in the Yatzenko video are muffled and unclear. I'm not aware of any other documentaries about the case on YouTube, as the Chilean documentary seems to be the only one. If you have a link to a new documentary, please post it here, but not if it has NSFW material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Lipscomb page Thewho515 (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Streisand effect

Why did you revert my cited addition to Streisand effect? Your edit comment makes no sense. My addition was unrelated to the Robert Peston story. I'd expect better behaviour from an experienced editor. --Ef80 (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

All of the media coverage of this is traced back to Robert Peston's article, and he does not say that it is an example of the Streisand effect. The consensus at Talk:Streisand effect is not to include new examples (the list is too long already) unless the sourcing specifically says that it is an example of the effect. There are also WP:BLP issues here. A casual reader of this edit might get the impression that O'Neal actually did file the takedown request himself, something that Peston did not claim in his article, and later backtracked on in the 22:50 update at the bottom of the article. *If* O'Neal did file this takedown request, then he deserves all of the criticism that he gets, IMHO. If it turns out that he did not file the request, it is going to look like a storm in a teacup and an example of the dangers of getting hold of the wrong end of the stick over things.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

But my addition had nothing to do with O'Neil. It concerned minor court reports (in this case a £200 shoplifting conviction from 2006) receiving considerably greater publicity as a result of a takedown request and a newspaper's exposure of this. This is a classic Streisand effect. Please read the citation. --Ef80 (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It was User:PhilHibbs who first added the Stanley O'Neal material in this edit, so I apologise for the confusion. This definitely should not be included as an example of the effect unless more is known. The material that you added about the Oxford shoplifting case in this edit is cited to an Oxford Mail story which again does not mention the Streisand effect by name. It is interesting, and any half-smart lawyer would have warned of the danger of this happening. I think that this is worth mentioning and would be more on topic in Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González.--13:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The best laugh I have had all day is here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I still think the Google material is relevant and should be included, but I don't feel strongly enough to carry on pushing. --Ef80 (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the Oxford Mail story does not say "This is an example of the Streisand effect" (although it passes the WP:DUCK test for this with flying colours). I did add this as an external link in Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González because it is one of the first confirmed cases where removal has occurred. It also highlights the likely consequences of doing this, which is that the news organisation concerned will say "F*** you, mate" and reprint the material immediately. This is undoubtedly important for anyone considering making a takedown request of this nature.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Rolf Harris: New Allegations "double haha"

As you appear to be an arbiter of discussion of sexual abuse (you appear on every page whenever a fresh allegation or conviction is under discussion), may I ask whether you feel that this discussion is appropriate? It concerns me that the WP editors in these cases appear invariably to be men. This discussion is an example of why I feel that most male WP contributors are particularly poorly qualified to be editing such articles at all. Do you get where I'm coming from?

extended content

"Rolf Harris could potentially face new charges following his conviction for 12 indecent assaults on young women and girls after a series of other alleged victims contacted police and charities, prosecutors have said." [6]. Should this be mentioned? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Crystalballery. Wait till it happens. If it happens. --Pete (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, according to BBC News, it's a fact that 13 new women have now made allegations. But I tend to agree with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, Mum, I guess your old saw of "The Devil finds work for idle hands" has been proven false. RH doesn't seem to have had an idle moment since he began. --Pete (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha. But I think it's more complex. Like Savile, he's done his fair share for charity. Unlike Savile, the man is obviously very talented - in both music-making and the visual arts. He even, very ironically, put his name to a campaign to protect children - which may well have had benefited some at the time. Perhaps that is part of Abbott's "tragedy" (see above). Personally I would not object if mention was made of the new allegations. The judge is already considering a long prison sentence, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact what the judge, Mr Justice Sweeney, said was that a jail term was "uppermost in the court's mind": [7] His unconditional bail means Harris is not considered as being dangerous or likely to abscond. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Double haha. I wonder if our Rolf was the inspiration for the brother of Barry Humphries' alter ego Sir Les Patterson. Father Gerard Patterson is a Catholic priest who wears a "correctional ankle bracelet", is a "vagina decliner", and is said to have "touched every one he ever met" (not necessarily in a good way). The parallels are spookily eerie and eerily spooky. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"Crystalballery". I like it. Can I use it? Dwpaul Talk 19:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Menfolk. "Haha"? Abuse of women and children should not be a laughing matter.Alrewas (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Alrewas (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There is some crystalballery (ie WP:CRYSTAL) here. We don't know if he will face further charges (at the time of writing, he hasn't even been sentenced on the existing charges). The jokey tone in some of the comments is inappropriate and starting to wander off into WP:NOTAFORUM territory.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Not meaning to disagree or be disagreeable, but I would point out that Alrewas should be cautious about assuming to know the gender of the editors participating in a discussion based exclusively (I assume) on their Wikipedia usernames. More to the point, though, I also did find the expressions of levity in this discussion a bit of a sour note. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Very sorry if I caused offence by adding the four letters "Haha" in response to a rather contrived joke from Pete. I did follow it up with what I thought were serious points about Harris's skills and what he might expect as punishment. But I feel we're missing the point here. I'm sure that the intention, however misguided, is to poke fun at Harris and to ridicule his hypocrisy. I'd like to make it clear that by sharing jokes about Harris, as with jokes about the monster that was Jimmy Savile, I do not in some way condone or approve of sexual abuse of any kind, whoever is the victim. I am not laughing at the abuse of women or children. In fact, think it's a little simplistic to suggest that is the case. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The appropriate response to that is probably to say that, whatever your intention, Talk pages of Wikipedia articles (particularly biographical articles, where WP:BLP still applies) should not be used to poke fun at the article's subject and/or ridicule his or her hypocrisy. Dwpaul ^Talk 18:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that's very appropriate. I'd accept the charge of minor BLP infringement in discussing a convicted criminal. But not one of "laughing at child abuse". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

David Frost

My edit on David Frost is sourced from Wikipedia itself. Would you mind putting the into back plerase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly222 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is really notable enough for a mention in the "American career from 1968 to 1980" section, as it was not a major part of his career and did not garner significant and lasting media attention (eg none of his obituaries mentioned this). It is mentioned at Louis_Armstrong#Death where it is more on topic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Police investigations

Just a request for your views. On the BBC last night there was a report on the various ongoing child abuse investigations, which referred to Operation Mapperton in Tower Hamlets and Essex - mentioned here, and there are other mentions on blogs. We don't have an article on it, and I can't find it mentioned in any articles here. Looking into it a bit further I came across this site, which lists a whole slew of investigations, some of which may be notable, either individually or in total. I don't suggest we use that site itself, but some of its links might be useful. Should we be covering these investigations in some way - perhaps in a single overview article? I'm undecided and in many ways don't want to lead on this, but would appreciate your opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This is similar to the North Wales child abuse scandal; I hadn't come across Operation Mapperton before. There are now numerous claims of historic sexual abuse, such as the one at Westminster.[2] Personally, I don't believe in the massive conspiracy and cover-up theories in the blogs, and believe that the real problem is that incidents of this kind were never properly reported and investigated in those days. Operation Mapperton does not seem to meet WP:GNG for its own article at the moment, but it could be mentioned in another article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks as though this will be the next story needing its own article, so if appropriate they can perhaps be covered in that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Archimedes Intro

Hey, could you please clarify some of your edits to the Archimedes intro. I was mainly concerned with streamlining the introductory paragraph, and moving the more important material (mathematics, then physics, then engineering plus the dubious siege engines) to the start of the intro, but you have reverted these changes.

You also removed a number of incidental edits I made about specific quotations and events, as any potentially apocryphal information should not be in the intro. I do not necessarily disagree with this principle (though it does not seem to be universal, I checked the Pythagoras article for instance and there is reference in the introduction to his theorem despite there being no historical evidence of his discovering it), but you then moved a comment you called apocryphal about him being "credited with building siege weapons" to the very first paragraph, thus taking priority even over his mathematical work, which seems to violate the principle.

I also edited the claim that he considered the "theorem" - although it is more of an illustration of a number of theorems - about the sphere in the cylinder to be his "greatest achievement", as I considered this dubious and there was no citation. Do you know of any citations? If not I'll remove the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.62.241 (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I've assumed that this refers to the edits by User:Denziloe. The phrase "well known to popular imagination for his anecdotal cry of "eureka!" ("I've got it!") upon solving a physical puzzle" [3] is unencyclopedic and hard to prove. It is hard to say what the popular imagination is, although the "Eureka!" story is undoubtedly well known. The only known works of Archimedes are his mathematical writings. All of the machines and other quotations attributed to him are apocryphal and the work of much later authors. Unlike some encyclopedia articles about Archimedes, this article has tried to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and has not stated or implied that any of the things that Roman writers said about Archimedes are true. At one point the WP:LEAD had been expanded to six paragraphs.[4] This is not recommended by WP:LEAD and I felt that it had to be reverted because Archimedes is a Featured Article and needs to have a high level of compliance with the recommended guidelines. The WP:LEAD is one of the trickiest sections of the article to write, as it is the first thing that people read and changes to it should reflect WP:CONSENSUS. If you posted suggested changes here or on the talk page, we could work towards a consensus version.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand and accept all of those comments, but they were not what I was asking about. Please reread my queries; bulletpointed they concerned,

- The special presence and prominence of the "siege engine" claims in the introduction, when they are claimed by the same historians who recorded the "Eurkea" and "move the Earth" claims which were deemed too unreliable for the intro

- The claim that his tomb bore a sphere inscribed in a cylinder, and that he considered this to be his single "greatest discovery". The latter seems unverifiable, and seems unnecessary; the tomb should be left to speak for itself. And second, the only direct historical account of the tomb seems to be that of Cicero, who describes "a little column just visible above the scrub: it was surmounted by a sphere and a cylinder". It is hard to see how a physical sphere could be inscribed within a cylinder, so it seems that Cicero is describing the objects as separate.

I'll start working on a version of the intro which accommodates the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.62.241 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been a bit busy today, but looked out the sourcing on Archimedes' tomb, which is here. The full text of Plutarch's Parallel Lives is here, with the tomb of Archimedes in Part 17. Archimedes is said to have asked for this to be included as part of his tomb, which is not quite thing as saying that he considered it to be his greatest mathematical achievement. He may well have done, but that is not what the sourcing says. Also, I wouldn't object to moving the siege engine material as long as the recommended four paragraph structure was maintained.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Janet Jackson

Hey did you removed my edits from Janet Jackson's page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogaboo (talk • contribs) 12:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I reverted some and Bookkeeperoftheoccult reverted others. The two claims that a) Janet Jackson converted to Islam in 2013 and b) she is now completely retired from the music industry are controversial because they lack reliable sourcing. Some sources have said this, but the Jackson family is famous for producing inaccurate and speculative reporting. Since Janet Jackson is a biography of a living person and a featured article, other editors will be stricter than usual about the addition of unsourced or poorly sourced material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

SHS victims list

Workable? Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/victimbox --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 12:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I would not have any problems with this. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, some users were strongly against having a list of the names of dead in the article. Now that some time has passed, this should be added.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

So you think the layout and formatting is OK? If so, please go ahead and paste it where you feel it would be appropriate. Given my topic ban, the SHS article probably falls into a "grey area" of what could be considered part of it, so I'll refrain from direct editing for now. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 13:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I had a go at adding this, but on the preview version it was center aligned an it would be best on the right hand side of the page. Also, the box has some references which are not defined. Could you fix this, I'm not very good at tables and formatting them:)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This was my first shot at it too, but I'm happy to keep working at it. I'm also considering a vertical template which from a WP coding standpoint might be the only way to format it properly as an infobox and within the article. The template might actually solve the bigger issue of what to do with "victims lists" in a variety of articles, not just mass murders, but plane crashes, and all manner of tragedy. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 14:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

New government department c/o the Australian press

What exactly is the UK "Judicial Office"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Not my fault, squire, blame the BBC.[5] This is a new one on me as well.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Haha. Oh well. Perhaps it's all pert of the pre-election cabinet reshuffle. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This. Maybe a new article needed? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. It would only be stub class but would be better than nothing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, right. It's only been in existence 9 years. That's why no-one's heard of it. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we need one on the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary....? - [6] Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. But can we trust such a dubious source? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Rolf Harris: "garbage spouted" in "that" trial.

Thank you. Yet you've let this section stand, leaving us with these offerings-:

"For the record I don't believe any of the garbage that was spouted in that trial . . . "

"Yes, I think he has been stitched up and I don't personally believe he's been any more inappropriate than Michael Jackson."

The male WP contributors who edit sexual abuse articles give me no indication of accepting how serious these offences are. That now puts them at odds even with the vast majority of UK press coverage. That's worrying, as it means that WP is going out on a limb.

I don't appreciate either the fact that the men concerned, rather than accepting their first error, have attempted to turn this into criticism of me. Unlike the men who creepily descend upon these articles to attempt to diminish the severity of the offences, I have a lot of experience of these matters and am well qualified to comment.Alrewas (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule, I am *very* tolerant with talk pages. However, I have to agree that this section has also wandered off into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. I've left a note explaining this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

And let's be very clear: besides being WP:NOTAFORUM, it's an allegation that prosecution witnesses have committed perjury. Persons making such allegations need to present evidence and they need to do so through the police, not on here. Anybody concerned about such allegations against prosecution witnesses appearing here, can express their concerns to Slater & Gordon solicitors, whose specialist abuse team has worked closely with Yewtree witnessses. Alrewas (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is this discussion taking place on Ianmacm's talk page? As far as I can make out, he isn't involved at all. Surely these comments belong on the Harris talk page if they're relevant to WP at all. --Ef80 (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ianmacm is a guardian, self-appointed or otherwise, of articles dealing with child abuse issues. It's therefore totally fitting that he is aware of the very serious concerns that I have raised. I raised the issue of jocundity on the Talk page to begin with, but was ignored. As men laughing about sexual abuse, and men accusing the prosecution witnesses of having "spouted rubbish" are matters to be dealt with urgently, it's utterly fitting that I contacted Ianmacm here.Alrewas (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"Yet you've let this section stand, leaving us with these offerings-:" Sorry?? Ianmacm's left them? Is that a Talk Page that he is in some way "responsible" for policing? He may do a lot of good editing on that article. He may make wise and valued contributions on that Talk Page. But does that mean he somehow has to take some blame for leaving other editor's indiscretions untouched? Or is he guilty by default because, we assume from his user name, he's a man? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this quite clear. So you are accusing me of "laughing about sexual abuse"? Yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:TPO. I hatted the "New allegations" section because it had gone over the line with some of the comments, but left the "Rewrite needed" section with a note about WP:NOTAFORUM. I'm not a "guardian, self-appointed or otherwise" of any talk page, but did think that some of the comments in these sections had lost sight of the main purpose of a talk page, which is to discuss improvements to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you have acted exactly in line with policy, Ianmacm. Admin tools are not required for these actions and if another editor feels strongly enough that a set of comments should be hatted, it is up to them to do so and face any consequences from the original commenters. I think we have shades of grey here, not black and white certainties. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"As men laughing about sexual abuse, and men accusing the prosecution witnesses of having 'spouted rubbish'". This user has a habit of positioning their comments in this way. On the Max Clifford talk page I've pointed out to them that (a) making assumptions on gender is foolish if based on pseudonymous user names (b) it's also a crude and naive gender sterotype to posit that certain edits have been made because the editor is male (c) to do so regularly (as they appear to be doing) in WP terms is potentially WP:NPA. This user seems to be at these articles to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. DeCausa (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm also unclear about the connection of this editor with "Slater and Gordon Lawyers, London." Are the comments on the Talk Page left with the knowledge of that firm or with their express permission? Is the editor acting on their behalf in some way? I would have thought that openly naming any legal party, acting for either defendant or claimant, was a little off topic. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the only thing on the Rolf Harris talk page that I thought really deserved hatting was the Les Patterson comment. A certain amount of banter on a talk page is OK, but by this stage the thread was well off-topic. On the question of Rolf Harris and his guilt or otherwise, Wikipedia is as ever limited to what the courts and reliable sources have said. It is interesting that there has been a fair amount of commentary online saying that he was probably no worse than Michael Jackson, but at the end of the day Harris was found guilty by a jury that heard all of the evidence. I also agree that the reference to Slater and Gordon Lawyers is itself somewhat off-topic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

All of you: please stop harassing me. Now.Alrewas (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ian (nobody else - I contacted Ian here to speak to him privately): "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page." How is the clear implication that prosecution witnesses (whose evidence has just convicted) were "spouting rubbish," not an example of contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced? Or are women giving evidence of sexual abuse not deemed to be "living persons"? Alrewas (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Harassing" you! Don't be ridiculous. You posted on a Wikipedia talk page: this is not private communication - anyone can and will respond. We have email for private communication. If IanMacm hasn't enabled his email facility then, frankly, you are not able to communicate with him privately via Wikipedia. I also notice that after complaining that no one responded to your post on the Max Clifford talk page, when I did respond you obviously didn't like it as you've now ignored it. DeCausa (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa: I had not seen your response. I have seen it now, I liked it, and have responded.Alrewas (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Rolf Harris

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Rolf Harris: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This wasn't outright vandalism in my view, and the suggestion at User talk:121.218.255.145 that this edit was defamatory is wide of the mark. It is unlikely that job offers for Harris to work as an entertainer will be pouring in after his release from prison. The real problem is WP:CRYSTAL, as we don't know what the future may bring.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Happy Days Are Here Again

I liked reading your wise comments on Jimbo's page; I await further developments...It's always so satisfying to nail down a BLP with quality references. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

And I can hardly wait until tomorrow. Will the Foundation name the problem article, and who will it be? It might not even be an article on the English language Wikipedia, as there have been plenty of requests from France and Germany.[7] If we knew which article it was, we would have a better idea of whether it was a fair criticism, or whether someone was trying to airbrush their past.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a useful essay called WP:ADAM. Sometimes BLP articles go to town on the controversy sections, and editors should be strict about pruning this type of material. WP:WELLKNOWN also applies, and controversies that have received significant media coverage should not be removed because the subject would like their BLP to echo their Facebook profile.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The smart people had this nailed down long ago; I remember googling someone associated with the BAE scandals and seeing a take down request note last year. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom

Just noticed this article. It's dire, but it could be the focus of improvement to turn it into a useful article. What do you think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I vaguely remember looking at this article before. It is not too bad in its current state, and could be expanded to look at some incidents which are not currently mentioned, as discussed at User_talk:Ghmyrtle#Peter_Jaconelli. Incidentally, this article by Robert Peston in the news today is worth reading.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Operation Hydrant should integrate into main article? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

One possibility is a WP:PORTAL, eg "Child sexual abuse investigations in the UK". This area is becoming somewhat sprawling, and there needs to be an easy way to explore related articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

About right to forget

Have you checked if results get filters applied on the following domains?

State or Province	domain
Isle of Man	Google.im
Jersey	Google.je
Gurnsey	Google.gg
Iceland	Google.is
Norway	Google.no
Andorra	google.ad
Ukraine	google.ua
Moldova	google.md
Montenegro	google.me
Serbia	google.rs
San Marino	google.sm
Switzerland	google.ch

The first three are nominally UK like, but technically outside the EU, so it would be interesting to know if Google's applying an EU ruling beyond the bounds of what is technically the EU. :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The first thing to say is that nobody knows who made the takedown request, or which search query terms will trigger it. That said, I did not get any "results removed" messages from the non-EU domains, such as google.im. Google's FAQ about this is here. Whoever made the request to get Gerry Hutch blocked from appearing in search engine results must have filled in this webform.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Saville

re: Sadowitz quote

"(rv, not really relevant. This was the usual showbiz gossip at the time; if he had specific information, he should have gone to the police)"

Curious as to why the John Lydon quote fits the criteria for inclusion but not the (more outspoken and direct) Jerry Sadowitz quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcarax68 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the Lydon quote is relevant either. The best thing is to take this up on the talk page. I also thought that the material was too long, leading to undue weight. It could be shortened to something like "entertainment industry figures such as John Lydon and Jerry Sadowitz made allegations about Savile while he was alive" and leave the rest to the citations. It is unlikely that either of them had heard more than the routine gossip about Savile.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

James Foley (photojournalist)

Hi. I just wanted to point out that I added the {{Recent death}} template to the James Foley article because there have been more than 50 edits since yesterday by at least a dozen different editors, therefore I felt its use was justified. So that I know for the future, when is this template considered to be necessary? Thanks --Adam Black ^{talk • contribs • uploads • logs} 18:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a tendency to overuse this template. Foley's death was reported on 20 August, and as a general rule 24 hours is enough for this template. Wikipedia articles have a constant editing process, and nothing dramatically new has emerged about Foley's death in the last 24 hours. Sometimes there is a "Hold the front page!" stampede when multiple editors try to edit the article at the same time, with new edits on a minute by minute basis by dozens of different editors, often inexperienced IP editors. James Foley (photojournalist) has not had this type of editing in the past 24 hours, and it has been mostly by experienced regular editors. This means that the recent death template is not really needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification :) --Adam Black ^{talk • contribs • uploads • logs} 18:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey (film)

May I inquire about the 2001 edit? I am not sure I understand "unnecessary explanation. It is simple and reasonable to say that there is no dialogue in the ape sequence".

1) But there _IS_ dialogue in the first 20 minutes, just not modern human dialogue. It is not an issue of "do you or I understand the spoken language in those first 20 minutes?" The issue is: "do the _characters_ understand it?" Language is language, dialogue is dialogue. I do not speak "ape" but I will not deny they speak to each other. When the Russians speak in Russian on the space station I do not understand it but I do not claim there is no dialogue. The creatures in e.g. Quest for Fire speak a language; e.g. Sid Caesar in skits on his television show speaks mock languages no one who watches the show understands but it is still "language" and thus dialogue because characters in the skits understand it. Do you see my point? (To deny there is dialogue here misses a point of the movie. I know Wikipedia is to be neutral and I refrain from presenting an interpretation here which demonstrates how relevant that "dialogue" is; I merely assert that to deny there is language and thus dialogue in that part of the movie factually misrepresents the movie.)

2) One very specific reason 2001 is peculiar among movies is because of how little modern human dialogue it has. And that is exactly what the "Dialogue" section promises to discuss, yes?

"Alongside its use of music, the lack of dialogue and conventional narrative cues in 2001 has been noted by many reviewers."

They note it and so do I. I agree with the observation: the film is peculiar for that reason. (I think the film's dialogue is fascinating and frequently funny, regardless of its amount. E.g. "Good morning, sir"--but there is no such thing as morning in outer space. She and the other character drag Earth-bound worldviews with them into space.)

But the film is peculiar for a great many other reasons too; should each and every one of them--many of which are just as factual and even more astonishingly peculiar than the film's amount of dialogue--be included too? Why should this inaccurate observation in the "Dialogue" section remain? Why should the "Dialogue" section--which is partially dependent upon the inaccuracy--itself remain? What is its purpose? Is it there merely to document this one assertion, that the film has little dialogue? It is not a general discussion of language, speech or communication in the film--including the voice print ID, the signs, the machine instructions, etc.--but it focuses implicitly only upon spoken English. And it is odd if not wrong in other ways, e.g. the line "Hal is the only character in the film who openly expresses anxiety" is clearly false in the broader context of communication because "expresses anxiety" is not the equivalent of "says in English he is afraid". We clearly see the man-apes being fearful. We just don't hear them say the equivalent of "Dave, I'm afraid" in English.

Would you be willing to compromise to change the section's name from "Dialogue" to "[Modern] [English] Speech"? Or to prune those two paragraphs in other ways? Perhaps the section should only contain the "By the time shooting began" comment?

Why is there a need to maintain a fiction about the first 20 minutes? Does the film become less great because of it? The entire point of the "Dialogue" section is to discuss the dialogue in the movie, whether it has a lot or a little. One might construe your edit to be a dogmatic attempt to favor an error, as if it were necessary to pretend there was no dialogue in that part of the movie to protect the movie's greatness and uniqueness, or to protect the opinions of others. (There are other movies made in the sound era with even less dialogue. The amount of dialogue in a movie is irrelevant to its value.) Surely I have misinterpreted your purpose.

I think it may be simple but it is also unreasonable and inaccurate to write "there there is no dialogue in the ape sequence".

Thank you.

royfleming — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royfleming (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I was going by the usual meaning of dialogue, which according to the article in question, is "a literary and theatrical form consisting of a written or spoken conversational exchange between two or more people." It is clear that nothing of this nature occurs in 2001 until the space station sequence. The apes grunt and shout, but I have never been able to figure this out as being intended as dialogue, and it is unclear whether Kubrick or Clarke intended this. There is some original research here, because it would require a source to argue that the sounds made by the apes are intended as dialogue. This should be reasied at Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film) for broader input and consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

HW

added HW informational website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akemaschite (talk • contribs) 16:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Re this edit: the link added to the infobox is not the official address, so it is unsuitable for this location. It also has questionable relevance as an external link, as it does not appear to be affiliated to the site in any way, and should not give this impression.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

HW

Fixed wrong url, check it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akemaschite (talk • contribs) 06:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal

Not wanting to give you more work, but do you have Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal on your watchlist? I seem to be fighting a lone battle there.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It was not on my watchlist but it has been added.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm grateful that User:Martinevans123 is looking at it as well. Ongoing debate(s) on the talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As if I would ever be stalking Ian's Talk Page! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Amityville poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Amityville poster.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 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. Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, this was removed in a vandal edit here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

HW

The information the ZQKTL wiki owner is posting about the DeepWiki owner is untrue and I would like to ask you to please prevent him from discrediting other, better established wikis on the clear web. It is in fact the other way around if you saw the websites yourselves, ZQKTL is filled with bitcoin scams and DeepWiki is full of tor resources and articles on such. DeepWiki points out obvious scam links to warn others with proof. Thank you. 104.32.151.213 (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to stay neutral in all of this. What is clear is that there is now no generally agreed link to THW and I am not going to get drawn into arguments about which of the current versions is the best.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A Thank You from the Wiki

Hello, Ian (or John :) ).

It is the zqktl Hidden Wiki's admin here. I just want to thank you for your neutrality, and for the fact you have a good sense of reality, and not believing everything just by someone's words. We're working hard to continue the Hidden Wiki's legacy, and I'd like to think we're on the right way finally. Unfortunately, there are some people who doesn't like us, or who are just extremely jealous that we became the new home of the wiki, and not them. (Like the deepwiki guy, he is doing this with us since day one. Trying to discredit us everywhere, spreading the most extreme and bizarre stories, that we're controlled by hackers, or even more, like 2 days ago: we even framed Ion(!). Jesus. Anybody who knows me (or us) knows it is just plain BS from a virulent man.

I'm not asking you to choose sides of course, I never ever tried to convince you (or anybody else here) to put our link anywhere, and I'm not starting it now. (We don't need to discredit others to have our site working.) I just want to thank you for your neutral point of view, and for not believing every spiteful fairy tail on the first sight.

Thank you, in the name of the whole community.

ZQHW (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Westgate Controversy

Hi

It is all attributable public information. It is an exhaustive entry, but does not materialize from original research so much any aggregation of public information about the subject.

Iappreiate your note. Allow me to know how to proceed. Every single link is a link to public information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UduXus (talk • contribs) 06:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Scribd is often used to host essays, reports, news repots, etc. from the foreign governments to the united nations to non-governmental organisations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UduXus (talk • contribs) 06:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

" Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] "

- the above is absolutely, per every single link, not what the edit is. It is all previously published, broadcast, attributable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UduXus (talk • contribs) 06:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing here, but was this the same material that was deleted from Westgate Mall Attack Controversy as having "no meaningful, substantive content"? The huge amount of material added to Westgate shopping mall attack in this edit has a range of issues including WP:WEIGHT. The style is also unencylopedic and poses questions rather than answering them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi - no it was not the same. the other was a stub. was removed because it was empty. I'm willing to fix whatever formats are necessary, or review language. Every single link is attributable public information, some from the same media/etc. cited previously. --UduXus (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Since this is an article related issue, it would be best to raise it at Talk:Westgate shopping mall attack for broader input and WP:CONSENSUS. It is pretty much unheard of to add this amount of material to an article without discussing it on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

ok--UduXus (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Westgate Mall Attack Controversy (or ImageShack)

I saw your message on the creating editors talk page, so... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westgate Mall Attack Controversy

Regards to the edit, and undo; I am not happy you're saying it's "origional researsh" - Actually, no research is really needed on my part, due to the fact. I _AM_ the person to whom discovered the Vulnerabilities and It's about time the world had upto-date information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X2Fusion (talk • contribs) 12:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:V is clear on this issue: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." This leaves no choice but to revert the material unless it has proper sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop being so controversal. - Learn how to understand that everything doesn't need facts, and sources to be true. _ I AM the person to whom did what is being spoken about, so _I_ know what is what. YOU sir, are just an incompetent and unclear of facts of fact. - Please don't cross me again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by X2Fusion (talk • contribs) 18:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where to start here. WP:V is important, and so is WP:NPA. If you can source this only from your personal experience, it cannot be added.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Karswell Holden.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Karswell Holden.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 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. Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Karswell Holden dialogue.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Karswell Holden dialogue.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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. Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Realplayer message center.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Realplayer message center.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 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. Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)