User talk:Ianmacm/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Imogen Thomas date of birth

I apologize if this is breaking any protocol but I'm new to Wikipedia and am unsure what the procedure is. I vaguely know the lady in question and on the 5th March I noticed that she was complaining on her Twitter account that someone kept changing her date of birth. She said she was unable to correct it herself. I had a quick look at the history of her page and noticed that many of the dates were clearly nonsense eg. the 31st and 39th of November.

I had a quick google and found many press reports about her birthday in 2011 and among them she mentioned that she was 29 on the 29th. I had no reason to doubt her so I changed the date of birth to 29/11/1982 as she claimed it was.

Regards and once again I apologize if I've transgressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybersteve (talk • contribs) 23:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Some of the edits were vandalism, but the date of birth should normally have a source. Despite looking, I was unable to find any source that gave the date of birth directly. If you could find one, it would be helpful. Thanks, --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmer and Oscars

Hey john, do you hear Oscar celebrated theme? this is really hope, don't you?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hans Zimmer - "Celebrate the Oscars" | The 84th Academy Awards is on YouTube. I'm not sure about the question asked above, could you rephrase it?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
That's right sir, do you like that? I love you john, did you see the ceremony? Hans was playing his music like a champion!--Bakhshi82 (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I was very impressed with Zimmer's Oscar theme music. Although I did not see the ceremony live on the television, here is a screenshot of Zimmer at the ceremony, from the video Hans Zimmer : celebrate the music - the 84th academy awards.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
What is your email? I want to send a great song from the ceremony, it's amazing piece, "What a Wonderful World". Did you hear that?--Bakhshi82 (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I can be contacted by email with the "E-mail this user" feature on the left hand side of the page, although if you want to send a file it would be better to send a link to it from an online source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't, this song is in my computer and uploaded in my email: Bakhshi***, search "What a Wonderful World" and find it, I'm sure you really like that.--Bakhshi82 (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
What a Wonderful World has an article, the most famous version is by Louis Armstrong, it is here on YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The ceremony version is very dreamy by female singer and choir, that's life, love and absolute beauty. I'm in love with sounds my friend, music is my life and one day i will be a better James Macmillan--Bakhshi82 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim Dotcom

Why are you deleting that Kim Dotcom was the #1 ranked Modern Warfare 3 player out of 15 million players? That is worth mentioning. Players must be of exceptional skill and log many thousands of hours of gameplay to even have a shot at being in the top 1000 players. It's just as worthy of mention as the Gumball 3000 and there is no reason the article must contain overwhelmingly negative facts about Dotcom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.211.220 (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Kim_Dotcom#Modern_Warfare_3. YouTube videos are not normally considered to be a reliable source. All of the sourcing on this seems to refer back to a YouTube video.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You have not done your due diligence on this, simply saying it 'seems to you' that the youtube video is the only source, and you are clearly unfamiliar with the way the ranking system works for multiplayer games or you would not be suspicious about the sources. Any user can verify the rankings, and the publications that originally reported his reaching number one followed up on the story after viewing the publicly available scoreboards and realizing that he had dropped to number two, with no mention in any of the publications' reports of a youtube video being the source. It's like saying if someone posted a TV screenshot of the Yankees being number one in the American League, you saying that photo is the only proof.

Kim Dotcom

Only source is not a youtube video. There is one youtube video embedded in one article. Many reputable publications documented him reaching number one, and no one disputed it. The worldwide MW3 rankings are available for any of the 15 million players to see, and there are thousands of corroborating reports from users online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.211.220 (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Both of the sources [1][2] use the YouTube video to claim that Kim Dotcom is Megaracer and got the high score in question. This is far from ideal sourcing, and something clearer should be found.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The statistics mentioned in the article aren't even available in the youtube video, so they clearly got them from the game itself. The statistics in the follow-up stories are also not evidently available on any youtube video. It's a faulty and baseless assumption that the youtube video is the article's only source. The article doesn't need to quote a source, they are able to verify information firsthand since the real-time statistics are available publicly on the game's website every time players log on. That's like needing a source to say a sports team won a game or that a band played a concert at a stadium or in a park. You either misunderstand modern video games or hold a bias against Dotcom.

I have avoided saying that this is wrong, but the problem is that the sourcing is far from ideal. A YouTube video is not a reliable source, and it would be helpful to find a more direct confirmation from the makers of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 that they are happy with this claim. I've got nothing against Kim Dotcom, it is really just a sourcing issue.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The standard of proof you're calling for is far higher than is generally required. For some unknown reason you are assuming the statement is untrue, even though no one has questioned its veracity and 15 million people had the opportunity to do so (most players frequently check the world scoreboard for top scores). Several reputable publications felt the standard of proof was high enough, and did not say the youtube video was the only source (that is your completely baseless claim, I have no idea why you insist a youtube video is the only source when there is no evidence that that is the case) and did not issue any kind of disclaimer with the statement. There is a sentence saying he won the Gumball 3000, which is widely known. Do you need a confirmation from the founders or organizers of the event that he won? Despite your posture of impartiality, it appears there is a bias here. Please apply your unreasonably rigorous citation standards to articles that don't affect the public image of businessmen like Dotcom who are being persecuted by a tyrannical government at the behest of special interest groups.

I asked about this at Talk:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 because my knowledge of modern video games is slim. The replies were that the YouTube video is not ideal but it seems to be OK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a disconnect here. You still fail to acknowledge that there is absolutely no indication that the youtube video is the only source. You simply made that up. I suggest you only edit articles on topics of which your knowledge is not slim.

Agreed, my knowledge of the game is slim, which is why I tried to get a WP:CONSENSUS on whether to add this. Please assume good faith, as the only issue raised was the sourcing, not a liking or disliking of Kim Dotcom.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Either confused or a very serious personal attack

Um, I'm not sure how to take this [3]. Either you misplaced your comment or you are accusing me of something very serious which I did not do. If it's the former, please refactor or move your comment to the appropriate place. If it's the latter then strike. Now. I do not make accusations lightly and in this particular case I have made none. Hence, your comment, which appears to suggest that I made serious allegations against someone (who?) is way out of line.VolunteerMarek 06:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This was *not* a personal attack, see my reply on Jimbo's talk page. Things are getting out of hand on this issue, both on Wikipedia and Commons. Making allegations against another editor, or giving his alleged real world identity, is a serious matter and could have legal implications for the Foundation. The debate on Jimbo's talk page was closed because it had become a slanging match, which was predictable.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Whatever the merits of a close are, you are saying that I made a very serious allegation against another user. Who exactly? I haven't. You have either accused me of doing something I haven't by mistake - in which case you should redact or move your comment, or you are seriously alleging that I alleged something very serious that I haven't. Which is false in which case it constitutes a personal attack and you should strike it per my previous request.VolunteerMarek 07:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I did not say this, as you can see, it was the comments by Michaeldsuarez that were oversighted. There are good reasons why discussions of this kind are discouraged in project space, as they soon descend into slanging matches and recriminations.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
If your comments were meant for Michaeldsuarez then please arrange them in the thread so that it is clear they are meant for Michaeldesuarez (however you wish to achieve that). Right now it still looks like you're accusing *me* of stuff I didn't do. You made a very serious allegation. If this serious allegation is false and unsupported then *that* is block worthy.VolunteerMarek 07:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Spiders in Victoria, Australia

Re: Talk:Sydney_funnel-web_spider#Melbourne.2C_Victoria_sightings. The Victorian funnel-web spider is covered in detail here. It lives mainly in the Dandenong Ranges. The Melbourne Trapdoor Spider [4] and the Black house spider may also be mistaken for Sydney funnel-webs.[5]. There is a list of spiders likely to be found in a house in Melbourne here. If you are unsure about the species, there is a contact page for the Museum Victoria at [6].--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"complicated wording" for my edit to Nyan Cat?

What I was trying to say was that "Cristopher Torres started recieving a lot of hate mail since the DMCA takedown, so he posted a page on his website LOL-comics named 'I did NOT file a YouTube Copyright complaint!' to reduce the amount of hate mail he recieved and then contacted daniwell and Momome Momo, who own the song, and Saraj00n, who uploaded the video to YouTube. They all said 'we did not file a DMCA complaint either, some person claiming to be prguitman filed a DMCA complaint', so all four of them then filed a counter-complaint to YouTube" instead of just saying "Cristopher Torres immediately denied being the source of the complaint, so he contacted daniwell and Momome Momo, who own the song, and Saraj00n, who uploaded the video to YouTube, in order to file a counter-complaint." Please tell me why you think it is "too complicated wording". — Preceding unsigned comment added by X686 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The wording in this diff takes a long route to explain the following:
  • The video was briefly taken down after a false DMCA claim in June 2011.
  • Chris Torres denied being the source of the complaint.
  • Chris Torres received hate mail while the video was unavailable.

The previous wording is simpler, and there was never any real doubt that the DMCA claim was false.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard

Undid revision -?? info already sourced in the forth paragraph of the Captivity section of this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard#Captivity He's a very naughty boy (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, it can go back again, but if it is in the infobox it should be cited there as well. The most important thing is to avoid giving the names of the daughters, as the consensus is not to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Totally agree with you about the daughters names. He's a very naughty boy (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Freddiestarrunwrapped.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Freddiestarrunwrapped.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) 20:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Breivik

Appreciate that the update below DOES perhaps turn the article more into an article about Breivik rather than the track - so i've cut down the entry significantly - and am happy to add to the additional detail into the Brievik article (i think its interesting and relevent) but i can't edit his entry...whats up?

The track gained some notoriety as it was cited[1] by Anders Behring Breivik as being something he would play to help him prepare for the mass shooting on the Norwegian island of Utøya on 22nd July 2011, writing: “I can’t possibly imagine how my state of mind will be during the time of the operation, though. It will be during a steroid cycle and on top of that; during an ephedrine rush, which will increase my aggressiveness, physical performance and mental focus with at least 50-60 per cent but possibly up to 100 per cent" adding "In addition, I will put my iPod on max volume as a tool to suppress fear if needed. I might just put Lux Aeterna by Clint Mansell on repeat as it is an incredibly powerful song. The combination of these factors (when added on top of intense training, simulation, superior armour and weaponry) basically turns you into an extremely focused and deadly force, a one-man-army.” Breivik went on to state that: “I’ve listened to this track several hundred times and I never seem to get tired of it. It is very inspiring and invokes a type of passionate rage within you. In Lord of the Rings, a good version of this track (Requiem for a Tower version which I think is the best) is performed during the most intense fighting of one of the central battles." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattcray (talk • contribs) 14:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There was an issue with due weight here. The article is primarily about Clint Mansell's piece of music, not how Breivik interpreted it. Lux Aeterna (song) was written for the 2000 film Requiem for a Dream (soundtrack) and has a string quartet arrangement. The trailer version [7] was rewritten for the 2002 film The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers and does not appear in the film itself. Breivik mentions this piece in his "manifesto", but this has some WP:TOPIC issues.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
There are some parallels here with Helter Skelter (Manson scenario). The Breivik issue has been discussed previously at Talk:2011_Norway_attacks/Archive_2#Breivik_.22listened_to_film_music_from_The_Lord_of_the_Rings.22.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Youtube high low.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Youtube high low.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ronald Defeo's

There have been many articles saying Defeo's life sentences were consecutive but they are incorrect. Under NY state law, a judge may not sentence a defendant to consecutive sentences if all the crimes occurred in a single incident. If the murders had taken place over several days, the judge would then have the latitude to sentence him to consecutive life terms as the murders would have been separate incidents. As an example, Herman Dennis Neu shot and killed two convenience store clerks in separate incidents in October of 1983. He was convicted of 2 counts of 2nd degree murder, 2 counts of 1st degree robbery and sentenced to two consecutive 25 year to life terms. He has to serve 52 years before he is eligible for parole. If Defeo would have been sentenced to 6 consecutive life terms, he would have to serve 150 years (25 X 6) before being eligible for parole. I hope that makes sense.

http://nysdoccslookup.doccs.ny.gov/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken2112 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The government records here show that DeFeo has an aggregate minimum sentence of 25 years and a maximum of life. It does not say that the terms are consecutive (I'm not a legal expert although numerous sources have said this. Sometimes even the media gets it wrong). These records also show that the next parole hearing date is July 2013. There is a problem with WP:BLPPRIMARY here, although the material is uncontroversial. This New York Times article from October 1999 refers to a previous failed parole bid by DeFeo, and also gives the sentence as 25 years to life. In this YouTube video, Judge Thomas Stark looks back at his jury instructions in the case, but does not mention the sentencing. Incidentally, in the past few days Eric Smith had another parole bid turned down.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Peter Scott-Morgan

Hi, I haven't actually met the guy, but obviously I want to get the BLP right and don't want it to seem like PR! This is my first attempt at a BLP. I put Scott-Morgan's website as the first reference so it was obvious (I thought from the instructions I'd read that it was OK to use such a source as a backup source, which is what I've tried to do) but then I've used only books, newspapers, an websites etc. etc. as you suggest. I'd really appreciate some help to get it right!LisaNotsimpson (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I did a Google search and there was not much to go on. The ceremony at Oldway Mansion seems to be the only time that the BBC website mentions him. The article in its current form would be in difficulties if it was nominated for deletion, because it is not really a biography and relies excessively on sources close to the subject, or the subject himself.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I got nearly all the info with a google initially of "Peter Scott-Morgan" and then various additional things like "Arthur D Little" (his original company) etc. He's well cited in business books etc. (which I've listed). I assumed those were valid? Sorry to be so dumb, but I pulled all the material together based on what I thought the guidelines were, so I'm feeling a bit deflated now! Please advise on what I should do.LisaNotsimpson (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Many people have a substantial presence on the web through corporate and personal websites, but these do not confer notability, which is best left to sources not affiliated to the subject. The BBC website is a good guide to general notability for a person, and it is a source of concern that they seem to have mentioned him only once, and then not in the context of his business work. There are currently 63 citations in the article, but not one from a UK newspaper. The only newspaper cited is the Irish Mirror [8], but this does not mention him personally. While he may be a well-known business consultant, it is far from clear whether he meets WP:GNG, which is the requirement for a standalone article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta

Please stop removing cited information from the article, Luka Magnotta it is considered vandalism. If it continues, I will bring it to the attention of an adminstrator. This issue is being discussed on the articles talk page. JunoBeach (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The edits added here are not reliable secondary sources.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Luka Magnotta, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Please don't delete sourced statements. Part of the setence did apply to the specific sentence. The part that applied was deleted and no further action was needed. Kingjeff (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please take it to the talk page, this is also an abuse of the vandalism template, which does not cover WP:BRD.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe it is abuse. Fact is only part of the statement fell under the issue. That part was deleted. There was no need to touch it after that. Kingjeff (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Magnotta booking photo

FYI, you can't leave the rationale for NFCC #1 blank because he's still alive. You have to explain why it's not replaceable or someone is going to come along and nominate it for deletion with "invalid fair-use rationale" as the reasoning. Just a friendly heads up. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, out of the two images currently in the article, the one of his arrest in Berlin has the better NFCC#1 justification. The infobox image should not be non-free, this is widely agreed for a BLP article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Streisand effect". Thank you. --Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Newzbin screenshot 500px.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Newzbin screenshot 500px.png. 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Riemman Hypothesis Discussions

So i was hoping to do some research into the Riemman Hypothesis, i do have some questions* related to a direction that i would like to explore, but when i followed the links provided was unable to find a link that appeared to be a discussion forum for the riemman hypothesis directly, if you could provide a more direct link it would be appreciated if it is available. I would suggest for math articles in general in order to make it easier, as the elementary school child had suggested, the best way would be to provide links over symbols(Greek letters, etc)anything outside the basics, cause when you take math in university alot of calculations are provided initially with cheat sheets. Most people only really know how the symbols in there desired areas of mathmatical study work, few(handful alive) can actually figure them out from scratch. This is why we introduce the symbols into math in the first place and math is a very closed world but alot of the people in the field are high on themselves(im sure you notice by the people in the talk portion) so they would never concede they use cheat sheet as aids.

  • i get that i would probably be figuring the answers out myself

--Uberman19 (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"Arrested" vs. "apprehended"

Hello! Can you please elaborate as to how "'arrested' makes more sense here"?
We use the word "apprehended" twice in this context. ("The police arrived within 90 seconds and apprehended a suspect at around 12:45 am." / "Once apprehended, Holmes told the police that he had booby-trapped his apartment with explosive devices before heading to the theater.")
My concern is that the wording "arrested by police" seems odd. (The default assumption is that an arrest is performed by law enforcement officers, as citizen's arrests are relatively uncommon.) Thanks! —David Levy 06:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This is based on the definition given in Arrest. The word "arrest" has a more precise legal meaning which "apprehended" does not. Holmes was formally arrested and read his rights at the scene, not merely apprehended.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware of the distinction, but it isn't contextually important. We mention this in the lead to convey that Holmes was physically detained at the crime scene (i.e. that he didn't escape and evade capture).
Of course, I have no objection to the word "arrested", but I'd like to eliminate the phrase "arrested by police". Any suggestions? —David Levy 06:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
"Arrested" on its own should be enough.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd considered that, but I thought that others might find it important to explicitly mention the police in the lead. If the change sticks, I'm fine with it. Thanks! —David Levy 06:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Gall

I'm surprised at your gall, my dear Ian, barging into another person's Talk pages, losing your own argument, and then declaring the discussion over. As you have no authority to decree such, I removed your nonsensical marker. --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? You barge into my talk page, start making arguments that you can't possibly defend (and fail at defending them), then insert a "discussion is closed marker" on MY talk-page, but when one posts a civil and well-argued comment on your talk page, you immediately delete it. Wow. Just... wow. Absolutely amazing. If you're unable to hold a civil discussion, perhaps you should not go out of your way to start one. Also, the deletions are being disputed as we speak. --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The chances of this information going into Wikipedia without a mainstream media source are zero, please drop it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not the issue I raised with you. I have raised that with other people. The issue I raised with you is that you have the gall to come into my talk page and arbitrarily label the discussion as "closed" - even though no one had given you the right to do so. Then when I point this out, you delete it from your talk page. Apparently, you're the master of my and your talk page. --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It is extremely rare for me to hat a discussion. User:Beeblebrox has restored the material minus the names which have been oversighted and have the WP:BLP issues. You might also want to read R v Evans and McDonald, a similar court case in the UK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I restored the material, seeing as you had no right to do what you did. By the way, buddy, can you see the difference between naming VICTIMS and PERPETRATORS? Here's the difference: perpetrators bring being named upon themselves. So no deal. --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The interesting thing about the case in Kentucky is that it is the other way round compared to R v Evans and McDonald, but still raises the same issues about breaching court orders using sites such as Twitter. I am British and can recall the huge controversy this caused in the UK after some of Ched Evans' supporters insisted on allegedly naming the woman on Twitter. I'm sorry if you disagreed with my decision on the hat, which was based on WP:TPO. Wikipedia goes out live 24/7 and the names were not acceptable for the reasons given by Beeblebrox.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Victims need protection. Criminals need punishment. Also, if I recall correctly, there is an actual law in England, prohibiting the naming of victims of such crimes. --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The law in this area is broadly similar in the US and the UK, and even if convicted, it is usually wrong to name a person under 18 unless a court allows it. The woman in the Kentucky case would be able to claim First Amendment protection, but this is not a free hand to break court orders. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The law in this area is broadly similar. [citation needed]
it is usually wrong to name a person under 18 unless a court allows it [argument needed] [further argument needed to show why the argument is applicable in this case, as you yourself state that it is only "usually" wrong]
The First Amendment is actually a cart blanche to violate (not break, you legal expert) court orders, when these orders violate the First Amendment, as they do in this case. You don't have either a Constitution or free speech (see the various "hate speech" prosecutions) in England, so I understand perfectly well why you are astounded. I don't judge you for it in any way .
The present case has already been decided, in the court of public opinion. The motion has been withdrawn, which you would have known if you had read the article I wrote prior to (or even after) labeling it an "attack article". However, had they proceeded with their motion, it is almost certain that it would have been thrown out, according to legal experts, as the victim has independent knowledge of what happened and is therefore NOT in contempt of court. The secrecy is only applicable to the proceedings in the courthouse. --SpiritOfBanquo (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I did see that no further charges will be brought [9] but it alters nothing about the decisions made about the suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia by Beeblebrox, GorillaWarfare and others. The youths were never going to be named in Wikipedia on the basis of tweets or blogs, or while a formal injunction remains in place.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Etiquette

When another editor flags an issue over an article, attacking them via their home page and removing the article notice while they are still writing up their concerns on the article talk page goes very much against the WP principles of consensus and collaboration, and will likely lead to adventures with an administrator should you continue to engage in this way with other editors that you've never met before. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but as an experienced editor yourself, you should know that tagging an article without discussing the problem on the talk page first is not very helpful. The version of the article that was tagged has no great variance with what the sources cited say.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I was starting the discussion while you were removing tags and leaving notes on my talk page. The sources need improving if that's what they are saying, as they are plain wrong. I've added a RS as an external link that would be a good place to start looking for alternatives. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't understand the article tagging, as the second and third issues raised on the talk page have been addressed, and the issue of PIN code security as a whole has WP:TOPIC issues and is better dealt with in a separate article. A person should not need a PhD in cryptography to understand that "1234" is a poor PIN to choose, because it is insufficiently random and likely to be one of the first numbers that an attacker who is guessing will try.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

TPB outage

Hi. I just posted a reply here. Take a look when you get a chance. 4walter4 (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

larger will flood out some screen resolutions

"larger will flood out some screen resolutions" - Please excuse my ignorance; what does "flood out some screen resolutions" mean? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:IMAGE#Forced image size: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default". 400px (the previous size of the dead horse) is non-standard and can result in sandwiching and very short lines of text next to it. It is not always possible to guarantee that all of the detail in an image will be visible in a thumbnail. To view the image at full resolution, the image should be clicked.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, I'm quite aware of all that.
However, the question I asked was: "What does 'flood out some screen resolutions' mean?". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
(Presumably "sandwiching" means something like "putting it in a space that's too narrow"?)
(Also, what's your definition of "very short"?)
OK, skip the edit summary, which could have been clearer. 400px is larger than recommended in the MOS for images. That's all I was getting at. Wikipedia pages are intended to be compatible with a range of screen resolutions, which is why the default size for images next to text is 220px. Users can adjust the size of images in their personal preferences, and it is best not to force non-standard image sizes. Please raise this at Wikipedia talk:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass if you would like the image to be larger, to obtain a consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't want to change the image size. I just wanted to know what "flood out some screen resolutions" means. (I still don't know.) It was quite clear what you did and why you did it. However, you used an expression I've never heard before, so I asked you what it means. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Given the hoo-ha this has caused, I regret ever using the phrase. I meant that large forced images next to text can cause choppy formatting and poor page appearance at some screen resolutions.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: 2012 Aurora shooting

rv good faith edit, this is mentioned later on and is not really necessary in the WP:LEAD

I think summarizing the article is necessary for the lead. Did you actually even read WP:LEAD? Why would we not mention anything about treating the injured, the candlelight vigil, and Obama ordering the flags flown at half-staff? The current lead does not summarize the article, and I'm at a loss as to why you are reverting efforts to expand it. Care to explain? Viriditas (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This contains a level of detail (eg the candlelight vigil) which is not a key part of the event. The part about Barack Obama visiting is more relevant, but some people might say that it was political campaigning and off topic to mention him in the lead. Anyway, this would be better suited to gaining a consensus on the talk page. Saying that the victims were taken to local hospitals is rather obvious and unnecessary.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, and it is hardly controversial to expand the lead section, which at this point, does not summarize the main points. The vigil and Obama's speech was covered by every news outlet on the planet. Saying this was not a "key" part of the event demonstrates a misunderstanding of how we write lead sections. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
‎rv, this is too long and detailed. Please obtain a consensus on the talk page before rewriting the lead section) updated since my last visit

You must be joking. It's neither too long nor too detailed in any way, shape or form, and it is supported by other articles of the same class and by every policy and guideline. No editor needs to seek consensus to expand a lead section, and adding a summary is not considered "rewriting". We don't have pending changes, nor is anyone allowed to claim ownership of an article. If you persist with this nonsense, I'll compose and file a noticeboard report. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please start a new section at Talk:2012 Aurora shooting. Also, please avoid threats just because you have been reverted.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not require any editor to obtain permission to edit an article. You are wrong and your continued insistence on this point will eventually be reported. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with David Levy. The current edits are introducing too much detail and cruft to the lead.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. Please describe this detail and cruft. Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy 3RR notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  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 controversial 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. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't use templates instead of talk page discussion, it is boring. If David Levy and I are "wrong", there are ample opportunities to explain why on the talk page, which is the proper forum. This is just routine bluster from an editor not getting his way.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, I am required to notify you before I report you. You're reverting me for no reason. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not discussing this further here, as the proper place is the article talk page. Three editors have reverted you on this, seek a consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Three editors have edit warred and reverted for no good reason. The reason you can't describe in detail what was wrong with my edits is because there was nothing wrong. Even Levy's nitpick is wrong, as he removed the most notable aspect from the lead. Why should I use the talk page to discuss your edit warring and poor revert rationale? That makes zero sense. Anyone can edit, but according to you, nobody can edit the lead without your permission. That's absurd. I'm keeping a running count of these reverts and the names of the editors doing it. Viriditas (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss

[10]. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Informing you

This message is to inform you that you came up in a discussion on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#News. Viewmont Viking (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Informing you

This message is to inform you that you came up in a discussion on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#News. Viewmont Viking (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to send this to you twice. Viewmont Viking (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

sikh temple

I have no problem with your reversion here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting&diff=506680235&oldid=506679902), but I do want to know, what does "ce" stand for in your credit summary? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

ce is an abbreviation of "copyedit".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Explination

Hello, so I was asked to explain the following:

"These "Additional information added" edits are like a scratched gramophone record. Please clarify why you are continuing to do this after being asked to stop on several occasions."

First of all I am brand new to Wikipedia, I am still learning how everything works and I do not understand how I am violating some rights about editing and that I am being accused of stating my "personal analysis" & "advertising & promoting" information. Which I am not trying to do any of this, and I did not even know that the criteria that I was submitting was violating any thing.

I am currently trying to figure out how to write these articles or edit sections without violating any of the rights and what material can even be submitted and the proper way of how it should be stated, without getting blocked entirely.

About the "Additional information added" how would I state that differently, if indeed all I did was edit a post and did add more information on the given article. As it does state "(Briefly describe the changes you have made)" I was not aware that I have to literally describe the changes that I have made, in each section or the new criteria added ect...

And again I am not trying to "promote" or "give my personal assessment" on any thing, I am simply reading articles and rewriting them in my own words with the same accurate information without over exaggerating any thing.

So this is my explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngblood20 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As stated previously, Wikipedia articles do not need to have detailed explanations of how to use the site, or random chunks of the site's Terms of Service. Nearly all of the edits made from this user account have been based on adding this type of material, despite being asked to desist on several occasions. Please read WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:V; edits that go against these guidelines will inevitably be reverted.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Holmes Image

Hi, I was hoping you could either apply the mugshot template to File:James Holmes, cropped.jpg for me or show me where I can get the template? For some reason the template page gives the verbiage, but not the template itself, unless I am missing something.

Please note also that the previous deletion discussion at commons did not reach any consensus to delete, the discussion was largely of the opinion that the image was in the public domain according to CO law and that it could be justified as fair use, but only as locally uploaded, not to commons. I have indeed uploaded the image locally, cropped it, and provided a source-based fair use rationale.

Thanks in advance for help with the mugshot template. μηδείς (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Per previous discussions, (see James Eagan Holmes), this image is going to be hard to justify without an OTRS ticket from the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Department. Please consider contacting them about permission to use the image.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
I want to thank your work at article Megaupload. Even that you did undo my revisions, and saying that YouTube videos and Facebook pages are not reliable soruce, you are still doing great job! Einottaja (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

ygm

Hello, Ianmacm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Re: FINAL WARNING

Hello, Ianmacm. You have new messages at 2001:db8's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please help

I can't get involved here, this is an issue for the Russian language Wikipedia.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello. Russian Wikipedia does not wish respect law: http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Dmitry_Rozhkov&diff=47394851&oldid=47394694 - http://translate.google.com (Issue: Russian fan club - black list - copyright - jurisdiction). Thank you! - 78.106.175.239 (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC).

  • They have right to use website of the club only in the section for external links (for decorate of article). They not have right to use website of the club for references. They must not be lazy (must look for references inside of another sources). Or they must output website of the club from the black lists. - 78.106.175.239 (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC).
This has been raised many times at User talk:Jimbo Wales, but because of the language difficulties there is not a lot that can be done here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello. I decided help to the Club. I will create profile (account) now for self. My IP address is famous (now trail exists in this topic): I focus your attention on this moment to be free of name sockpuppet (for example) in future. Hunt on Wikipedia against IP addresses of Corbina - is the famous thing also. IP address is dynamic (at me, for example). What is help will from my side? I will make requests in the relevant sections of Wikipedia (EN or RU). These requests not will have relation to the threats. Copyright is also - not main thing absolutely (may be indirectly: bad thing - to use rare materials and murder in the same time). Main thing: the Club must be output from the black lists (I will suggest some proofs for the such aim). I hope that be free of the black list in English Wikipedia - will generate the freedom from the such honor in Russian Wikipedia (independently of jurisdictions). I ask you protect my account (while I act in accordance with the rules - of course). What is the such protection? Be free of any rollback (in any Wikipedia, when I act in accordance with the rules). Already now can say: the Club not has blame. I will find additional confirmations to this fact. When my account will be created, I will put my trail in this topic (relation + other users will know about this text). They will know that they not must make rollback in my relation. Thank you. - 89.179.190.148 (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC).
  • Ian, if you can figure out what this means, you're smarter than I am. I can't tell if I'm reading a threat of socking to illegitimately link Beatles tunes to Wikipedia articles: if that is what it is, I trust you know what to do. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I've given up trying to understand the ins and outs of this dispute, although I have tried to assume good faith. The problem is that the language barrier prevents most English speaking Wikipedians from understanding the claims and counterclaims being made, which is why it needs to be dealt with on the Russian language Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Account is ready. Was question: what is this? Reply: Help! Like The Beatles. John Lennon in reality looked for help in 1965, and this song - is the result of the such thinkings, as known. And the Club needs in help. Because not has blame (I so think on this stage). Others will think the same, after providing of some info on the issue (may be will think). Independent observer must respect any presumption. Reply on last phrase by the owner of this page. Russian Wikipedia needs to be under control from the side of wise comrades. If I not will ask the protection in English Wikipedia, the rollback only waits me for 1 minute (+ blocking). And fairness not will become reality never (now: 50 x 50). - 89.179.190.148 = BeatlesRuHelper (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC).
Independent advocate for the good of the Club gathers needed proofs
(to suggest them later in the relevant sections of Wikipedia and get wise decision):

The VIP defender made his the bright statement on this issue several days ago

He made reality his the bright speech 20 August 2012 (on very bad English). The one of these mistakes: «fan club» not has relation to the word «fun». Because in our case the Club - is not some circus, but the serious organization, the virtual advocate so detail explains this stupidity now. Clearly understanding that his text (12:31) is not very ideal, he said «pardon» with the suggestion see the original on Russian language. To destroy chinese wall, who creates some troubles for the understanding because of difference in languages, I will explain the essence of the statement from the administrator, shortly and clearly (several phrases and the bot-translater can help validate all texts in this topic):

  • All cases of spam (reason to put the website in the black list) have no any relation to the club Beatles.Ru. These cases were implemented from IP's ranges of Corbina. Remark: He says about the provocation from someone, who uses the such ranges.
  • Website of the club Beatles.Ru is the largest and most well-known Russian website in this scope (for fans of the band The Beatles).
  • Facts of the violation of copyright were not confirmed (proofs not exist anywhere). Remark: Website not was closed, and is glad to the life, giving the favor for thousands of fans (from former USSR mainly). Not were used any measures against the club from the side of the state. Why? Not exists legal grounds to use the such measures.
  • On the talk page of the article The Beatles proofs about the violations were not shown also (not was found consensus remove the remaining links to the website of the club from this article). Discussion was closed by the will of the admin.


Source (Revision as of 12:31, 20 August 2012). - BeatlesRuHelper (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC).

  • I make some actions for validation (the black list) now. - BeatlesRuHelper (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC).


Remark on the full statement from OneLittleMouse (12:31, 20 August 2012):

  • Validation showed: the website of the club Beatles.Ru is located inside of the Spam-blacklist of English Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia (Строка 1675). Not in others (when I understood rightly). Below is citation (way to save the club from the shame - in the same time).

MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist affects pages on the English Wikipedia only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

If he is not crazy human, he must organise on own behalf the measure to output the website Beatles.Ru from the black list of EN Wikipedia and RU Wikipedia. As an administrator of Wikipedia (via high status inside of Wiki system: the powers of an admin). In the nature exist such things, which can not be changed by anyone and never. The one of such things is the common sense. Often lack of the objectivity has the bad title (has direct relation to Eugen Bleuler). My this statement can not be any insult, because the real insult is in 1000 times worse (motivations - including and mainly). In the same time, ignore of this statement means full lack of the objectivity. Administrator of Russian Wikipedia does not have right to be the such. This page is under his watching and his consciousness is located fully in the context of the existing situation (when he has the friendship with own head, including the common sense).

P.S. Even on this stage nobody says that the club is innocent (I do not have this right here). This is the call to take action, respecting the common sense, and the rules (in the different scopes). And everybody can watch this process: RU and EN (lack of the process means the shame for the VIP defender). BOT-TRANSLATOR GOOGLE. - BeatlesRuHelper (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC).




"After massive spam attacks from this IP's ranges ("Corbina", "Beeline") site was black-listed, but: 1) It's largest and most well-known russian Beatles fun-site; 2) facts of copyright violations on this site was not proved. In ruwiki (where this discussion should be taken) there is no consensus that remaining links to this site should be removed (at least from ru:The Beatles). Facts of copyright violations in ru:The Beatles was not shown too."

(the such usage can not become reality till deletion of stupid decision of the offender). What can you do? Report to Jimbo (or other way). Shock ! - 95.29.54.41 (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC).

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

You might wanna have a look at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robert Warren. noclador (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Ward, Victoria. "The Daily Telegraph" July 25th 2011, (accessed April 22, 2012)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ianmacm/Archive_7&oldid=1148048424"