User talk:Ianmacm

Hi.

You said talk to you.User:JCHeverly 01:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't recall any of my edits saying this, please could you explain.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Right there, in brackets, alongside your signature.User:JCHeverly 20:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I have created a stub about the Disappearance of Jayden Parkinson. Take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

the murder of Lee Rigby

Don't fuck with another editor's edits while they're in progress. If you have a problem with someone's additions to an article, the correct protocol is to first take it up on the talk page, not just unilaterally decide to undo their additions. I was in the process of adding references to primary sources when you rushed in and reverted it. Do it again and I'll apply for page protection.Bricology (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This edit had been previously reverted by another editor. Time for some WP:BRD here. Also, please don't swear while editing this article. This is not the first time that you have done this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggested that new sources were needed for that addition. The material was re-added without any. I had also already started a Talk Page thread. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Your reply

Based on the message at User talk:Jimbo Wales, I prefer that Wikipedia uses ID scanners to verify the user's age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismael755 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Proving a person's identity over the Internet is notoriously difficult. Username/password logins are pretty much worthless, and two-step verification is used by banks to prevent fraud. However, at the time of signing up for a bank account, a person would need to go to the bank, or when signing up for an online account, provide scans of a passport, driving license, home address and telephone number. Wikipedia never asks for this type of information from users, with the exception of members of ArbCom, who must provide information to the Wikimedia Foundation about their real life identities. Requiring this from millions of ordinary users who wanted to read articles or correct a simple mistake would be hugely expensive and damaging to the project. It would also leave Wikipedia open to lawsuits if the information fell into the wrong hands. Wikipedia is in line with other websites by trusting people to give accurate information about themselves when making declarations about their age.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan King

Thanks for joining the crusade Pedohater (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on a crusade to do anything on Wikipedia. It is clear that Jonathan King needed a good deal of work for WP:NPOV issues after the issue was raised at the BLP noticeboard. Most of the good work was done by other editors.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't have put it better myself! Which is probably why I kept getting blocked as Dave has now been (he started it) LOL Pedohater (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:USERNAME? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

From this edit, the user claims to be a sock of a blocked user. I've therefore removed his comments from the article talk page. More than that, the edit suggests to me a WP:COI SPA. DeCausa (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I see you're one of the involved editors. I'm trying to bring an objective and balanced view to the article by removing opinion or slanted comments and incorrect facts. Please see my comment on the King talk page before making changes. By the way I'm not a very experienced editor and clearly will make mistakes. LudoVicar (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I get your point since it says "King IS..." but I think most people will remember him for his TV shows. I've corrected numerous silly inaccuracies all of which could have been clarified in a second on Google. Can't believe no mention for Leap Up And Down Wave Your Knickers In The Air - surely the low point in his career? In fact I suspect millions hate him for inflicting that on us (and must have been quoted in the media saying that). LudoVicar (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I need to take a valium before editing this article:) Generally speaking, major changes to the WP:LEAD section should be discussed on the talk page first, as they are likely to be reverted if they go live without a WP:CONSENSUS. There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing in this article in the past month and it has been at WP:BLPN twice.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Copy of my reply to another editor on that article who has reversed all my changes - clearly they don't want it improved..... I see you've reversed all my edits so I assume you and the other editors are not interested in my contributions. I have no problem with that. The graduation date is clearly in Music Week (which was then Record Retailer) and all the other music papers; I was looking at Record Mirror which has a picture caption which says on Friday 23rd June 1967 "Jonathan King BA attends an awards ceremony at Cambridge University where he receives his honours degree in English - then rushes to Southampton to co-compere As You Like It" whatever that might be. Sorry if that doesn't meet your rules or agenda. LudoVicar (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Bob Godfrey

I only changed the month to January as, when I read websites about his death, they say that his birthday was actually in January, not May.Ofcdeadbeat (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Ofcdeadbeat

There does seem to be a difference in the sourcing on this. BBC, Telegraph and Guardian said that he was born on 27 May 1921. However, Independent and Mirror said 27 January 1921. Without more information, it is hard to say which one is correct. This is always a problem when sources are contradictory.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• See Talk:Bob_Godfrey#Date_of_birth. Bobgodfreyfilms.com confirmed that the correct date is 27 May 1921.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Vaughan

Hi, you immediately changed my edit to Johnny Vaughan's record on Capital FM. Why? The existing description is misleading as Vaughan had audiences over 1 million for the last three years on the air, which made the show the clear market leader. At the moment, there is only a record stating that he achieved 860 000 listeners in one particular quarter. My claims were backed up with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.39.99 (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This was restored, with a more encylopedic tone. The sourcing about the ratings for the breakfast show was OK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Steatoda nobilis

Steatoda nobilis

And for today's adventure, I managed to take this photo of a Steatoda nobilis and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. These are the spiders about which the British tabloid press was having hysterics in October 2013. No person in the UK has ever died from a spider bite, despite the "killer spider" headlines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Swenzy and View Count Scandal

Hello, I would like to speak with you to resolve the issue of the swenzy and youtube Wikipedia article. Thanks Rogerroyal (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

OK fine. My main concern is the attempt to describe the December 2012 YouTube situation as a "scandal", because YouTube did not say this. What evidence is there (beyond speculation in the blogs) that there was an attempt to create fake viewcounts for YouTube videos? Also, (while assuming good faith), I would like an assurance that all of the edits to Swenzy were made by people who did not have an affiliation to the subject matter.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The only person who edited that Swenzy article was Me. I made the article with 8 weeks of building it from a draft, interviewing dozens of reporters who wrote about swenzy, and reading hundreds of news articles about swenzy. I am not affiliated with the company. And your right, The situation shouldn't have been named "scandal", it just should've been "2012 View Count Enforcement", we can add the sources that shows of all the millions who's video got taken down the same day and quote YouTube's statement of all the videos being removed for "gaming their system". I interviewed Swenzy a few days ago, Swenzy founder admitted to having a connection with the view count "enforcement'. They admitted to powering celebrities's youtube videos. AP articles clearly state that celebrities are gaming views. Billboard released a statement saying what they believe happened. YouTube never said the videos lost billion of views BECAUSE of migration. They just said they enforced their view count policy, which was botted views. It's all documented. It sounds like your defending YouTube, and I'm trying to keep this neutral as possible. It's up to you if you want to update the YouTube article and keep the information accurate. I edited the swenzy article in terms of neutrality and the "claims"/"allegedly" statements. I want Wikipedia articles to be informative and as accurate as possible. Rogerroyal (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

In 2008, when Girlfriend (Avril Lavigne song) was the most viewed video on YouTube, there were allegations that there had been gaming the system with bot views of the video. Similar allegations have been made many times since; the December 2012 claims were rejected by reliable sources, as YouTube said that they were the result of migrating YouTube viewcounts to Vevo. Also, I'm not defending YouTube or getting paid for saying this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"WHERE" did YouTube say that the result of the drop in 2 billion views from record labels were due to migrating videos? I want you to show me proof. The only thing YouTube released was a statement that they enforced their view count policy which resulted in millions of videos getting deleted for gaming views. Not just record labels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerroyal (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I am equally interested in seeing the reliably sourced evidence that Swenzy (or its predecessor SocialVEVO) was behind the "December 2012 YouTube scandal".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I interviewed Swenzy: https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_the_company_who_many_buy_into_their_hoaxes_and_YouTube_views_hysteria,_Swenzy

Read the daily dot article about socialvevo in the references. There's no evidence that YouTube ever changed or reinstated their statement and said major labels lost 2 billion views because they "migrated". Rogerroyal (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Nor is there any reliably sourced evidence that Swenzy or the "mysterious internet marketeing company SocialVEVO" was involved in December 2012, beyond hearsay in the blogs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

So now your rejecting your claim that YouTube deleted those 2 billion views because they were migrated videos? I still stand by statement. Like I said, its documented and it's there. It's up to you if you want to update the article with useful and information. If you don't want to make the article neutral, then its all you. Rogerroyal (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The way to make the article neutral would be to give both sides. YouTube and record company executives denied that 2 billion views were deleted in December 2012, and said that they had been moved to VEVO instead. There is still little evidence supporting the "fake views scandal" which the Daily Dot claimed had occurred. The migration claim comes from Billboard.[1] The Wikinews article is a form of original research, and does not make a link between Swenzy and the "2012 View Count Scandal", beyond some coy hints with no detail given. The Daily Dot article which set off this saga says that some videos were taken down as a result of violating TOS item 4, Section H, which bans the use of automated tools to inflate view counts. For a Wikipedia article, there is a problem with accusing Sony, Universal or other major record labels of faking view counts, because it would be WP:LIBEL to accuse (or imply) that a major record company had acted in bad faith by cheating the system in this way. The "fake views scandal" theory is effectively implying that major record companies cheated the system. The Daily Dot article is too weak a source for such a serious claim.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well the truth is that those labels do inflate views. There's tons of AP and news articles that suggest it is happening. And I understand that big claims require big evidence but since it's widely reported, maybe add it under controversy? And I would like the article I wrote about Swenzy to be changed so it doesn't sound like advertisement or non-neutral. I don't like being accused to have a connection with the company when it's not true. Like I said, YouTube announced they enforced their view count policy, and 2 billion views got deleted from major labels. The big labels said it was migration, YouTube continued to state, it was inflated view counts, never backing up the labels claims. You do the calculation. It's very weird and strange if that type of information doesn't get put in the YouTube article.. Talking about neutralizing the swenzy article... Rogerroyal (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The news articles which basically rehash what the Daily Dot said are not adding anything new. The "fake views" theory about the two billion views was challenged immediately, and even the Daily Dot appeared to backtrack on it with the update to the story. It would be undue weight to imply that two of the major record companies deliberately lied and cheated to inflate their view counts when this is not explicitly stated by reliable sources. The fairest thing to do is to give both sides of the argument, but it would risk WP:LIBEL to imply that Universal and Sony had lied on the basis of sloppy evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Giving both sides of the argument would be fair for now. I asked an AP journalist to investigate it. Since the news reports stated that YouTube lost FAKE views and some sources never changed their story. It would be weird to not add this as it was a BIG controversial story then and as well as it is today. Rogerroyal (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If the Daily Dot had not made its dubious claim about the two billion views, it is unlikely that any of this would have happened. Some of the news stories about the fake views saga (eg here in the Daily Mail and here in the Huffington Post) are classic churnalism. This is the phenomenon (particularly prevalent online) of repeating almost verbatim what another article has said, without any further fact checking. The fake views saga picked up a lot of churnalism, but x number of hits on Google does not equate to truth, and Wikipedians are always advised to take this into account. There is little doubt that some people attempt to create viral videos by faking the view count, and that this is banned by YouTube's Terms of Service, which state in 5H "you agree not to use or launch any automated system (including, without limitation, any robot, spider or offline reader) that accesses the Service in a manner that sends more request messages to the YouTube servers in a given period of time than a human can reasonably produce in the same period by using a publicly available, standard (i.e. not modified) web browser." When YouTube believes that a video has violated 5H, the video will be taken down and the uploader will receive an e-mail saying that the video violated 5H. In the case of the Universal and Sony videos, these were not removed from the site and are still available, and according to Billboard and the record companies, the two billion views were moved to VEVO, not deleted. The Guardian criticized the Mail and the Daily Dot for appearing to suggest that the two billion views had been faked. As mentioned previously, if this is not the case, it is a potential WP:LIBEL of Universal and Sony, because it implies bad faith, lying and cheating on their part.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I feel like this debate can go on for years... The Daily Dot didn't just publish an article without having proof. The Daily Dot received actual evidence of what they were writing before they published their article. I have the same evidence that was given to them before they published the article. Like I said, I can share it with you. I just added "Yasha Swag" into the Swenzy article. He's the same guy who did Purple Ninja as Beeki Vendi and is Simon Z (one of the founders of Swenzy). He botted close to 10 million views and his video front paged on MSN now, FUSE TV, Pop Dust, and many blogs. The music video was taken as legit until the Daily Dot exposed it. Look up an artist called "BAKER", who also inflated millions of fake youtube views quickly and ended up being covered by Billboard, MTV, and many news sites as "legit" future music star. If it wasn't for an anonymous tip that his views were faked, He would have been as famous as "Avril Lavigne". See my point here? This is the reason why you can't just conclude something that is written on Billboard or MTV, because the information can be false. In this case, YouTube never confirmed what billboard stated about migration to VEVO. I don't think your understanding this very well. 70% of viral videos on YouTube are botted or inflated, it's not an exaggerated claim, almost everyone on YouTube cheats. I believe that this view count controversial story should go on the YouTube Wikipedia article since it's widely talked about. You can add both sides and make it neutral so it won't look like your picking one side. So you're not accusing the labels, yet your not denying it. It would be very criminal not to add that part. I would suggest reaching a higher authority person because such topic has been widely reported on news media and it's strange that you don't want to add it. I saw news reports of wiki staff being paid for articles and other shady practices here at Wikipedia. Sounds like your avoiding a neutral point of view here and your starting to scare me a bit. Rogerroyal (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I really can't comment on the claim that 70% of YouTube viral video view counts are inflated, because this is original research, as is inside information from the Daily Dot. Neutrality would require giving both sides, particularly as accusing Universal and Sony of faking view counts without proper evidence is an unwise thing to do. There are two separate issues here: a) do people attempt to create viral videos by using bots (yes they do); and b) Did Universal and Sony fake two billion views with this technique? This is more controversial, because the record companies say that the views were moved to VEVO, not deleted as the Daily Dot claimed. I'm not paid by YouTube to say any of this, but do have concerns about making a serious allegation against Universal and Sony on the basis of a Daily Dot story.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Your STILL not getting it... It doesn't matter what the record labels claimed happened, it's all claims. YouTube never confirmed what they said. The views from the record labels videos were "YOUTUBE VIEWS" not Unviersal views. YouTube said they enforced their view count for gaming views, and the big drop happened. Billboard tried to cover their butts since they received so much press and phone calls, saying it was migration. But it doesn't matter what billboard said, YouTube never went public and confirmed that. If it was true, YouTube would have said something, it was a big topic. This is a YouTube article, Not a record label article. So I would suggest adding the controversial topic, And I don't mean "accussing" them of faking views even though that's how it really went down. Just mention the controversial topic and that's it. No need of accusing or taking sides. It's big enough to be on there. 50.162.190.150 (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added this to YouTube, see also the article talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned the article is way too spammy and I have tagged it as such. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies for fixing my article :) I appreciate your help! This was my first actual article :) And ianmacm, I saw the view count part in the YouTube article, thanks. 50.162.190.150 (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ianmacm. You have new messages at Talk:Archimedes.
Message added 08:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Discussion on mass revert for the contextual images at Archimedes Codrin.B (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Archimedes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Bach Prelude Fugue BWV 542.ogg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)