Jump to content

User talk:Ianmacm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Walton22 (talk | contribs) at 19:33, 23 January 2024 (→‎"Streisand effect" and "allegedly": Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

My edits at David Amess' murder article

I just want to let you know that I am the same editor who put in edits to various Jimmy Savile articles, such as sources for "The Reckoning". My edits on the David Amess Murder article have been reverted on the basis that "my Nanny is part of The Music Man Project". To explain in full, I was born and have lived in Southend but only came to know of Amess the day he died; the event affected me in my own way, even though I never heard of him, probably because politics is not really my thing and I am a young man with autism. Even so, I tried to write as unbiased as possible, even linking articles such as the Guardian and Manchester evening news, which cite witness accounts to describe the attack as it happened and how Amess' killer reacted to his verdict. When it came to the arrest, because I feel that Ali should not get much recognition, I don't want to write (as shown on the Guardian article) that Amess' killer was calling his sister on the phone when he was arrested. I also changed "legal proceedings" to "trial", swapped "reactions" around and described Ali's horrific behaviour during the attack and after the verdict, as well as Amess' family statement that they felt no elation at the verdict. I do think the Guardian articles could be worth staying and the description of the events that happened could be kept/rewritten to reflect the articles' description of events, though I do think my bad grammar could be fixed. I feel obligated if you could help out my writing/sources with your own version. If you think it's unneeded/lengthened too much, I can completely understand that. The event affected all of us, even my mum and nan and every person in Southend, I'm sure. And I feel it should be more worth remembering Amess than his death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_David_Amess&diff=prev&oldid=1189927451

~~ 92.17.199.182 (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.5.56.242

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.150.4.111

Basically, I was the previous editors linked above.

92.17.199.182 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed at Talk:Murder of David Amess because it is article related. Edits need consensus and should be based on reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_David_Amess#Should_this_article_reflect_trial_accounts_of_the_attack/Ali’s_behaviour? 92.17.199.182 (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wombling Happy Christmas


Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.
Happy Christmas and Best wishes for a peaceful 2024. "Csordapásztorok"
Ring-a-ling-a-ling-a-ding-dong-ding!
Martinevans123 (talk) 10:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed

Liked your post here re: a perp's purported screen-name. Thanks for being so eloquent & thorough. Shearonink (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope that this doesn't become another "we must have this because source x said it" type of debate. There is some evidence that Lanza may have made the Smiggles call to a radio station, but it is not overwhelming. This has been known about since 2014 and nothing much has changed since then.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that the only way to perhaps solve this issue would be to contact the original news purveyors/reporters - whomever supposedly reported it/said it and ask them now, today what is your proof, who told you that, when were you told. The way the various statements were crafted, even in those early days after the event when so much hearsay was stated as if it was all absolute information, says to me that the writers weren't ready to state even then the hearsay & the rumor as unequivocal Fact. I have always kind of thought that this particular line was being pursued because people seem to want to prove that the perp edited these pages as a particular account...but maybe I'm wrong. Shearonink (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Squaring the Circle

Hello from Mexico

https://www.scribd.com/document/698849715/Squaring-the-Circle-Solution-Cuadratura-del-Circulo-Solucion 201.141.55.15 (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Notice This document has been removed from Scribd" so it doesn't look like I will be reading it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your e-mail

Please don't e-mail me asking for page protection. Use WP:RFPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the only reason I did this is due to ongoing disruption and I cannot go round in circles looking at this page.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Streisand effect" and "allegedly"

My use of "allegedly" was clumsy. She lost the law suit, yes. But the Wikipedia page says "[Streisand] attempted to suppress the California Coastal Records Project's photograph". However in the autobiography, she claims that it was an individual she was suing, not the official site. This makes sense, as why would the official California State site put her name on the photo, which she claims was her only objection? Perhaps the individual sourced the photos from that official site and reposted them? The WP page implies she attempted to suppress an official record, whereas she claims she took action against an individual who posted (what was perhaps that same official) photo appending her name. My "alleged" was meant to cover that bit of "grey" only. Certainly the answer to this is not found by virtue solely of the legal result against her, as you suggest. My alleged really meant "rumours say she sued an official website" (with the rumours making it to an actual Wikipedia article!). It was meant as a neutral "alleged", since I couldn't find a definitive answer yet. Can you think of a better way to get that subtlety into the lede, since Streisand claims she sued an individual not a State body, and the generality of the legal finding in and of itslef doesn't go to this particular point? I agreed "allegedly" is not the right word: too legal. Walton22 (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to Streisand's own view of the matter, which is a WP:PRIMARY source. It's ok to point out that she had a different view, but the view of the court was that the action that she took against Adelman and Pictopia was wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I was only referring to accuracy about WHO she was suing, not the finding itself. The article made an erroneous implication I think. I have now edited the lede to fix, I believe. Accept your revert of my "allegedly". Walton22 (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Streisand's legal action against Adelman (who took the photo and posted it on his own website layer42.net) the action led to massive publicity that would never have happened if Streisand had done nothing about it. The photo was very obscure until the legal action occurred, as it contained nothing that would have easily proved that it was her house. This is made clear in the court ruling.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The story that gave rise to the expresison "the Streisand effect" is clearly not a fiction. Her rebuttal just challenges some assumptions around the story, but doesn't annul the main thrust. As far as "The photo was very obscure until the legal action occurred, as it contained nothing that would have easily proved that it was her house" she does claim in her book that her objection was that the photo was captioned with her name, and my edit reports that. Walton22 (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But, if as you say, Adelman took the photo, then the reference in the lede of the WP article to "California Coastal Records Project's photograph" surely needs to be edited away? Walton22 (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried about the wording at California Coastal Records Project, as it gives the impression that Streisand sued the project rather than Adelman. It is clear that Adelman took the photo for the project and it was intended to be used by them; it wasn't a personal project of his.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the lede of Streisand effect to make it clear Streisand sued Adelman, not the project. Maybe you can edit similarly at California Coastal Records Project. Walton22 (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reading through the court ruling. Adelman is described as the creator of the California Coastal Records Project; the project was not directly linked to the government in California as is sometimes wrongly stated. It also says "Nothing on the California Coastal Records Project website lists the address of the plaintiff's residence or the longitude and latitude of specific buildings on her property... Image 3850 carries a label or "tag", but only as it is displayed on the California Coastal Records Project website: "Streisand Estate, Malibu". Once a person has gained access to the California Coastal Records Project site, it is possible to search by that tag to reach a screen which displays image 3850. A general Internet search for the tag, using a search engine such as Google or Yahoo, will not direct a searcher to the image posted on the defendants' site." There are various conclusions from this:
  • The website did not say that the photograph was of Barbra Streisand's house or give its address. It would only have been accessible to someone who was looking at the California Coastal Records Project website, and would not have shown up in a web search.
  • Barbra Streisand was right that the image tag said "Streisand Estate, Malibu" although it did not name her personally.
  • The image was not easy to find on the Internet in late 2002/early 2003, and it was largely Barbra Streisand's legal action that drew public attention to it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very interesting. I saw your edit to California Coastal Records Project. You seem to be wanting to do NPOV. I do too. Walton22 (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notice you have rewritten my copy. Reads well to me, and if you are (probably) a more experienced editor I assume it is a better fit for WP? So I can learn, please let me know if you have time what the issues were with what I wrote? I was reluctant to direct quote too much as I thought this might be an issue, and thought rather one should parphrase too, but I notice you quote a lot.Walton22 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to edit the text down to the key point that Barbra Streisand makes in the book, which is that she says that she wanted the lawyer to remove the name tag from the website, not the photo itself. There is quite a lot of quotation from Streisand in her own words, because she says in her book that Wikipedia doesn't give the facts. This is because prior to the book (and yesterday for me) it was a big surprise to learn that she had looked at the Wikipedia article and disagreed with what it said. Wikipedia wants all biographies to be accurate, but sometimes WP:AUTO problems can occur. The only source that we have for Streisand's side of the story is her account in the book. At the time of the court case, it looked as though she wanted to remove the photo from the website rather than just the name tag. Personally I believe that this would have been reasonable. However, something seems to have been lost in translation during the legal action, and she says that she now regards it as a mistake that the court case came to be seen as being about the photo rather than the accompanying name tag.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All understood, and thank you Walton22 (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I wonder about omitting her reference to security concerns and past intruders which I included. Perhaps you would consider adding something? I think it's a telling part of the 'rebuttal'. Walton22 (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done: The photograph and the latitude and longitude coordinates were, when taken on their own, not much worse than the sort of thing that Google Maps and Google Earth do today. Taken in conjunction with the name tag, it did provide a way for a potential intruder to identify the location of the home.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re your edit at my suggestion. Is the situation still exactly as you describe there in terms of visible information on the Web, i.e latittude and longitude co-ordinates of her home? While it is good to cite her security concerns, WP should not provide an instrcution manual on how to use the available information, especially letting know that it is "easy". Ironically, this could end up being a "Streisand effect" in itself, hopefully not with consequences worse than bad publicity. Walton22 (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have made an edit. Walton22 (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right and this an interesting point. Streisand says in the book "Suddenly there was a photo on the internet with my house, my name, and the exact coordinates where I lived. That put the safety of my family and myself at risk. We had already experienced several incidents with intruders over the years. So I hope you can understand my concern." Also, the complaint filed by her lawyers in May 2003 makes clear that the giving latitude and longitude of the photos was one of the reasons for the legal action. While the Wikipedia article should be a bit cautious about this, a determined person will be able to find the coordinates.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think my edit just now is in the interest of caution. Walton22 (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ianmacm&oldid=1198305825"