User talk:Ianmacm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

You are invited to WikiProject YouTube[edit]

King latest case[edit]

I attended every day of the trial and pre trial hearing as did dozens of others including Theroux and journalists. The reference to deliberate lies seems to refer to the police officer who said in court she knew nothing about Williams Thomas and her notes from two years earlier then emerged. The situation regarding KM was because surprisingly his claims were allowed back in despite him being incapable of communication now due to strokes and later disclosure of his medical and psychiatric history. That was what infuriated the judge - that those had been deliberately withheld from her; had she known about them she would never have allowed the claims back in. Jacksonlegend (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I dare say you did attend the trial every day:) I can't comment on the full trial without seeing the transcript, but it is obvious from the summary transcript that Judge Deborah Taylor was angry about a lot of the things that happened, including the failure of the police to mention the involvement of Mark Williams-Thomas and the full background to this. The judge uses the word "misled" to describe the Williams-Thomas situation, which is strong language for a judge but maybe not quite the same as saying that they lied on oath. As for KM, King now has the satisfaction of being able to say that his evidence was ruled to be unreliable and inadmissible.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Quote: ‘The duty of disclosure is a continuing one and disclosure should be kept under review. In addition, prosecutors should ensure that advocates in court are properly instructed as to disclosure issues. Prosecutors must also be alert to the need to provide advice to, and where necessary probe actions taken by, disclosure officers to ensure that disclosure obligations are met. There should be no aspects of an investigation about which prosecutors are unable to ask probing questions.’ Further, that those failures have led to the court not only being misled, but on several critical occasions, misled in open Court in a way which affected the decisions made." TL;DR: the judge was very angry about this. The phrase "misled in open Court" comes pretty darned close to saying that the police lied about the involvement of Mark Williams-Thomas, but maybe stops short of this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Rather depends on the definition of a lie doesn't it? Dictionary calls it "a falsehood". Telling a falsehood, whether deliberate or unintentional, is lying. Misleading someone can often be by telling a lie, sometimes by ommission. (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
A far greater satisfaction regarding KM must be that the jury pronounced King Not Guilty of KM's false claims before being discharged. Not widely covered in the media. Wonder why not. (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I've been reading through the document again. It also uses the phrases "the inadequacy of her statement is troubling" and a "lamentable lack of joined up approach to the provision of information" to describe the failure to disclose the links with Mark Williams-Thomas. This is strong stuff from a judge. The female police officer involved "reported sick on 29th June 2018 with symptoms of mental illness, connected with, although he could not say entirely the result of, concerns about the aborted trial." The judge was beyond unhappy about her performance and was close to accusing her of incompetence or lying. As for KM, the not guilty verdicts and that fact that his evidence was ruled unreliable/inadmissible is a major boost for King. It is a vindication of his claim that the saga was flawed from the start. It doesn't necessarily prove that KM perjured himself with outright lies (we may never know this) but does show that if all of the facts had been known, the case would not have come to court. By the way, I haven't yet had the delight of reading King's new book Guilty--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp[edit]

Hi Could you or someone else please add photographs of Margaret and Seana to their article? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It's difficult because of WP:NFCC. There are some images on search engines but they would require a fair use rationale.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 03:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Scunthorpe problem, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You are a silly guy who has lied that my use of images on the Scunthorpe problem article is over the top and ridiculous, while a proverb is clear about pictures being worth a thousand words. -- (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

See MOS:PERTINENCE.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) -- (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Great stuff. My first ever death threat on Wikipedia. Since this is a content dispute, the proper place is Talk:Scunthorpe problem.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, all hat and no cattle? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
"I'm Still Standing". In accordance with the thread at ANI, I'm not allowed to show you the death threat, but it looks like someone shouting Good Luck, I'm Behind 7 Proxies and is unlikely to be someone in Myanmar. I would have called the police, but they probably aren't interested in crappy death threats by trolls.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure Elton would be very pleased to hear that. I wonder have you thought of a nice holiday at all this year? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

2017 Las Vegas Shooting: Difference between revisions.[edit]

Revision as of 09:14, 3 September 2018 (edit) (undo) Master Wikiman (talk | contribs)(Undid revision 857829263 by Ianmacm (talk))

You twice reverted my amendments to the Wikipedia page "2017 Las Vegas Shooting". In an Alert message, you have described the changes as "wandering".

The changes added:

1) additional facts originally omitted;

2) qualifications of factual statements which are presumed to have occurred, which have not been actually proven; and,

3) corrections to actual misinformation.

As for misinformation, the reverted article states:

1) "After Paddock used a hammer to break two of the windows in both of his suites,[1] he began shooting through them at 10:05."

It is factually incorrect to claim that the LVMPD Interim Report (footnote) established that "Paddock used a hammer to break two of the windows in both of his suites." Neither the "Interim," or "Final" LVMPD Reports found as fact, or declared that "Paddock used a hammer to break two of the windows in both of his suites," as stated in the reverted Wikipedia page.

Both "Interim," and "Final" LVMPD Reports on the October 1 Las Vegas mass shooting, are silent as to how the Mandalay Bay windows were broken out, and silent as to the construction of the windows, and whether the windows had a hurricane laminate. Both reports indicate ONLY that a small, hand held sledge hammer, or maul, was found in Mandalay Bay, Room 32-135.

2) Campos never reported the stairwell door as being "barricaded."

Campos came up the stairwell to the 32nd Floor and thought the access door to the 32nd Floor was "barricaded," as he could not open the door. Campos then went up to the 33rd floor; took an elevator back down to the 32nd floor; inspected the stairwell door at the end of the 32-100 hallway, and found a screwed "L" bracket between the stairwell door and the door frame, securing the door. Campos then called Hotel Security and reported the "L" bracket securing the door to the door frame.

3) The reverted page claims that it was reported that Paddock may have been a heavy drinker.

This is a true statement regarding a news paper report, however this claim was refuted by Marilou Danley in her interviews with the LVMPD and FBI, as indicated in the LVMPD Final Report. This claim was also denied by casino mogul, Steve Wynn, on a 2017 broadcast of Face the Nation, which I did not include in the amendments to this page.

Perhaps I do not understand Wikipedia's use of the term "wandering," but I cannot see how the correction of these serious inaccuracies in the Wikipedia page, "2017 Las Vegas Shooting," are deemed to be somehow inappropriate.

I therefore request that the changes I made be adopted.

Thank you.

--Master Wikiman (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This edit made various changes to the article without discussing them individually in the edit summaries. WP:ES explains how to summarize edits so that other users can follow them. There were also problems with introducing words such as allegedly, reportedly and apparently. These can be seen as expressions of doubt. There is also a need to ensure that the text is supported by the inline citations which follow it. I'm not sure if this is the case for all of the material that was added. Initial news media reports cite Joe Lombardo saying that Paddock used a hammer to smash the windows,[1] and it is shown as a small sledgehammer here. It isn't a special hammer for breaking glass, as some have speculated. The statement "Neither the LVMPD preliminary report, or final report state how Paddock actually broke the windows in Mandalay Bay, or discuss the actual construction of those windows" isn't given a secondary source although it may well be true. However, the article cannot engage in WP:OR about how Paddock did or did not break the windows unless it is directly addressed by the sourcing. Since this is related to the content at 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the best thing to do is to start a thread at Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting for input from a range of editors, not just me.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Elo blue sky.ogg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Elo blue sky.ogg. 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 in section F6 of the 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. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Karl Jenkins - "Theme from Palladio" (sample).ogg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Karl Jenkins - "Theme from Palladio" (sample).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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference lvmpdreport was invoked but never defined (see the help page).