Jump to content

User talk:Ianmacm/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Non-free rationale for File:Team america march.ogg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Team america march.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 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) 08:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The FUR was rewritten with a table, but it does not say much different from what it did previously. The way in which a FUR is written is not sufficient grounds for adding a deletion template.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Lobsang Rampa

I do not understand why you took this away [1], I have read this in the French translation of the book of Karen Mutton. I have no access to the English version of the book, it is not possible to see it on "google book", on the contrary to the French translation. I can ensure you that the issue of Lobsang Rampa and the cause of Tibet is mentionned at several pages in the book [2]. By the way, if you read one of his book, you must know what he is saying about the situation in Tibet... --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The source does not refer specifically to the 14th Dalai Lama, although he became Dalai Lama in 1950 and it may well be him. Since this is a quote from a living person, it should have a strong source. The source is Karen Mutton's book Lobsang Rampa : New Age Trailblazer, which cites another book, Lama to the World. This is why the edit was reverted, because there is no direct quote to work from.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Another source, also published in French, quote the Dalai Lama about Rampa, and say about the same thing. But the main interest was not this citation, but the fact that as Karen Mutton write, Rampa claimed to be committed to the Tibet cause. I guess you would accept this. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The English language version of the quote from Karen Mutton's book is here. This is used as the basis of the text in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Police officer shootings.

I concur with your recent post regarding pre trial prejudice. Il keep an eye on the page for mis-representations etc.Markdarrly (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

You are still on the Michael Jackson page...?!! Good grief, you're more obsessed than the fans.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.80.102 (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Michael Jackson is a featured article, so new material is checked carefully. The material about the supposed racial origin of "Wacko Jacko" was a worry, since no UK journalist has ever heard of this and three men make a tiger. As for the infobox image, there have been numerous debates about this in the past, but Wikipedia is limited to images which are proven to be copyright free. There are very few copyright free images of Jackson at the peak of his career, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Michael_Jackson .The 1984 White House image is generally considered to be the best one.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner sexting scandal

I object to deleting the women's names from this article. They were published in the media, and some of the women followed up with public appearances, photo shoots, books, etc. to take advantage of the publicity. This type activity voids the expectation of privacy. If you want to delete, it should be on a case by case basis after research of the women's behavior. Pkeets (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Anthony Weiner sexting scandal.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Important information on 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

Traces of explosives (TNT and Nitroglycerin) on the wreck
Proposal IV
Voyt13 (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Help with Babylon malware section

Hello - you seem to be dispassionate on the issue of Babylon-as-malware, whereas most of the people who have intervened in the section, on both sides of the question, come across as a little too emotionally invested. Is there any way to fix this article? As it stands, it is a PR-style treatment of the company's translation software, whereas the company right now is notable primarily as a search toolbar that lots of people have installed unwittingly, don't know how to uninstall, and consider malware. Yet the only reference to malware in the article suggests that the company was cleared of the charge. The effect of neutrality, in this case, is a misleading article. It's too bad. Do you have any solutions? Jeremy 192.138.178.128 (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The real problem is the lack of sourcing. Most of the criticism comes from message boards and forums, which are not considered to be a reliable source. I have looked around for something reliable, but there is very little.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Here is a list of what Adwcleaner found and removed. I would recommend trying this first as it is free and scans the computer very quickly.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent comment on my talk page would suggest that you are claiming to be both User:Ianmacm and User:Gilabrand. Is this correct? Ralphbk (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be in confusion here, I am nothing to do with Gilabrand. I put back the malware paragraph and he removed it again.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
OK. I think I have finally come to the same conclusion. :-) I think it likely that User:Gilabrand is simply 95.142.23.66 operating in the open. Do you think we should request a Wikipedia:CheckUser? Ralphbk (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I have found a Gila Brand who works in the same business (translation) and the same country (Israel) as Babylon software. Coincidence? -- Ralphbk (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
That is interesting but not conclusive. It is pretty obvious that 95.142.23.66 has a WP:COI and should not be editing the article. There is now a need for anyone who has made substantial edits to this article to say whether they have any links to the company.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
You're right, it's inconclusive. However, his recent set of edits shows some in-depth knowledge of Babylon Software and show a certain bias. Do you not think contacting a Wikipedia:CheckUser#Users_with_CheckUser_permissions would be in order? -- Ralphbk (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
It's a possibility, although I am not a fan of accusing other editors unless there is strong evidence. It would be better for everyone who edits this article regularly to say whether they have any links to the company.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I am not a fan of accusing either. (In fact, I am pretty much against it.) But I dug around a bit (archive, talk page, contribution list) and I think we seem to have a good case of duck test coming positive. Duck test is always inconclusive but gives ground for a checkuser. Still, I cannot make a final decision. Maybe we should ask a checkuser clerk? Just ask in a neutral non-disclosing fashion? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Checkuser may not show up anything, but there are at least two editors who have persistently removed any criticism or tagging of the article. Whether they are linked is hard to say, but it would probably be OK to ask a checkuser clerk.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit revert (Sydney funnel-web spider)

Re: my edit here: (venomous - useful information for the lead [lede])
And: your revert here: (rv good faith edit, many spiders have a venomous bite, although not necessarily harmful to humans)

My edit was based on actual article content regarding their venom which is "necessarily harmful to humans". According to the article: "... venom highly toxic for humans" - from section: Sydney_funnel-web_spider#venom (please read) - This seems like useful, if not 'vital' information for the lead. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This was clarified in the lead section. There are plenty of venomous spiders that pose no serious risk to humans. Also, no human has died since the antivenom was developed. To put this in perspective, it is estimated that around 50 people a year in the USA die from bee stings, but a bee is not usually regarded as venomous. There is a tendency to overhype the danger posed by funnel-webs, since 1291 people died in road accidents in Australia in 2011. This is 1291 more people than Sydney funnel-web spiders managed to kill in 2011.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying this in the lead. I felt this was important on a number of grounds. This is certainly something that a reader needs to know. This is significant to this species' notability. The lead should reflect a summary of the article, and this is covered in some depth in the article. Sometimes people simply do a google search, and only use the information that pops up in the search engine, without actually going to the article. I agree that there is a tendency, especially in the popular media, to sensationalize this sort of thing (along with everything else), and WP should just stick with the facts, presented in an encyclopedic tone. However, regarding statistical perspective, the inverse to your argument could be made. Consider the limited range of the species compared to that of bees, or automobiles, etc. As far as bees are concerned, fatalities occur due to allergic reaction and anaphylaxis, not as a direct result of toxins. Automobiles are generally not considered species. ~Anyway, thanks again, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Modified:74.60.29.141 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Warning: attempting to catch huge spiders while standing on a ladder may be harmful to your health. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
He has more luck in this video but there is a sad ending.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if I want to watch a "sad ending" - unless the guy gets carried away on a stretcher with broken leg, or something. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Freddie Starr

Hello, I can't seem to email you, there's no option on my toolbox even though I have my email set up. It's (Redacted) just send me an email and I'll give you the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry McThompson (talk • contribs) 23:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I see you support pedophillia

Just read your comments on the page regarding Jimmy Savile. You seem to have a hang up about the Nazis. The original poster was not comparing Savile directly to Hitler as is mooted in Godwin's Law they were stating that the article about Savile is written in a manner which would be akin to an article about Hitler being compartmentalised into the man's good and the bad traits. However from reading other further comments, it's clear you have a habit of not following the argument, because you then go on to defend the assertions that as Savile does not have the luxury of defending himself, they should be treated with a some scepticism e.g. "if they were so strong (eg Haut de la Garenne, Duncroft) why was he not charged during his lifetime?".

Quite frankly what you are saying and your opinions are gravely offensive to the victims of Savile and to all children who have suffered child abuse. Just because it turns out that after his death this man was a manipulative monster who was able to brush off any accusations as mere fabrications or delusions, does not mean that there are doubts in their veracity. It's people like you that helped keep this monster free from prison, or not charged in his lifestyle. People like you who even question the notion that pedophillia might not exist allow it to happen. People like you who have probably - over the years - removed comments alluding to his behaviour as "vandalism". People like you give me the creeps, in all honesty.86.149.183.127 (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's a first. I've never been accused of supporting pedophilia before. I do, though, get bored to tears when people introduce analogies to Hitler at the drop of a hat. This is such an online cliché. The point that I was trying to make about Duncroft and Haut de la Garenne is that this material was known about back in 2007-8, and it did not magically appear out of a hat in 2012. However, since Savile was alive then, factors such as libel and the likelihood of a successful prosecution came into play. As I pointed out later on in the thread, the police now seem to be covering their backs.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Either that or they were implicated in a cover-up back then. I can't remember which celeb suggested it, but I suspect there's a lot of truth in the theory that Savile, in effect, blackmailed a lot of people by saying that, if he was "done", a lot of hospitals and charities would stand to lose a great deal of money in charitable donations, and "you wouldn't want that to happen, now would you?" Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Savile jokingly refers to this in his now-overpriced autobiography. Personally, I'm not entirely convinced by the blackmail/cover-up theory despite its huge popularity in the blogs. Decisions on whether to prosecute are taken by the Crown Prosecution Service, which is reasonably impartial. The fiasco caused by a collapsed trial relating to forty-year-old allegations would have been factored in to the decision not to prosecute in 2007-8. What has changed since then is that a large number of people who do not seem to have any axes to grind have told similar stories about Savile. On the basis of what is known in 2012, a long spell of porridge would be looming for Savile.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, we know Savile had friends in high places. I haven't read any blogs on this - it will be fascinating to see what emerges. A lot of sixties DJs seem to be remarkably silent at the moment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
According to the blogosphere, Savile was a modern day Stephen Ward, who knew and hid secrets about various establishment figures, some of them still alive. Since a lot of this material appears on websites run by people who think that the world is run by a secret cabal of Jews, lizards from flying saucers etc, it does not seem to be a good idea to publicise them. However, Paul Gambaccini's comment about Savile asking journalists not to publish material that would damage hospitals and charities is plausible.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Mail on Sunday article

This article is worth reading. Many of the current claims being aired in the media were made on David Icke's website a long time ago. Also, as David Rose points out, the blogosphere is prone to "hatred, hyperbole, and demonstrably baseless personal attacks."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Lazenby

Hi, I've reverted your previous revert, but all for the right reasons, I think. An IP removed the rather suspect info, which you then added back in with your rv. As you called it "unsourced and not very notable" I'm sure you agree that it shouldn't be there, so I've taken it out again. (If you do want it in there, just let me know!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Saari you will die next.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Saari you will die next.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Saari Wumpscut2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Saari Wumpscut2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

My Book

Just wanted to let you know my book, Atari Inc. - Business Is Fun, is finally out. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The first PONG arcade machine that I ever saw in Britain cost 25p for a game. This was a lot of money in the early 1970s and the equivalent of around $4 today. This was far more than the mechanical games cost at the time, so someone was doing good business.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a Vandalism Account

I keep being repeatedly accused of vandalism when I am merely correcting pages. Perhaps you would be slightly less judgmental and slightly less self-righteous. Unless you get off on attempting to have users blocked by labeling a dubious edit as a vandalism immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soyouthinkyou'reabrainbox (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Unconvincing. The account was created yesterday and has not been used very wisely. Now is the time to ensure that all of the edits are constructive.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Totally agree with what Ian as stated. It appears that you are mistakenly offering your "Point of View" as constructive edits - they are not. Please make sure that if you edit, it is within Wikepedia's guidelines. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Spider in Gloucestershire - possible identification

Is it an Amaurobius ferox?

Re this edit. The species is a mystery, there have been suggestions that the spider here is a Segestria florentina (Tube web spider) but it does not look like one of these, because it lacks the elongated body of this species. There are various spiders that produce tube shaped webs, and without catching the spider it would be hard to produce a positive identification.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The theory in the Daily Mail that the spider was Atrax robustus was very implausible for the UK. Several members of the British Arachnological Society suggested that it might be an Amaurobius ferox, with the proviso that it is impossible to identify a spider species definitively from a photograph. The photo of an Amaurobius ferox here looks quite similar to the one in the Mail article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have an interest in spiders too, so forgive me for chipping in here. My sister and I observed a large camel spider run out of her baggage upon her return from Africa. He was too fast for us and disappeared into the shrubbery adjoining her Wiltshire patio. Looking at the spider in this photograph though, my guess is that he is native to Britain, and perhaps a somewhat oversized specimen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrewas (talk • contribs) 10:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

McAlpine Article

Rest assured that I have no intention of reinserting the reference which has been removed! I do, however, feel that the late publication Scallywag is innocent of the charge of lible until proved otherwise, and that has never been tested in court. Lord McAlpine is of course also innocent unless proved guilty. Given the grave seriousness of the allegations currently in the public domain in relation to a number of figures, I trust that police investigations will be exhaustive. Alrewas (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The source cited is classic blog stuff which would be removed automatically under Wikipedia guidelines. Somehow Lord McAlpine was drawn into the North Wales child abuse scandal, although the key witness subsequently admitted that he had made a mistake. As for some of the other claims made in the blog piece (eg the 1965 part), this would need a very reliable source and would have WP:REDFLAG issues otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Spider in Gloucestershire - possible identification

Is it an Amaurobius ferox?

Re this edit. The species is a mystery, there have been suggestions that the spider here is a Segestria florentina (Tube web spider) but it does not look like one of these, because it lacks the elongated body of this species. There are various spiders that produce tube shaped webs, and without catching the spider it would be hard to produce a positive identification.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The theory in the Daily Mail that the spider was Atrax robustus was very implausible for the UK. Several members of the British Arachnological Society suggested that it might be an Amaurobius ferox, with the proviso that it is impossible to identify a spider species definitively from a photograph. The photo of an Amaurobius ferox here looks quite similar to the one in the Mail article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have an interest in spiders too, so forgive me for chipping in here. My sister and I observed a large camel spider run out of her baggage upon her return from Africa. He was too fast for us and disappeared into the shrubbery adjoining her Wiltshire patio. Looking at the spider in this photograph though, my guess is that he is native to Britain, and perhaps a somewhat oversized specimen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrewas (talk • contribs) 10:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

McAlpine Article

Rest assured that I have no intention of reinserting the reference which has been removed! I do, however, feel that the late publication Scallywag is innocent of the charge of lible until proved otherwise, and that has never been tested in court. Lord McAlpine is of course also innocent unless proved guilty. Given the grave seriousness of the allegations currently in the public domain in relation to a number of figures, I trust that police investigations will be exhaustive. Alrewas (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The source cited is classic blog stuff which would be removed automatically under Wikipedia guidelines. Somehow Lord McAlpine was drawn into the North Wales child abuse scandal, although the key witness subsequently admitted that he had made a mistake. As for some of the other claims made in the blog piece (eg the 1965 part), this would need a very reliable source and would have WP:REDFLAG issues otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green

Would you consider configuring pending changes for this article? Thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. Please email me and explain. I have never heard of pending changes and have no idea how to configure it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I see. It is an option with respect to page protection. I don't think it is necessary in this particular case. It is appropriate to oversight recurrences, but republication in the brief period before suppression is not of great moment; life and limb are not in danger, nor significant material damages. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Are we getting close to BLP violation here?

Not sure about this "outing." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Parents_and_brother_are_all_registered_Republicans.2C_according_to_public_recordsHammerFilmFan (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with what User:LadyofShalott said. No obvious relevance and could be seen as an attempt at political point scoring.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies - User not Talk

Whoops - in my revert of your (normally) perfectly sensible edit just now I rushed and typed Talk page rather than User page: that's where you'll find the permission. Apologies. AnOpenMedium (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

YouTube videos are not normally used as citations unless they are not copyvios and can provide an insight that a text based link would not. Most people will not watch a long video as a citation, so it is better to use text based material where possible.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops

I think I just accidentally hit the wrong link when trying to examine the history of the page Fred Talbot. Did I undo your reversion? -- Oliver P. (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also made a mistake as an IP had reverted another IP. I've put in a request at WP:RFPP as this should not go into the article for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

can you step in to Chakakong discussion on Sandy Hook TP?

Under "User adding material that Consensus..." - HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think perhaps we're starting to go around in circles on this one - five editors want it out, two in - but even more in other discussions in the archives on the issue before now, and of course, the closing of the sub-article on the father. Time to archive/hat? Just wondering.HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Medication - no unless sourced directly from the investigation.
  • Father's job - has some BLP issues, although the article should point out that the Lanzas were a prosperous family.
  • His mother was planning to commit him - too speculative at the moment.

It would be helpful for other editors to contribute to this section, as the key players have already had their say.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

How did you make your Wikipedia signature?

I'm sorry if this is unfitting, but I really like your Wikipedia signature. Um, how did you make it? Is there a tutorial or something? Or, if you can, explain the code of the signature to me a bit :). P.S. Is it possible to "Mask" the text? (Like in the flag of latvia, make it be with these colors and lines and stuff) EdwardRech (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This was created in 2007, and to be honest I can't remember much about doing it today. WP:SIGNATURE is the policy, and User:meco has a collection of "Attentiongrabbing signatures" that is worth a look. Clicking on "Edit" for this section will show the HTML used to create these signatures. Anything that a standard web browser can display in HTML should work as a Wikipedia signature.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks for the reply, Happy New Year :D EdwardRech (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you edit the Sandy Hook article for me?

I'm new to "locked" pages. I wanted to fix all the links that refer to his rifle- they all point to the gun manufacturer's page, Bushmaster_Firearms_International, which seems kind of silly since there's a better page, Bushmaster_M4_Type_Carbine. Sorry if I went about this the wrong way, you've gotta admit, wikipedia's interface can get a bit abstruse sometimes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knodi (talk • contribs) 06:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously, as in this edit. The problem is that there is no specific article for the Bushmaster XM-15, and the weapon used was not strictly a Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine, which does have an article. There is also a debate about this at Talk:Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine, but it is beyond my range to understand it because I am not a gun expert.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for being so helpful. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

RH

All the revisions probably need to be deleted since Antwerg placed the info on the talk page. The secondary source used is a)completely unreliable, as well as b)the primary source the secondary source is using is a combination of twitter postings and reports on the questioning of an explicitly 'cant be named for legal reasons' person. So it qualifies as a massive BLP violation to link the two. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A balance needs to be struck between allowing free speech on talk pages (debating whether to add something etc) and not allowing obvious BLP violation. The controversy over this has not died down yet, and some people will find it in the blogs and ask why it is not in the article. I read somewhere that the mainstream media has not been banned from mentioning this by the courts, but has decided not to name the person because he was released without charge. They may be worried about libel action if things get out of hand.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

78.149.97.66

Hi Ian, Long time, no talk. Could I just ask for your opinion on the above new contributor? They have inserted opinions on casuality figures into the Info Box on Pointe du Hoc and Omaha Beach, when the information is already in text. Each time the "edits" have been reverted, they have been reverted back without explanation - 3 times in last 24 hours. There also seems to be other edits, not in my field of knowledge, that could be at least be queries. Would be grateful for your advice/action? Best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a look a these edits, but since I am not an expert on WW2 military history decided not to comment directly. Special:Contributions/78.149.97.66 is a new user and seems to have some difficulty with WP:V, as statements should be based on what the sources actually say. Likewise, 78.149.97.66 needs to learn WP:BRD because he has not made any talk page contributions despite numerous reverts.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Ian, Thank you for your advice. Regards,David J Johnson (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Breaking the fourth wall

Hi Ian. re: "This never happened to the other fellow." I agree with everything you say. I've deleted the passage from George Lazenby - where it's clearly trivia and trivial - and marked the relevant passage at On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film) as "dubious". I've started a discussion on the film's talk page which links to your original discussion thread on the actor's talk page. - Fantr (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Barbie Fashion Model.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Barbie Fashion Model.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Switched On Bach 1968 alternative cover.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Switched On Bach 1968 alternative cover.jpg, 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. Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Barbecue/Smoking

Lanmacm,

I saw you removed my edit to the barbecue article in which I added a reference to wood smoking, and I just wanted to clarify my intent. While barbecue and cold-smoking (i.e., smoked salmon) are certainly different techniques, American barbecue is differentiated from grilling by its utilization of low temperatures (as low as 210°F or 98°C) as well as wood smoke. All major regional forms of barbecue that I am aware of (Texas, Kansas City, Memphis, Deep South, East North Carolina, West North Carolina, and South Carolina) use some amount of wood smoke in the cooking process, creating a thick smoke crust and pink smoke ring around the meat (see: http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s39/topsbbq/088.jpg). These woods range from pecan to apple to oak to hickory. I have personally traveled around the country and have visited dozens of barbecue smokehouses from East Memphis to the rural Texas hill country to Alabama, and I have never once encountered a barbecue that didn't use some wood smoke in their cooking process. Although many Americans who grew up north of the Mason-Dixon are unaware that barbecue in much of the country actually means hot-smoked and slow cooked meat, this is common knowledge in the regions I mentioned. I wouldn't have bothered making an edit if the article didn't already explicitly differentiate grilling from barbecue within the United States.

The reason I am writing you individually as opposed to adding this to the discussion page is that I've found that these sorts of debates can rage on for far too long when all that's needed is some personal dialog among editors who disagree on a definition. I remember the debate on the definition of lager beer raging primarily between two or three editors for more than a year when it could have easily been resolved through some private discussion without flooding the talk page. In any case, you may already be very familiar with Southern barbecue in which case I apologize for the lengthy message, but I do believe that some reference to smoke is necessary to distinguish grilling from barbecue in an American context. I do realize that the term "smoking" refers to cold-smoking even in the South, but in much of the United States the word 'barbecue' denotes a cooking process that necessitates the use of wood smoke. If you need further sources on this I'd be happy to provide them.

Best, Aeranis

There has been ongoing difficulty in defining what barbecue is. Strictly speaking, adding wood chips is not a 100% necessary part of the process, although it is commonplace. The best place for this would be later on in the article rather than the WP:LEAD. The article has also been criticized for focusing on the United States, and this is one of the reasons why it would be better to include this in the section on regional variations.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 03:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey Ianmacm - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

OKBot

Hello, Ianmacm. I finally had time to check what was wrong with OKBot. I think I fixed it. Thanks for contacting me!--OsamaK (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As you may have seen already, there is a trial of User:RileyBot which also updates Alexa rankings.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Babylon malware issue

Hey

There seems to be an issue relating Babylon to a malware software, Babylon is a translation software which offers linguistic solutions, the Software has won a Guinness book record, relating it to a malware category is a false information.

If you are referring to Babylon toolbar and search engine those are a 3rd party add on's and are offered as a choice to download or decline but they have nothing to do with Babylon's main product, it's translation tool which you are referring as malware each time you are editing the company's page and product description

Thank you in advance, a happy Client.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.237.42.37 (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The article and the discussion at Talk:Babylon (software) make clear that the problems have been caused by the toolbar rather than the translation software itself. In particular, bundling the toolbar with other pieces of software has led to many people having the toolbar without wanting it and finding it difficult to remove.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

YouTube Music Charts

Hi Ianmacm, I've added the YouTube Music Charts to the YouTube article; I feel strongly that the charts are notable and worthy of mention. Feel free to edit it as you wish, but I would appreciate it if you would leave me a message before reverting my changes entirely, lets hope this doesn't turn into an edit war, cheers :) -A1candidate (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

YouTube has helped to change the rules of the game in the world of pop music. In the old days, getting to #1 in the pop singles charts was based on sales of physical discs or radio station airplay. In 2012, Billboard changed the rules to factor in online streaming.[3][4] Gangnam Style and Call Me Maybe are the best examples of songs that owe their fame to YouTube/Vevo rather than the traditional methods.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
The part about the music charts was moved to the Social impact section where Gangnam Style is mentioned. The Bloomberg video interview with Buzzfeed President Jon Steinberg is not directly about the charts launched in May 2011, but the citation was left in as it discusses Gangnam Style and the growth of YouTube as a medium for pop videos. The wording about the charts and "user-uploaded videos and viral debuts, and uses this data to provide a holistic view of song popularity" was trimmed as this is a direct borrowing of the wording from the source.[5]. Billboard now includes online views on YouTube in its charts, which is notable enough to mention in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded the section to include some background information for the reader regarding the Billboard-YouTube changes. Im pretty sure this is much more important, and has deeper implications, than some viral video hitting a particular number of views -A1candidate (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Exchange with Slashme and David Eppstein

Slashme, in August, 2012, deleted a passage from Ostomachion on the grounds that it missed the point, but did not indicate what the point missed might be. It is not clear, from his qualifications and expertise, whether Slashme has any special expertise in enumerative combinatorics. On the other hand, David Eppsten, who has also engaged recently in editing this entry, certainly does. So, I should like to remind both Users of the passage in question in seeking their consent to restoring the passage, perhaps with some further comment:

So, there are at least four different answers that we might give just considering Suter's proposal. Clearly, to count, you have to know what counts. When, as here, the number of outcomes is so sensitive to the assumptions made, it helps to state them explicitly. Put another way, combinatorics can help sharpen our awareness of tacit assumptions. If, say, answers like 4 or 64 are unacceptable for some reason, we have to re-examine our presumptions, possibly questioning whether Suter's pieces can be turned over in reforming their square. As emerges below, there is also some objection to Suter's proposal which would render this combinatorial discussion of the Suter board academic.

As it seems to me, the point the writer intends is that a problem in enumerative combinatorics has to be well-posed in order for it to be possible to answer it and that wide variation in potential answers is an indication that the problem has not been well posed. What is missing here is the further observation that Netz, in the referenced book with Noel, just jumps into his conjecture that Archimedes was doing high-level enumerative combinatorics leading to a large number, which is then confirmed by producing a suitable large number, but without any discussion of the underlying assumptions need to produce that large number. Two possible reasons for this reticence occur to me: (i) the writer wished to avoid being unduly adversarial; and (ii) the writer considered Netz' adoption of the (flawed) Suter Board, again without discussion why this Board is privileged over that emerging from the Archimedes Codex, a more serious obstacle.

So, I propose for your consideration and, as I hope, approval restoration of the deleted passage, with the further observation of how it relates to Ntezt' presentation in his book with Noel.

Now, also missing in the entry is discussion of Netz more scholarly discussion, jointly with Fabio Acerbi and N. G. Wilson, that came out in SCIAMVS in 2004:

The account here is decidely lower key than the earlier book and, if anything, supports the thrust of the Wiki entry in faulting the account in the book. In the first place, we see, not the Suter Board, but the outlines of a board that is two squares side by side, just as Hedberg had suggested (although in the book, Netz takes Hedberg to task for neglecting figures). Secondly, following the discussion in footnotes referring to Suter, the article recognises Suter's own admission of the provisional nature of his reconstruction (but not the typo in fn 6, where Suter has AD = DB, where presumably AD = AB is intended, not Suter's later conncession that, in the unpointed Arabic of his text, twice and equals are easily confused, not that Suter recognizes that this opens the possibility that the sides might be related as AD = 2AB, as seen in the Archimedes Codex). Thirdly, the authors have studied Hedberg and Suter sufficiently thoroughly to be able to say where Hedberg diverges from Suter. Fourthly, the authors even have reference to the note on Lucretius in 1956 by H. J. Rose from which they could have been led, by equally close reading, to Oldham's letter to Nature in 1926, although, particularly for a senior classicist, such as N. G. Wilson, Rose's standard Handbook of 1934, would be the more obvious source of acquaintance with Oldham's letter. For further reference here, we can consult Suter's article of 1899:

Comparison of book and paper does invite question about Netz' approach to scholarship? As it happens, an extended answer has been given by Netz' co-author, Fabio Acerbi, whose own work delving into Ancient Greek enumerative combinatorics seems, by Netz' own account, to have been an inspiration for Netz to emulate and equal.

The pointis not even whether Netz' approach should be labeled as history of mathematics, or whether, more likely, he is inventing a new genre ... Netz' book simply raises problems of methods: ...

Netz' earlier showmanship in publicizing his conjecture on Archimedes' Stomachion, namely that it was an exercise in high-level enumerative combinatorics, was sprung on a less suspecting audience.

So, with all due respect to your expertise and judgement, I should also like to add these references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.121.100 (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Ianmacm; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

TracedInAir on WP:COI noticeboard

Thanks for starting the discussion on the noticeboard - you beat me to it. Good to know other people had the same concerns. -SFK2 (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeming that Dawn Bard is explaining edit warring to TIA already, I didn't think that a big STOP!!! notice really helps. I'll try and explain things to them and give them one more chance. If they carry on after that though, then I'll block them. SmartSE (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
OK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
You are relentless is the best possible way... :) Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I know, sheer craziness... what are these people thinking?!? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Chuka Umunna‎, April 2013

Piss off! Who are you to decide whether it is notable?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.254.124 (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

After having a look at WP:CIVIL, please take a look at WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I repeat, who are you to decide whether it is notable? Do you even live in the United Kingdom? Do you know the first thing about the Labour Party or its origins? Do you appreciate the historical importance of a Labour Shadow Business Secretary - who purports to represent "the average worker" - secretly referring to those same-self workers as "trash" and wishing for "trash-free nights" in elitist London drinking venues?

On what RATIONAL basis are you removing my contribution to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.254.124 (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is also an issue here. It has issues with long term notability. Please discuss this at Talk:Chuka Umunna, as you have already exceeded WP:3RR on this edit.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

So you want it re-writing in a more netural tone?

Of course, you could have just said that in the first place, rather than delete the whole thing and block the editor! I wonder - do you have any idea what you are talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.254.124 (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles operate on the basis of WP:CONSENSUS. Other editors have also reverted this edit. Please discuss this at Talk:Chuka Umunna. See also WP:BRD.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Dutch Chip Shop To Serve Cannabis Mayonnaise

This is in the news today. I don't suppose that the Russians will be having this any time soon (or the British and Americans, for that matter).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Bracketed

If you wish to highlight the Times' paywall (and I've never seen it done before) you would use '(subscription required)' not '(registration required)' which applies to free registration. And now my nomination for Nitpicker of the Year... Rsloch (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Big Buck Bunny extract.ogg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Twitter superinjunction.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Twitter superinjunction.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. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Good Morning

Im wilford brimley and I would like to talk to you about some stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.137.207 (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you this Wilford Brimley, and what is the stuff? Please note that if this is going to be more silly vandalism, I'm not interested..--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Photo of bombing suspect

If the photo of the bombing suspect was created by the FBI it is a work by the US federal government and thus is automtically in the Public Domain. I added the correct Licensing tag {{PD USGov}} 159.83.4.110 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This image was released by the FBI, but not necessarily taken by the FBI. The ever vigilant WP:NFCC eagles have spotted this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 03:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins

Hi there - sorry to have to bring this up, but I don't often edit articles on living people so am a bit confused. How can his actual name not be fundamental information for an encyclopaedic article?? I haven't gone through all the talk pages as they are surprisingly full of tit-for-tat waffle (perhaps not so surprising actually) but I would like a short answer regarding the name. Is it the source that is the problem? David (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had a search through the talk pages and there is nothing about his full/actual name. David (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if all of the talk page debates about this issue still exist or have been deleted, but Jim Hawkins has made clear that he does not want his full name or date of birth in the article. In fact, he doesn't want a Wikipedia article about him at all. The source used to support his full name has WP:BLPPRIMARY issues and could be misused. Also, to be picky, it does not specifically say that he is the radio presenter involved. There are various discussions about this in the archive of Jimbo's talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Right, okay. I'll leave this one well alone - to be honest I'm surprised the article hasn't been deleted as he's not particularly notable. On the other hand, it's a bit odd why he's so particular about his name and date of birth? As I demonstrated with the source I provided, these things are easily found with a simple internet search. Oh hum. David (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for chiming in based on my editing history and such. I'm not sure I'd have been unblocked readily if not for you and another user coming to my defense by assuming good faith. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This was based on the writing style. There is now a need to ensure that only you have access to the computer used for editing Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
If only it was that easy; I'm fastidious about keeping my own computer secure. :) I could enact a network/local cache-level block, but that's hard to justify when my Internet access is currently a shared resource. I've had to assume good faith myself here, but I'm pretty certain this type of idiocy won't be repeated. (I appreciate a good prank as much as the next person, but wiki-stalking me based on verbally complaining about people not following the MOS is...a bit much. The guilty party seems to agree as well, now.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ianmacm/Archive_8&oldid=602392637"