User talk:Labcoat

Welcome!

Hello, Labcoat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. If you would like to experiment with Wikipedia, I personally invite you to do so in my own sandbox (just follow the simple rules!). Again, welcome! — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Forrester pic

Actually I found that pic on a distinct Neil Forrester article. I thought it ought to go into the main article. I have particular issues with the secondary article in fact - Talk:Neil Forrester contains the gruesome story :-) If you know anything about him that suggests he is actually notable in his own right (the article asserts he is notable only for his appearance in the TV show) your feedback there would be urgently appreciated! TheGrappler 11:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Grappler

Thanks for the reply.

Wow. That seems like a lot of grief for such a relatively minor 'personality'. I don't know much about Forrester in 2006, but I did obsessively watch the tv series when it was on in 1995 (and still watch my old recordings of it now, to my shame) - hence my major re-edit of that article over the past couple of months. His 'Shardcore' wesbite details his current art-related activities, but I doubt if they would warrant any detailed comment on his individual profile here. I can't quite follow the nature of that exchange you were involved in on the discussion page. Are you looking to build up the page in order to justify it (or the opposite)? How do you come to know him?

--Labcoat 13:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind too much what happens to be honest; I found the individual article when I was doing "random page patrol". It's pretty clearly a piece of Wikipedia:Content forking from the Real Life article, but that's fine so long as there's more to be said in the spin-off article than in the article it was spun off from. What worried me is that the article was clearly in violation of the living person biography guidelines (WP:LIVING), which are taken pretty seriously for obvious reasons! Part of that is that in the case of somebody only notable for an event in the past, and especially if they've made some effort to become a private citizen (e.g. shutting down their website) then Wikipedia isn't the place to include the results of "googlestalking" them. (It's irrelevant to an encyclopedia and in 10 years time who is going to update it?) Being a university research assistant is definitely not notable, and he there's no evidence to suggest he is a noteworthy artist (the article certainly didn't assert any notability, it just mentioned that, like very many people, he posts his art online). Once that kind of detail gets stripped out then the page becomes shorter than the subsection of the Real Life article it was spun off from, which is silly. WP:DEL specifically says these kinds of article should be merged back into the main article and turned into a redirect, but the only thing I could see that should be put back into the Real Life article was the photo. My change was reverted by somebody obviously quite ticked off about it, but the article reverted to still was an obvious breach of the WP:LIVING guidelines. I added on Category:Living people (which is vital for articles about living people so they can be monitored more scrupulously) but still have concerns about some of the content. Since you seemed to be more aware of him than I am, you did seem a good person to ask about whether the artistic thing is in any way notable, otherwise it's a bit akin to saying "10 years after he ceased to be famous, one of his hobbies is art" which is at least a little dodgy! TheGrappler 10:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:P1010048.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:P1010048.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ellen MacArthur (Criticism paragraph)

Please see discussion page re Ellen MacArthur. Would appreciate your comments. Thanks Boatman 07:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more constructive comments today. All that we need as an end result is a balanced article. Appreciate your review and comments. Thanks, Boatman 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Labcoat, Sorry you felt that you were being shouted down and receiving swipes. Big appologies from me if any of my input came across in that way, it was certainly not intended to be read in that way and I am sure the same goes for the other contributors. Assuming the other contributors agree with your recommendation then your active participation in the debate has resulted in a well balanced article appropriate for a factual encyclopedia. Thanks for your help Boatman (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Eight edits between you, an IP and User:PrinceOfCanada, just to have the article arrive in its original state. Take a few moments to reread Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and Wikipedia:Edit war. Either leave the article alone or continue to discuss it at Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#REMOVING controversial remarks. Continuing the edit war may lead to a block. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your comments here I think that you may have confused me with someone else. I have replied at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Thanks, Labcoat (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying that User:PrinceOfCanada and myself are the same people? Looking at the quotes you provided, Undid revision 228996579 by Labcoat (talk) Ref discussion yourself, dude. NPOV. Stop it please., Undid revision 228974679 by Labcoat (talk) We've already been over this. Stop., “I'll be reverting now, please don't do this again.”, “I will be reverting your change until you can demonstrate how putting a value judgement on his statements is NPOV.” and “Okay? Good.”, shows that they were all made by PrinceOfCanada. If you believe that we are the same person then perhaps it would be best if you filed a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not implying that - I've made a mistake. Those comments were indeed made by User:PrinceOfCanada. Please accept my apologies.

I would however repeat my plea for an uninvolved admin to intervene on the relevant issue on the Prince Philip discussion page ASAP. If you could assist with that, I would be very grateful.

With best wishes, Labcoat (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for apologising. Mistakes happen and there's no harm done. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that someone needs to take a look, however, I don't think I should be that person as I have edited the page and thus would probably not seen as uninvolved enough. If you go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and check the sections starting at Turn to others for help there are several suggestions as to what to do. Hope that helps. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Forrester's tongue

I don't doubt the possibility that the notion might be wrong (I even tried looking for sources to support your position, but the only one I found was a one that stated it was "almost" bit off, except that it was an anonymous user of a blog), but we have to go by the sources. You say the actual episode indicated that it wasn't bitten off. My memory is that it was. My memory could be wrong, but again, we'd need a source to corroborate whatever account we put in the article. MTV.com doesn't have videos of the eps or even synopses like the recent seasons do. What do you propose? Nightscream (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a tape of the episode(s) in question? Nightscream (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Well, if so, then we're in the same boat. I don't have any eps on tape, but I can remember encyclopedic details of the seasons I watched back when I was a fan (New York - Miami, and to a lesser degree, to New Orleans). I take it you're in your thirties like me? I didn't know that you were going by episodes. If so, then that qualifies as a source. Just remove the source I cited, and cite the episode(s) in question (for both the incident, and the doctor's statements, if they're different eps). When I cite ep info in the Cast Table, I usually do so explicitly, instead of using ref tags, but I'll leave that up to you. Nightscream (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All information has to be sourced, as per WP:V. Any time I put material on a RW page, I always indicate the source, or the episode it's derived from. If you look at my work on The Real World: Sydney and The Real World: Hollywood, you'll see how I did this. Nightscream (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mo

There was a ref for the section you removed located here but someone had added drivel about his friendships in the house and pushed the ref away. I have added it back. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Daniels / Kat Shoob incident

What you or I think of Paul Daniels or his behaviour is irrelevant to what is allowable as content in an article. As it happens I really don't like Daniels very much (especially some of his opinions) but I find him a fascinating subject. I will happily put negative content into the article as long as it is factual, significant and justified by reliable sources. At the same time I will edit to remove poorly sourced material that is highly POV and defamatory. Wikipedia standards for articles about living people are especially strict (see WP:BLPSTYLE). In short, you should not add anything that is not supported by reliable sources and you should not go beyond what is supported by such sources. Furthermore, you should attempt to maintain balance in an article by not giving disproportionate space to negative material (such as single incidents in a long career or history) and ensuring that if there is negative material then a range of perspectives, including that of the subject, are included.

In this case, your description of the incident as a "sexual assault" is your opinion and is not even close to being adequately supported by the source you cited. Firstly, neither the interviewer nor the alleged victim describes it in those words. Next, let's consider whether your description is justifiable as a summary. The term sexual assault covers crimes that range up to the most serious levels on the scales of justice and using those words carries the likelihood of very nasty insinuations being read into them. So if you are going to describe someone as the perpetrator of a sexual assault you had better have some very, very good references to support it. The cited source, Maxim, is not exactly famous as a rigorous journal of record and the interview in question is very much celebrity PR rather than in-depth critical grilling. In short, not the best start. And let's be clear, the article constitutes, at most, no more than an allegation - it is only Shoob's account, it does not contain Daniels's side of the story, and it certainly isn't a report of any sort of conclusive investigation. Most justice systems in democratic states adhere to the principle of innocent until proven guilty. And proof of guilt is generally something only a court or some other fair and impartial body can decide upon. It is not for you or I to decide whether it was sexual assault to kiss someone on the lips when she was expecting a kiss on the cheek. And even if you find a court ruling where something similar appears to have been ruled to be sexual assault, it does not mean the same finding would result in this case.

I actually feel I've cut you a little slack by conceding that this incident remains in the article. Even if we stick to the exact descriptions used in your source it seems quite tenuous. You noted yourself that Shoob "appeared to laugh off the incident", which rather undermines any claim that it was significant. In the context of the article it is quite possible she used the words "worst ever experience" for humorous or sarcastic effect (I'm quite prepared to believe the experience was unpleasant but I also think we have to remember that many people who have taken a dislike to Daniels have portrayed him in an exaggerated way because he has proved a great target for satire). I'm not here to support Daniels or condone his behaviour, just to argue that he should be dealt with in the same balanced and impartial way that all biographical subjects should be dealt with. Even in the cases of the most vile or evil people it does no good in the end to portray them as committing crimes they did not commit. History and society are better served by balanced and factual knowledge. Circusandmagicfan (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

Labcoat, thanks for accepting my compromise. I'm sorry you felt my response was ferocious - it was not meant to be aggressive but it was meant to be firm and forthright. It is a very serious issue to go around using terms like sexual assault (for the reasons I outlined). It might be just an article on Wiki to you and to some people but (as with all biographies of living people) for the subjects it is about real life, real reputations and, possibly, real reprisals. This is not something to be treated lightly. I make no apology for going on at length on this topic because biographies of living people are a serious problem for Wikipedia and one where the message needs to get around.Circusandmagicfan (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Him 063 02 l.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Him 063 02 l.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Wikimedia Fundraiser

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

For our first official recruitment drive! Starting on Wednesday the 9th of February at 12:30pm. We would love to have you!

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 20:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editathon and Meetup invitations

Editathon Invitation

Celebrating Charlie Chaplin's film The Tramp at London's Cinema Museum, Kennington

This is a free event, one of a series of editathons which Wikimedia UK organises in conjunction with a variety of host organisations..

When? Saturday, 7 March 2014, 11am-4pm

Where? 2 Dugard Way (off Renfrew Road) London SE11 4TH.

Point of contact: Fabian Tompsett (fabian.tompsettwikimedia.org.uk) for Wikimedia UK.

Further details and Registration: Education Program:Wikimedia UK/Cinema Museum 2015 (Spring 2015)

Meetup Invitation

Hi Labcoat, You are cordially invited to an opportunity

to meet active Wikimedians in and around London face-to-face.

Description: Informal afternoon in a pub, children welcome.

When? Sunday, 8th March from 1 pm.

Where? Penderel's Oak, 283-288 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7HP.

Further details and check in: London 91

Hope to see you there, Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]