Talk:Alan Mcilwraith

Delete
OK, I've now listed this twice for speedy deletion. Can't list for AfD, as the old AfD is still in existence. Please look at the deletion record and the previous discussion. You'd think Wikipedians would be keeping more of an eye out for hoaxes at the moment... Average Earthman 17:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is complete BS--Looper5920 10:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Alan McIlwraith is a complete hoaxer, but he is now a famous hoaxer, since he's featured in national newspapers. Should his fame (or infamy) entitle him to a wikipedia page, or should it be suppressed because he's an idiot? I don't have an answer, just throwing it out for conjecture.

He probably deserves a mention now for his infamy,as he's mentioned in the papers etc. Just a brief footnote, nothing more. Is it possible to read the own self-indulgent article just for giggles? Bensonby 09:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Update
Oh, this is such a goodie. Frontpage news in the Daily Retard today.

But if he was rumbled as far back as October, why is it only making the papers today?

Now, how do I go about writing my entry??

11 April 2006


 * Dunno why it hit the news today - from the Daily Record articles, it looks like he annoyed his co-workers to the point they started digging themselves. But it's actually a pretty good example of how Wikipedia deals with hoaxes - patiently and carefully the first time, less patiently the second time, tagged for speedy within two minutes of creation the third time ;-) See the Daily Record articles:  I don't know if he's actually broken the law or is just sad and delusional. I'm also not sure if he's notable enough for an article yet. But I've just been answering a press inquiry about the matter, so we'll see ... - David Gerard 18:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This should be kept up as it resulted in exposing two jokes for the price of one - McIlwraith, but also the Daily Retard, who tried to pass off as an "exclusive" something that's been available to all for free over the last 6 months. It's typical of that rag, fleecing others work off the net & trying to pass it off as original. Any day now there will be an "Elvis is dead EXCLUSIVE!" headline from them - 14/4/2006


 * I have no idea why these things take so long (see Joshua Gardner for another, more unpleasant one - we spotted that fake in May 2005 Articles for deletion/Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV (Joshua Adam Gardner), 5th Duke of Cleveland). Average Earthman 18:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So he tried to recreate the article twice more?? How's that for persistence!! What a numpty.

Beth 12 April 2006

The Guardian & Daily Telegraph and others
here he is again, SqueakBox 03:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And another newspaper gets it wrong. Why can't any of them tell the truth - Wikipedia noticed he was a fake months ago! Average Earthman 08:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also mentioned in the Daily Telegraph today, also stating that he was only discovered as a fake yesterday! I agree with some who say he should have a page for his infamy, then again whether or not it is high profile enough is debatable. Northeasternbeast 14:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Times. Scotsman.  More Daily Record and also .--Henrygb 15:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why slag off the Daily Record? How many Internet users would do a search on a Sir Alan Mcilwraith when the original entry was live? You guys only deleted a fake entry. Well done, but Wikipedia does this everyday. A Wikipedia fake yes. However would anyone have known how far he went with the charade? In a word, no.

The Daily Record did have an exclusive because look at the amount of stories from people who worked with this head case or encountered them. It is a sad state of affairs that he was allowed to go about doing this, with his employers not checking out his background.

The press uncovered a man with serious problems, beyond the normal realms of fantasisers. The public had a right to know, especially those that worked with him.

Regardless of what some people think of the Daily Record, their information was 100% accurate in this case. If he wasn't rumbled by the press, Sir Alan would have continued his creepy life and who knows where it would end? If Dell or any of his employers in the past found out, he would have been sacked which then Alan could go somewhere else and continue the fraud.

He is an insult to anyone who died in conflict, and he abused the good work of several charities for his own ends.


 * It might be 100% accurate technically, but it is also very easy to read incorrect inferrences. They say "The entry has now been pulled from Wikipedia" when they should say "the entry was pulled from Wikipedia six months ago, and was only up for five days". Very different connotations - it gives the impression we only pulled it after they noticed. Yes, they actually stopped him - it never occured to me that someone would try to pull such a weak fake in real life, rather than just over the safety of the internet, and in that I congratulate them. But why pretend that we only just noticed? Average Earthman 16:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Guys, Alan had a 2nd entry in Feb 2006 I believe, which was similar to the October 2005 entry. Nobody who worked with him knew about the original entry that contained the UN Speech, the apparent intervention to stop an act of terrorism in London and last but not least the Sandhurst yarn about the faces. I didnt rumble him to the press, however from my sources nobody knew about the Oct 2005 entry. Alan showed off the Feb 2006 entry at the call centre. So whoever rumbled him must have shown that entry to the paper.


 * He put it up at 10:53 and it was marked as nonsense at 10:55. That isn't exactly a huge amount of time. He must have put it up and printed it out immediately. If they'd looked him up on Wikipedia they'd have seen he thought he was a fake (or at least wondered why the article was no longer there). Average Earthman 16:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This article had no history until it was unprotected and therefore the Guardian and others didn't have access to the information we do now, with Average Earthman spotting the original hoax within a few days; hence the problem came out of the way the article had been protected to hide its history, ie it was wikipedia's fault and not that of the newspapers. If they'd had the info we have now but which had been hidden the press articles would have looked very different, SqueakBox 16:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Historical note
This article was started on 5 October 2005; spotted as a hoax with verification requested on 10 October; listed for deletion debate at Articles for deletion/Alan Mcilwraith on 20 October; deleted on 26 October; recreated on 21 December 2005; deleted again on 24 December; created yet again on 17 February 2006 at 10:53; marked for deletion at 10:55; text removed by its author at 11:00; and the blank page deleted at 16:19. --Henrygb 11:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Its time to recreate
Notability of the hoax is now very well established - I think its time it had its own article. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed - as long as Alan Mcilwraith isn't allowed to write it this time ;) . Not only is it a notable example of fakery (real live Walter Mittys) but it is interesting from a Wikipedia point of view as he tried to use it to forge his history and I think that angle needs exploring and I think (given the shaky information being handed around by the news media) that it is worth clarifying how quickly it was spotted and removed - a good example of the self-correcting mechanism. So two reasons it is notable. (Emperor 15:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC))

Agreed, and he clearly wont be able to do so now so Template:Editprotected and have listed the article at Requests for page protection, SqueakBox 15:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Walter Mitty page we can link him to?

Beth

12th April 2006


 * Yep - it is Walter Mitty and it is worth checking what links to it Special:Whatlinkshere/Walter Mitty as there are a lot of people described as Walter Mitty-like. This new entry should be added into Impostors with the Impostors category - the other examples there show that this kind of thing is notable enough to warrant an entry. (Emperor 21:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC))


 * OK cool as I was posting it came back up so I've added in the category and linked in from military impostors. I would still favour what I mention below - having an entry to show the fictious entry he created. (Emperor 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC))


 * Wahey! The new article has gone live.  Fame at last, Alan!

Though I'm not sure we can take the DoB as gospel, given that he's lied about everything else. He'd be a bit of an old looking 28 year old.

Beth 13th April 2006

I know it's naughty, but I checked his payroll entry at BT (I work for a 3rd party) and it was unusual. Shows him not living in glasgow. Why did he tell BT he lived in #######? Mum's address. Sorry, can't recall his date of birth, just wanted to see if he was down as "sir" and change it!

Nationmaster
A mirror of the original article still exists on Nationmaster. Was the Wiki entry as replete with spelling errors and poor punctuation as this one?

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Alan-Mcilwraith

Beth


 * I've left a comment—let's see how quickly their team react. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 16:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Article is still up on Nationmaster. Does anyone else think McIlwraith looks a bit like David "Dr Who" Tennant?

Beth 18th April 2006


 * Good find. I'm unsure how unusual this would be but perhaps it might be worth grabbing that and putting it into a sub-entry, e.g. Alan Mcilwraith's fictious entry, to show what all the fuss was about. (Emperor 21:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC))


 * Nationmaster is notoriously bad at updating. Those bastards. Mackensen (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

what a whopper this guy is!!!

Alas, I don't really know how to create sub-entries, but I agree the original article is so sublime it warrants inclusion.

I wonder when McIlwraith's exclusive interview will appear in the Record? He shouldn't talk for less than £10k. He'll need the money now Dell have instituted a shoot-to-kill policy should he be spotted on the premises.

Beth 13th April 2006

What a Loser
Good job on Wiki, getting rid of Natos hero...never mind these are bound to slip through the cracks from time to time!

Vanity article
It was claimed he wrote the wikipedia article to bolster his position. Yet it may well have been that this whole thing started when he developed what was basically a vanity article about himself (and we have hundreds of those a week) and until we can source that the fraud came before the wikipedia article we must not imply that this was so, SqueakBox 17:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

speedy deletion

 * The current version of the article doesn't meet CSD criteria as far as I can tell. The contents appear accurate and the press url's speak toward notability.  I don't know if the article should stay but I think it needs to be decided through another AfD.  Phr 14:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is not the same as a speedy. it clearly doesn't meet the requirements for a speedy. You have the freedom to put an Afd on the article, though I for one would strongly oppose. Why not try to improve the article as the state of the sarticle should not be a factor in the Afd, what counts is his notability and there are clearly less notable people here, SqueakBox 14:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed the speedy. Put an Afd on it, this is not a speedy candidate as this article is not apt for deletion without debate,SqueakBox 14:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I'll stay out of this one. I'm not going to put up an afd nom.  I just think it shouldn't be deleted without an afd. Phr 15:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Awwww. I'd leave it. Why delete?

Beth 10th May 2006

The story I told the Times
is up on my blog: - David Gerard 15:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there no way we can put this on the page? I know it is a blog but David is our most famous UK wikipedian, perhaps if there were consensus we could put it up, SqueakBox 15:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with referencing a high-quality blog, e.g. mine. I didn't put it in the article itself 'cos it's mine, but if you think it's worthwhile (I think it gives info not commonly available anywhere else), please do put it in - David Gerard 08:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Signpost
Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-17/Persistent hoax

LiveJournal
Is a LiveJurnal entry even worth including in the external links? -Will Beback 06:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. The entry details a journalists enquiry to a wikipedia contact and his response. Although possibly my opinion may be biased. Average Earthman 08:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian 25/7/06
Today's Grauniad has a follow-up article on Mcilwraith: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1827956,00.html where he's claiming that the whole episode stemmed from a knock on the head. Someone may want to integrate some of the information into the article. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done, I've also expanded the article a bit. -- ChrisO 20:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Image
I have reverted back to the original photo (Image:Alan.No2.jpg) since the retouched image is claiming it's PD when it's not and the retouch adds nothing - in fact it is way too bright, off colour and has excessive JPG artifacts. Thanks/wangi 20:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The original retouched version was done by me and maybe it was too bright. I have done a new version which removes some of the murk while retaining the basic feel of the original photo.  The copyright is not an issue since the tag now clearly states that it is PD.--Ianmacm 09:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)ianmacm


 * Ok, certainly better than the first retouch. I have added an explicit source to the retouched image plus removed the PD tag. The image is not PD. Thanks/wangi 09:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by Cola4
User Cola4 has edited this article several times in a way that is essentially vandalism. The article on Alan Mcilwraith is serious and necessary due to the amount of media coverage that the case has received. Hopefully it will not be necessary to block Cola4's IP address. This should be done if the unhelpful edits do not cease. --Ianmacm 14:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've left a test3 warning on 's page. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why the truncation
Mcilwraith is not a reliable source about himself. All his claims have been deleted. -- 75.24.107.158 07:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop vandalising the article. Mcilwraith's claims about himself are central to the controversy, so of course they have to be mentioned. -- ChrisO 10:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Further vandalism of article, and request for semi-protection
Due to the ongoing problem with vandalism to the article on Alan Mcilwraith and its accompanying talk page, it might help if the pages were semi-protected for a while. This would be a pity for serious users, but it is becoming tiring to keep having to remove vandalism from these two pages. See Semi-protection policy for more details on this policy. --Ianmacm 12:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the vandalism has reached the point where it's necessary to semi-protect the article. We appear to have one rather obnoxious anonymous user editing from 75.24.* but that's about it as far as serious vandalism is concerned. I suggest we leave it a day or two longer to see if the problem persists. -- ChrisO 12:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright tag on image
Could someone please clarify the copyright status on the image of Alan Mcilwraith? The image was uploaded by Mcilwraith himself. --Ianmacm 19:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He actually uploaded two versions. The one used here is a variant of [] where he attached the tag Template:NoRightsReserved which at the time said "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author." --Henrygb 00:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for deletion
It is a pity that some people are still trying to get this article removed. Alan Mcilwraith is worth a brief Wikipedia article due the amount of media coverage that the case has received, and also because a hoax Wikipedia article was involved at one point. This article has survived a full debate about its merit and registered Wikipedia users should abide by the decision.--Ianmacm 14:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest ignoring User:Marlboro2006's attempts to vandalise the article. He's been blocked, anyway. -- ChrisO 20:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He is not the first and only one. I wonder if anyone has tried to check if anyone of those who have tried to have this article deleted might have been Mcilwraith himself? - Skysmith 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Attributed?
>>>Mcilwraith created a Wikipedia article about himself on 5 October 2005. The article was created under the username "MilitaryPro"

How do we know it was McIlwraith himself who authored the initial wiki entry? Has he admitted to being "MillitaryPro"? I understood from newspapers interviews MacIlwraith was claiming a "friend" (aherm) had written the entry. Did I get this wrong?

Beth78 10:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting point, but unless Alan Mcilwraith specifically denies having written the October 5 2005 entry and someone else comes forward and claims to have written it, it will have to be assumed that he wrote it himself. --Ianmacm 18:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Celebrity?!
Why is McIlwraith considered a Scottish celebrity according to the categories box? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uranusx2006 (talk • contribs).


 * I presume it's in lieu of Scotland having any real celebrities? *runs away and hides* ;-) -- ChrisO 18:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read the intro to that category then it explains why:
 * "This category is only for Scottish people who are "famous for being famous", or who are notable for unusual reasons and do not belong in any of the other categories. There are separate categories for Scottish actors, Scottish musicians, Scottish television presenters, Scottish sportspeople, etc."
 * Basically, it is a cat for people who do not fit into any of the other occupation cats, see Category:Scottish people by occupation. --Mais oui! 18:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's a better idea to misout the category - Alan Mcilwraith is not a celeb under any meaning of the word! IF you stopped 50 people in Glasgow and 50 in Edinburgh, how many do you think could tell you who he is? Thanks/wangi 21:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree. Perhaps we should have a "Notorious Scottish people" category? -- ChrisO 08:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The "celebrities" categories are the standard Wikipedia cats for people who just do not fit into any other "occupation" categories, as is the case with Mcilwraith. I do not think that we should be making policy on the hoof on this one article: if people have concerns about the naming of all these cats then take the whole bunch to CfD for discussion as to a better name. Here they all are:
 * Category:Celebrities and Category:Celebrities by nationality
 * Please take note of the "Note on categorization": "Individuals should not be included in this category unless they do not fit into another occupational category. Disclaimer: This category may inappropriately label persons. See Wikipedia:categorization of people for advice on how to apply categorization to articles relating to people." In other words, we are not the first people to have noticed that the cat name is inappropriate in certain cases. --Mais oui! 09:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That might be the case, but I think we're over categorising here. Mcilwraith is already in Category:People from Glasgow, if he does not naturally fit into any of the occupation cats then surely it's better to not include? Thanks/wangi 09:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I just do not accept that: he ought to be in one of the Scottish occupation cats, not just the one for where he was born. The occupation cats are the principal method of categorising people here at Wikipedia, the place of birth cats are subsidiary. If people have a problem with the "celebrities" name then CfD it, but you must do the whole bunch, not just focus on the Scottish cat: this is a Wikipedia-wide issue. The more I look at that horrible "Celebrities" cat and its stupid subcats, it becomes clear that this is a common problem. Nevertheless, those cats are specifically designed for people like Mcilwraith, so in it he must stay. --Mais oui! 09:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I still don't buy it, and certainly don't have the stomach to tackle the "big problem" :) If someone is not well known for their profession then it makes no sense to categorise them under a profession. Thanks/wangi 22:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Record for speedy deletes
This article was speedy deleted 9 times, I'm sure I nominated a couple of those. -- Armadillo From Hell 17:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The log says it was deleted 3 times, once following the AFD and two speedies for recreation. It was tagged for AfD by User:RussBlau and speedy twice by User:Average Earthman. Then it was protected from recreation until the story came out in the media. Cheers,Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Some also made me suspect that they might have been Mcilwraight himself, eager to remove signs of his imposture - Skysmith 18:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted to original AGAIN??
Have I gone COMPLETELY bonkers or has this article been reverted to the original gem again??

Help ma boab! This guy McIlwraith sure is persistent.

Beth78 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You can say that again... - Skysmith 10:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's Mcilwraith himself. It seems to be some idiot who wants it to be deleted - he's gone through numerous sockpuppet accounts (,, etc) which I've been blocking each time they appear. He's now editing anonymously from his ISP (BT Broadband). I've semi-protected the article to put a stop to this ongoing stupidity. -- ChrisO 21:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of Mcilwraith/McIlwraith
There is still confusion over whether the name is spelled Mcilwraith or McIlwraith. Media coverage has given both spellings, and the Wikipedia article contains both spellings, which is unsatisfactory.--Ianmacm 08:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is confusion, as is common with such Scottish names. The original Wikipedia autobiography had Mcilwraith, while the Daily Record had McIlwraith.  So I prefer the former as being a more direct source, but there is no certainty. --Henrygb 11:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Description of Mcilwraith's uniform
Someone has added a quite detailed descrption of the military uniform that Alan Mcilwraith is wearing in the photograph. Not being a military expert, I am not in a position to comment on how accurate it is, but any other comments on this would be welcome.--Ianmacm 06:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Move to Alan Mcilwraith hoax?
This person is not notable as a person and the article title should properly identify that. There is precedent for this at Henryk Batuta hoax and Essjay controversy. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is revisiting old territory. The article has survived several requests for deletion, since it is a notable story in its own right, with widespread coverage in the mainstream UK media.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 17:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mcilwraith's edits
After a look through the early page history of the article, it became clear that the saga was not confined to a few edits in October 2005. The article was online for most of December 2005, and was still available after requests for speedy deletion in February 2006, when a template protected the article from recreation. Although the initial suspicions emerged after five days, it would have been possible to read the article for a considerably longer period. This is important and the current article should make this clear. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 22:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to read the history with the logs. It was first created on 5 October 2005, deleted after AfD on 26 October, recreated on 21 December, speedily redeleted on 24 December, rerecreated on 17 February 2006, respeedily redeleted and protected the same day, unprotected on 12 April so the newspaper reported hoax could be described with the history restored the next day.   Before the newspapers had run the story, it could have been read for 21 days in October, 3 days in December and 7 hours in February.  16:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.38.240 (talk)
 * Thanks for your comment. The article was created at 18:28 GMT on 5 October 2005, and this edit can be read here. It was created from the IP address 195.93.21.102. It is a reasonable assumption that all of the edits from 195.93.21.102 and User:MilitaryPro were by Mcilwraith, and for this reason I have removed the infobox at the top of the talk page saying that Mcilwraith edited the article only twice, since the revision history between October 2005 and February 2006 shows that this is clearly not the case.  The saga began on 4 October 2005, when Mcilwraith (as MilitaryPro) added himself to the List of honorary British Knights at 21:18 GMT (here). This was reverted two hours later by Necrothesp, who noted that "Google has never heard of him — pretty good for someone supposedly knighted this year" (see the Signpost article).

User:MilitaryPro made his first appearance in the edit history of Alan Mcilwraith at 20:34 GMT on 5 October 2005 (here). MilitaryPro made numerous edits in October 2005, and added the photograph of Mcilwraith in military uniform at 22:45 GMT on 9 October 2005 (here). The page was nominated for speedy deletion on 22 December 2005 (here). The article was recreated by MilitaryPro at 10:53 GMT on 17 February 2006 (here), and it was deleted and protected from recreation the same day. The article was unprotected to report on media coverage of the hoax on 12 April 2006 (here).

Incidentally, in October 2005 Alan Mcilwraith was a CBE, but by December 2005 he had been elevated to the rank of KBE.

On another note, I have removed this description of the military uniform that Mcilwraith is wearing in the photograph that he uploaded to Wikipedia: "He is wearing the number 2 dress uniform of the Royal Highland Fusiliers, while the diced band pattern around the Glengarry is specific to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders." This may be true, but it needs to be reviewed by someone who is an expert on Scottish military uniforms, or it could be unreliable. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The spelling in Alan Mcilwraith's self-penned Wikipedia entry
Please note that the spelling in the section in quote marks contains the exact text of Alan Mcilwraith's original Wikipedia entry, including the spelling mistakes. The article points this out, and there is an HTML comment as well. The word government is spelled as goverment in this section, but this is intentional, so if it is changed it will be reverted. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

References and tagging
All of the material in the article is reliably sourced from the newspaper articles mentioned. Unfortunately some of the links are now dead due to link rot, so some editing is needed to create up to date citations for the article. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The tag does not question whether it is sourced, it highlights the lack of the use of inline citations. MickMacNee (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Although if some of the content was only referenced from now dead links, that is also a problem. MickMacNee (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the article is created from newspaper material that was available when the story broke in 2006. There are no major problems with the accuracy of the article, but some tweaking to the references and the addition of inline citations would help. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 12:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is understood. The tag is a direction for improvement. However, as said, if some material came exclusively from now dead links, then that is an accuracy problem, as the article can no longer be verified. MickMacNee (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a fact of internet life that links to online newspaper articles often expire after a certain period of time. Fortunately there are enough remaining links to verify most of the material, and I will create some inline citations as time permits. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 14:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion. Again.
It's been nearly 10 years since the main matter of this article occurred, and 6 since there has been any mention of him in the news. I fail to see why Mcilwraith is considered notable enough to warrant an article, when he is not only a fraud but it seems the news has long since moved on to other subjects. I feel it's also worth mentioning that Mcilwraith created the article about himself specifically so he could achieve recognition and notoriety, and his later activities show this to be a major part of his personality disorder. By keeping the article about him, we are not necessarily shaming him (which is itself not a valid reason to keep an article), but rather playing right into his hands. Any attention is good attention to someone like this. I would like to have a discussion about this before I recommend the article for deletion.Legitimus (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would vote oppose to deletion. There is enough sourcing for him to be notable.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is not enough for biographical articles, per policy. It has to follow the rules of WP:NOTEBIO and there has to be some kind of WP:PERSISTENCE.  I have already had several articles about military phonies successfully deleted this month because they fail notability, including those that, unlike Mcilwraith, were convicted in course of law for there deceptions.  I'm not defending these individuals, but rather attempting to uphold the policies of this wiki.  Wikipedia is not a pillory, and I feel since there motivation is attention, a more just punishment for them is damnatio memoriae.Legitimus (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alan Mcilwraith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014712/http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid%3D16929538%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D66633%26headline%3Dmeet-sir-walter-mitty--name_page.html to http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid%3D16929538%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D66633%26headline%3Dmeet-sir-walter-mitty--name_page.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014712/http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid%3D16929538%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D66633%26headline%3Dmeet-sir-walter-mitty--name_page.html to http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid%3D16929538%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D66633%26headline%3Dmeet-sir-walter-mitty--name_page.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Page creator
Although I've taken a look through the various AfD discussions, I can't find any evidence that the original page was created by Mcilwraith. the Guardian exposé from July 2006 states that "Friends set up a Wikipedia page" about him: while it's plausible that these "friends" are, in fact, Mcilwraith himself, does the assertion that "Mcilwraith created a Wikipedia article about himself on 5 October 2005" need to be changed to something like "On 5 October 2005 a Wikipedia article was created, either by Mcilwraith or someone close to him"? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It's interesting, and I've given this some thought in the past. What we do know for a fact is that the article was created at 18:28 UTC on 5 October 2005, from 195.93.21.102, which is registered to AOL. As for who was sat at the keyboard and tapping the keys at the time, Wikipedia doesn't know and quite likely the newspapers don't either. Some sources said that Mcilwraith created the article himself, but the Guardian source says that his friends did it because they were in on the joke. Nobody really knows, and the wording should reflect this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit is a definite improvement. All the best, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * See also Talk:Alan_Mcilwraith above. The exact authorship of the article was questioned soon after it was created. Some edits were made by MilitaryPro, who made his first appearance on 4 October 2005 by adding Mcilwraith to the List of honorary British knights and dames in this edit. MilitaryPro then edited this article between 5 October and 24 December 2005. The media hoo-ha over this article did not occur until April 2006.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 14:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content on somewhat harsh standards
In September of 2023, user Humok (who it turns out was a sock-puppet) removed a few unsourced paragraphs, but also a sourced paragraph. They then removed the entirety of the section quoting Mcilwraith's Wikipedia page. I find these edits to be a bit unhelpful, as the first is removing sourced content, and the second removes what the article is about. Would anyone mind if I restored the version before these revisions? I would re-add the constructive edits made after. Slamforeman (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, this could be restored.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Section on Wikipedia entry
Pasting in the entire article as it was written in 2005 is entirely undue. Perhaps a single passage could be quoted, as is done on the Daily Record article, and a link to the previous version of the page can be linked. — HTGS (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with this proposal. Slamforeman (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)