Talk:Scottie McClue

The sources were part of Wiki for many years all researched and verified and accurate then last year the 2 pages were merged in an act of vandalism - they just need to be unlinked so that when users enter Scottie McClue they get Scottie McClue and Colin Lamont they get Colin Lamont there's no new material no verification required or any reason not to sort this it's a perfectly reasonable legitimate claim it's already worked fine for 13 years not to sort it challenges the integrity of Wiki and it's editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.168.12 (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

conflict of interest edits
Please note that this page is regularly edited by an IP address connected to UTV. The JPS talk to me  09:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * These edits appear to have been continuing for over three years now, mostly coming from various dynamic IP addresses in the 86.x or 81.x ranges registered to BT Broadband. Most of the anonymous edits come from IP addresses which only edit this article and others related to Scottie McClue - e.g. L107, Scot FM, and other radio articles which mention Colin Lamont [] [] and often remove 'unwanted' information, replacing it with more self-congratulatory material (e.g. (Scottie) 'was widely credited with saving the station' and so on.) All very suspicious. Bonusballs (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Except Bb it is a fact well documented in the national press that Scottie WAS 'widely credited with saving the station' and this should be reflected in the article. (preceding unsigned comment by havengore)


 * If this is so then it should be no problem to add a reference link to a page from a newspaper website which covers the topic and uses those kind of words. But without such a reference, and in concert with the large amount of highly slanted text added recently, such a statement is out of place. Bonusballs (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The changes made by 86.138.170.52, noew reverted, can be seen in the diff here: [] Bonusballs (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems that IPs in the 109.158 range (also registered to BT, like the two ranges above) are up to the same tricks - repeated attempts to remove the COI templates from the article without discussion, and again editing, but not contributing to, this talk page - see []. Note the same pattern of behaviour - only editing this and other closely-related articles, removing the same information from articles see [] for a 'Colin Lamont' removal on the Scot FM article. This is exactly why the COI template is in place as it's clear that a vested interest is at work. Bonusballs (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Despite this, the wholesale removal of large chunks of referenced content continues to be a problem. I suggest this needs to be discussed further, and perhaps consideration given to whether it is reasonable to maintain that the 'stage name' and the actual performer are separate individuals, and that there should be no mention of one in the other's article. I'm not sure this really stands up, but obviously it's worth thinking about. Bonusballs (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that the an anon editor is inserting titles in an article about a subject who has a biog on Debrett's -- an etiquette "authority". The JPS talk to me  09:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Complete re-write?
Given the multiple issues raised regarding this article, is it time to consider a full re-write? There seems to be a fair amount of material which has no references (can't find any trace of these "live videos" or CDs on Amazon or Google, for example), and similarly some of the material repeatedly deleted by the anonymous IP editor mentioned above does not seem unreasonable to include - for example, Scottie McClue has been repeatedly described, by Reliable Sources as a "shock jock" - e.g. [Scottie McClue Replaced By MP3 Player] - so while that does not appear to be to the taste of the person who has been anonymously removing it from this article for the last four years, it seems like valid to include a note that the personality has been so described. But these are just initial thoughts - any other comments? Bonusballs (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Biography at Debrett's [] might be a good place to start for good quality, unbiased information - does anyone have any views? Bonusballs (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

General Tidy
There seems to be a suspiciously high degree of interest by user 'bonusballs' and others in this subject. Is this because of a closeness to the subject that is causing the totally unnecessary coi and calls for re-write. IMO this article reflected the subject extremely accurately for many years until wanton vandalism by users HughPugh and JPS caused it to make no sense at all. Their contributions appeared to reflect personal grudges against the subject. While bonusballs appeared to be improving the article at first. this appears not the case at present. The article is about Scottie McClue and is nothing to do with any 'Colin Lamont'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.111.24 (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for the personal attack, which obviously I disagree with. I note that you feel I "appeared to be improving the article at first", when I added material of which, presumably, you approve, but when I discuss the underlying problems with the article on this page, you cry "personal grudge against the subject". I can assure you that this isn't true. The first and only time I've ever heard Scottie McClue speaking was a few days ago when I listened to the Radio Festival edition of 'Fighting Talk' while researching the paragraph I added to the article. It's not my interest to do down or otherwise denigrate Scottie or Colin or anyone else and I have no strong opinions on the person.


 * My interest is in helping to make Wikipedia a better place, helping to ensure that it's a venue where quality, reliable, unbiased knowledge is available. The COI template was added to the article wholly as a result of the ongoing "edit war", primarily engaged in by an anonymous party (is it fair to assume they're almost all from you?) and particularly the one where you also said, quote, "it may be worth checking if user Hughpugh has a personal grudge against the subject". That opened the door to looking at the whole pattern of edits to the article - not just HughPugh's - and it revealed a massive ongoing 'astroturfing' of the article for nearly four years now, almost wholly from anonymous IP addresses registered to UTV, or BT Central. On one occasion material was removed from the article with explanations like "unauthorised material removed" suggesting what on Wikipedia are referred to as "ownership issues" - see WP:OWN. The same IP addresses have also repeatedly removed referenced material from the article. That's usually bad - sometimes, in very limited cases, that's good and necessary, but usually not. And these removals are almost always without satisfactory explanation or discussion. On one occasion the edit summary said something along the lines of "unauthorised material removed in order to prevent libel action against Wikipedia" - see WP:LEGAL. Unfortunately the internet makes it too easy for people to anonymously put forward a biased point of view (a relevant example being []) which is why people are quick to raise suspicions when they can see patterns emerging in the behaviour of editors who remain anonymous, yet are almost certainly the same person. That too is why Wikipedia holds itself to higher standards and takes it seriously when named or un-named parties seem to be trying to push a certain agenda into what should be a neutral, unbiased, and strictly factual venue.


 * All that, of course, is background, a summary of how we got to this place. What I'm hoping can happen going forward is that, via this talk page, everyone can discuss and work to improve the article together. No-one wants to see an article which is outrageously one-sided or slanted either against or in favour of Mr McClue. But at the same time the principles of Wikipedia remind us that no one person "owns" an article, and an article about a living person might contain claims of which that person might not approve. As long as those claims have factual validity and are backed by Reliable Sources - i.e. a published article in a proper newspaper or trade publication, then it is not unreasonable for them to appear in an article, and an ongoing multi-year-long pattern of removing referenced claims would certainly count as vandalism. But as I say, no-one wants an article which would 'do down' Mr McClue or pointlessly air anyone's dirty laundry - Wikipedia is not the place for that either. Just as you don't get to write your own entry in Who's Who, neither do you get to write your own Wikipedia page. What everyone wants, and what Wikipedia needs, is an article that is fully correct, accurate, referenced, and encyclopaedic. Something that everyone would be happy with. That's the aim. No personal grudges. I hope you'll agree that the material I added to the article - a nice photo, and a fair summary of the event - was neutral and even-handed, and that's the kind of spirit which I hope everyone can move forward with. Hope this makes it clear where I'm coming from. Bonusballs (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

consensus
Sounds like we are 100% in agreement. There was no personal attack intended against anyone but you do seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time and energy looking into the history of what is a relatively short article while readily pointing the finger at others. There are reviews pending and the purpose of the article is for the viewer and not for personal attacks or as a playground for the petty minded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.111.24 (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Lots of people do give their time to Wikipedia for no other reason than making it the best and most accurate source of information there can be. This article has been around for years and seen many edits in its time, so it deserves that someone spend a little time looking into the history when there seems to be a problem. Here's hoping we can all go on towards making the article bigger and better than ever. Bonusballs (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

indeed
I'm quite sure we can do that Bonusballs and work in tandem but in fairness my research shows Scottie McClue first appeared in 1992. Any material about or reference to Mr Lamont, especially prior to that date is totally irrelevant to this entry which is about Scottie McClue. At L107 Scottie McClue was on air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.111.24 (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I waded into this as a reviewer and the above paragraph makes no sense to me. That would be tantamount to purging mention of Samuel Clemens in an article about Mark Twain.


 * --UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see 109.158's point but I have to agree that it doesn't seem like it would be realistic for an article to make no mention of an alternate persona. My instinct was to make the point by means of reference to entirely fictional characters like Ali G and Borat but the Mark Twain parallel is an excellent one. It would be quite a disservice to history for an encyclopaedia to say "Twain's first important work was published in 1865 so none of Samuel Clemens' life before that should be documented". Another more live issue is that in attempting to clean the article up, it's hard to provide good references for things that "Scottie McClue" did, without making reference to Reliable Sources which refer to Colin Lamont. (The entry in Debrett's, for example, is surely something approaching a definitive career history - without it, we just have to take people's word that "Scottie McClue presented on Scot FM in 1993", but then the claim becomes indistinguishable from anyone with malfeasant intent who then edits the article to say "Scottie McClue presented on Radio 3 for ten days in the 1970s". One claim can, and should, be referenced. The other cannot, as it isn't true, and it is easily visible as being not true if a reference is not provided.) Likewise, it doesn't seem unreasonable to note that while Scottie was on-air at L107, he was also, in the form of Colin Lamont, playing a key role in the running of the station. It's something of an artificial wall to pretend that the person with their presenting hat on has no connection with the person that arrives when that hat is removed.


 * Certainly if I were Mr Lamont I'd be proud and pleased to be associated with such a well-known and well-loved radio name. It doesn't feel wrong to me that an article about a major player in Scottish broadcasting should mention Mr Lamont's on-air heritage, performing much-loved and popular roles in well-regarded professions such as TV continuity announcing. These are surely matters of enormous pride and it really does feel that an article which made no mention of this would be incomplete. Bonusballs (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bonusballs is making some very good points on this page. The JPS talk to me  22:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Hello JPS,

It would appear that you have a personal vendetta going on against radio personalities like John Myers, Scottie Mcclue and many others and have actually blocked edits from all other users on these subjects on a number of occasions over the last few years. After you've put your version you autoprotect it so than the rest of us do not get a say. Would you be willing to share your personal gripes you clearly with these people with the rest of us? or at least say say why you hell-bent on pursuing this strategy? You are in danger of preventing any updating of these subjects and you are clearly abusing your administrators powers on Wikipedia by blocking, for no reason things you simply personally disagree with. The very fact that you react almost instantly to any changes with an almost paranoid alacrity gives the impression that you have activated some sort of early warning of changes and that these people are in some way important in your life. Are you perchance one of them? Perhaps you could shed some light on your reactive stance. (Preceding unsigned comment by User:Havengore, Nov 2011 )


 * Hello Mr Havengore - I have to say that TheJPS does not seem to be acting unreasonably. The Scottie article has experienced a number of edits over the past few days which are blatantly against Wikipedia's rules. Referenced material has been removed, replaced with some distinctly biased unreferenced text. Articles on Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV) and not be promotional in tone. Given that the same pattern of edits have been ongoing to this page across the course of several years - and you'll have seen the discussion on this talk page from the last time that it got particularly bad, it's a shame to see the same activity happening again, in a way that clearly suggests that it is being done by the same person. (Going on to a talk page and editing what other people have said, in particular, is extremely bad form.) . The protection of this page means only that users will need to have a Wikipedia account to make changes (which is free and easily set up) so that people who do make changes to an article can be more easily held to account and asked to justify any suspicious patterns of edits. Scottie is a national figure and like any other living person with a biography on Wikipedia, their article is entitled to protection from vandalism by anonymous authors. Bonusballs (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, the 'early warning system' you mention is something which is not at all sinister or unusual, and which any Wikipedia editor can take advantage of, it's nothing other than the ability to click the 'star' icon at the top of any article page. As a registered user you now have a page called 'my watchlist' which will easily show you any recent changes to articles that you are watching or have watched in the past. It's not at all uncommon for editors to watch pages which they are interested in or which have previously suffered vandalism - Wikipedia is a community of editors who all look out for various pages and contribute to topics where they can. It doesn't indicate paranoia or obsession, it's a basic facility provided to all members. You can use it too - give it a try. Bonusballs (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again to Bonusballs for explaining the mechanics of Wikipedia, such as Watchlists and reliable sources. It is amusing that you propose that I might have a gripe with John Myers, since another editor accused the article, of which I am the primary author, of being overly promotional in his favour. I guess being accused of both 'having a gripe' and 'being overly promotional' is a fair indication that the article conforms to WP's neutrality policy. Bonusballs' comment reassures me that I have not 'abused' my administrator privileges. We at Wikipedia have a strong belief that articles about living people should be managed very carefully to ensure that we provide a fair and accurate overview of the subject. I understand how someone might wish to preserve the 'character' of Scottie McClue by removing references to his real-life identity (name, executive roles). In response, however, we should mention that Wikipedia is not an advertising tool, or allows knowledge to be censored to present a distorted view of reality. It is excellent that you now have an account. I hope that this gives you a better understanding of Wikipedia's procedures. Under the current protection settings, your account may soon allow you to edit this article. You should be aware that repeated occurrences of removing references and fair material about living people will result in further admin action. Would you like to take the opportunity to explain your reasons for removing references to real-life roles and identities? As I have stated before, I have absolutely no connection with the subjects you mention, and certainly no positive or negative bias. You may or may not wish to make a similar statement.  The JPS talk to me  08:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you bonusballs and JPS for explaining the situation from your point of view. I have no direct connection with any of the subjects which appear to make you so anxious but do see them as important media figures and I find it suspicious when one party because of their administrator status and early warning system who has clearly 'vandalised' this piece in the past and attempted to 'do the subjects down' on a number of occasions with comments like 'is this Mr Lamont trying to edit his piece' show a sense of paranoia against at least one of the the subjects. I do not know whether this person reads Wikipedia or is aware that this piece exists but it is a clear example of JPS setting himself up as the gatekeeper when he has clearly been guilty of direct 'vandalism' in the past

Please note that this page is regularly edited by an IP address connected to UTV. The JPStalk to me 09:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

but is also using his administrative powers to block editing as he has done many times in the past well outwith the spirit of Wikipedia. I am sure you can well see why people's suspicions are aroused with regard to JPS's motives and his connections. If it makes JPS feel better then why not go for full protection and prevent any other parties from editing the articles at any time in the future leaving them stuck in time. Then at least JPS can sport a self-congratulatory tone that he is 'powerful' on Wiki and can stop anyone editing with a click of his 'autoprotect' button. It may make a mockery of Wikipedia but am sure it will not make one jot or scintilla of difference to any of the subjects which he so preciously guards from having any other input.User:Havengore (talk)


 * I just to point out to Mr "Havengore" I put a good amount of new details about this page with REF, im sticking to my guns as well on this one.  NOW YES JPS does do lot of edits, and some time we can have disagreement, but overrall he does a good job.  I believe I and many other well be happy with any NEW information with REF or corrections, but I have watch the edits and most of the time as it been said its just removing information and ref and well that no good to no one, Crazyseiko (talk)


 * I think Mr Havengore is misrepresenting the position. Nobody is being prevented from editing this article - all that has happened is that anonymous edits have temporarily been disallowed due to abuse. It can still be edited by anyone with an account in good standing - something which anyone can create and obtain. Wikipedia takes its duty to the living people mentioned in articles very seriously and where anonymous users are abusing a facility they must expect it to be withdrawn - to protect Wikipedia as well as Scottie. You do TheJPS a disservice by attempting to paint him in an unfavourable light just because you do not like the *verifiable* (WP:V) edits which he makes. If you can improve an article, you have all the means to do so - but that means respecting the encyclopaedic nature of the Wikipedia venue, and only contributing proper, non-biased, referenced, verifiable information rather than overtly promotional statements. It means not removing referenced, verifiable material without good cause and in line with Wikipedia's policies on such matters. Those rules exist for the good of everyone and the protection of the subjects of articles like these. Bonusballs (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * May I also point "Havengore" in the direction of our "assume good faith" policy, a core assumption that contributors to Wikipedia are aiming to do 'good things', even if they don't yet have a substantial knowledge of the project's conventions. I invite you to read this policy alongside some of the above substantiated accusations you make about me. The JPS talk to me  10:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you bonusballs for your laudable defence of JPS but one look through his history file says it all. His instantaneous reversion of anyone else's editing and his refusal to allow 'new' information to be posted is unjustifiable and his abuse of autoprtection making editing only possible every two weeks is a clear abuse of his editorial powers and against the spirit of Wikipedia. (Havengore (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF This has certainly not been adhered to if you read the JPS history file.Havengore (talk) 11:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Havengore (talk • contribs) 11:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But I looked at the edits for the past week, it always the same, REF and details with REF are removed and then replaced with shorter and No REF links. Lets stuck to this page for time being. I think you not getting the grasp of what's being said, some people are just removing proper information and details with links which back up the information and replaced with nothing.... as its been a said if you can ADD to the page then please do so, if you can prove there something wrong please highlight it, but just dont make changes whcih takes out alot of already proven and correct details.  On this occasion and page JPS is doing the right thing, I can't speak about other pages ;) but I have happily been able to update a whole bunch of pages etc. to improve there standards which some was even created by this Admin.  Crazyseiko (talk)

Hi Crazyseiko thanks for your input. Trust me, I can see JPS agenda only too clearly. You will too if you check the history file you will see all this. Earlier this week there was new info added and then as soon as JPS was alerted he reverted the info and autoprotected a technique he has used on numerous occasions and on many subjects over the years. He is NOT editing for the GOOD he is selectively editing to suit HIS agenda aginst these particular subjects which is outwith the spirit of Wiki.--Havengore (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No. TheJPS's record stands visible for all to see - a long history of contributions to the Wikipedia project. Whereas this article has been the target of sustained long-term Non-Neutral Point Of View and Conflict Of Interest edits by anonymous editors, who eventually progress to this talk page and begin making the same personal attacks against any editor who acts to maintain the integrity of the article. (Further up this page you can see the similar personal attacks against HughPugh, TheJPS and myself in the previous discussion from March.) If anyone dislikes the contents of an article, they are actively encouraged to make a positive contribution towards making it even better. That's what Wikipedia is for. But that means proper content, not just removing links to Scot FM and L107, not by replacing valid, neutrally-worded content with overtly promotional puffery (see WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:WELLKNOWN), and not by using anonymous IP addresses, or freshly-minted accounts with no history, to attack other editors with a long and established contribution record. Wikipedia editors are judged by their actions, not by their words. So far all you have contributed are personal attacks. I would urge you to consider a more positive contribution. Bonusballs (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe the best way forward would be for Havengore to just add in the new information, without taking anything out, I have notice some of the edits that some new details have come to light, but of course would have take out straight away because of the mass revisions to the page. Maybe you should outline the new info you have for this page below and we can work happily with you on incorporating the new information on to this page. Crazyseiko (talk)


 * An excellent point. Where there is disagreement over any part of the article, then discussing possibly controversial edits here is a great way forward and a better way to reach concensus and a result that all parties are happy with. Bonusballs (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I also think part of the problem is that this page is more forced on "Scottie" than Mr Lamont. It might be worth while changing this page to Mr Lamont, as we can see half the details in this page are more about him,  We can also have a sub section about Scottie.  That way we can help build on this page.   I notice that one of the new edits was this "Following a successful early career in Education, Opera and The Theatre" there no details or links or even anything with meat.  Crazyseiko (talk)

Hi Guys, these are certainly not PERSONAL attacks they are not attacks at all that again is just paranoia, to distract from the situation that JPS has created,they are statements of fact borne out in the history pages where JPS has been guilty of vandalism and removing up to date information in the past going back years then auto protecting and abusing his editorial powers to ensure no one else can edit for at least a fortnight I see he has also done it in the past for months at a time. IMO opinion the page should be about Scottie and not Mr Lamont but that has little relevence to the fact that no one can post because it does not suit JPS and his agenda. All the new information which JPS reverted (thinking it might be Mr Lamont who would at least know) is verifiable online and the onus should be on the narrow minded to disprove any of the facts. As I say I can't see mr Myers or Mr Mcclue losing any sleep over these articles as I doubt they will even know of their existence. I am only interested in facts but would rather not waste time on improvements if it means leaving people like JPS to set the agenda even if it devalues the whole concept of Wikipedia.--Havengore (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC) BTW are JPS or Bonusballs experts on the subjects or just being difficult because they can be? or are they perhaps the subjects themselves?--Havengore (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You mentioned in an earlier post that you consider Scottie McClue to be an "important media figure". In which case, why do you feel that all references to his real-life identity (including relevant radio executive roles) should be eradicated? The JPS talk to me  13:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr Havengore - They quite clearly are personal attacks when you question an editor's motives, using words like "paranoia" and "agenda", when you decide that someone is "guilty" of non-existent validalism and "abusing his editorial powers". These are not acceptable allegations - the evidence is against you on this one. I'd like to suggest again that if you have a POSITIVE contribution to make to the article, that you do so. Despite you continually saying that "no-one else" can edit the article, this is not true. Anyone can edit the article, as long as they have a Wikipedia username - as you do - and that the username is in good standing (as yours is, or will be once you have demonstrated that you can make helpful non-destructive contributions.) If the information you added "is verifiable online" then you'll have no problem in providing a link to such a reference inline in the article. If the source is reliable and your interpretation of it is sound, then that's irrefutable evidence and nobody can disagree with it. But the onus is on the person making a claim to back it up with references - it absolutely is NOT for "the narrow minded to disprove any of the facts" - that is the complete opposite of how it works. Again I'd suggest that you read Verifiability and understand it, in advance of what I hope will be a long and illustrious future history of your positive contributions to the Wiki.


 * In response to your second personal attack on the JPS and myself, I can't speak for anyone else but no, I am not an "expert", whatever that may be, and nor do I need to be. It is quite easy for anyone to read and understand Wikipedia's policies and how to make useful contributions regardless. Bonusballs (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Would anyone mind if I started to make changes to this page to switch it IE About MR lamont with Scottie as a sub section? then we can work from that point. Colin lamont has started up radio station and CA on tv, and has done many other things bar scottie? What does everyone think? 14:02, 5 November 2011‎ Crazyseiko
 * I'm not sure there's much need to split them because it's the same person. The JPS talk to me  14:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi what I mean is not any idea of a Slip-ting the page up but more changing this main page to Colin Lamont, then having the Scottie information in a own section in this page? Then we can work on improving the page for all? Crazyseiko

Using words like 'personal attack' where there is clearly NONE (I don't know you personally so there is nothing to attack) does smack heavily of paranoia and uncertainty of your ground and the 'agenda' of JPS is plain as day from the JPS History file which you appear to be conveniently ignoring. All my points are heavily CONSTRUCTIVE and it is not me who has locked the public out of editing or reverted a whole piece to suit myself but I can see you're not a person who is interested in another's points and the facts of the matter so best not waste time and energy on that. As I say best leave the article stuck where it is to please JPS as I'm sure Mr Myers & Mr Mcclue's careers will continue unabated regardless of JPS and his fondness for lack of balance and editorial freedom which is well outwith the spirit of Wiki. --Havengore (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This would be my entry for Mr Myers;

{{hidden |headercss=background:#E9FFEF; border:1px 1px solid #96FFA8; |contentcss=border:1px 1px solid #96FFA8;|header=Myers|content= {{Infobox person }} John Myers is a British radio executive, consultant and presenter. Myers developed the Century Radio brand for Border Radio Holdings in the early 1990s, launching two more stations later in the decade. He presented programmes under the pseudonym 'John Morgan'. He then became Chief Executive of GMG Radio, developing the Real Radio, Smooth Radio and Rock Radio brands and overseeing GMG Radio's acquisition of the Century network from GCap Media. He assumed his role as Chief Executive Officer of the Radio Academy in April 2011.
 * name       = John Myers
 * image      =John Myers - radio executive.jpg
 * caption    =John Myers at the Radio Festival 2008
 * residence  =
 * birth_date = {{Birth year and age|1959|04}}
 * birth_place =
 * other_names = John Morgan (on-air pseudonym)
 * occupation = Radio executive
 * employer   =
 * partner    = Linda
 * website                  =  {{URL|www.myersmedia.co.uk}}

In 2009, he was asked by the Labour Government to produce a report on the future of local radio in the UK ("The Myers Report") which was published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in April 2009. A number of his recommendations were taken up by the Digital Economy Act 2010, leading to, amongst others, mergers within the Heart and Smooth Radio networks. Myers reviewed efficiencies at four BBC radio stations during the first quarter of 2011 and, in late-2011, began reviewing BBC Local Radio stations in response to the Delivering Quality First cuts.

Early career
Myers started his radio career in 1980 as a Station Assistant for BBC Radio Cumbria. He was the station's first country music presenter while also presenting and producing a number of music programmes. He became a presenter in 1982 for Red Rose and then, Radio Tees in 1984. In 1989 he became the programme controller and breakfast presenter for Red Rose Gold.

While also in radio, he joined Border Television as a continuity announcer and programme presenter in 1985, and created Border Birthdays with a puppet called Eric the Monkey and remained in television until he returned to Red Rose Radio in 1989. He became as managing director of Border Radio Holdings and launched CFM. Myers presented both the breakfast programme, the Friday night phone-in and a Sunday programme called 'fun on the phones'.

Century Radio
In September 1994, he launched Century Radio in North East England. He again presented the breakfast show, this time under the pseudonym of John Morgan. Myers later released a compilation cassette of the wind-ups from his show, and even a novelty single, called "Three Rosettes", under the further pseudonym of Mr Martin. He also co-presented other shows, such as the Sunday lunch time "Fun on the Phones".

During this time he also presented segments on Tyne Tees Television's magazine show. Ratings fell when Myers stepped down from presenting the breakfast show, and his replacement, Steve Coleman, was sacked after just three weeks. Myers returned for another 12 months until Paul Gough replaced him in 1997.

In 1997 Myers left the North East to launch 106 Century FM in the East Midlands. A year later, the BBC television fly on the wall documentary Trouble at the Top followed his launch of 105.4 Century FM in North West England.

GMG radio (1999-2009)
Myers moved to Guardian Media Group (GMG) after they announced they were selling the radio stations. Sir Robert Phillis, the former GMG chief executive, enlisted him to establish GMG's radio division after seeing Myers on the documentary programme Trouble at the Top.

Myers became managing director of GMG Radio in 1999, winning the first licence for GMG, Real Radio (Wales), which launched in 2000. Myers resurrected the "Fun On The Phones" presenting as John Morgan, with John Simons occasionally presenting. The breakfast show was presented by Terry Underhill and Sarah Graham in the first few years of the station.

He became chief executive of GMGR in 2002, and joined the board of directors of the Guardian Media Group in 2006. In October 2006, GMG Radio bought the two remaining Century stations from GCap, bringing Myers to control the brand he started in 1994. During his nine years with the company, it was awarded four licenses and made the purchase of: Scot FM from the Wireless Group; JAZZ FM; Paisley’s Q96 from UTV; the two Century FM stations from GCap; and four Saga Radio stations.

In March 2007 he oversaw the launch of the Smooth Radio brand, the UK’s first mainstream commercial stations to target the 40-59 year old adult. The five existing Smooth FM and Saga stations were rebranded as Smooth Radio and the group launched the sixth station under this brand in North East England in January 2008. This was quickly be followed by the launch of the group’s second Rock Radio station in Manchester in May 2008. In December '08, GMGR was awarded the North Wales licence, which will allow Real Radio to be the first national commercial station in Wales.

In 2008 Myers convinced the GMG board to invest £1m in documentaries, a first for commercial radio. Many of these are now aired across the GMG Radio network. He stepped down from his role at GMG Radio to travel the world.

2009-present
In January 2009, he was asked by the Labour Government to undertake a review of commercial radio in the UK, which was published in April 2009. In order to stop a high percentage of commercial radio stations losing money, Myers recommended that regulators could remove the imperative for local radio to be produced from within a geographic boundary; tailored news feeds alluding to a geographic area could be produced from one big building. A number of his recommendations were taken up within the Digital Britain report and the Digital Economy Act. The changes lead to Smooth Radio merging its five England stations into one quasi-national station, with local news feeds produced from GMG Radio's headquarters in Salford Quays, and Global Radio halving the number of its Heart stations through co-local content.

Myers was appointed chairman of Radio Tyneside, a hospital radio station serving patients in Newcastle upon Tyne and Gateshead, in July 2010.

In November 2010, he was asked by the BBC to review efficiencies at Radio 1, 1Xtra, 6 Music and Radio 2; this project is expected to conclude in March 2011. The Telegraph reported that the BBC needed to hire someone with expertise in commercial radio, but was not a "BBC hater". In late 2011, the BBC commissioned Myers to produce a report on how the corporation's local radio stations can best adapt to the Delivering Quality First (DQF) budget cuts. BBC English Regions said that Myers was to "advise us on how we can maximise productivity and deliver efficiency savings across local radio."

He assumed his role as chief executive of the Radio Academy in April 2011. Through his company Myers Media he occasionally returns to the airwaves under his radio name of John Morgan. Myers is producing a radio series for transmission in late 2011.

Awards
Myers was awarded a Fellowship in 2005 by The Radio Academy for his contribution to radio. He is a former board director of the Radio Centre, the Sony Radio Awards Committee, and a past Chairman of the Radio Academy until March 2009.

Personal life
Myers has two children Kerry and Scott, and two grandchildren. Scott was a producer at Galaxy FM until 2007 and GMG Radio until 2011.

Television
Following a successful early career in Education, Opera and The Theatre, Colin Lamont started his broadcasting career as a continuity announcer and newscaster for three ITV stations.


 * Grampian (1984 - 85)
 * Scottish (1985 - 88)
 * Border Television (1985 - 1989)

Radio
In 1989 he set up the radio station CentreSound 96.7 in Stirling which he launched on 4 June 1990 as its founding managing director.

In 1992 as Scottie McClue he moved to Red Rose Gold in Preston, TheScottie McClue Mega Phone-In was then networked on various Independent Local Radio stations across the UK and was often widely reported in the National press.

In 1994 Scottie McClue moved to Scot FM in Edinburgh, to present a new late night phone in. where he spent almost three years building a substantial audience for the station. Scottie's show on Scot FM received so many calls that BT were forced to limit the number of calls on the number. and was claimed to be the saviour the station. He did however incur the wrath of radio watchdogs over his views about gay men and women and the use of language

In January 1997 Scottie left the station after talks about a new contract broke down. and moved to Hallam FM in Sheffield and by April 1997,his show was syndicated across TFM in Middlesbrough and all Magic Radio stations then owned by EMAP in Liverpool, Yorkshire and North East England Scottie also presented on Border Television-owned stations including 100-102 Century FM in Newcastle, becoming the late night phone-in presenter on its Salford Quays-based sister regional station 105.4 Century FM when it launched in September 1998. With his show being networked to cover The Midlands on Century 106 in Nottingham in 1999.

Scottie McClue has also appeared on most ITV stations in a variety of programmes and on BBC TV (Give Us McClue) and billed as 'The talk of the UK radio industry' he was interviewed by Nicky Campbell on his TV chat show which also featured Barbara Dickson and Daniel O'Donnell and on radio including Radio 4's Loose Ends with Ned Sherrin at The Edinburgh International Festival. He also appeared on Radio 4's 'The Message' with Woman's Hour presenter Dame Jenni Murray.

In 2001 Scottie returned to Scotland on Q96 with his shows being immediately simulcast and networked across the UK. He then returned to EMAP's Magic stations in Sheffield, Liverpool, Leeds and Hull also broadcasting for SRH on Clyde 2 Glasgow on Saturday evenings and Forth 2 Edinburgh on Sunday mornings and also a stint co-hosting with Lesley Riddoch sitting in for Fred McCauley on BBC Radio Scotland.

Scottie McClue had, as analyst Mary Talbot observes, achieved "a degree of infamy as a highly confrontational talk radio host". Scottie joined Q96 in 2005 before moving to it's UTV sister station Talk 107, the 24 hour talk radio station based in Edinburgh, in 2006. He presented his last show for Talk 107 in March 2008 and was replaced with a simulcast of The James Whale Show from London on sister station Talk Sport, which after a few weeks was in turn replaced by another show. In July 2008 Scottie McClue participated in a special edition of BBC Radio's Fighting Talk at the Radio Academy's Radio Festival in Glasgow. In his introduction, presenter Colin Murray described McClue as "A Scottish broadcasting legend, he claims to have the world record for calls into his phone-in show, I think it was 460,000 in one week, he's been fired or has resigned on the odd occasion from virtually every station in Scotland and the North of England, and how he hasn't developed a show yet for BBC Radio Scotland called "I'm Sorry I Haven't A McClue" I have no idea."

Shortly after leaving Talk 107, Scottie became a share-holder of Scottish Independent Local Radio station L107 which he saved from closure with his substantial personal investment enabling the station to continue broadcasting for a further two and a half years.

More recently Scottie has also broadcast Internationally around the World to Canada, The USA, The Bahamas, & The Falkland Islands on behalf of The Commonwealth Broadcasting Association based in London.

Other work
As a newspaper columnist Scottie has also written extensively for The Sun and The Daily Record and made many contributions to many other newspapers and trade and industry press. A live video, An Audience With Scottie McClue was released in 1996. While working with Century 105 in Salford in 1999, he also released a CD called The Best of Scottie McClue'.

Section break for convenience

 * So your preferred versions of the two articles are exactly as they stand now? There was no need to copy and paste the articles in here. It would be sufficient to concisely state the changes you would like. Otherwise this talk page is to become cluttered and difficult to follow. The JPS talk to me  15:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have looked and its NOT exactly as its stand the now, There is MINOR Difference in what he wanted, I cant see anything taken out but some things added. One bit that been added in is with the television bit, Crazyseiko.
 * So it is. However, the statement is not referenced to reliable sources. If a reliable source(s) can be supplied I will happily insert the material myself. By the way, Forums (such as the DigitalSpy reference) are not reliable sources, and YouTube videos can not be used as references because they generally violate our policy of not providing links to material that infringes copyright. The JPS talk to me  15:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actully the ref is listed, not sure why its not linked to any! http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/l/20600/%28Archibald%29%20Colin%20%28Neil%29+LAMONT.aspx and it does list is years at CA, AT ITV stations and also where he worked before moving onto the TV.... Cheers Crazyseiko.

There are a number of additions in the revision but thank you for looking at it Crazyseiko it's much appreciated and it is referenced in that biography you have of Mr McClue. I know it's history nowbut it certainly didn't deserve to be immediately removed, reverted and locked within hours of being edited with the editor being accused of being the subject that is most certainly not 'normal' or acceptable behaviour by any stretch of the imagination which is where the 'paranoia' term evolved. Anyway all's well that ends well and thank you again for all the help and advice.--Havengore (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we are beginning to understand the importance of reliable sources. I have added a part of the line that I see verifiable. If I have missed anything could you briefly quote the material from Debretts. The JPS talk to me ' 15:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Thank you JPS that is appreciated.--Havengore (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll probley try and make some change over the 24 hours to try and bring the page more in-line with everyone, some minor changes are still needed. Crazyseiko

Thank you Crazyseiko as the rest of us have been disabled from editing by Mr JPS. I notice it says 'Lamont' broadcasts to the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association when it was actually Scottie McClue who broadcasts to the Commonwealth countries on behalf of the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association. This is where the inaccuracies creep in with people's unusual obsession with 'Mr Lamont' in an article entitled 'Scottie McClue'. If it's about Scottie McClue then it should be about Scottie McClue. When the 'lock out' is over in a fortnight or so if another person wanted to edit the piece do we go through you or JPS as the editor of Wikipedia?--Havengore (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

If JPS is feeling disempowered in any way I'm sure there are many other outlets for his huge talents like for example changing the words 'Richard' to 'Webb' in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Richard and then 'autoprotecting' effectively locking out all other editors. Surely there must be lots of examples od famous people who would benefit from the JPS treatment.--Havengore (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just received notification that JPS has 'blocked' his own talk page from being edited (added to) very suspicious indeed, his antics regarding his editing of the Scottie McClue article have now been brought to the attention of the appropriate committee enquiring into what authorises him to decide who edits pieces on Wikipedia and who doesn't. I'll report the outcome to all concerned. --Havengore (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 11:18, 3 November 2011‎ The JPS (talk | contribs)‎ (8,842 bytes) (Is this Mr Lamont trying to censure his article) this is an example of the 'paranoia' by JPS referred to earlier.--Havengore (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr Havengore - what a user does with their own talk page is their own business. Your conduct towards TheJPS is not civil or even slightly grown-up. JPS is not your foe just because you disagree with the edits he made or the (entirely correct) administrative action he took in the face of unremitting article abuse and violations, against ONLY this article and others related to McClue/Lamont, by "anonymous" editors. I would strongly suggest focusing your attention on the article rather than other editors and I urge you to read WP:PA. Bonusballs (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr Bonusballs, Thank you for your kind advice and assurance that JPS's behaviour towards these high profile articles is not in any way suspicious and that his previous 'vandalism' of the piece and refusal to accept others editorial over many years has no malicious intent. However only today has JPS's true identity been revealed to me which heavily contradicts your own good faith in JPS. I can assure you he is a 'foe' of many famous media people and on here edits with intent on many related subjects. I shall not be so base as to reveal his identity to you (suffice to say he is from the NE of England with connections to the radio industry, but rest assured if JPS continues his unsolicited vendetta against these often unsuspecting subjects his true identity will be revealed internet wide which would not be welcomed by many, particulary him in his present predicament.--Havengore (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever information you believe you have, your threats are NOT ACCEPTABLE - see WP:OUTING. Wikipedia is not a venue for such arguments and squabbles. Bonusballs (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Bonusballs are you an apologist for JPS? Rest assured there are NO 'threats' or anything 'unnacceptable' that is your terminology and any 'Outing' if and when deemed appropriate will be done accross the internet on sites other than Wiki so you can relax on that. You would be better focussing you energy on JPS's editing behaviour on Wiki. now THAT is 'NOT ACCEPTABLE' --Havengore (talk) 13:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your contributions are on record and your use of Wikipedia to convey the text "if JPS continues his unsolicited vendetta against these often unsuspecting subjects his true identity will be revealed internet wide" IS a personal attack, IS in breach of WP:OUTING and must stop NOW. It does not matter which of you thinks they are in the right - Wikipedia is not a venue for your personal squabbles. Stop now. Bonusballs (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Bonusballs smell the coffee! it is most certainly NOT a personal attack it is a most generous request to desist his shocking behaviour and abuse of Administrators powers on Wiki. That's what you should be looking at instead of trying to defend the indefensible. As I have already stated if and when it is deemed necessary for the protection of others any 'outing' of JPS (long overdue) will take place on other platforms so Wiki's 'outing' policy will have no relevence whatsoever. You should be supporting me in this Bonusballs as it is in defence of innocent subjects on Wiki who may have suffered at the hands of JPS. in some cases for years. Surely any 'cleansing' of Wiki and exposure of abuse can only be a good thing. Why are you keen to 'protect' JPS when he has been found out?--Havengore (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Threats to 'out' other editors, whether the information you have is accurate or not, whether conducted on-Wiki or off, are NOT acceptable. Wikipedia is very clear on this - NO exceptions. Please stop - if you have a point to make about an article, make it. Don't go after the editors who work to improve and maintain the website. Bonusballs (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Bonusballs In the JPS case it's not a case of 'going after editors' it is making Wiki a much better place to be by ridding it of a 'vandal' who has been around far too long. Now that matter is being dealt with a senior level which will end up between JPS & Wiki so lets hear no more about it. I'd rather we put our time into improving what before JPS's interference and vandalism last week was an excellent article but is now a very poor shadow of its former self. It is lacklustre and does not convey the greatness of Scottie McClue as a broadcaster which is a widely known and universal fact upon which we can all at least agree.--Havengore (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What about we make; 'Scottie McClue is the on-air pseudonym of media consultant, actor, writer and broadcaster Colin Lamont. The character started life in 1992 at Red Rose Gold in Preston,[2] where Lamont was a Senior producer and presenter for the station, creatting the on-air pseudonym Scottie McClue for the Scottie McClue Mega Phone-In which was then networked on various Independent Local Radio stations across the UK.'

Into

'Scottie McClue started in 1992 at Red Rose Gold in Preston,[2] as a Senior producer and presenter for the station with the 'Scottie McClue Mega Phone-In' which was then networked on various Independent Local Radio stations across the UK.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havengore (talk • contribs) 16:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 6 November 2011
Please change; According to Debretts, Lamont has also broadcast internationally to The Commonwealth Broadcasting Association based in London.[16] To; More recently Scottie McClue has also broadcast internationally to many Countries around the World on behalf of The Commonwealth Broadcasting Association which is based in London.[16]

Havengore (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That sentence definitely needed clarifying. Done. Bonusballs (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have made some changes to this page as its become clear there is some issues and some points which need to be made alot clearer. The changes should make it alot easier to distinguish between Colin and Scottie instead of him being miss marsh, which is somewhat confusing. Colin is Scottie and Scottie is Colin all info is correct I hope the changes will make most people happy. I do know more might need to be done. Crazyseiko.

Hi Craztseiko thanks for helping but I remember he was over a year at Centresound as the MD, these are the inaccuracies which are in the article because people don't know the history of Scottie McClue. I've studied the man for years he is an absolute icon. The problem is that prior to JPS's meddling and mischief making the article was almost 100% accurate then came the meddling with intent and the 'auto protect' and abuse of administrator's powers which will be dealt with accordingly by the appropriate committees at Wikipedia. but the ban on editing needs to be lifted so that the JPS malice can be put right. I have followed Scottie's illustrious career to date and have all the facts and figures at my fingertips. Preceding unsigned comment [] posted by Havengore (talk)


 * The Newspaper state he was gone in September 1990: http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/radio-station-chiefs-resign-1.560872? if he started in 89 then would that not cover the years? If you do have any other useful fact, could you possible post the details here and we can work with you to slot in the details and improve the page? cheer : Crazyseiko.

Cheers buddy but it certainly wasn't three months! where did that come from?--Havengore (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * you have to ask Herald for that one, but if CentreSound 96.7 went on June, he left in September that what Im getting 3months, unless you taking into account his time before the station went on air: Crazyseiko.

He set the station up and joined in September 1989 direct from Border TV.--Havengore (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've rearranged that sentence to clarify the timings. The 'three months' comes from the referenced article which is clearer that it was 3 months of the launch rather than 3 months after joining. Bonusballs (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Bonusballs appreciated--Havengore (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the article is about Scottie McClue It might be a better idea to drop all the references to Colin Lamont completely and go from 1992.--Havengore (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * this is WHY I think it should be changed to "Colin Lamont" Page since Colin was also a CA and plenty of people who were CA and help built up radio stations etc have pages on here, and it would be shame if he mist out of that,: Crazyseiko


 * Definitely a tricky question - you'll see that further up this page the same suggestion was made anonymously back in March, and discussed then too. There is precedent on both sides - The article for Mark Twain, for example, is using the pen name by which the underlying author, Samuel Clemens, is most widely known. It takes the view, of course, that they are the same person. Conversely, there are standalone articles for "characters" like Ali G and Borat which exist in their fictional world, recognising that they are a specific 'creation' of the real-life Sacha Baron Cohen rather than merely a name which the real Mr Cohen is better known by.


 * Scottie is difficult to classify. Is Scottie a wholly fictional character - an act (Ali G) - or is Scottie more of a pen name (Twain) by which Colin Lamont (Clemens) is better known? It's difficult to separate. Bonusballs (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Scottie McClue is a very famous person and a great entertainer and broadcaster known across the World whereas outwith the UK radio industry and formerly from ITV viewers from John O' Groats to The Isle of Man Colin Lamont will hardly be known. A bit like Cliff Richard & Harry Webb.--Havengore (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That is an excellent point. There is no article for Harry Webb, only one for Cliff Richard - however, the Cliff Richard article does mention Harry Webb and his "pre-Cliff Richard" career. Scottie McClue is a person, not a character, therefore Scottie is Mr Lamont (no question about that). Scottie McClue, as the name by which Mr Lamont is best known, therefore seems to be the most sensible title for the article (as per Cliff Richard) but likewise, not mentioning Mr Lamont's non-Scottie career would therefore seem to leave the article very much incomplete. I admit, this is one issue where I'm not completely sure which side of the fence I sit on. Bonusballs (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Join the club Mr Lamont is a rather sombre or serious person with a high powered ' senior managerial' style very much a behind the scenes person who operates at senior level in the UK media.

Scottie McClue is a much loved or hated, 50/50 on that, character who is larger than life but a household name and a brilliant broadcaster. If you mention Scottie McClue to most people they light up with instant recognition. If you were to ask people about Colin lamont I doubt it would mean much to them other than to TV Viewers and listeners prior to 1992 which is twenty years ago.--Havengore (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to say I rather keep his information about colin work, as Scottie is Colin and as you say There more to Scottie than meets the eye, Harry webb is on the Cliff richard page so I say keep the details for now. Crazyseiko


 * Indeed. Even if we took the view that Scottie and Colin were entirely separate and that two articles were necessary instead of one, it would be impossible to mention either without mentioning the other. Bonusballs (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a case for making the whole article solely about Scottie Mcclue from 1992 and removing all references to Mr Lamont as the public only know Scottie and don't connect the two. Scottie's website has no reference to mr lamont see here http://www.scottie-mcclue.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havengore (talk • contribs) 19:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * True enough, but Scottie McClue's website is not an encyclopaedia, while Wikipedia is. It's therefore trickier to justify the removal of information just because most people don't know it. (Likewise Scottie would probably not approach Debrett's and seek the removal of 'his' achievements from the biography of Mr Lamont.) But maybe there is a case to be made for two separate articles? 'Colin Lamont' covering TV, early station managership and boardroom roles (e.g. L107), 'Scottie McClue' focusing on the on-air persona? It would obviously have to be briefly noted in each article that the two are related - it would not be encyclopaedic not to acknowledge that - but maybe that could be a way forward, subject to what everyone else thinks, obviously? Bonusballs (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You are full of wisdom Bonusballs there would be no problem removing the references to Colin Lamont as they are nothing to do with Scottie McClue who is an on air Radio & TV & online character who exists to this day. Colin Lamont is a different character and the two bear no resemblence in the same way as JK Rowling makes no appearance nor is there reference made to her in a Harry Potter film.--Havengore (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But unlike Harry potter, Scottie is real and also if it wasnt for Colin Management skills I doubt Scottie would be able to do anything with that L107 station. There is No information about HOW scottie come to be, and with no past info bar colin, then I still have to vote to keep the info in. I wish Blockbuster page had this more proper talk in it! Crazyseiko

Know exactly what you mean Crazyseiko but I've just had a look at the article and it doesn't communicate any of the vibrancy of Scottie McClue who is a trailblazer and leader in his field of talk radio, also talking about Colin Lamont and the Clydesdale bank it is nothing to do with Scottie Mcclue and so far removed from him it just doesn't make any sense for the article which until last week was brilliant. I've even thought of emailing Scottie as there is an email facility at http://www.scottie-mcclue.com and asking him if he would edit it for us to let the rest of us get started as no one could verify it better. Any thoughts as I'm almost out of ideas on this one.
 * Alas I believe he would not be allowed to edit it him self, something to do with the rules, But maybe you could email and ask him some questions which you could then add to the page or here if needs be? Crazyseiko
 * The most important rule here is "no original research". This means that Mr Lamont would not be able to insert material on the basis that "I know this is true." A private exchange, such as telephone or email correspondence between Lamont and a Wikipedian, would also breach WP:OR and would be unacceptable. WP:YOURSELF suggests that the subject would be welcome to edit the article about himself so long that he abides by WP:RS and WP:V, and other, policies. His own website can be used as a source to a limited extent. To quote from WP:YOURSELF, "Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves ... so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources." The JPS talk to me ' 08:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Should the article be separated, then you should be aware that Lamont would still need to be mentioned early in a standalone Scottie article. I believe that Bonusballs made this quite clear. The Alan Partridge article quickly mentions the actor (Steve Coogan), as does the article about the character Borat Sagdiyev (Sacha Baron Cohen); the article about the Harry Potter character very quickly points out that he is a creation of J. K. Rowling. Therefore, a Scottie McClue article must make directed reference to Colin Lamont in the WP:LEAD section. Going from previous edits, this might not please. Also note that in each of the above cases, the 'real-life' subjects (Coogan, Cohen and Rowling) all discuss the 'characters'. Please don't be under any illusion that separating the articles will sever epistemological connections between Lamont and McClue. The JPS talk to me  08:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that if emailed or contacted Mr Lamont would not be contradictory of self aggrandizing as anyone who recounts meeting him says he is a very modest and unassuming man especially given all the wonderful work he has done and his achievements both on and off air and in other areas of his profession. Scottie Mcclue is also a brilliant character who shines brightly any time you listen or see him on tv and I feel we can do a lot more justice to the character in the article than we have done in the past. I do feel JPS that you should not have reverted the whole article the other day and locked it as looking through your history you have not always been thoughtful to this article which was what lead everyone to question your motives. You should have made minor edits and then come to the table for discussion. However we now need to do justice to the article and see that it reflects Scottie McClue are we all agreed that We go from 1992 with Scottie McClue and drop the references to Lamont & if necessary we can do a separate article for him.--Havengore (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

--Havengore (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I urge you to avoid assessing personal characteristics, either about myself or about Mr Lamont. Bonusballs and myself have explained that references to Lamont will not be eradicated from an article about Scottie McClue, as per the precedents cited above. Every edit I have made to this article has been in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You, on the other hand, have resorted to personal attacks and unsubstantiated allegations against me, along with a desire to contravene WP:V and WP:NOR. Our WP:V policy is unambiguous: no reliable source = no inclusion. The JPS talk to me  09:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense JPS. You also do not have the monopoly on this article or any other so what makes you think you are its gatekeeper Wiki has many editors it's not about YOU. The article in question is about Scottie McClue a much loved and well known broadcasrer and personality what has that got to do with either Colin Lamont or the Clydesdale Bank you are not behaving rationally ion this matter start thinking.--Havengore (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Any so called 'allegations' are all substantiated. The evidence has been retained pro tem. --Havengore (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 7 November 2011
After much discussion (see above)It has been agreed by many editors that the Article on Scottie McClue is woefully inadequate and does not reflect the character or the spirit of Wiki. It is therefore proposed that all references to Colin Lamont are removed as per the title and the article as set out below is posted verbatim.

Havengore (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This request should be declined because consensus has not been reached. Bonusballs pointed out that the creators of characters are named, a point that I have repeated above. I will not decline the request myself since I protected the article. -- The JPS talk to me  13:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

ATTENTION ALL EDITORS

Please note that this request should NOT be declined for any reasons stated or cited by JPS as he has not yet proved that he has no interest in the subject other than editorial and can therefore not cite NEUTRALITY. Having been proved to have 'vandalised' the article on many occasions in the past His continued unwillingness to stand back from the article in the face of mounting opposition and let others take it forward confirms this very fact. I feel it is high time that JPS should do the decent thing and 'butt out' of this article so that others may 'raise the game' and take it forward in an unbiased fashion more in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia and of Scottie McClue. There are so many references to Scottie McClue around the World in print and on the WWW that this work should be made easy. Once ALL EDITORS & INTERESTED PARTIES are content that the article reflects the subject then and only then it can be protected. If JPS still wishes to then be the protector that could be looked at.Havengore (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr Havengore - your tone here is wholly inappropriate. Despite several requests to stop, you continue to make what Wikiepdia class as personal attacks against The JPS. Despite all the encouragement and information you could wish for, you are attempting to distort an article to suit your own requirements rather than the standards of Wikipedia. The sample text you've suggested above does not meet Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View standards or those regarding WP:TONE. A few sentences of example: "created an incredibly high audience which made him the talk of the UK radio industry. and his 'on air' antics widely reported in the national press." - Wording like that is not appropriate and not justifiable unless you can cite reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, etc) backing up superlative statements like "incredibly high", "the talk of the industry". You'd also need to cite references indicating that Scottie's "antics" were "widely reported in the national press".


 * "and his deputy John Simons who he described as the best programmers in the industry." - again, a reliable source indicating this quote is required. The rejected edits you've already made to the John Simons are obviously relevant, for the same reasons of tone. Once these very promotional-sounding sentences are removed the copy is pretty much the same as the article currently shows, so for this reason I must agree that your suggested text should be declined. Please, please take some time to read other Wikipedia articles and its guidance on tone. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a promotional vehicle. It is not the place to say that Scottie McClue leaps tall buildings at a single bound and is widely respected by all human beings on the planet. Wikipedia articles must, calmly and dispassionately, relate the facts, and only the facts supported by reliable sources (like press reports) and not detour into wanton promotion. There are other websites much better suited to that - not least, Scottie's very own site which does an excellent job and where this kind of copy is absolutely and wholly appropriate. No-one is saying that Scottie cannot or should not be held high as the grand master of talk radio - just that Wikipedia, like Debrett's, is not the place for it. Bonusballs (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Bonusballs,

You really need to drop this whole concept of 'personal attack' no one is being 'attacked' and it cannot be 'personal' as no one on Wiki knows who JPS actually is in identifiable terms of the site although it may be well known outside of Wiki. nor are we interested in him. I am purely pointing out that he clearly does not have the best interests of the artuicle at heart and has proved this for all to see so turn your attentions to that rather than trying to negate the facts of the matter as you are someone with a much better knowledge of Wiki than JPS so lay off the finger pointing and get typing on the above text dropping all the Colin Lamont stuff at the start that has no bearing on the actual article. For starters 'talk of the UK radio industry' is verifiable right here. The national press stuff will be on the 'cuts' files of The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, The Sun, The Mirror, etc or on the PRESS files here at Scottie's website.

http://www.scottie-mcclue.com/press.asp

http://www.scottie-mcclue.com/videos/nc-complete-interview.wmv

if we get this right then we can all move on. JPS can pride himself that he has given us all the problem in the first place we now have to find away ahead and work round it. Support the edit request and do the right thing.--Havengore (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

With regard to JPS & purely to set your mind at ease Bonusballs it might help you if you to go right back to your own OP.--Havengore (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this page is regularly edited by an IP address connected to UTV. The JPS talk to me  09:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * These edits appear to have been continuing for over three years now, mostly coming from various dynamic IP addresses in the 86.x or 81.x ranges registered to BT Broadband. Most of the anonymous edits come from IP addresses which only edit this article and others related to Scottie McClue - e.g. L107, Scot FM, and other radio articles which mention Colin Lamont [] [] and often remove 'unwanted' information, replacing it with more self-congratulatory material (e.g. (Scottie) 'was widely credited with saving the station' and so on.) All very suspicious. Bonusballs (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Except Bb it is a fact well documented in the national press that Scottie WAS 'widely credited with saving the station' and this should be reflected in the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scottie_McClue#Edit_request_from_.2C_7_November_2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havengore (talk • contribs)

Stop now
Havengore, at this point I can only give you the advice to (finally) drop the stick, or you will almost certainly end up with a block. This is not a threat, just a friendly piece of advice and, sort of, a prediction. DVdm (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop What?
DVdm While you sound like a lovely fellow I can't think why this is of any interest to you whatsoever as you have made it quite clear here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Havengore that you have absolutely no connection to the subject(s) or any interest in them and just 'happened' upon one of my edits of another well known person and 'corrected' it 13 minutes later.

Once there has been a move by editors towards the interests of 'fairness' and 'balance' in the article in question so that when one looks it up under 'Scottie McClue' they are not faced with 'Mr Lamonts early career in banking' my work is done and then if it helps you DVdm I can look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stick. I have also explained that any attempts to 'block' me or any other innocent parties will be dealt with accordingly by the powers that be at Wiki at the highest level as they have been made fully aware of the situation and are monitoring it closely and that is not just a prediction that is a fact. --Havengore (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Bonusballs comment above;

'The rejected edits you've already made to the John Simons are obviously relevant, for the same reasons of tone.'

This is probably more suited for mention and for discussion on the 'talk' page for that particular subject so that we are not mixing up subjects. If you want to start a discussion on another subject then I think that would be more appropriate to do that there and interested parties can then gravitate to that page. What does everyone else think? --Havengore (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * All that, of course, is background, a summary of how we got to this place. What I'm hoping can happen going forward is that, via this talk page, everyone can discuss and work to improve the article together. No-one wants to see an article which is outrageously one-sided or slanted either against or in favour of Mr McClue. But at the same time the principles of Wikipedia remind us that no one person "owns" an article, and an article about a living person might contain claims of which that person might not approve. As long as those claims have factual validity and are backed by Reliable Sources - i.e. a published article in a proper newspaper or trade publication, then it is not unreasonable for them to appear in an article, and an ongoing multi-year-long pattern of removing referenced claims would certainly count as vandalism. But as I say, no-one wants an article which would 'do down' Mr McClue or pointlessly air anyone's dirty laundry - Wikipedia is not the place for that either. Just as you don't get to write your own entry in Who's Who, neither do you get to write your own Wikipedia page. What everyone wants, and what Wikipedia needs, is an article that is fully correct, accurate, referenced, and encyclopaedic. Something that everyone would be happy with. That's the aim. No personal grudges. I hope you'll agree that the material I added to the article - a nice photo, and a fair summary of the event - was neutral and even-handed, and that's the kind of spirit which I hope everyone can move forward with. Hope this makes it clear where I'm coming from. Bonusballs (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Me too so we are in 'consensus in idem' now lets move forward how about you take over the editing Bonusballs and then it is in 'neutral' hands.--Havengore (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like The JPS is up to his old tricks again and is 'at it' by removing properly referenced edits 'undoing' & 'protecting' the new Colin Lamont page in order to keep all others 'locked out' It's your ball The JPS and you're taking it in so no one else can play. I hope you're enjoying the game because I doubt anyone else is.--Havengore (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does The JPS keep 'vandalizing' articles connected to Scottie McClue or Colin Lamont. He really should declare his interest and provide us with his reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.218.214 (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are going to get blocked too if you don't stop the personal accusations -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colin_Lamont — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.218.214 (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Just looking at the OP on this page I do think something about The JPS connection with the subjects Scottie McClue Colin Lamont John Myers & John Simons does seem distinctly odd and would benefit from being examined by another administrator who has clearly NO connection to any of them taking an 'external' look and conducting a brief investigation into the pros & cons of all this just in case The JPS IS a little too close to his subjects as he does edit them all rather heavily and then rather craftily shuts others out under the cloak of 'protection'.--Havengore (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's effectively what I'm trying to do both here and on the Colin Lamont article, which is to have a look over things and offer some guidance as an admin who has no connection with the subjects - until I happened upon the dispute, I'd never heard of Scottie McClue or any of the other names you mentioned.
 * And as I suggested on the Colin Lamont talk page, I really think it is time for you to drop the personal feud with The JPS, and stick to working towards improving this article. I see no evidence of conflicts of interest from The JPS, and no editing outside of Wikipedia standards. It is absolutely correct, for example, that unsourced "everybody knows" material is not included in Wikipedia articles, especially BLP ones, and that only material that can be supported by Reliable sources is included. (But what I do see, though, is improper removal of material, and additions of unsourced or improperly sourced material, some from anonymous IPs - which is a valid reason for semi-protection if it becomes a long term problem).
 * So come on, how about we start afresh and drop the stick. If there are improvements you want to suggest for the article, state them here and provide your supporting documentation. (And please be in no doubt that if you do carry on the personal attacks, you will almost certainly end up being blocked again - as I said elsewhere, I really don't want to see that happen, as you clearly care about this article) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem Boing! said Zebedee stick dropped I've replied to you on my talk page thank you for all your help and advice and to the others we'll leave it to the JPS & Bonusballs to properly tidy up the article so that it reflects the subject considerable better now that we've had your input. no need for any 'blocking' I'd rather not come on if that were the criteria. thanks again--Havengore (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit suggestion
What if we make;

Scottie McClue is the on-air pseudonym of media consultant, actor, writer and broadcaster Colin Lamont.

The character started life in 1992 at Red Rose Gold in Preston,[2] where Lamont was a Senior producer and presenter for the station, creatting the on-air pseudonym Scottie McClue for the Scottie McClue Mega Phone-In which was then networked on various Independent Local Radio stations across the UK.

into

Scottie McClue started life in 1992 at Red Rose Gold in Preston,[2] as a Senior producer and presenter for the station, creating 'The Scottie McClue Mega Phone-In' which was then networked on various Independent Local Radio stations across the UK.

--Havengore (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't think that would be good. I think we really do need to say the Scottie McClue persona was an invention of Colin Lamont, rather than making it sound like Scottie McClue just appeared from nowhere one day. And I honestly don't understand why you are so keen to remove as much possible mention of Lamont as you can - frankly, I'm baffled -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also, in 1992 surely he would have fulfilled the role of Producer as Lamont, not as McClue, wouldn't he? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (PS: I've added another heading, to make editing easier) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)--Havengore (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No reason really. Mr Lamont is clearly a very talented man and his alter ego even more so and I would imagine much funnier. It's just that those of us brought up listening to him know him as Scottie McClue and wouldn't really think of him as anyone else. I'm surprised you've never heard of him as he was big in the Liverpool area and the Northwest for many years. He has a website at http://www.scottie-mcclue.com. Thanks again--Havengore (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure that's how he's best known, and it's right that that's the name that should take priority. But when I first read about Mark Twain, I genuinely was interested to learn that he was born "Cliff Richard" (or whatever it was ;-). And when I saw this stuff about Scottie, I genuinely was interested to hear of his origins and of Mr Lamont. (The reason I'd never head of him is probably that from 1992 until quite recently I was living a long way from Liverpool) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's absolutely not practical or realistic to remove all mention of Mr Lamont or Scottie's creation. We can't have an article about a "not-quite-real person" which does not explain the situation at least once. All major similar articles like Mark Twain, Cliff Richard and Ali G mention the person's true name, or the names of their creators, in the very first sentence. In such illustrious company it doesn't seem that this can be avoided - but I have coalesced the first two paragraphs into one, meaning that Mr Lamont is now mentioned once rather than twice. Better? Bonusballs (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks better to me. As an afterthought on "not practical or realistic to remove all mention of Mr Lamont or Scottie's creation", I really am at a loss to understand why anyone would even want to. (And I don't buy the "It's confusing" thing - of course it's not confusing) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty well perfect Bonusballs. I doubt we'll all get much better than that as they say the camel is a horse designed by committee. Thank you for all your help.--109.154.218.214 (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent - happy bunnies all round :-)

I think this is the definitive version now as Scottie McClue is Scottie McClue and nothing to do with Colin Lamont who has a separate page. I think we can all agree this makes a lot more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.29.234 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

BBC TV (Give Us McClue
Is it not the fact that it was the 1997 BBC Give_Us_A_Clue series with Tim Clark.


 * Distantly possible, I suppose, but hard to say. It really needs some kind of source. Bonusballs (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 July 2012
As of March 2012 Scottie Mcclue has begun broadcasting his own chat show via his website using the Shoutcast Servers, Monday to Thursay from 21.00 - 22.00. His intention is to bring the Scottie McClue talk show to the entire world and claims to have over 20 million unique listeners per evening.

Ref www.scottie-mcclue.com

Spiri7u (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ Self-published sources are not Reliable Sources (RS) for audience size claims, even if stated as a claim, it isn't noteworthy unless independent third-party sources have noted it. Re-activate if you can cite such a verifiable source. Dru of Id (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2020
Can Someone please edit this page removing the re-direct so that when you search Scottie McClue it goes to The Scottie McClue section.Thank you. The problem with this page seems to go back to the 24th March 2019 when editor 'Klbrain' for no apparent reason decided to merge the two pages one for Scottie McClue the radio guy and the other for Colin Lamont the academic which had stood perfectly well for 12 years. This presents the dichotomy that when someone wishes to access Scottie McClue they get Colin Lamont which makes a mockery of Wiki. What is required here is either a demerger or some clever editing which brings up the Scottie McClue sector when Scottie McClue is searched anyone got any bright ideas. Why Klbrain decided to touch it in the first place is anyone's guess. 86.157.47.32 (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The page already redirects to the Scottie McClue section of the target page. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 22:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)