User talk:Ianmacm/Archive 12

November 2014
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This warning relates to this edit. I can see that you then went ahead and added proper sourcing to the article but as a result of the way you did it, the article continued to carry poorly referenced defamatory material about living people for longer than it needed to. If you want me to explain BLP to you, you know where my talk page is, and there are also plenty of central discussions where people can explain how it works. I strongly advise not registering your dissent in this way again because it will result in a block for you, something I am sure we would both regard as a bad thing. --John (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Calm down. Let's look at the facts here. None of the material in the article was wrong, and none of the statements sourced to the dreaded Daily Mail was libellous. I would not have reverted if there were any doubts on this. WP:BLPSOURCES was beefed up to avoid fiascos like the one involving the article Philip Mould, which contained poorly sourced and potentially libellous statements sourced to the Daily Mail. I am well aware of how WP:BLP works and don't need any lectures on it. BLPSOURCES is intended to block the addition of dangerous material, not to encourage the removal of material that can easily be sourced elsewhere. This is not the first time that your phobia about the Daily Mail has led to this situation. Material should be removed only if it is obviously wrong or potentially libellous. In other cases, would be sufficient warning. Alternatively, a web search should be carried out to find an alternative source before removing statements that are not problematical.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 11:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I am truly amazed, Ian, that an editor who contributes as much quality material as you do, and overwhelming with such care and diligence, should be given an only warning for this somewhat debatable lapse. Indeed, I had always assumed that if biographical material was really that libellous or contentious, then any editor, but especially an admin, who came across it, would be expected to remove it at once. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't worry Martin, it is just that John has a thing about the Daily Mail. If he had mentioned this on the talk page first, all of the DM cites would have been gone within a few hours. I stand by my track record of never adding contentious material to articles.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You may make as many insulting insinuations as you like about my motives, Ian, it is water off a duck's back. There's a contradiction between your statement "I stand by my track record of never adding contentious material to articles" and the edit I warned you for; I would not have warned you had you not restored contentious material sourced to tabloids, albeit only for a few hours. Martin, what is your intention in posting here? --John (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you really want an apology you can have one, because perhaps I was a bit hasty here. However, you were also hasty by removing statements that could easily have been sourced elsewhere.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * John, my comment was addressed to Ian. But I think your warning here is way over the top. You are seriously threatening him with being blocked without further notice? I thought there was a strict gradation in the sequence of issuing warnings. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ian, your comments are well-received here and the article looks a lot better as a result of your edits. Martin, your comments are also noted. --John (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

OnionMail
I'm asking you because you made the most recent edits to the Tor Mail article - is there anything you could contribute to the OnionMail AfD. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Replied at Articles for deletion/OnionMail.info. Unfortunately this isn't anywhere near being notable enough for a standalone article, in line with WP:GNG.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Barbie: Blast from the past!
Hi Ianmacm! You might enjoy taking a gander at WP:RDMA. And yes, this is what mathematicians sit around and talk about. -- ToE 12:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ianmacm, I hope you understood that I mentioned this because I thought you might find both the discussion of the mathematical implications of your 8 year old edit and the interesting places to which your work has diffused to be amusing. I certainly meant no blame. It is seldom that I track down an ancient edit and find that editor to still be active. Thank you for your years of editing Wikipedia, which I see date back all they way to 2005, well before I ever clicked the edit button. Cheers! -- ToE 17:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Lee Rigby
Do you think any addition to Facebook is warranted? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it is a bit off topic there at the moment. It is significant that Facebook apparently did not flag this, and it is still a breaking news story, so the question of what Facebook knew and when they knew it comes into play. Clearly Facebook cannot monitor everything that is said, although lessons may need to be learned from this. More useful details in The Guardian here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Eddie Mair read out a short statement that Facebook had released, about an hour ago, on PM. I've made a short addition to your new section. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks as though the offending accounts may have been flagged and blocked automatically. It remains unclear how much Facebook knew about the discussion to kill a soldier. If a human operator knew this, it should have been passed on to the relevant authorities. Facebook does block accounts automatically for offensive content, not always successfully as Faggot (food) shows.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This is similar to what happened with James P. Hosty. After the assassination of President Kennedy, Hosty's FBI bosses were furious to discover that he had received a letter from Oswald, the contents of which are still disputed; the letter was destroyed two days after the assassination. Hosty always insisted that nothing he knew prior to the assassination would have prevented it. As for Facebook, I am reluctant to say that there was a total screw up without more detail. It is a matter of concern that Michael Adebowale had multiple accounts blocked on Facebook for terrorism/extremism, but the UK authorities were unaware of this at the time. However, if the accounts were blocked by an automated process similar to User:ClueBot NG, it is possible that human admins at Facebook did not have the full picture. On Wikipedia, WP:EMERGENCY makes clear that threats of violence should always be taken seriously. Facebook is unlikely to give details of what it knew and when, so it will face criticism that it could have prevented the murder of Lee Rigby if it had acted differently.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I guess that's kind of similar. Although that was a very different age, when everyone had to rely on written letters to prove anything. The UK press seems to be unanimously hostile to Facebook this morning. Facts aside. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The front page of The Sun today is a story based on an interview with Lee Rigby's family saying that Facebook has blood on its hands. This has been a public relations fiasco for Facebook, and it could reduce some of the damage if it was clearer about what it knew and when. If a human knew about the discussion to kill a soldier, it should definitely have been passed on to the UK authorities. Facebook seems reluctant to give details about this, so the history books are likely to be unfavourable to Facebook over this incident.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I quite agree. Which is why I thought mention on the Facebook article might be justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It may well be worth a mention in Facebook, provided that it sticks to the best sourcing. Unfortunately, we may never know exactly how much information human admins at Facebook had about this, something which the British press outrage has not made clear.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the full report does not name Facebook as the company involved. This was the result of government sources whispering in the lobby as usual. While there is little reason to doubt that Facebook was the company involved, it is less than ideal sourcing. The best coverage is in The Guardian, which says"The report details 11 accounts run by Adebowale, with seven of those disabled by the company concerned and one closed by Adebowale himself.The ISC’s report says that the technology company closed the accounts in an automated manner for violation of the company’s terms of service. Two accounts were closed for non-terrorism related activities, but the other five were disabled for terrorism-associated reasons, including one for being part of terrorist groups. While no technology company would comment on the report to the Guardian, it is known that the posts were made in a private manner that wasn’t indexed by a search engine, that the accounts could be members of groups and that the company has automated systems for detecting and closing accounts for breach of terms of service."

In other words, it is possible that no human at Facebook knew that a threat to kill had been made in one of the posts, but we still don't know.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It also raises the question of whether Facebook is run by humans. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that on a site the size of Facebook, everything cannot be reviewed manually by humans 24/7. This is why more needs to be known before placing direct blame on Facebook for Lee Rigby's death. Michael Adebowale either posted material or joined discussion groups which led to an automatic block, but it is unclear whether there was human oversight of his actions prior to the killing in May 2013.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Even amatuerish tin-pot internet encyclopedias rely on "bots" to monitor undesirable behaviour (or so I've been told). One wonders what mechanisms (if any) might exist to allow Facebook employees to contact UK Intelligence Services, should the need ever arise. It sounds as if Facebook thinks that such things would be wholly unnecessary. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Breaking news here. It now appears that "This had been the result of an automated process, according to GCHQ, and no person at the company ever manually reviewed the contents of the accounts or passed on the material for the authorities to check." So the criticism was unfair, at least in the sense identified by Richard Barratt.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Shucks. Looks like I'll have to "unfriend" GCHQ on Facebook. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This will be added to the article shortly. The UK news headlines on 25 November 2014 have given the impression that Facebook deliberately decided not to pass on a warning of a credible threat. This was always unlikely, as Wikipedia and other reputable sites would always do this. Maybe it suited some people to blame Facebook for something over which they had no control at the time.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If the two murderers had met in a south London branch of MacDonalds and openly discussed/planned a murder months before the incident, would the MacDonalds company be culpable for not reporting it? We can imagine Facebook as a bit like a branch of MacDonalds, but one with many thousands of tables where millions of conversations are going on, 24 hours a day. The staff just make the burgers and they're not even meant to eavesdrop on customers' conversations. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Facebook operates under US law, which requires Internet companies to take reasonable steps to prevent abuse of the service. This typically includes a "report as offensive" button and some automated processes, but does not include the requirement to monitor everything 24/7, which would be impractical, as Richard Barrett said. Facebook allows users to send private messages in a manner similar to e-mail and Skype, and there is a risk that the service will be abused by extremists. The pity about the media coverage on 25 November is that it gave Lee Rigby's family the impression that Facebook had deliberately withheld the transcript of the conversation between Michael Adebowale and Foxtrot, which it had not. This did not emerge (it is unclear how) until June 2013, after the killing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that Facebook gave the transcript of the Foxtrot conversation to GCHQ in June 2013. "The internet firm was not named because information about Adebowale's postings were given to GCHQ on a confidential basis." The Daily Mail (for it is they) uses this as an opportunity to bash Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales, ignoring the fact that if a human had seen the Foxtrot conversation on Wikipedia, it would easily have met WP:EMERGENCY. The question remains whether Facebook should have told the UK authorities about the five accounts of Adebowale that were automatically blocked for terrorism-related reasons. My view is that they should, but Facebook is operating under US law, and as Richard Barrett says, there needs to be clearer guidance in this area.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "... sometimes littered with inaccuracies ... " what do they mean "sometimes"?! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC) and fancy calling St. Jimbo a bedwetter!
 * For the Daily Mail to call Wikipedia "littered with inaccuracies" brings to mind a certain phrase about a pot and a kettle. Richard Barrett knows what he is talking about and has talked good sense over this issue. There is a problem with Islamic extremists abusing access to social media sites, but there are too many posts in a 24-hour period for humans to sift through all of the data. With the benefit of hindsight, Adebowale's repeated automatic blocks on the site should have prompted further investigations by a human, which would have turned up the Foxtrot conversation prior to the killing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Further good coverage here and here. There is now a backlash against the 25 November headlines, which sought to deflect blame on to Facebook. While it is clear that Facebook could have done things differently and may have to look at how to prevent this type of thing from happening in future, it is not their job to be the eyes and ears of governments in other countries.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ""Nice fucking timing, said one Valley executive who did not want to be named." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark Zuckerberg, perhaps? (only kidding, Mark) Seriously, I am sure that Facebook executives are furious over this. There was a clear attempt to make Facebook carry the can in British media reports on 25 November, even though there were also failings elsewhere.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And the battle rumbles on. Jack Straw attacks Facebook in the Daily Mail here, while in today's Irish Times a technology writer criticises the British government for attempting to make a scapegoat out of Facebook while ignoring the failings of UK intelligence agencies. The truth, as ever, is somewhere in between. Facebook did nothing wrong under US law at the time, as it is not required to monitor everything 24/7 or hand over logs to foreign governments without a court order. However, it may need to look at whether automated blocks of accounts are the best way to deal with terrorism related issues. This may prevent TOS violations, but may also prevent humans from seeing information that contains a credible threat.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We are all using a world-wide-web in the 21st century, but it's still largely governed by 20th-century laws "aenforced" by individual countries. The "international terrorist network" has no respect for either, of course. So I think, to a large extent, the legal world has been left a bit behind by the internet. There are still plenty of grey areas and loopholes. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Behind the Scenes at Kickass Torrents
Earlier today I read your involvement in the darknet, undocumented wiki article and then later on I see you are involved in the kickass torrents wiki, so I figure this is a sign and you are the "go to" person for my recent ponderings. I've been active on KAT for several years and over that time I've become suspicious that it is being funded and/or supported by possibly the chinese or north korean government or proxies therefrom. I have no substantive evidence to believe this, save for a lot of very small anecdotes that when added up can only be explained by the idea that in all aspects KAT has no regard for individual rights or freedoms, nothing about electronic rights or anti-government, anti-state sentiment, nothing that could reasonably considered "pirate-like" save for the fact that they simply enjoy stealing the west's corporate intellectual property, and in all other aspects their culture is reflective of a very common, pro-government, pro-state and anti-capitalist sentiment found in communist/state-dominated countries.

It's a theory, and I could be completely wrong, but my instinct on this is strong and will not let me just "forget about it". TPB went down today, which is what has prompted me to act on these concerns, and I thought perhaps you might have some interest in this and possibly have something useful.

Regards,

JQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick (talk • contribs) 09:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a completely new theory to me. I have never heard anyone suggest that Kickass Torrents (or any other torrent site for that matter) is some sort of conspiracy. What has happened is a constant cat and mouse game between the torrent sites, government authorities and the copyright holders such as the Hollywood studios and record companies, who have huge legal budgets for pursuing copyright infringement. I know absolutely zero about who owns and runs Kickass Torrents, because there is very little reliable sourcing about it online. The people running torrent sites tend to play their cards close to their chests, and KAT is a good example. The people involved with the torrent sites often say that they are crusading for freedom (the people at The Pirate Bay say this a lot), while the copyright holders say that they are simply ripping off other people's work. Torrent sites have a large amount of advertising, often of the "pills, porn and poker" variety, so whoever is running them may well have a healthy income.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Dershowitz
Hi -- given your interest in Epstein, I wonder if you'd be willing to have a look at the talk page for Alan Dershowitz,. There's a push to get the underage sex thing onto his article as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never been involved at Alan Dershowitz. There is a problem with civil lawsuits, where a person can claim anything and it is not necessarily going to be found to be true by a court.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Can't find E Mails under Tools!
Wiki is very confusing. I've tried to send the sleeves to you and cannot do it. Tried to email you but have no idea how. I see this on the kingofhits site about Bob Woffinden. I was going to change the incorrect entry but is this a reliable link to put in? http://www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=65&func=view&catid=2&id=126499 Gary Bern (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is similar to things that have occurred in the past at Jonathan King. The problem is not Wikipedia getting it wrong or deliberately excluding things, but other editors having difficulty finding sources for the material that meet WP:V. The Bay City Rollers singles are rather specialised and online sources are not always ideal. The article says that King produced "Keep on Dancing", although it doesn't go into detail about other singles. Discogs is OK as a source and says that King produced "We Can Make Music" There is a problem with WP:PRIMARY with scans of record sleeves, but the Bell records labels of "Keep On Dancing" (BLL 1164) and "We Can Make Music" (Bell 1220) are both on Discogs. According to Discogs, these are the only Bay City Rollers records produced by King. "Email this user" should be at the left hand side of the page under "Tools", but the page it links to is here and gives a form to fill in. However, it wouldn't be possible to add an attachment such as an image.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The part about Bob Woffinden was added in May 2009 in this edit. It is unsourced and has been removed.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Max Clifford image
Hi: I just thought I'd copy you this diff containing Stemoc's justification for reverting your edit to the Max Clifford article. -- The Anome (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reverted this with a request to discuss it on the talk page.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The_Beatles_(terrorist_cell)
That article is dire. Would you care to explain why it shouldn't be tagged for cleanup? 86.153.26.237 (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * IF you add a sensible tag and reasons on the talk page. One of the tags was offensive and lucky not to get you blocked.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to re-add the tag (the article is definitely in need of a clean-up). I'll quote a few excerpts on the talk page, they really do speak for themselves. A brain-damaged monkey could write better. 86.153.26.237 (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I doubt that.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

macm
Im watching you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.145.225 (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And now we're all watching you. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I supposed to feel bad/good about this? Such a mystery. Not a mystery though, is the WHOIS. I await further reports with bated breath. My own personal stalker, how big an honour can you get on Wikipedia?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile
Was just flicking through the history of Jimmy Savile:

"Allegations of child sex abuse against Savile have been made but he was never formally questioned."

Revision as of 07:58, 11 August 2012 (view source) Ianmacm (talk | contribs) (rv good faith edit, see talk page. All of this fizzled out years ago, and is not really notable enough for a mention in the article)

Bet you feel silly now eh? Do you stand by this revert? --78.150.157.126 (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Anon IP, I bet you feel really clever now, eh? dredging that up from three years ago. Do you stand by this blatant trolling? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If I got it wrong at the time of Savile's death, so did the entire British media. As John Maynard Keynes is supposed to have said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" Savile got the full national treasure treatment at the time of his death in October 2011, and this lasted until the ITV documentary Exposure: The Other Side of Jimmy Savile was broadcast in September 2012. This set off a major rethink about Savile and caused numerous people to come forward and make similar complaints about his behaviour. The ITV documentary consisted largely of the Duncroft allegations which the BBC's Newsnight had decided not to broadcast. The reason why is that Savile had been questioned about this in October 2009 (released under the Freedom of Information Act), but at the time, it was decided that no charges would be brought. So at the time of the post you mention, it had "all fizzled out years ago". Of course things change with time, and Newsnight was criticised for not running the Duncroft claims after Savile's death. I am not the mainstream media and cannot publish original research, and have to go by what reliable sources have said. Therefore, I broadly stand by what I wrote in August 2012 as it was based on the best information available at the time. The transcript of the Surrey Police interview with Savile in 2009 is rather treacly, and it is unlikely that police officers would be so polite today.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 16:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Is there no treacle in Gilead?" (...or even in Nottingham?) Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, some people must have a lot of time on their hands to dredge up stuff like this. For anyone who is interested, the relevant diff is here. It is a revert of an unsourced statement, and as we now know a wrong statement as well, because Savile was questioned by Surrey Police at Stoke Mandeville Hospital on 1 October 2009. This was released under the Freedom of Information Act in October 2013.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the things that the article Jimmy Savile could make clearer is that in December 2012 Nick Pollard criticised Newsnight for not running the Duncroft news item, but did not suggest that there had been a "huge paedo coverup" of the type beloved by the blogs and tabloid newspapers. Nobody ever made mistakes with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies
Many of the changes to the King article I made were reverting changes made by someone who had reverted your changes. Looking at archive this had happened quite a few times (also on Adele). I assume from your comments you think I'm a supporter - I'm not. Just reverting new changes made by similar URL person.Noelthai (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do try to keep the article within reliable sourcing guidelines, and we have been through this before. Not all of the online sourcing about Jonathan King is ideal.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood but the changes seemed to me to be obsessional. Have you checked the same URL changes to Natalie Kills? I've never heard of her so don't feel I can comment but changing your links and those of gmyrtle looked odd so I went back to archive and saw many wrong changes as well. I suppose you and other editors keep an eye on all articles - are the Natalie Kills ones equally well sourced? I'm only an occasional editor.Noelthai (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of Natalia Kills and have never been involved at her article. As for Jonathan King, most of the problem areas (eg The Brits) have been raised before. I don't know which years King produced or hosted The Brits and sources such as IMDb are not ideal. There also appears to be a persistent problem with some sources normally considered to be reliable (eg The Guardian and The Independent). One of the great things about editing Wikipedia articles is that you are allowed to get things wrong as long as reliable sources have got it wrong.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I'm fed up with it now too but Googling found this which I found fascinating by Angela Levine but I won't add it, I'll leave it to you. I've never heard of the Kills woman either but looking at the 86 URL changes, he or she is clearly deranged and I note all other recent changes except by you and gmyrtle are from a similar 86 URL who seems obsessed by King and Kills. Perhaps it's an alphabetical thing! https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fQaFwaBn0TkC&pg=PA191&dq=max+clifford+jonathan+king&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Sc8GVZ3_Csqt7ga964HADQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=max%20clifford%20jonathan%20king&f=false Noelthai (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The only thing that I thought about Natalia Kills is that she looks like Amy Winehouse in the infobox photo. I don't usually get involved in articles that are not on my watchlist, because I am already fully booked. Anything with a "86 URL" is not me because this is usually BT, not my ISP (eg here).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now spotted the Kills woman connected to an X Factor scandal down under and she seems to be English but I'm not going anywhere near it either as editing controversial subjects seems to annoy people. You are to be praised daring to cover Savile, Clifford, King and others. The trolls seem to be vicious.Noelthai (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I need to watch more TV, as I had never heard of Natalia Kills before yesterday. This is a common problem for me, as the entire cast of Emmerdale and Game of Thrones could walk past me in the street and I would not know who they were. As for the more general situation, as long as you stick to reliable sources (and I use the term loosely as even the broadsheet newspapers get it wrong sometimes) you should be OK.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist
Do you have Cyril Smith on your watchlist by any chance? Some problematic editing going on there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I've never been involved over there. Given that this is in the news, I will have a look.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are the latest plod revelations going? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm rich (again)
Received this today. I get these on a regular basis as my email address has fallen into the wrong hands.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

And again.

Your relationship with the Labour Party
I have noted your extensive work on Chuka Umunna's page in Wikipedia, and I shall be grateful if you will clarify what your relationship is with the Labour Party, or with Mr Umunna.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambrose.hogan (talk • contribs) 22:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. I am not a member of the Labour Party, nor do I bang the drum for any political party on Wikipedia. I wouldn't describe my work on Chuka Umunna as extensive, as the vast majority of it is written by other people. I have the article on my watchlist as it can attract silly edits. I edit various articles and this is the first time that I have been asked to "clarify my relationship" with the subject. I've never met or had any dealings with Chuka Umunna, or for that matter, any of the politicians that I have on my watchlist.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Response(s)
I left a response (and will likely leave future ones) on my talk page.

65.130.126.69 (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, and as a general rule Jimbo does not comment on issues relating to blocks unless he is involved in some way.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Barbie
I added the subheading to that section because there are two articles (ToyTalk and Hello barbie) that redirect there. I thought of changing them so that they redirected only to Barbie but that section is so big that it seemed like a user might not be able to find the topic, and be tempted to start a new page (which was what I was trying to avoid in the first place). Under these circumstances, don't you think the subheading makes sense? ubiquity (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I wasn't convinced that this needed a subheading, because it makes a special subsection for this one controversy, and it is a fairly short paragraph. The controversies are listed in chronological order, but I am not going to edit war over this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Andy Burnham - Mid Staffordshire
Hi, I'm not at all skilled at editing and have only done minor ones in the past. I see that you have been involved in editing Andy Burnham's page in the past. I have looked at it because of his current bid to lead the Labour party and, while the piece is generally good. I was surprised at the inaccuracy of the of the para that runs,"As Health Secretary, Burnham ignored repeated requests for a public enquiry into unusually high mortality rates at Mid Staffordshire Hospital, including three independent reports into what became known as the Stafford Hospital scandal. Burnham and his predecessor as Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, rejected 81 requests to examine the high rate of deaths at the hospital. 2,800 of which arose after alarms were first sounded.[18]"

The most glaring inaccuracy relates to the '2,800' deaths. Firstly this is a number and not a rate (but that is a technical issue), but more importantly if you read the reference to the rather unhelpful Telegraph piece you can easily see that the '2,800' deaths referred to are nothing to do with Mid Staffordshire, but were alleged in respect of 14 other hospitals - not Mid Staffordshire. The two paragraphs in the Telegraph piece run, "Figures from the Conservatives also show 14 NHS trusts with unusually high mortality rates saw around 7000 more deaths than expected in the four years before Labour left power. Up to 2,800 of these deaths came after alarms were sounded about the Mid Staffordshire hospital scandal and three independent reports warned that not enough attention was paid to quality of care."

The use of this sort of statistic on hospital mortality is now discredited. At it's most basic it describes a deviation from the mean. And, as is obvious, about 50% of mortality rates will be above the mean and about 50% below!

The issue of the 81 requests for a public inquiry is also contentious and poorly worded but the number of 'deaths' comment should certainly be removed. I'm happy to provide more detail if required.

Henry Joy — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryJoy (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will have a look at this, although I have not edited the article for some time. It is important to give accurate figures and context here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 04:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Murder conviction without a body
Hi. Just curious to know why you reverted my edit about Scott Watson? Thanks.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The first part of this edit introduces spelling mistakes. The second part is unsourced. However, since there is sourcing at Scott Watson, I have put it back again with some sourcing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Troll time
I'm sending you a direct message because I'm not scared of you Ian- my serial killer information was 100% legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenofeverything12345 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No it wasn't. Bye.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the The Pirate Bay page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=665355158 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F665355158%7CThe Pirate Bay%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * This is another example of a mistake introduced by applying WP:REFLINKS. Not my fault, squire.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Please explain your message on my talk page. Was it left in error?Majestic2016 (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe. The article and its related talk page does seem to attract new user accounts with great frequency, however.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. I just looked at it and accounts seem quite long standing? Your point? Majestic2016 (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * An account created on 6 June 2015 is not exactly longstanding. I was also concerned by the phrasing here which is similar to past edits that have overridden the sourcing given in the article. Maybe I need to get out more.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies I looked at yourself, Gmyrtle, Ludwig and Massly and wondered what your point was. Perhaps you should protect that article? You are correct. I am a fairly recent account. Majestic2016 (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Just let it all hang out", Ian. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

2012 Aurora Shooting
I quoted the mainstream media, who had several interviews of eyewitnesses saying that there were more than 1 shooter. it is also factual that neither the fbi nor dan oates pursued these killers.

A paragraph with 3 sources is much more relevant than unsourced paragraph: "The shooting prompted an increase in security at movie theaters across the U.S. that were screening the same film, in fear of copycat incidents. The shooting also led to a spike in gun sales in Colorado, as well as political debates about gun control in the United States."

Ferociouslettuce (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is WP:WEIGHT. Articles should represent what the bulk of reliable sources have said. The edits substantially skewed the article towards the theory that there was more than one shooter. I am also concerned at what looks like an attempt at personal criticism of Dan Oates. Most media sources have accepted that only one shooter was involved. The edits were WP:BRD because they introduced major changes to the style and tone of the article and need to be discussed on the talk page first.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * my angle is the truth. i edited the "conspiracy theory" section with Many citations.. removing a neutrality tag while a discussion is in progress as well as removing a section with Many citations is immoral. What's your angle? I'm going to sleep but you better enter some real responses in the talk page not just claim that Many Eyewitnesses who claim Holmes has an accomplice makes him the same as Adam Lanza. If you wanted to change the intro paragraphs, fine. But eliminating multiple shooters conspiracy 'theories' while retaining the mkultra nonsense is very not neutral.. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not about the truth, but about reflecting what reliable sources have said. Holmes is the only person charged and prosecuted in connection with the incident. The ongoing court case makes it difficult to say that Holmes is guilty in the legal sense, although he has admitted to being the shooter. What often happens is that early media reports are confused and contain inaccuracies. This is what happened with the 2012 Aurora shooting, and it is important not to inflate reports of this kind into full-blown conspiracy theories. While it is acceptable to mention conspiracy theories, the large majority of the media coverage of the case is based on the theory that Holmes was the only shooter.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * stop deleting my section. if you cared about "reliable sources", you'd delete gawker's bullshit and not delete mine which sourced msnbc, abclocal, nbclocal, washington post & nypost. you have an angle with this article & it disturbs me greatly 74.88.37.67 (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, your theory is that Yacone & Oates are clean. And that James Holmes ran 200 feet, dropped off a second gas mask, then ran back to his car next to the theater patiently waiting to be arrested all while under the influence of vicodin? Obviously mainstream media will report the cops' versions of events, but wikipedia is for reporting facts Ferociouslettuce (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to debate specific details of alternative theories, or assume that James F. Yacone or Dan Oates have acted in bad faith or are incompetent, both of which lead to potential issues with libel. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that you can get it wrong as long as the mainstream media has got it wrong. As I have already said, the entire trial is based on the assumption that Holmes was the sole shooter, and he has admitted to being the shooter. The article has to reflect this. There is an element of WP:RGW with the multiple shooters theory.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 17:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you've advanced past telling me to take off my 'tinfoil hat' and are now accusing me of trying to right a wrong, which is a more accurate accusation. However, given that the proposed edits do "report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources" and are relegated to an existing conspiracy theory section, there's no reason not to include them. And the names James Yacone & Dan Oates ought appear as those who headed the investigation, either in the intro or police response. I agree their names should not appear next to the conspiracy theories as I had originally placed them Ferociouslettuce (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that any of the conspiracy theories are worth more than a brief mention in the light of the sourcing. Claiming or implying that a miscarriage of justice has occurred is a tricky area for a Wikipedia article, and it would need to be covered clearly in reliable sources, as WP:RGW advises. As things stand, Holmes' own lawyer has not attempted to claim that anyone else was involved, and neither have any other mainstream media sources since the trial began.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories is a stupid page, I agree. But placing "any of the conspiracy theories" under an identical category is as idiotic as the "Entertainment Industry" response quoting batman executives without a statement from Cinemark Theatres about lack of security cameras. The related "incidents" section is also a bit of a stretch since it accounted for 0 injuries.. Anyways, I'm planning on adding the conspiracy theories section into the article as is by tomorrow morning. Please make changes to the talk page as you see fit. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are cases such as the Lindbergh kidnapping where there are significant doubts about whether Hauptmann was guilty, and it is easy to find reliable sources saying this. As of 2015, it is very hard if not impossible to find any mainstream media source putting forward the theory that multiple shooters were involved in the Aurora incident. This leads to clear issues with WP:WEIGHT.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You're going to need a bigger boat headline
It just wouldn't be summer in Britain without someone claiming that they had seen a great white shark in British waters. The Daily Star does the honours here today. Pointing out that no reliable sighting has ever occurred in UK waters does not seem to help. More likely to be a basking shark. This is similar to the UK tabloids blaming Steatoda nobilis every time a person gets an infected wound.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Twitter bird logo 2012.svg


A tag has been placed on File:Twitter bird logo 2012.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

hello
hello world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.91.123.221 (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello China Lanzhou Chinanet Gansu Province Network.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Nikki Catsouras
I added a source to the article on Nikki Catsouras. It's fairly obvious and is one of the most famous Streisand effect cases. —Мандичка YO 😜 05:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The photographs were already widespread on the Internet by the time that the family started taking legal action. This makes it an unclear example of the effect.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To expand, the Catsouras family took legal action because they were tired of the photographs being spread via the Internet, which they were entitled to do because they were never intended for publication. In the original example of the effect, the photos of the California coastline were intended to be published, but no-one would have cared about them without Barbra Streisand's legal action. There is a tendency to overuse the term "Streisand effect" to describe any Internet controversy, and the Nikki Catsouras photographs cannot be seen as a good example of the effect because a) they were never intended for publication and doing this was clearly hurtful to the Catsouras family, and b) many people had seen the photographs by the time that the Catsouras family took legal action. They were not made famous by attempts to suppress them. According to this source, the family did not begin legal action until a year after the accident, by which time the photos had been on an estimated 1600 websites. This is a long way removed from Streisand effect territory.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Multiple edits on the bestgore wiki page self citing. They however have not been reverted by you? Please explain.
 * I'm not happy about this. Due to the lack of mainstream media coverage of BestGore, some people are using the site itself as a source. This leads to problems with WP:PRIMARY. The edit that I reverted involves commentary/analysis which is not secondary sourced.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand. However, as you said, mainstream media coverage is lacking, does that mean we should completely ignore it? I don't believe so. Wikipedia also states "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia" My question would then be, can you explain "reputably published" as defined by wikipedia.

Start date
Someone's pretty insistent on doing it on the 2015 Lafayette shooting article, so why not every article? Versus001 (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, as the saying goes. As a general rule, it is not a good idea to make the same edit at multiple articles. Please gain consensus for doing this and discuss on the relevant talk page if necessary. The average person is not going to need to know that 2012 is three years ago, the date is enough and would be in a mainstream media article. There needs to be a good reason for adding a start date, there isn't one in mass shooting articles.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ianmacm. should have established a proper consensus before adding Start date and age to prodigious amount of articles. And he probably would have to embrace anybody who reverts him as there is no need to use that template for articles concerning recent events.-- Chamith   (talk)  19:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)