User talk:Ianmacm/Archive 18

Rupert Murdoch
Hi Ian. Hope you are safe and well in these trying times. Not sure if you might have caught this series on BBC 2. Found it particularly compelling and disturbing in equal measure. Even our own dear Tarzan gets a well-deserved sound bite. Media can be a painful business, Bruce, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I did see this but haven't watched it. Thanks to the wonders of BBC iPlayer there are 29 days left to watch. I did watch Scandalous! The Tabloid that Changed America (10 months left to watch) a while back. As with the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs thread above, it is always a problem to use television documentaries, YouTube videos etc as a source, no matter how reliable they are. Some people just moan if anything is sourced in this way.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect use of hyphen on ED page
Why would the hyphen there be correct? Per MOS, dashes are often used to mark divisions within a sentence, whereas hyphens (-) indicate conjunction. --Jprg1966 (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Having looked at this, the sentence would probably be better without it. The sentence structure could survive without being split up in this manner, it looks a bit stilted.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nyan cat.ogg
Thanks for uploading File:Nyan cat.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Graham Hancock TED talk
Hi, can you please tell me the reason you reverted my change re TEDX on Graham Hancock.

Ted later published an update stating that flagging the lecture because of “factual errors” was “clumsy” and “the specific examples we gave were less than convincing”. The lecture was reposted to TedBlog as a “fresh take” invitation for debate on:

The line between science and pseudoscience How far TED and TEDx should go in giving exposure to unorthodox ideas Ted also added that [Hancock] is a compelling speaker, and raises questions “absolutely worth raising”[23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncesinks (talk • contribs) 15:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This should be raised at Talk:Graham Hancock as there would need to be a WP:CONSENSUS before adding it.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding a BLP issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Thank you. --Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 19:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Battle over definition of "popular culture" in "Pachelbel's Canon" article.
Please show me where Wikipedia defines what can and can't be listed under "In popular culture" in Wikipedia articles. I have seen all kinds of trivia posted under that heading in scores of articles. Carl Sagan was one of the most famous popularizers of science in the late 20th century; "Desert Island Discs" has been a pop cultural staple of the BBC since the 1940s. The reason why the editors of pop culture staple "Desert Island Discs" ASKED pop culture icon Carl Sagan to appear on "Desert Island Discs" was BECAUSE he was a pop culture icon. IWPCHI (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)IWPCHI


 * Replied at Talk:Pachelbel's Canon.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Article
Hey Ianmacm, I've been making an edit request on this talk page here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scott_Weinger#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_23_September_2020_4 on having a simple edit removed from the article, but my request keeps getting declined twice. Is there by any chance you could respond? 2600:1000:B03D:B5A:C156:6EF3:EB40:BBA3 (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I've never been involved at Scott Weinger. This may have come about because of a similar edit request on the talk page of John Cleese. It probably isn't necessary to say "actor" and "voice actor", but it depends on the actor's career. Some actors are better known for their voice work than for their on screen roles, and this doesn't apply to John Cleese although he has done some voice work.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding, but is it ok if we have it removed just this once? Because I promise I won’t make the same request again once we all agree on the subject. 2600:1000:B02D:E80D:F4CD:4429:D8AC:B4FE (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC) 2600:1000:B02D:E80D:F4CD:4429:D8AC:B4FE (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a matter for the article talk pages involved, as I can't overrule a WP:CONSENSUS. As I've said, there shouldn't be absolute rules either way on this issue.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. By the way if you don’t mind, is it ok if I delete/remove this message? I know it’s against the Wikipedia policy to remove a talk page message. It’s just that I don’t wanna keep bugging and pressuring you about this. 2600:1000:B057:CC2E:D041:3210:C606:2B7C (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

London Bridge
Describing terrorists as Muslims does not stereotype all members of that faith but agree on compromise of "Islamist" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:1707:FD00:6CE4:E642:11CA:D48B (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Re this edit: I never state or imply that the motive for a terrorist attack was simply being a Muslim, and Wikipedia shouldn't either. However, I have no problem with saying that the motive was Islamist extremism when this is clearly supported by the sources. This Guardian article uses the phrase "Islamist extremism" which gives a clearer context. Islamism is a mishmash of political and religious extremism.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Piper Malibu crash
Re your edit, in which you say that the "However, " is not needed. Previous paragraph says Henderson would not be charged with any offence (with sources). This paragraph says he has been charged and appeared in Court. That is why I started the sentence with "However, ". Please reconsider your change. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of beginning sentences with "however". However, in this case, I have changed my mind.😃-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica Page
Hello,

This is the admin of Encyclopedia Dramatica, we exchanged briefly on the talk page for our site.

I just wanted to let you know that the page itself is being vandalized right now with some offshoot group attempting to claim ownership of the site while the current site is still active and I'm still the admin.

Any help in locking the page or otherwise would be highly appreciated.

Thank you for your time. - æ admin 21:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aediot (talk • contribs)


 * See my comment at Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 23:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thought I read it in a paper
but it could have been facebook. http://www.kingofhits.co.uk/component/option,com_gallery2/Itemid,64/?g2_itemId=9334 --86.132.41.1 (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion about this at Talk:Jonathan_King. Like many things that we've discussed on the talk page in the past, it can only be sourced to King's website, a YouTube video etc. While I don't doubt that the letter is genuine, there is always a WP:SPS problem with sourcing from personal websites. Ironically, the media showed more interest in Tim Davie's letter saying that King is not banned from the BBC.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Falafel page
the claim “the origins are unknown and controversial” indicates that the origins are completely unknown, even though most reliable articles indicate that it most likely originated in Egypt. The book that was used as a reference to that claim was hinting a political bias and didn’t specifically state what was written in the article. I used history today, which is known as a reliable source to indicate that the dish did indeed originate in Egypt, even though the time of origin is disputed. Also, many of the sources that dispute these claims such as “origins that trace back to India and Yemen” are haaretz and Jerusalem Post which are known to be politically bias and not entirely accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinhearted (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Since this is article related, it's best to discuss this directly at Talk:Falafel. If you look at the talk page archive there, my longstanding position is that it isn't ideal to state or imply that falafel was certainly invented in Egypt. The origins of most famous recipes are lost in the mists of time, and falafel is no exception.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You reverted my edit
I put that there didn't really think it needed it GOLDIEM J (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It was added here on 18 October 2020. I don't think it does any harm to have both of them, but I'm not going to edit war if it is removed.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Jonathan King
I see it a lot, though. Explain, for example: R. Kelly then... PsychoPinball (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the explanation for R. Kelly is that it too is wrong, i.e. WP:UNDUE. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. Previous article consensus is not to say "King/Glitter is a sex offender" in the opening sentence. This is dealt with extensively in the WP:LEAD which is an overall summary. King and Glitter were famous for years before the sex offence convictions, and it was this that made the sex offences notable, not the other way round.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why the template..? That's for users that engage conversations in matters they're not really involved in, this is about an addition (or revert) I made myself... (back to subject) There is also a long list of, for example, priests that have it in the introduction even if they are a priest in the first place... You don't have to start the first sentence with it but there are a lot of articles that include it at the end of the first or second sentence. PsychoPinball (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't invited here. Would you like me to remove the template?  It won't affect my argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyways, it's usually better to discuss article related issues at the article talk page itself, which is Talk:Jonathan King.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Donna Summer I Feel Love.ogg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Donna Summer I Feel Love.ogg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Admin
Hi, have you ever thought of running for admin? You've been around for more than long enough to have a clue. A clean block log is also indicative of a good editor. You frequent ANI a fair bit, so you might want do more there. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Now there's a thought. I have thought about it, but that was quite a while ago. I'm not sure about the dreaded RfA process, as it can be rough sometimes. The main tools that would be useful for me are blocking obvious troublemakers and protecting pages when there is nonsense going on. I'll have a think.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * RfA is not as bad as some make out. Editors of long tenure will have had plenty of opportunity to show that they are good editors who won't misuse the tools. Those who are admin-hungry and haven't been around long tend to come off worse. I started editing in Aug 2005, didn't edit much for the first couple of years. The first time I was asked to become an admin in August 2008 I declined because I felt I wasn't ready. An admin recruitment drive was held a year later and I decided to run. Of course, having administrative privileges also carries a heavy responsibility with it. I was once told by an editor "You can't block me", to which the answer was "I can block you. The question is, would it be a good idea or not?" (it wasn't). Anyway, have a read of some successful RfA's (here's mine), and maybe some unsuccessful ones too, to get a better idea of what you are likely to face. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a minor edit.
I think that my new edit on the shining miniseries page sounds right. I make my edits on here for a reason. Please accept and appreciate them. Thank you!! I'd really appreciate it!! Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evimeader (talk • contribs) 18:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The most important thing is that Stephen King disliked Kubrick's film version and said this on numerous occasions. This is best discussed at the talk pages of the articles concerned.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 22:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding 2001: A Space Odyssey and the Spelling of "Fetus"
I saw that you reverted my edit in the 2001: A Space Odyssey article and I got a post on my talk page regarding it from what I assume was a bot. I am quite aware of Wikipedia's policy toward international spelling but I do not think it applies here for two reasons: 1) From what I can find, the "fetus" is far more prevalent in the English-speaking world to the point where it is the universally accepted spelling of the world in the medical profession regardless of the country; even lay-people in countries that previously preferred the spelling "foetus" are now starting to adopted the "fetus" spelling. 2) In the Wikipedia article for fetus, it not only uses that spelling in the title but also throughout the article, only using the word "foetus" to explain the differences in spelling in some parts of the world. I would think the preferred spelling that Wikipedia uses would supersede any preferences within the Commonwealth. –Nahald (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This has been reverted before because the article uses British English. The best place to discuss this is at Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film) so that a WP:CONSENSUS can be obtained.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!


Suspicioussandwich (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC) 

File:Scott evans dekraai booking photo.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Scott evans dekraai booking photo.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sheelagh Rouse
When Lobsang Rampa and his wife immigrated to Canada, it was necessary to adopt Sheelagh Rouse; that is the reason why she became his adopted daughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:75b7:9000:5897:70e7:b600:886d (talk • contribs) 08:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Various sources say that Lobsang Rampa regarded Sheelagh Rouse as his daughter; whether she was legally adopted is another matter. This needs firmer sourcing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Twitter bird logo 2012.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Twitter bird logo 2012.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zai  (💬 • 📝 • ⚡️) 21:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Autocollapse option
Hi there, all the Aviation accidents and incidents in xxxx templates should already implement the autocollapse behaviour, which is the default for the Navbox template on which the former is based. There should be no need to explicitly add the 'state' parameter. Did you find a case in which the template does not autocollapse when expected? --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on template parameters so I decided to walk away from this particular edit. One of the things that I noticed at 2019 English Channel Piper PA-46 crash is that the template isn't collapsed by default, and personally I would prefer it to be hidden so that the reader could expand it if needed. However, if it would affect all of the articles with this template it is probably best to leave it.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Well, the default behaviour of all navboxes (i.e. autocollapse mode) is to start collapsed only if more than one navbox is present on the page; otherwise, as in the case of the article you mentioned, the navbox starts expanded, which seems sensible to me. --Deeday-UK (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Operation Archimedes
Hello Ianmacm, because recently you reverted my addition on Legacy about the Operation Archimedes from Europol, id like to ask, how that's WP:DUE? I can provide the citation from the official Europol site.Holloman123 (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I was looking for secondary sources here, the only cite was the Europol site itself. There are also WP:TOPIC problems because it has absolutely nothing to do with Archimedes; they could just have easily called it Operation Euclid and it would have had nothing to do with Euclid either. It is a very peripheral thing that most people don't need to know about Archimedes. It is also similar to something that was previously removed, which is that the owl in The Sword in the Stone (1963 film) is called Archimedes. The consensus was that this was pop culture trivia.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Murder of James Bulger
Thank you for this edit (and WP:AGF!). I wasn't doubting the veracity of what I removed, but I could not verify the schoolboys claim in the existing nearby citations – so thanks for adding the footnote. I removed the word "severed" because (although correct) I felt it superfluous once I'd trimmed the sentences down; the previous sentence describing the injury and therefore not needing the repetition. Regardless, thanks for your resolution. MIDI (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I knew this was correct because one of the boys hit the headlines in 2017.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Image
Hi Ian. Take on board your comment about the image of Zimmer not being clear enough to distinguish him. On the topic of images I’m needing assistance to correct an error. It relates to the Queen II article and the change of the album cover. I’ve posted the issue on that article’s talk page but I’m not sure how much traffic it gets so I’m trying to accelerate the process. The image was accurate for years before being altered on 4 September 2020 to how it looks now—awful, with an enormous contrast between the band and the background—which is nothing to how it actually looks. Thanks for any assistance with this. Gabriella MNT (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I agree that the image here is much better than the current infobox version at Queen II. At some point it may have been edited in a way that made the contrast and colour balance look yukky. Since it is a fair use album cover it needs to be quite small, and the 1500 x 1500px version uploaded last September was too large anyway. I'll comment over at Talk:Queen II.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ian. Gabriella MNT (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Gary Glitter
Glitter is NOT known for his “extreme glam image of glitter suits, make-up and platform boots, and his energetic live performances”. He was FORMERLY known for that. He is now known for his sexual offences. My edit was an update - you have reverted to historical facts which are now incorrect. Pauliepauln (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * He's known for both. The glitter suits and stomping about in sliver platforms just came first. There's also an argument that "Gary Glitter" is not known for his sexual offences, as they were all prosecuted under his real name of "Paul Francis Gadd". But we don't have any article called Paul Francis Gadd, we've only got one for The Glittfather. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a content related matter, so it's best to discuss it at Talk:Gary Glitter. Glitter's primary reason for notability is/was as a pop star. As I've said before, if Paul Gadd from Banbury had committed sex offences he would not have a Wikipedia article. We've had similar debates at other articles, where there has been a desire to say "he's a paedo" or similar in the opening sentence. Glitter's career was undoubtedly ruined by the sex offence convictions, but there is ample space to look at this in the WP:LEAD section of the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Watch out. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank goodness for the correctly used possessive apostrophe.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * One wonders if it's anywhere near Jeffrey Epstein's Way? And talking of homework.... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha, nice one. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Probably not Banksy's best work, but still decent. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolving Dispute About Elvis's Ancestry
Hi there - I noticed you were previously involved in resolving disputes around Elvis's Ancestry. The issue has come up once again and I was hoping you could help address it and also make any edits to improve the article if necessary.

I started the section Assessing accuracy of Jewish genealogy on the talk page here (hopefully I wasn't coming off as uninformed): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elvis_Presley.

Thanks so much 2600:1010:B069:C71C:D0BF:EA92:6D56:932F (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

"You want blue suede? We got blue suede, already...." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The sourcing for Elvis Presley being Jewish is considered to be anecdotal and not very strong. Anyway, I'll have a look at the thread.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolving The Ongoing Dispute About Elvis's Ancestry
Hey there. We're still going back and forth on the Elvis talk page. I'm pretty new to wikipedia, what do you recommend is the best way to resolve the dispute and achieve some finality?


 * 1) Would it be removing all references to Jewish ancestry from the current revision of the article?
 * 2) Would be to specify in the article that claims of his Jewish ancestry are anecdotal and disputed?
 * 3) Would it be to leave the article as is, presenting Elvis as having bona fide Jewish ancestry?

If you could add another comment to the thread in the talk page, that would be really appreciated. Thanks so much ClearSeawater (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It's another of those talk page disputes where people end up saying things that they have said before. There needs to be fresh input from fresh eyes, so possibly there should be a request for comment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Not those awful beady eyes, I hope. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, I just created an RFC, thanks for giving me a heads up on that, I'm slowly learning 🐌 .  Random question, is there a way I can get notification of some sort when someone replies to a comment I put on their talk page?  How else would I know you replied unless I periodically check back?  Also - is there a git blame of sorts so I can see the last editor of each line in an article? ClearSeawater (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You will be notified if someone uses the "reply to" template (see WP:TP) but otherwise you will have to watch and follow the talk page involved. It's hard to say who added what to an article without looking through the history, see WP:READHIST.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotcha - thanks for letting me know 🎉 ClearSeawater (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Las Vegas shooting times
What are your thoughts on removing the times from the introduction for the Las Vegas shooting article? I do not see any other shooting articles on Wikipedia that have the shooting times in the introduction. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't see a problem with this. This seems OK and is best discussed at Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting as it is article related.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see. I was checking with the editor who reverted a change I made. 73.167.238.120 (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I thought you did not have a problem removing the times from the introduction, as you stated above. Did I misunderstand something? 73.167.238.120 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs
Hey Mate, I just wanted to shoot you a private message regarding dnepropetrovsk maniacs seeing as you're one of the main admins on the case. I posted last year about the Igor interview and the late night show. I have since found something quite bizarre that has to do with the facts regarding whether Sergei arrived on a bicycle or Dnepr motorcycle. Essentially, it is Police drawings of crime scene signed by Igor Suprunyuck the day after his confession. Its basically a crime recreation on a piece of paper. I have acquired every single one and would like to forward this somehow to you or try and speak to you about it. Furthermore, I have acquired literal prosecutor evidence that the killing of Nikolai Serchuk in Novomoskovsk was falsely attributed to the maniacs, with the real killer recreating the crime scene. These are genuine official Ukrainian police documents that I feel would be much more accurate in reflecting the truth behind this case. I will also link you a reddit post i created last week regarding all of these things that I have found. I have found plenty of other documents that are in Cyrillic and are taking me a while to decrypt them. https://www.reddit.com/r/serialkillers/comments/p7ayfu/update_dnepropetrovsk_maniacs/ -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.5.29 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It's very interesting material but there is a lot of original research involved. There needs to be something mainstream like newspaper reports mentioning all of this. I don't discount the possibility that the official death toll is wrong, because this has happened before with serial killers. As we know, the official verdict was 21 deaths in June and July 2007, but it is possible that the police got it wrong by including other killings at around the same time that were not the work of the Maniacs. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the confusion about Sergei Yatzenko's bicycle, or dnepr bike, i've discovered these confessions. I'm attaching a link to the images I have posted on reddit. It appears to me that they killed another person in the same area who did in fact travel on a dnepr motorcycle. Additionally, there is an article that was used as a reference point in the wikipedia page regarding them that outlines around 10 murders that occured in Taromske, where Sergei was murdered. https://web.archive.org/web/20170419192307/http://www.zavtra.com.ua/news/1/49094/ Another article confirms that the maniacs actually returned to the scene of the crimes a couple of hours later to find someone else to kill: https://gorod.dp.ua/news/7131 We know Sergei last phone called at around 2PM. add 8 to 9 hours to that and its very late at night. They likely returned, pretended like their car is broken down by lifting the hood of the car (as stated by Igor in the 2013 Interview, however this part isnt seen in murder of Sergei in the Chilean doc which would suggest it was a different crime in the same area) and killed the dnepr Bike rider who offered help. Furthermore thats exactly what the confession pictures suggest as the strike of the victim is right by the hood of their car whilst the murder of Sergei who was clearly on a bicycle is correctly confirmed to have happened behind the Daewoo Lanos which can be visually verified through the Chilean doc as well. Additionally, this article paints a picture of the crime scene confessed by Igor regarding the murder of a man on a dnepr bike in Taromske: Stops a man on a motorcycle, they say, help is needed. A blow to the head, and the person falls dead. He is dragged into the landing, one of the intruders picks out the victim's eyes with a knife, the other takes off.: https://nashemisto.dp.ua/2019/10/15/ubijca-s-angelskim-licom-po-sledam-dneprovskih-manjakov/ And finally, a woman who is describing the moment her husband went missing on his dnepr bike is not Lyudmila Yatsenko. She is named as "Elena Leonidovna " in this article. https://web.archive.org/web/20090131204357/http://shcandal.com/news.php?readmore=2158 This would suggest that 2 different people were actually killed in that same area and on the same day that is visible in the infamous video. I also think it is logical to assume that the chronology of murders is Sergei first followed hours later by an unidentified man that rode a dnepr bicycle, most likely at night time considering its some hours later. Another reason why I am suggesting this happened on the same day is because there would likely be police presence once one body has been found and it would be insanely stupid to stick around and look to kill in the same place days after they already killed there, hours later would carry a lower risk as the body still has not been discovered. The same logic can be applied with the Killings on 7th of July in the Northern part of Dnipro and pidhorodne. 3 murders of Elena Shram, Yegor Nechvoloda and Andrei Siduk spread apart by 2-3 hours each only 700m apart from each other. Yegor: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bohdana+Khmel'nyts'koho+St,+8,+Dnipropetrovs'k,+Dnipropetrovs'ka+oblast,+Ukraine,+49000/@48.5045654,35.0818593,16.96z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x40d958659646c115:0x1ee40af2966ff0bc!8m2!3d48.5044466!4d35.0804884 Elena: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Bohdana+Khmel'nyts'koho+Street,+8,+Dnipro,+Dnipropetrovsk+Oblast,+Ukraine/Osinnya+St,+5,+Dnipropetrovs'k,+Dnipropetrovs'ka+oblast,+Ukraine,+49000/@48.5039802,35.0848686,16.61z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x40d958659646c115:0x1ee40af2966ff0bc!2m2!1d35.0804884!2d48.5044466!1m5!1m1!1s0x40d9586930cab7c9:0xa52c3d3d77f80856!2m2!1d35.0888923!2d48.5038299!3e2

Distance of 700 metres. We have seen them do this with the first two murders as well regarding Ekaterina and Roman within 90 minutes of each other, which suggests to me that either the Dnepr man was murdered a couple of hours after sergei once they returned at night time, OR immediately after (unlikely as they were ready to leave and placed the hammer in the boot). The reason why not before is based on their behaviour and body language. they wouldn't have appeared so calm whilst awaiting Sergei and yet after that murder, so erratic and ready to leave the scene of the crime. However that is simply me speculating and applying some common sense from what I've read and seen visually. I realize this is longer than I intended it to be, sincere apologies.

Here is the reddit link to the confessions: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueCrime/comments/pbfb8g/dnepropetrovsk_maniacs_confessions/ -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.5.29 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The Reddit thread says "Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/TrueCrime" so I can't comment on this. It is interesting to look at the question of how the inconsistency with the Dnepr motorcycle occurred, but as far as the Wikipedia article goes, the sourcing should be secondary. I'm not sure where you have found the link to the confessions. I'm still a bit confused about the timeline but agree that it is possible that the Dnepr motorcycle incident refers to a separate murder.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey again, sorry the reddit thread was removed because I didn't make it clear and apparent in comment section what the post entailed. Try it once more and have a look for yourself. I have found these confessions from a website put up by Viktor Saenko's dad who represented him in court. He uploaded a lot of documentation from the court case on some website he created before he attempted to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. As we both know he was unsuccessful and all the documents uploaded still remain online. I've ignored the aspect of his argument about the case and strictly focused on documents that were available and used by the prosecution and defense in sentencing the maniacs, such as the confession sketches by both Viktor and Igor outlining specific crimes that were briefly mentioned in the wikipedia article.

Re: that Reddit claim...
I might just remove it, since in effect WP is basically giving the "sound alike" folks a platform... Shearonink (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not vandalism, but it needs to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know it's not vandalism...heh, taken with a truckload of salt is right. I won't respond anymore on that page, don't want to give the ideas any more bandwidth. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick note on 2019 El Paso shooting
Thanks for your edits to 2019 El Paso shooting.

I think I added the update tag because some of the information does not seem like it's up to date. Particularly if the FBI is still investigating or what. Aasim (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, this is too vague. There need to be specific suggestions accompanied by sources.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Create a section on the talk page
If you wish to go against the WP:CON on the Elvis Presley article then create a section on the talk page, I don’t need to because I’m simply reverting the article back to how it has been for months and months. Dozens and dozens of Wikipedia articles about people mention that they are often known simply by a single name when their full names are the names of the articles. I did a quick check on the history of the Elvis article and the last 500th edit mentioned he was known mononymously by his first name and that was on 21 May 2019. It’s been included in the article for years.--Emily19911991 (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This is an article related issue, so per WP:BRD it is best discussed at Talk:Elvis Presley. I agreed with the previous edit, which said that having "Elvis Presley, also known as Elvis" or similar is largely redundant. What other articles do or do not do is not as relevant as getting a consensus for this particular article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Except it’s not an issue and someone is trying to make an issue out of nothing. Elvis’s full name is the title of the article because he never formally dropped his surname, but it goes without saying that he’s known by his first name and there is no need to say his surname when talking about him - say his first name to anyone anywhere in the world and people will know exactly which person you are talking about straightaway. ‘Elvis’ redirects to the article and the information has been included in the article for years. From the late 1950s he was credited as Elvis by record sleeves and promotions. It would be silly to put ‘also known as simply as Madonna’ when Madonna is the title of the article about the singer, but since Elvis’s full name is the title of the article, it isn’t redundant to point out that he’s known simply as Elvis.--Emily19911991 (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not quite that simple. Madonna is never credited on her records as "Madonna Ciccone", and is hardly ever referred to in this way at all. This is why her article is called simply Madonna. By contrast, Elvis Presley is his full name and is widely used to credit him on his records and in news media stories. This is why WP:OTHERCONTENT exists. The rule is: if you get reverted, don't revert, get a consensus on the talk page. Otherwise you can be accused of edit warring.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you ♦IanMacM♦ for your cogent and polite response. Of course, an argument could be offered that you are right re: 2001. Thank you also for your powers of observation. 9-30-2021 doyleelmocollins 47.149.101.246 (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.149.101.246 (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

GB News
Do you have an issue with GB News as a source? Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought the Guardian source had a bit more detail about the charges, but the GB News source is OK.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Obviously
The one who has tresspassed is at fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100B:B11A:16B0:52C5:5DF6:2244:B77E (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be obvious if I knew which Wikipedia article you were referring to here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Guideline Proposed which you might be interested in.
Hello. I am letting editors know who participated in the recent discussions that decided whether the Killing of David Amess should be called "killing, murder, or assassination", about a new Wikipedia essay being proposed for a new guideline. The essay, Assassination, explains how the common definition of "assassination" does not determine an article's title. Only reliable sources can determine whether it is murder/killing or assassination. Since you participated in those recent discussions, I wanted to drop a message to you about this new proposal. If you want to leave your opinion about it, you can do so in this discussion. Have a good day and keep up the good editing! Elijahandskip (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The real issue is WP:BLPCRIME. "Murder of..." titles have been ruled out repeatedly when no court conviction for murder has been obtained. "Assassination of" also carries implied assumptions about the motive which may be WP:OR immediately after the killing. This is something that needs to be looked at on the talk page of an individual article. For example, Killing of David Amess is the clear consensus for the current article title.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Roll tide wiki.ogg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Roll tide wiki.ogg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sydney funnel-web spider - robustoxin
If one just reads the article (withoul looking up the links), one may think that δ-atracotoxin ist different from robustoxin.

Because of this there is need to tell the reader that these are synonyms.

On the other hand, there is no need for telling that δ-atracotoxin is the same as delta-atracotoxin as δ should be commonly known as delta.

So please consider this. You may like to restore this synonymy in any way, but ist should be made clear.

Kind regards --Ernsts (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Replied at Talk:Sydney funnel-web spider.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Stocking filler?
For that "hard-to-buy-for" family relation. Who could resist? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Lol.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I must admit there is quite a likeness. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Alas, I see the laughter has now all turned to tears for ex-Press Secretary Allegra Stratton. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Nadolig llawen a blwyddyn newydd dda

 * Don't do anything he wouldn't.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Haha, brilliant. Crying out for a backing track! -- Emile Ford & The COVID-mates 123 (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC) p.s. thank you for the email. Ever the paragon of good taste.... lol

Credit where's it due?
As you may well have seen, the picture caption here says "Police handout photo of Gary Glitter. Credit: Metropolitan Police". But does a "credit" equate to a copyright? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I can remember arguments about this with US police department mugshots for mass shootings etc where they are usually copyrighted unless stated otherwise. I also think there should be a broader debate on the talk page about whether the mugshot should be used as the main infobox image.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If there's no copyright, I think it would be best in the "Sex offences" section. But yes, a discussion might be useful. You'd expect Commons to act as an effective gatekeeper against copyright violation, wouldn't you? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * See Usman Khan (terrorist). I can remember that some copyright sticklers insisted that this was fair use, even though it comes from West Midlands Police.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Except that one no longer appears at the purported BBC source? Maybe they took it down as a copyvio? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It's known for a fact that US police department mugshots are copyrighted unless stated otherwise. I did a search for the rules on UK police mugshots but could not clarify what the position is. I also remember the Murder of Lee Rigby where the photographer made a fuss about the official portrait in his army uniform and said that it was copyrighted. Maybe we should ask at WP:IMAGEHELP because my gut feeling is that UK police mugshots are Crown Copyright and are not CC licensed/public domain.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If it's "known for a fact", it would be very useful to have it written down clearly as a fact in some Wiki guideline. But I'm not sure where. Yes, I remember the discussion about Rigby. I've asked a question at Media copyright questions. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * See .-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. But that is US of A, where everyone loves to sue the pants of everyone else, etc.? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It's the old wedding photo situation where the copyright holder is usually considered to be the person who took the photo unless stated otherwise. This would probably be true unless David Slater lent you one of his tame Celebes crested macaques to take the photos.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been at weddings like that too. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I just wanted to take a minute to wish you a Happy New Year! These days people don't spend much time or thought on some personal words to their friends and they just copy and paste some random message and send it on. So after all we've been though together this year I want to thank you for your friendship and wish you a happy and fulfilling 2018 - we're part of the best gymnastics group anyone could ask for. Best wishes, Helen.


 * Thanks, I hope you saw my exciting adventure earlier today. By the way, I know where you live, Helen.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol. I saw your edit summary and assumed you were archiving! Jeez, you get all the best chat-up lines, don'tcha. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

47.149.101.246 is back
Hello Ianmacm, (UTC)

Well, here it is January 19, 2022, and I only just a few minutes ago spotted your September 29, 2021 manipulation and response to my edit/insertion four whole months ago. As I have tried to indicate, the aspects of Wikipedia's culture, ethos, social mores and interaction (not to mention technical sophistication!) are at the extreme limit of my capacity to grasp comfortably. Clearly I am not a dolt, and I am rather proud of my turn of phrase (yet I do admit that I am seriously flummoxed——and have been for a number of years——by the apparent ease with which so many individuals navigate and communicate on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, my lack of appropriate skills, while hampering me, have not completely prevented me from figuring out alternative, non-traditional approaches to making my concerns known to you and your colleague editors. (UTC)

That said, I must thank you (perhaps a day late and a dollar short) for your impeccable courtesy when dealing with an upstart like me who, in your informed estimation has crossed the line and inadvertently bent Wikipedia's rules. But now that I say this, I am sadly remembering something that I had successfully put out of my mind for more than two years! Way back in April 2007, I had made an important very short addition to an H. Rider Haggard-related article, and quickly your colleague editor “ComicsAreJustAllRight” wrongly, inappropriately, and just plain out-of-ignorance pounced on me and my comment saying that my motivations were utterly out-of-place, and he removed my edit. As soon as I noticed, I replaced it. . . and long-story-short, this heinous PROLONGED dual only ended in October 2020. That's THIRTEEN (13) YEARS, over which time, we posted in History dozens and dozens and dozens of back-and-forths. It was full-on war as far as I'm concerned. And now that that has all surfaced again, I am feeling resentful of his ignorance and inability to grasp the extremely simple correctness, and absolute necessity, of my addition. It was only through the involvement of a third party that my point was finally accepted and remains included to this day! (UTC)

Again, it needs to be repeated that you are a gentleman and a credit to your Wikipedia role. Your response to me was so fundamentally polite and 180 degrees opposite from "CAJAR" that you have refreshed my general opinion of Wikipedia, which had been sorely undermined and surely crippled due to the inexplicable, mean-spirited (yes, that's the perfect description: "mean-spirited") behavior of CAJAR——to the degree that for all these long thirteen years, thoughts of Wikipedia ALWAYs, ALWAYS brought a foul (read dirty) taste in my mouth. (UTC)

Well, I tend to be long-winded, thus I must wrap this up. My point in writing now is to indicate that after four months I finally discovered your most mellow, sensible response and it touched me to the degree that I felt I needed to respond in kind. BTW, all that business of signing in vs. not signing in, along with eight or ten requests and/or necessities to change my user name and password over time, means that I don't really have a permanent "handle" on Wiki. Should I happen to cross your mind now and again, please think of me as "TKM". (UTC)

All best regards and Jeux de vivre, (UTC)

TKM (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.149.113.181 (talk)


 * I made five edits on 29 September 2021 and I'm not sure which one that you are referring to here. Could you be more specific?-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 07:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * OK, I think it is 2001: A Space Odyssey (film). As I've said before, the claim that Kubrick was influenced by Conquest of Space is speculative. It isn't in line with WP:DUE to write a lengthy essay arguing that he was. The article Conquest of Space is tagged for this reason.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)