User talk:Ianmacm/Archive 19

TKM RESPONDS
Insofar as I perceive you are a sensible person——though I believe my argument is stronger than your concerns about speculation——while nonetheless I do respect your POV. FYI, I will not pursue this matter further. Also, as I said in my last paragraph above, I do tend to be long-winded, which you clearly appreciate as my "writing a lengthy essay arguing that he [Kubrick] was [influenced by COS]." Please be advised that I have struggled for years to make my prose succinct, precise and even terse when the need arises. But it has been a losing battle. Happy New Year to you and yours, and I sincerely hope that this world-toppling insanity of covid (so much like a real-life sci-fi movie!) truly avoids creating problems for you, and BTW I shan't impose on you again in any way unless you direct some kind of comment in my direction, the nature of which remark clearly infers that a reply from me would not be unwelcome or reprehensible. TKM     ☮    (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.149.113.181 (talk)


 * It's a matter to be raised at Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film). This is such a wall of text that it has considerable problems with WP:DUE and WP:TOPIC. There would need to be a WP:CONSENSUS to include it. As I've said previously, this is written in essay style (not encyclopedia style) and spends a great deal of time putting forward the theory that Kubrick was influenced by Conquest of Space. We don't know if he ever watched this film, although as a film buff he may well have done. We do know that Kubrick was strongly influenced by Universe (1960 film) because he liked the style of the special effects and chose its narrator Douglas Rain to play HAL 9000.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

TKM's COS/2001 Swan Song
Dear Ianmacm, (UTC)

Dealing with you, your personality, your text edits, your stated motivations, and your end products has been a curious rapidly moving target for me. Despite my declaration to remain objective with minimal interaction with you. I find myself ashamed to admit that I keep returning to your remarks like the proverbial moth to a flame. (UTC)

What follows is 3,000 words spread over six digital pages written specifically for you. I’ve said that I despise imposing on people, and should that be the case now, you can certainly cease reading and use these sheets of paper or receptacles of electrons for innumerable [FILL IN THE BLANK] purposes. I repeat, if this communication makes you uncomfortable, I beg you to ignore both it and me as a logical consequence. (UTC)

Once upon a time, I was a member of Facebook, but my Karma was somewhat complicated and I would spend days or weeks cranking out long, lovely, inspired essays/articles for other group members, thereby using up all my disposable time that I should have used for writing scholarly essays, short stories, and film overviews. After three years, I saw the writing on the wall and quit Facebook cold-turkey to write the sorts of things just listed, and I’m happy to say that that is working out OK. (UTC)

Oh, OH! Here it is that my scribbles change my tone, particularly toward you. It was exactly here at this precise point that my hitherto refreshingly positive attitude towards you abruptly took a southward plunge. Indeed, it was just here that I’d included a paragraph singing your praises and lavishing metaphorical confetti on you because you had been so kind as to leave my COS/2001 material attached to the COS article. I had wanted to say, “Thank you very much for meeting me halfway and allowing my remarks to remain embedded in Wiki's important Conquest of Space entry. (Though, I'm well aware that another anonymous Wiki editor could easily come along and nuke my material at a moment's whim, as has happened time and again with my stuff.)” (UTC)

OH, WHOOPS AND OOPS!!!! Doggone it, I was just wrapping up this message to you when I decided to check once again my Conquest of Space comments to be certain that you had indeed met me halfway and intended to maintain that stance. And LO!, what do my tired eyes see (at 4:10 a.m., Friday)? Ianmacm, I saw that you were in fact feeling an obligation to overhaul my COS article material that I have just described as having embedded into the Wikipedia COS article. Clearly my warm, fuzzy impression that you were indeed meeting me halfway was a delusion, hallucination, and/or misunderstanding because you wrote this new statement of the 20th very clearly with the intention of pursuing wholesale revisions: You wrote, “Essay and WP:EDITORIAL style writing. This section also improperly cites Wikipedia as a source (WP:RSPWP). I don't really [have] the energy to fix this entire section [read “to fix TKM’s cumbersome verbosity”]”. And then I was saddened to see that you (or a peer who came to your rescue) deleted my first sentence, plus a few other presumed fixes. (UTC)

That last (italicized) paragraph (just above) is brand new and is really a last second insert to show that I am aware NOW that, in your view, my article was a royal screw up and ought not exist in your world. Plus I also know NOW that I fully misunderstood your attitude and intentions toward me, your humble servant. (UTC)

I do appreciate your informed suggestion that this entire COS/2001 issue is really "a matter to be raised at Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film). This is such a wall of text that it has considerable problems with WP:DUE and WP:TOPIC. There would need to be a WP:CONSENSUS to include it." You are the expert regarding Wiki procedures and practices, and I really had no idea that such a "civilized" method of settling differences existed at Wikipedia. Nevertheless, just the thought of embarking on a convoluted and probably contentious tête-à-tête such as you describe finds me hopelessly weary. I’ve never read those just-cited bracketed WP style rules; and I doubt that I will. (UTC)

I remind you of my mentioning yesterday that Wiki editor "ComicsAreJustAllRight" and I spent thirteen-whole-years lobbing acid criticisms back-and-forth. He was boringly stubborn and relentlessly rejected all my explanations and logic while religiously deleting my input altogether, while continuing to unreasonably repeat his WRONG, insulting, and (dare I say?) full-blown stupid assertions ad infinitum. Thirteen years! I was not about to let the fool have his way, thereby affecting my life deleteriously. (I am sorry to have interjected the two forgoing indecorous pronouncements dealing with "CAJAR's" character, but as I said, that whole business left a dirty taste in my mouth.) Thankfully, all that sickening byplay ground to a halt at the urging of a third party. (Though I must admit that I have concerns about the odd de ja vu that I’m beginning to experience when I think of you two Wikipedia editors in the same breath. (UTC)

Which is a round-about way of saying that while your idea of a possible gabfest to maybe determine a COS/2001 solution or compromise via Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film) is a fine one, I simply cannot involve myself in that sort of literary/cinematic political brouhaha. I'm too old, which brings up another matter: I'm 76-years-old, and as I said yesterday, it was about two years ago that that whole distressing prolonged SICKENING business with that other  [% $ @ # $ *]   editor finally faded off——a silly confrontation indeed that did little more than amplify again and again to no avail, frankly, I’m not sure what, while the ultimate end being that I now have nil, nada, none, zero, zilch, zip respect for that pitiful excuse for a person, while at the same time my blood pressure sky-rocketed to the degree that I needed to start blood-pressure medication (which I’m still on). (UTC)

But let's do the math. Two years ago, my age would have been in the neighbourhood of 73-74. Subtracting 13 years from that means that all that awful nonsense started when I was 60-years-old and was obviously and ultimately an utter-most waste. That’s a shockingly big chunk of my time and life that that idiot caused me to waste. No. No, I never want to travel that road ever again. (UTC)

I’m sort of betwixt and between at this point because I read and interpreted some of your original statements as profoundly positive. But I see now that I again likely grossly misunderstood the rhymes and reasons for you saying the things that you did. (UTC)


 * But here I want to bring up two totally unrelated Wikipedia matters that I want to broach for the pure fun of it. Up above you describe my article as "such a wall of text". I grinned when I read that, and these last hours, as I've continued to compose this missive (first mostly positive, but then less so) for your benefit, that grin has stayed permanently plastered on my face. The reason is that, as you probably know, in the 1950s and 60s there was an outright genius of a music arranger and producer who had an insanely amazing string of hits. His name was, and is, Phil Spector and his genius was to craft and create a pop-rock sound that came to be known as "THE WALL OF SOUND".  Hell, perhaps, you chose that very expression “wall of text” as a conscious homage to Spector’s work! (UTC)

I really know nothing about you, and thus cannot assume anything at all about you. That said, I’m feeling now that it is important that you know why your innocent phrase affected me so. I looked up “Wall of Sound” on Wikipedia (!!!!) and was treated to an especially good article describing how Spector created his magic. I decided then, for your edification, to snag some of the text of that article and adapt it so that it says exactly what I want it to say. Here follows my adaptation of portions of the article under Wikipedia’s “Wall of Sound”: (UTC)

“The Wall of Sound is a music production formula developed by American record producer Phil Spector at Gold Star Studios in the 1960s, with assistance from engineer Larry Levine and a large rotating ensemble of talented session musicians and background singers. The intention was to exploit the possibilities of studio recording to create an unusually dense orchestral aesthetic. The intricacies of the technique were unprecedented in the field of sound production for popular music. Spector explained in 1964: "I was looking for a sound, a sound so strong that if the material was not the greatest, the sound would carry the record. It was a case of augmenting, augmenting. It all fit together like a jigsaw." (UTC)

“The method was nuanced. To attain the Wall of Sound, Spector's arrangements called for large ensembles (including some instruments not generally used for ensemble playing, such as electric and acoustic guitars), with multiple instruments doubling or tripling many of the parts to create a fuller, richer tone. For example, Spector often duplicated a part played by an acoustic piano with an electric piano and a harpsichord. Mixed well enough, the three instruments would then be indistinguishable to the listener. (UTC)

“Among other features of the sound, Spector incorporated an array of orchestral instruments (strings, woodwind, brass and percussion) not previously associated with youth-oriented pop music. Reverb from an echo chamber was also highlighted for additional texture. He characterized his methods as "a Wagnerian approach to rock & roll." (UTC)

Ianmacm, here follows a list of a handful of my [TKM’s] personal Spector favorites: (UTC)

•	The Crystals–Then He Kissed Me (which is probably my favorite song of all time on the planet Earth, and which, ironically, is an absolutely pristine example of what Spector meant when he said above, “I was looking for a sound, a sound so strong that if the material was not the greatest, the sound would carry the record.“ (UTC) •	The Ronettes–	Be My Baby (UTC) •	The Righteous Brothers–You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin', Unchained Melody, & Ebb Tide  (UTC) •	Ike & Tina Turner–River Deep-Mountain High (UTC)

Anyway, I hope you understand now why your innocent phrase touched me so! (UTC)

But earlier I wrote above, “I want to bring up two totally unrelated Wikipedia matters that I want to broach for the pure fun of it.” You just read up on Number One. (UTC)

Number Two is 180 degrees in another ballpark. I’ve been contributing incidental passages and technical references to Wikipedia for fifteen or sixteen years now. My principal area of focus——actually “expertise” is a better word——is 50s sci-fi movies. I am considered by many fans and film professionals to be an authority on such movies, and it is generally thought that my opinions, knowledge of facts and behind the scenes anecdotes, are “entertaining and informative,” “illuminating,” “definitive,” “passionate,” “fascinating, comprehensive, authoritative,“ “delightfully quirky,” “refreshing,” “providing a bounty of new encyclopedic items,” “inspirational and insightful,” “pleasurable,” “thorough,” and you get the picture. Which boils down to my contributing to countless Wikipedia sci-fi movie articles over the last decade and a half——which I find most fulfilling, satisfying, and fun. (UTC)

And now, here is my way of ending this exercise in supremely long-windedness, “C’est la Vie,” ”Que sera sera,” “What’s it all about, Alfie?”, “If that’s the way you want it!”, and “It is what it is.” Those final five words must escape my lips half a dozen times a day! (UTC)

Ianmacm, as I’ve said several times now, in my experience with you, I imagine you are more a fine human being than not. Nevertheless, I am somewhat a loner, an introvert, and a bit of a misanthrope. I do my best work when totally alone, and I get irritated with people who are “hangers-on.” Ironically, when I met my loving wife 44 years ago, my personality was just the same as now, and early on I tried to illustrate our differences. I said to her, “You are friendly and an extrovert. You like people. I, on the other hand, like the spaces BETWEEN the people.”

All of which is my way of underscoring what I said yesterday, “I will not pursue this “COS/2001” matter further. Furthermore, I shan't impose on you again in any way, particularly about this whole movie matter. What’s the point? But that said, I believe I am on firm ground when I say to you that “My argument about the relationship between the two sci-fi movies is stronger than your concerns about speculation and the lack of a coherent, formal connection between the two films. (UTC)

In any case, I wish not to continue this chat of ours via your “Talk” arena. Again, what’s the point?. I will hence forth consciously and assiduously stay away from the two movies “View History” links so as not to be tempted to (1) look to see if you passed on a note of some sort and (2) so as not to be tempted to engage you in further Wiki conversation. As I say, “What’s the point?” We both know the other person’s views on the subject, and anything further is merely beating a dead horse. In addition, right there in accord with my explanations of being terribly long-winded, I started this note two days ago, and, except for getting my blood drawn for lab work, I’ve been steadily crafting this correspondence all this time. A case could be made that that’s way out of wack. (UTC)

Also, I sense that you are betwixt and between about what to do with my 2001 stuff that I added to the COS article. Though I’m pretty much bonded to everything I wrote, and, of course, I would be terribly saddened to see it all go ***POOF*** into the night, nevertheless, you have your Wikipedia peers to answer to. . . .  Thus, you have my unqualified permission to remove every word of what you call “speculation,” but which I call the intuitive, researched, independent conclusions of four unconnected film authorities, all published by respected publishers:  McFarland & Company, University of Texas Press (both academic presses), Blake Publishing Corp., and Greenwood Publishing Group. Whereas the quotations I‘ve included in my additions to the Wiki COS article are not 100%, iron-clad statements of irrefutable fact—they are nevertheless the informed judgements and logical conclusions of four knowledgeable, open-minded and objective professional observers of cinema. (UTC)

Speaking for myself, since I was twelve years old, and for many more decades, Arthur C. Clarke was my favorite author and I read everything that I could find that he’d written, including all his numerous articles for his Holiday Magazine column of the 1950s. I am also clear that he, George Pal, and Wernher von Braun were friends. (UTC)

It needs to be remembered that among Conquest of Space’s technical advisors was Wernher von Braun (a role he played earlier for Pal’s 1950 Destination Moon) and that the design of the movie was based on the paintings Chesley Bonestell created at the behest of von Braun for a number of Collier’s magazine articles and Viking books co-written by von Braun. Whatever else some critics may think of COS, the film was true to von Braun’s plans for space travel—his intensions and technical plans for rockets and the rotating space station, current as of his 1950s articles and books. Even if WvB had concerns about COS’s plot, he was positively delighted by the Technicolor renderings of his serious space travel plans up there on the silver screen. (UTC)

Now add to this the fact that Wernher von Braun and 2001’s co-author Arthur C. Clarke were fast friends (see both of their biographies; Clarke taught von Braun scuba diving); wouldn’t it be natural that von Braun must have called Clarke’s attention to Conquest of Space to, at the very least, show off its gorgeous Technicolor 3D renderings of the designs and concepts that he’d been working on his whole professional life? (UTC)

Then, wouldn’t it be only natural for Clarke, in turn, ten years later, to point Kubrick in the direction of Conquest of Space to give him a taste of what real rocket engineers, including von Braun, were working toward a decade earlier? Furthermore, in Neil McAleer’s biography of Clarke he reminds us that George Pal and Clarke were friends as well. While discussing an SF symposium held in Rio de Janeiro, Clarke said, “I’ll tell you who else was there, George Pal. George Pal who made Destination Moon, War of the Worlds, and all those great space movies. That was the last time I saw dear old George.” (UTC(

Though, I’ve lived in California all my life, in 1969 I visited a friend in New York City. I turned on the TV and saw Walter Chronkite and Arthur C. Clarke SITTING TOGETHER and reporting on the then-real-time Moon landing of Apollo 12. Long-story short, I was so totally excited that I worked it out so as to was able to meet Clarke a few days later in his Chelsea Hotel room, where he was kind enough to answer the many questions that had been building up in me for so many years. . . .  (UTC)

One last point, I cannot imagine that you would ever have cause to chase me down to instigate a real digital chat. However, you are a smart guy, and I would respond nicely should you try successfully communication should you wish. (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO ME ON YOUR TALK PAGE. I WILL make a point of NOT VISITING YOUR PAGE AGAIN, AS I DON’T WISH TO PROLONG OUR DISCUSSION. (UTC)

God bless! (UTC) TKM (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatami67239mypacks (talk • contribs)


 * I don't have personal control over any Wikipedia article. When an editing dispute occurs, the best thing to do is to follow WP:BRD. This is a matter for Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film). If you raise the matter there, you can get input from a range of editors, not just me.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Could I get some help at Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins
Could I get some help on the Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins article? An IP keeps removing sourced content and adding in his own unsourced commentary in the lead section The Good Dante (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually don't worry I've managed to sort it The Good Dante (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Who is this Ann Hidrosis anyway?
Whoever this Ann woman is, she's just jumping on the bandwagon, isn't she. And you know it can't be his hand in that photoshopped picture, as adrenaline overdose in the Falklands War caused his arms to shrink. But I bet he's sweating now.... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw this in the news. I definitely can't claim that I never sweat, it's a fair cop, m'lud.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Eewww. You dirty old tramp. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "Great Leaders Through History" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 🤣🤣🤣-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently, I think he has to "shape up or shit out". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But now, at last, what everyone has been waiting for. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I never got invited to a party on Jeffrey Epstein's private island, but Air Miles Andy did. At £12 million, these may be the most expensive Air Miles in history.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ohhhhhhhh...
 * The Grand Old Duke of York
 * He borrowed 12 million quid
 * He gave it to someone
 * He'd never met and
 * For something he never did. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And I thought you had written this yourself 😢. I'm shocked, shocked.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was the one who set it to music and got the production rights.... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi
Hello. How do we play fix wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:8843:C900:1C24:AF25:A614:6D0B (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure unless you can be more specific 😉.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Your use of Rollback
Hello. I noticed you use Rollback a lot to revert good-faith edits. Rollback is a tool for reverting obvious vandalism, anything else is a misuse. Thanks. Primergrey (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Please be specific and give examples. I am careful not to use rollback unless the edit was unhelpful.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Harrison
I won't quibble about that one. Actually I asked for it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has an article about Chicken Kiev. Should it be Chicken Kyiv now? 🤔-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk:Chicken_Kiev Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I hate u ass
I hate u ass. Don Key D'Arby (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

An apology
Re-reading my talk-page message from yesterday in the cold morning light I would like to apologise for being irritable and patronising. Sorry. Wham2001 (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * OK thanks.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Review request
Good day. I suggested edits to a paragraph of the Jeffrey Epstein article almost two weeks ago. I see that you have been engaged in assessing contributions to this article over time. I am reaching out today to ask whether it would be possible for you to consider my proposed edits. Thank you for your time and consideration, Ianmacm. Amonlaw (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll have a look at this; there is quite a lot to get through. One point that the edits should be as neutral as possible, as your user page says that you currently serve as a paralegal for The Law Office of Thomas G. Amon.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for taking a look. Amonlaw (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅, see Talk:Jeffrey_Epstein.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing the proposed edits and for your improvements. I noticed something this morning, further down in the same section (“Hedge funds”), that I should have noticed earlier; my apologies for not doing so—the New York magazine article that appears as a source in the first paragraph, whose citation has now been updated (as citation 68), is also cited in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the section (as citation 72), and in those paragraphs it still cites the article’s old (and now incorrect) headline. I don’t have any knowledge of the content in those subsequent paragraphs, but it seems to me that the “72” citations should be changed to become “68” citations, with the correct current headline, etc. Sorry again for not noticing this earlier. Amonlaw (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your update on the citations. Amonlaw (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

2001...
Hi Ianmacm, I kind of agree that my addition of the video is based on OR. However - I have some further pics which more directly show the resemblance to the movie, which I did not upload yet. I have little time right now but will get back to you with some hard facts ;-) This edit is just to tell you to please not delete this from some other articles where I inserted it until we discussed this. Regards, Pittigrilli (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This really does need a source. If it isn't mentioned in a news story etc it has no suitable basis for being added to the article. It is more on topic at 2001: A Space Odyssey in popular culture, but even there it needs to be established that it is based on the film. The spacesuit isn't anything like the ones used in the film and I'm still not convinced that this has clear influence from 2001.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Slowly, man, slowly... Look right at the still from same setting as my video. Look at the segmented white/beige ring around the astronaut, which surrounds the scene completely. Then compare with a scene from the Youtube video from 2001 with the exact title "4 Ways 2001: A Space Odyssey Was a Visual-Effects Pioneer" from 0:20 (I am not allowed to post it as URL) --> A woman dressed in white (not an astronaut though, but there are plenty, right?) walking very close to a beige segmented ring behind her in a spacecraft. Even the tone of the colour is quite similar. Now, how likely is it that a shop designer comes to this quite exotic setting (--> with an astronaut...) without knowing the movie and thinking of it? Pittigrilli (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC) PS: Even the diameter of the segmented ring is mainly similar to the one in the movie, and the material is leather (or at least appearing from the texture as such) - both in the shop decoration and in the movie. This is a highly unusual material for a space environment, and that the shop designer has the same, a bit strange, idea for his space-like decoration is close to impossible imho. Pittigrilli (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It might be seen as having an influence from this scene where the stewardess walks until she is upside down. However, it is not something that can be added without a secondary reliable source mentioning it, in line with WP:POPCULTURE guidelines.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

That new Charitable editor....
Saw your post on their user talk. Besides the possible charities/COI my issue is that they are pulling blog-posts from this one website and using the posts as cited references. On at least 3 different articles including Robb Elementary shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, and Climate change. And this particular blog/website was just started on June 10th?...Verifiability, reliability, self-published, user-generated... I have not gone on the blog/website since it is a completely unknown source to me, besides, I have enough cookies as it is. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Tony Blair
There is no need for the sarcasm. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to reflect the WP:COMMONNAME ahead of other properties? --Sportspop (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I got a bit bored with this edit because there have been endless similar debates at Jimmy Savile. Although I'm not an expert on knighthoods, the policy is MOS:SIR. This says "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article, but are optional after that. The title is placed in bold in the first use of the name." But of course Tony Blair is his WP:COMMONNAME. The edit summary here is problematic because Wikipedia policy is not based on what "the masses" (whoever they are) think should happen.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that, and it is also the case that had I not known this, I probably would have sooner or later done the same with Jimmy Savile as I dislike him what what he did almost as much as I dislike Blair. At least I know the policies now. I won't make an edit of that nature again. --Sportspop (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure Tony ever had a medallion made out of a glass eye from a cadaver. But then Jimmy never invaded Iraq, did he. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No. You're right there. Thx. --Sportspop (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Opening paragraph of Gary Glitter article.The discussion is about the topic Gary Glitter. Thank you.
 * And talking of famous slebs..... Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your kind email, which will doubtless prevent WMF having to appear in court. Ah, those were the days, eh? Real entertainment! "Jonathan King meets Ronnie Biggs" worth the licence fee on it's own, I'd say. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They say "50 years is a long time in politics"... Good old Jacob! He'll only be 102. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * He's just so laid back isn't he. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And I thought it was going to be something in poor taste about Savile or Glitter.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Like this, which is one of the cleaner ones.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This would make a great infobox image.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, he looks almost human. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Another ideal infobox image. This is how the nurses at Stoke Mandeville reacted when they heard that Savile had arrived.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Today's Savile meme was created by Boris Johnson.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, that was before all those beery lockdown parties in Durham. But I had not realised how involved Starmer was in McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris [1997]. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And we've had a letter from someone who wants to take part in this year's Platinum Jubilee.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * just for old times' sake... Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The truth is out..... yet another Tory sleaze scandal! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Since we haven't had this yet.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks also for the email. You are indeed the Savile meme king. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * £75 is not much, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was one of the items flogged off at an auction of his personal belongings which raised £320,000 in July 2012. At that time it was still possible to do this before it all started to go tits up when the ITV documentary was broadcast in October 2012. This also shows why the tabloids aren't a reliable source. The Daily Mirror article states as a fact that it came from a corpse, but the official report concluded only that Savile had unsupervised access to the mortuary and the rest is hearsay.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For some reason, most of the hearsay about Savile seems to be a tiny bit salacious. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Savile picture of the day. Probably no longer on Paul or Ringo's mantelpiece.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like George had enough already... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm Only Sleeping.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Already in training for the mortuary job, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Paint It Black (the hair).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Savile and marathons
Did Savile really run 217 marathons? he claimed this here in 2007. Other runners found this implausible. "Jason Henderson, on Athletics magazine, wrote: "I discovered that many of the 'marathons' he bragged about were actually 10km or half-marathons - not that anyone cared." Henderson is probably right that this is WP:AUTO and should be approached with caution. Savile was fit, but 217 marathons is a bit like Kim Jong Il doing a 38 under par round on the golf course. Nothing was ever proved about Savile's marathon claims, but they do seem a bit dodgy. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Or cycling everywhere on a pushbike... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * What does the name Peodo mean? "A user from Malaysia says the name Peodo is of African origin and means "Strong tribe leader". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 2020s Junior Library essential. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Top of the Pops
One of the interesting things about TOTP is that the early editions from 1964-7 were made at a disused church in Manchester. There are some good photos of it here. I liked this one saying "Heel caps will be provided and must be worn with stiletto heels. No person admitted under 14 years of age. Please leave valuables at home." Although this edition was pre-recorded (likely on quadruplex videotape) it probably doesn't exist today due to the BBC carelessly wiping the tapes.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Or carefully wiping the tapes after October 2012... Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Now then, guys and gals, I had a look at this page on the BBC website that lists surviving TOTP episodes in the archive. It can't be correct though, because we know that there is a video with Savile introducing Jonathan King performing "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" on TOTP on 19 August 1965, when it was at number 4 in the charts. You've probably seen this before, but due to WP:YOUTUBE I won't link to it here. Anyway, I'm sure your web search skills are up to finding it.😉-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Jimmy Saville
I really disagree with your removal of the link I added on the Jimmy Saville page, although I thought I should come here to explain why I think it should be reinstated. As it says on MOS:SEEALSO: "a "See also" section is a useful way to organize internal links to related or comparable articles. Saville and the Batman rapist absolutely are comparable: they are both English long-term sexual offenders who were never apprehended, and subject to similarly massive serial sex offence and rape investigations. BarehamOliver (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no way the unnamed Batman rapist is "comparable" with Savile. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But Jimmy Saville is Britain's most famous unapprehended serial sex offender and rapist. Why is it wrong to link to another high-profile case that also fits into this category, especially when MOS:SEEALSO explains that "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics"? It's not like the see also section on the article is too long and cumbersome. BarehamOliver (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a matter for Talk:Jimmy Savile rather than here. There is a longstanding consensus not to say that Savile was a rapist/sex offender etc. This is misleading as the huge controversy occurred after his death and he was never convicted over any of this. That's not to say that he didn't do it, but Savile did manage to maintain his image as a national treasure until it all fell apart after his death. And as Martin said, the Batman rapist comparison is way off topic. Savile's specialty was abusing the trust of organisations where he worked.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But see also links don't have to to articles that are directly related to the subject, they can be tangentially related topics. Surley you can see how they are tangentially related? It's not like I'm linking Jimmy Saville to Buzz Aldrin. And anyway, the Batman rapist was never convicted of any of the sexual offences he was linked to, so that's another similarity. BarehamOliver (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The so-called anonymous Batman rapist was unnamed because his identity was never discovered. Savile was a household name and huge TV personality for at least five decades? See you over Talk:Jimmy Savile if you really think you have a case to argue. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well there's no point getting into a huge debate over it, it's only a see also link after all. I just think it's not doing any harm to have a few see also links for readers to explore on such a frequently-read article. BarehamOliver (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By all means ask at Talk:Jimmy Savile. Other editors may have different views. I'm sure you are editing with the best of intentions. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Your email
Thanks for pointing out the problem. I have taken care of it. Cullen328 (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Your email
Ruddy Amber Heard? Didn't she have that terrible fight with Captain "Big Dog" Sparrow over Brexit?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Instructions for safe use
 Enjoying your Saturn V Sky Rocket™ from Standard Fireworks ® 


 * 1) Be sure to use your taper at arm's length.
 * 2) Light promptly and retire to a safe distance.
 * 3) Never return to check the Talk page, it may still be smouldering.....

Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * What I loved about the saga at User talk:WikiPhu is the classic use of a non-apology apology. This goes something like "I'm sorry that you criticised me for doing it". See the essay at WP:APOLOGY.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * There is an entire article Political views of J. K. Rowling which looks at her views on transgender issues. I don't suppose we will be seeing Political views of Kay Burley any time soon.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Does Burley even know what "political views" are? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How could anyone take issue with the lovely Kay and her deft line of questioning?? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It gets worse. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

"... Due to excessive intake of alcohol, and the slippery floor, I lost my balance, inadvertently losing my trousers and ending up squeezed between the two gentlemen that I had just met..." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Baxter Basics in Viz always talks his way out of situations like this with ease. It doesn't always work, though.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And today.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Wow! Looks like the penny has now finally dropped!! I'd say he's got days, maybe just hours, left. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * p.s. "Why It's Perfectly Normal to See Boris in Toast" Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * p.p.s. apparently Chris Pincher isn't gay, he's just "by curious". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I was reminded of Ron Davies (Welsh politician) in all of this. Politicians certainly do like to have their "moment of madness".-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. Who could forget. You must admit, Clapham Common is a lot more egalitarian. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh dear... now it's all turning a bit nasty: Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (Information correct at time of writing).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Looking like a true survivor, feeling like a little kid..." Martinevans123 (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh dear... it now looks like we've got him until October 2022? How depressing. Maybe he'll manage to find some unknowns to help him by then. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Gonionemus vertens, the clinging jellyfish, is a large species of hydrozoan in the family Olindiidae found in coastal regions and throughout large parts of Westminster." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The British people get tired of all of their Prime Ministers eventually. Boris Johnson (three years) managed it sooner than most. Even Edward Heath managed four years.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At least he was a giant lizard. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Go on now, go. Walk out the door Just turn around now 'cause you're not welcome anymore." This is the epitaph for all inhabitants of 10 Downing Street and poor old Edward Heath never got over it.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This article in The Guardian dated from November 2004 is very revealing. Michael Howard sacked Johnson from the shadow front bench in 2004, not because he had an extramarital affair, but because he gave an account of it that was either very unreliable or untruthful (take your pick). This is where the famous phrase "inverted pyramid of piffle" came from. Howard was furious when it emerged that he had been misled by Johnson despite initially backing him in public. Johnson's non-apology apology in 2004 is also remarkably similar to the one that he gave outside Downing Street today.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. And now we have an "inverted pyramid of de Pfeffel". So yeah as they say, what gropes around, comes around. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, a veritably stinking non-apology. Rather a quite sickening rallying cry to all his adoring die-hard Brexit supporters. First herd immunity... now herd mentality. But let's move now to our deputy political correspondent, Vicky Young, to watch a shameful litany of self-promotion, deceit and bravado from the last 20 years..... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And... another thing... he's resigned? from being what? the country's leader? the head of the government? Nah... just leader of the jolly back-slapping, super mandate, get-Brexit-done-Tories. And now weeks or months of some unseemly beauty contest for them to select their next emperor. So-called democracy. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a great photo. Savile is being his usual eccentric/weird/creepy self, but Margaret Thatcher doesn't seem very pleased about it. Also liked this GIF.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know... she looks really tickled. (Sorry for that image.) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And continuing the theme of general bad taste (which seems has become the norm on this page. shocking.) The Remembrance quotes are worth a look. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Frost Report "Lord Privy Seal sketch
You reverted my addition of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVlfvdH7qwY as a citation in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Frost_Report#%22Lord_Privy_Seal%22 because it isn't on the BBC's official YouTube channel. The sketch doesn't appear to be anywhere else. It seems strange to have a specific section about the sketch without a link to an online clip of it. Mcljlm (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately my hands are tied on this due to WP:YOUTUBE. I had a look at the linked video, and it is uploaded by "TheLordPrivySeal 12 subscribers", ie it isn't on the BBC's official YouTube channel. There is nothing wrong with the video itself, but it can't be linked externally due to copyright issues.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Goldbach, inconsistency, numbers/numerals
A minor point but since your edit summary mentioned MOS:NUMERAL and consistency, I thought it might be worthwhile to point out that this specific kind of inconsistency is explicitly endorsed by MOS:NUMNOTES: Adjacent quantities not comparable should ideally be in different formats: "twelve 90-minute volumes" or "12 ninety-minute volumes", not "12 90-minute volumes" or "twelve ninety-minute volumes". Here the "2" represents a number in a mathematical formula (albeit one otherwise rendered in prose), whereas the "two" represents a quantity of numbers. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You are mentioned at ani, storm, teacup
[ Administrators' noticeboard] Good night. Doug Weller talk 20:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Commented there.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

YouTube video chapter feature
Hi, you deleted my video chapter sub-sub-section on the YouTube page. I was in the process of explaining its relevance. This feature has several accessibility to person with disabilities, including vision and hearing impairments. I believe even though this community is relatively small, the outsized benefits make it relevant. Bquast (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm worried about the overall notability of this per WP:DUE. Citing the Google support website doesn't help to show why this is notable, and the article already has some problems with its length and readability. The chapters feature is interesting but not really a key feature of the site.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding my edit on the SACD page
Sorry, I'm a user over at the site QuadrophonicQuad, and I didn't intend the added information to be advertising hraudio.net. There is a user on QuadrophonicQuad who counts the individual releases of each type on hraudio and he got that number. I just wanted the number of SACD releases to be updated to the correct current number of over 15,000. Could you please add that information back in edited to the correct non-advertising nature? Im not that good with writing these things.

Best, Surroundshill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surroundshill (talk • contribs) 23:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The figure of 14,528 Super Audio CDs currently on sale needs to be reliably sourced to avoid original research. I'm not quite sure how the figure was arrived at, and it needs to be stated clearly in order for it to be added to the article. It does look problematic if it is based on one person's calculation and is not directly stated by the source itself.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I figured out how you can get the number implicitly from hraudio.net. If you don't know, HRAudio works directly with the publishers of these products to offer affiliate links for each product. If you use the HRAudio navigation menu and click on music, it shows all the titles in their database at the moment. You can filter out everything except SACDs and multiply the amount of pages by the number of items on the page to get the current estimate. Would this work as a source? Surroundshill (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The actual number is around 15,000 and not 14,528 released SACDs as there are SACDs like these (The Golden Bonana and almost all of Octave Records' SACDs) that are not listed as well as a high amount of Hong Kong SACD releases that no one seems to care about like these (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ematcion/sets/72157600427174428/) Surroundshill (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this has problems with WP:OR, which says "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." It requires gluing together different sources as the figure of 14,528 is not directly available.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So is there no possible way to add this in? I do think that a number of 15,000 released SACDs versus the 6,000 figure currently listed on Wikipedia is a huge difference and is important to describing the scope and reach of the product, even if it's still limited compared to other formats. Surroundshill (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't say an absolute no because there needs to be a WP:CONSENSUS. You could start a talk page thread at Talk:Super Audio CD as this is article related. The problem is that the figure of 14,528 is nowhere to be seen in the source and would need a considerable amount of calculation to obtain it.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Prairie dog
Prairie dog are a type of squirrel? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, re-add this if you like.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding my edit on Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting
I share a joint account with my brother, who is four years younger than me and is 13. Both of us share interest in true crime, so we edit various pages here on Wikipedia about that. I don't know if he hijacked the Sandy Hook page, but he has more interest than me in mass shootings and other incidents, so I may have to confront him again.

I apologize for the immature edits and brashness on the page for Sandy Hook. I truly do not know what happened, so please reply if it was this account or an error. Rocketman717 (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * OK thanks, I'm not an admin but they would undoubtedly point you towards WP:SOCK and Piggybacking (security). It's not acceptable to make controversial edits and say "my kid brother did it" or something similar. This is likely to get the account indefinitely blocked. Please ensure that something like this does not happen again.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)