User talk:SPSutherland

George Marsh
The fact that someone asked if they could make a documentary adds nothing to the understanding of George Marsh, please stop adding it. J3Mrs (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you like to explain why you re-added it? J3Mrs (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
You appear to have a Conflict of interest in promoting a video you produced. This is NOT the place to promote it. Sorry. J3Mrs (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, SPSutherland, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * I'm sorry that no one has yet welcomed you, SPSutherland. This message usually appears on the top of a new editor's Talk Page - so feel free to move it there if you want to. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

How can I end my account. I am clearly not welcome here!


 * Hello SPSutherland. I think User:Dennis Brown has probably answered your question below. Although your account is blocked for two weeks, there is no reason why you cannot resume editing, should you so wish, but within the confines of Wikipedia policy, after this time. It seems that the video you were wanting to add as a source in this article, has not yet in fact been released. All I have been able to track down is a one-minute promotional trailer for the video, which appears to be a new documentary on the life of George Marsh. It is usual practice to refer to videos and films in Wikipedia articles only once they have been issued into the public domain and have received some kind of critical appraisal. Indeed, unless a review by some established independent third-party could show that a film or video is notable, it is likely that it will be regarded simply as a WP:SPS i.e. a "self-published source", like a home-movie for example. There is also an issue with using as a reference a production - be it a book, video, pamphlet or whatever - that is one's own work. This is not permitted at Wikipedia as it counts as "WP:COI", i.e. a promotional conflict of interest, from which you might personally benefit. I am sorry that you seem to have had a difficult time here starting to edit, but we are governed by quite strict policies, which are not always easy for the new editor to find and understand. Other editors, who appear to be "battling" with you are, in fact, just trying to enforce those policies as best they see fit. Regards, Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. do please forgive me if this all comes across as "patronising claptrap."

Disruptive edits
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. J3Mrs (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. J3Mrs (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Beware
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Regards, Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The so-called "edit war" is from user: J3Mrs. And if you believe what you are saying, tell that person the same as you tell me.


 * You appear to be removing referenced relevant material as some sort of revenge for my calling out your conflict of interest by attempting to promote your video. I can't see any other logical reason. J3Mrs (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Well it seems you are in the minority, two other editors agree with me. Hurst was a follower and family member, he almost met the same fate, it is relevant. Flowers on memorials and video promotion are not relevant. Anyone can edit, if they do not improve the article, it will be edited or removed. You don't seem to have improved it. J3Mrs (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC

SP Sutherland comments removed. By me.

Blocked for sockpuppetry
I have heard that Wiki is full of new atheists who make a beeline for Christians, but I never knew it was as bad as this. I would not write for Wiki again for all the tea in China. I want to disable my account. How can I do that.
 * Accounts aren't "disabled". You can just chose to not edit again.  The other two accounts were blocked as a Checkuser looked into the logs and found technical evidence to demonstrate the edits came from the same machine.  Combined with the behavior, I concluded you were using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny, which is not allowed here, hence you were blocked to prevent any further disruption.  As for Christians or whatnot, I have no knowledge nor concern regarding your philosophical leanings, nor have I edited any article that you have, so I don't know you from Adam. Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 17:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You say, "a Checkuser looked into the logs and found technical evidence to demonstrate the edits came from the same machine."

So now you claim to have power to hack into someones computer? Well, something needs to be done about that doesn't it.

Anyhow, it is not you who have edited my work, but a certain user, Mrs whatnot or something, I forget, you should find it in the talk thingy. She made a beeline for me and others joined in. I think she regards herself as some kind of watchwoman over the history of the north of England, Lancashire etc. All I did was add information and a link to Deane Church official website concerning the documentary. Which she said Wiki is not the place for it? If that is so, can you answer to me why films about reformer Martin Luther is on here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_(2003_film) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_(1953_film) Yet such is not permitted concerning a film about reformer and martyr George Marsh?
 * You can read about WP:Checkuser here. No hacking required.  Every time you visit any webpage, you are (unknowingly it appears) giving that server a great deal of information on where you live, what operating system you are using, etc.  Every website ever made logs this information and at Wikipedia, certain vetted editors are allowed access under specific circumstances, which this case clearly met.  I haven't seen the data myself, only the Checkuser themselves have, who declared the relationship between you and the two sockpuppets as "Technically indistinguishable", meaning the exact same IP address and computer made those edits.  As for another editor, it is meaningless and I'm really not interested in the content of that article, only your behavior in editing it.  I'm the one that determined you were sockpuppeting, I'm the one that blocked you.  Considering the strength of the evidence, I would consider the fact established beyond a doubt, so you are simply trolling here by pretending it wasn't you.  At this stage, you are only blocked for two weeks.  Your actions hereafter will determine if a longer block is needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 18:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You say, "Every time you visit any webpage, you are (unknowingly it appears) giving that server a great deal of information on where you live, what operating system you are using, etc. Every website ever made logs this information"

I own a number of domains, yet how is it I do not have such information?

Anyhow, this conversation is pointless and you have not established it was 'I' who re-added the content. Only that it may have been the same area or computer? Of which, I have a family and friends. Other people do know about the edits, consider that!

These claims are all a bit creepy to me, bordering on hacking and invasion of privacy.
 * is the primary log for my intranet webserver and a common location for RH Linux based servers. Can't tell you for Windows servers, I've never ran one but I've ran Apache HTTP Servers and have written custom Perl scripts to parse them as part of my occupation for almost two decades now.  Trust me, they exist.  As for if it was a friend or family, that still violates WP:SOCK as a "meatpuppet" as they were acting in your interests.  You are welcome to appeal the block using the directions in the block template if you like, but considering the strength of the evidence, I wouldn't get your hopes up. Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 19:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding self-produced video again
I have again removed your promotion of a video from the George Marsh article, it adds nothing of note to the article. Nothing has changed over the last year. I refer you to the question you asked at Teahouse/Questions. You received good advice and chose to ignore it. You provided an inadequate reference for the video you produced. What is needed is a reliable, independent source to critically review the video, not the programme page of an obscure religious TV channel that aired it. I doubt it sheds any further light on George Marsh. Your WP:COI still stands as you are promoting a video you produced yourself. J3Mrs (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition, the addition was referenced to a source that does not meet wikipedia's definition of reliable. Improperly sourced information is always subject to immediate removal. John from Idegon (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear User talk:John from Idegon, can you please explain to me why Revelation TV is not a source that is reliable?

Fact. The documentary was broadcast on 10th June 2014 and will be again on 14th June 2014. Source: http://www.revelationtv.com/bin/sc-jun-2014.pdf

http://www.revelationtv.com/webdev/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation_TV

Please note; there are many things on the George Marsh page, even claims, which are not sourced. Some sources do not exist, including footnotes 2, 4, 7, 11. Why do they remain?

Actually, no need to answer my questions if they are not going to answered with satisfactory content, it doesn't matter in the long run. The work has been done, more people know about Brother George Marsh now, so I'm quite content. I'm just glad that he and his story is being remembered.

However, before I go I would just like to add a few point, a person (User talk:J3Mrs) has said; "I refer you to the question you asked at Teahouse/Questions. You received good advice and chose to ignore it." I have a problem with the attitude expressed here, since it appears to be an assumptive 'lie'. The reason I say this is because for one, I had not read that advice before adding the text, yet the person above stated an assumption to the contrary. Remember, I asked the question at the tea house, yet being new here and not familiar with this strict suppression and editing of information, I confess, I did not see this. Had I have seen it, I would have proceeded with the following.

However, now I have, the 'advice' only says the following; "I am unsure that this TV show broadcast by a controversial network is important enough to include as part of the "legacy" of a person who died 4-1/2 centuries ago."

1) This advice does not seem quite right to me since it refers to Revelation TV as; "a controversial network"? and only says "I am unsure" no certainty has been stated. How is uncertainty or controversy related to this? George Marsh was controversial, plenty of media stations, newspapers, tv shows, radio shows are controversial. So what? I do not see that controversy is the issue.

I also have a problem with the above persons attitude (User talk:J3Mrs), even in the title of this post "adding a self-produced video again". There is an attitude problem there since all producers and filmakers promote their films. It is just standard. Is the person above against all aspects of renaissance? Is the person against all promotion of movies? If so to use an extreme example, would she like to remove 'the Passion of the Christ' from here, or Mel Gibson's quotes from his promotion of his film?

I could go on, but you get my point don't you??? Film makers, authors, musicians and so forth, spend their lives promoting their work, it is what we do. Would (User talk:J3Mrs) practice the suppression of all this? SPSutherland (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * That is the problem. We aren't here to serve as a platform for you to promote your work.  It isn't a reliable source, in part because it is a primary source.  Concensus is to exclude the link.  Continuing to edit war over it will result in a block.  Since you have a conflict of interest, you probably shouldn't be editing the article anyway.  Farmer Brown (aka: Dennis)  10:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Farmer Brown as an accredited Theologian (B.Th, Th.M) and not a self styled internet expert, why would you say that "you probably shouldn't be editing the article anyway"? Do you realize the implications of what you just said there?

On the William Tyndale page there is a reference to a documentary. It says the following; 2013, "The Most Dangerous Man in Tudor England," BBC Two, 60 minute documentary written and presented by Melvyn Bragg[62] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale#cite_note-63

In your comment you refer to the violent language of the Wiki term "edit war" of which since my year or so away from Wiki, I have engaged in no edit war, neither will I or am I, I am not that desperate or inclined to do so, I assure you. You say "Continuing to edit war over it will result in a block.". Why say that, I have not continued anything or re-edited the article since (User talk:J3Mrs) continued to show consistency in removing all my edits. (User talk:J3Mrs) started the so-called "edit war" last time and is continuing, yet offers no insight into George Marsh or his Theological world. Neither do I see any accreditation for these editors to deal with Theological matters of this nature. But hey, fine, whatever, if you don't want to add the documentary, so what? But at least have the decency to consider and answer my points, that Wiki is full of promotion of all kinds of films, documentaries, music, art and so forth, yet when it comes to this, you overlook that point.

I see that what I may be dealing with here is a systematic overriding of data, a suppression of information and extremist right wing editors of the Gutenberg Wikipedia of bigotry and prejudice? SPSutherland (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would say you shouldn't be editing the article directly if you have a financial conflict of interest. You should be using the talk page instead.  This is standard policy, WP:COI.  The fact that you have already jumped the shark here in your last sentence only makes me more sure than ever that this is the best for all involved.  As for the other problems with Wikipeda, please read WP:WAX.  To be frank, your tone has a bit of a self-entitled and self-righteous ring to it.  As Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavor that seeks to have a collegiate environment, you're not apt to experience much success persuading others until you address that.  You might want to read WP:5P as well, as Wikipedia is here to build a general purpose encyclopedia, not to cater to experts.  By all means, we appreciate experts, and most of us are experts in one field or another, but being an expert, in and of itself, doesn't entitle you to special privileges. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Dennis Brown Thank you for your response. However I do wish people would cease from insulting me in certain ways or making assumptions against my character due to a certain situation.

Wiki promotes all manner of industrious films and filmmakers, musicians, artists and so forth all write on this and know about their articles and information, yet now you add this profit claim to me? Permit me to make a distinction; This documentary is free of financial profit, I have not and will not make a penny from this film. I have no desire to make money from telling the story of a good man whom I admire a great deal who was burned alive at the stake. It has cost me dearly to make this and to promote it, I have relied upon integrity and Christian insight. Neither have I charged Revelation TV for airing the film. However, you assume I have a "a financial conflict of interest" which you have no evidence for, since everyone involved in this film, both from the Church of England, and establishments such as Chetham's and the legal documents I signed with Her Magesty's Prison in Lancaster, will affirm this; I have stated from the very beginning, this IS an educational film and is none-profit.

My aim has been only to promote the story of George Marsh and make his life and death more known to a nation and people everywhere who either have forgotten him or know nothing of him. No doubt, that others around the world may seek to add the information too since the film's broadcast and may wonder why you have refused to mention it? Anyhow, I'm not going to take this further, but some of the comments made against me here, do not deserve my silence. Forgive me if I just don't get this, but I fail to see what the problem is? SPSutherland (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are involved with the production = conflict of interest. It is that simple.  Whether you made money or not really isn't the issue, and we have no way to verify anyway.  What it means is: you are in a position that your loyalties to the film are different than say mine.  It is your production.  Personally, I don't care whether it is included or not.  If it is to be included, it should be linked with verification from 3rd parties (a reliable source that doesn't have ANY link to it other than objectively reviewing it).  And if it is included, there should be a clear consensus here to include it.  I don't think the issue with editors is about the film itself, it is only that it needs 3rd party verification.  The only reason I did the one revert was due to the source being used, it had nothing to do with the film.  I'm here in a mediation/admin capacity, thus I can't get involved with the actual content, that is up to you guys.  Policy says that you can't use the network itself as a source, they OBVIOUSLY have a financial interest.  All of the "conflict of interest" is very simple:  We are talking about parties that are not independent of the documentary, have something to gain from it, either money, fame, credit, notoriety, whatever.  Pop in a New York Times review of the film, and you have a completely different story.  And frankly, I don't care if you do or don't make money on the film.  I don't begrudge anyone for making a living. Keep in mind, I don't have a conflict of interest here and my goal is to see a neutral and properly sourced article, and nothing else.  Even if your goals are purely altruistic, Wikipedia isn't here to "promote" George, nor tell the "truth".  Policy dictates that we are only here to document facts that we can verified in reliable sources.  We are an encyclopedia: we don't get emotional, we don't pick sides.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Dennis Brown Ok then, thanks for that. I'm happy to leave it there. Should a review or something come in then I might just put it in the talk section and see if one of the editors wants to add it? Take care. SPSutherland (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds perfectly fine, that is how we generally do it. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  13:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Video
Hello Simon Peter Sutherland, I must say how much I enjoyed your lovely and informative video about George Marsh the Martyr. I have never seen a documentary about him on television or on the internet. And I want to congratulate you on your work. It's a very well-made and very informative piece - a professional work if ever I saw one. I tried a link to it and to add it to the article about "George Marsh" but it was removed because of "copyright". I must say that I can't really understand that because, looking at the first few seconds of that video, I see that you own the copyright. Surely you can give Mr Dennis Brown your kind permission? I do hope you can sort this out some how. Why are they all picking on you? Because you a Christian? That's too bad. I thought Wikipedia was meant to be inclusive and tolerant of all faiths. I hope you get your video in the article somehow. Any way, God bless you, Simon Peter! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It isn't about my permission, it is about Wikipedia policy on copyright and previous consensus on the video. I might also note that you flatly saying that I am discriminating against him because of his religious faith with no substantiation is offensive.   You have no idea what my faith is as I've never edited with it in mind, nor advertised it.  To imply that it isn't about policy and instead my religious bigotry is a gross personal attack, unfounded and untrue.  More importantly, you only had to go read about policy on how we do not allow linking to copyrighted material here, anywhere. Actually, you should have already known this, considering the number of edits you have under your belt.  I would expect better from you. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it seems you have no religious agenda here, Dennis. I must apologise for misplaced sympathies. But what is the issue here? That User:SPSutherland doesn't know how to add a link to something for which he owns the copyright? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've responded on the article talk page, best to keep everything in one place. As for the NPA, I appreciate the sincerity, it happens to us all at time, so I won't dwell on it. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Dennis, if ever there was anyone at Wikipedia with no agenda, religious or otherwise, it is certainly you. Apologies for not using the "irony quotes" just to make a point. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123 Thank you for your kind comments about "Martyr George Marsh". I'm glad you like it.

Since its broadcasts on Revelation TV it has been re-uploaded to YouTube in full, rather than in 2 parts. This is only the beginning. No one can suppress what is happening. But somehow, I think, even if it were reviewed by the BBC, there would be some argument concocted of how it should be removed. Maybe some people on here know of my efforts to see Church reform? You know I am Musician too, http://shimeon.co.uk/ and I have in that, already been reviewed by the BBC, yet nothing related to Shimeon can be found on Wiki;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2008/07/10/140708_shimeon_masquerade_feature.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2008/07/09/shimeon_introducing_feature.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2008/06/12/300508_shimeon_feature.shtml

I confess I have no knowledge of this copyright issue with Wiki, but if it does relate to you having the permission of the owner and producer of the work, you have that and can have it, in writing if you require it. SPSutherland (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately just giving your permsission here is not sufficent. As Dennis has mentioned, your identity would need to be fomally confirmed. There is a formal process (commonly called "OTRS": ) to go through over at Commons, to confirm that the copyright holder gives permission for media to be used. It can be rather tortuous, alas. Usually it applies to static images that are used to illustrate an article. But it applies to all media, including videos, and (as in this case) to an external link to a video hosted by YouYube. But this is just the practical process. The bigger issue, as mentioned by Dennis and J3Mrs, is that we have no way of assessing if your video is generally considered useful, reliable, fair, and so on. Regradless of my personal opinion (which is certianly non-expert), Wikipedia would need to link to a review from a reliable source. As far as I can see, anything published by "Revelation TV", or associated outlets, would not be considered WP:RS. Let's hope some mainstream source reviews your video and provides the necessary endorsement. But until then, unfortunately, I don't think it can be linked to in this article. Hope that helps. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC) p.s. I see that Revelation TV has an article - I wonder if your video might be linked to over there as an example of what that station broadcasts? I guess the same copyright consideratons would still apply.