User talk:Ianmacm/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ianmacm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I see that you're the gatekeeper for the Anthony Weiner content, and that you've removed my "popular culture" edits, citing these as "unsourced". I've since cited an online link to the Will Durst article that you can watch yourself : the original audio of the Will Durst broadcast, accompanied by the article full text (and narrated by Durst himself). This is available from the National Public Radio affiliate KALW (91.7 in the San Francisco area), is available at: http://kalwnews.org/audio/2011/06/13/will-durst-weinergate_1035880.html.

I'm sorry that cost considerations (and the fact that I don't have your contact information) prevent me from mailing you the Homeland Series 1 DVD set, released in 2011: this is, however, widely available from several sources (including Netflix in the USA). I guess that the well-worn joke alluding to the link between Weiner's name and US slang for private parts made you uncomfortable, so I've removed that. In any case, if Weiner ever runs for election again, his enemies will resurrect that joke and replay it for all it's worth, so Wikipedia doesn't need to do that here. )

However, I'm curious: what level of evidence do you require from widely available electronic online sources before you regard something as "sourced"? If I didn't see that you have a track record of useful Wiki edits, I might suspect that you're a damage-control consultant on Weiner's payroll ;-) (just kidding).

Prakash Nadkarni (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The real problem with the material added in this edit is that it is tangential to the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal and does not really add anything to a reader's understanding of it. This is why WP:POPCULTURE discourages the addition of "In popular culture" sections, because they can all too often be a form of trivia section. This can lead to satire, as this cartoon shows.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ianmacm. You have new messages at Talk:Stuart Hall (presenter).
Message added 10:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry about the RV - please come along and help me out with what it means. I will NOT be edit-warring over this! Cheers. DBaK (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Why did you remove the edit to Jimmy Saville if you look here Talk: Jimmy Saville you will see the reasons why I changed it PurpleMesa (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times if you look in the talk page archive. For the sake of logic and consistency, all articles involving a person who had an honour should not mention it if the person is dead, eg Winston Churchill's knighthood or Ronnie Barker's OBE. This is not Wikipedia's standard practice, and making an exception for Savile because of the controversy after his death is not a good reason to remove the honours.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes it's a high use and current article. And the subject is a delicate one.

Critical articles that are changing rapidly often need a bit of intensive editting, early in the piece, to get them in shape. The more critical the issue, the more it demands good editting rather than a piecemeal mishmash of facts dropped in as the press reveals them, rather than as they occurred, or in relation to their significance e.g. the name of the victim. To that end, it is better to briefly stall the tweaking while the major stuff is put in place. It will need continuous watching for a few hours.

And I suppose you are right. Using caps can offend people. The aim is to get people to read the edit summaries and find out why they were changed. One cannot use either bold or italics in edit summaries, so CAPS is the last resort. Amandajm (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The section on the reaction to the attack is a total mess. Some of those reactions are of vital importance, in terms of the affect they may have on the well-being of others, and some of the reactions, such as Boris's early remark that it "is undoubtedly linked to terrorism", are no longer relevant.

The most relevant comments are those made by the Muslim leaders. The fact that they have come out in an almost concert effort to condemn the attacks has been seriously played down, and the informatioion is in a paragraph talking about "religious leaders" and lumping them together under a statement made by the archbishop. Regardless of what words of wisdom might come from an Anglican, it seems fairly obvious, since these guys quoted the Islamic scriptures, that the most significant statements are those from Islamic religious leaders, not Christian ones, not Boris, not Clegg, not the Queen.

I am about to put a banner on that section. It may take some time to sort out, as I'll need to look for references.

One of the things that Wikipedia is committed to is balance and right now, that section is anything but balanced.

Wikipedia has the power to inflame situations, if it allows the reports of the more radical players to overbalance those of the more rational ones. Every idiot out there would rather quote the inflammatory things that have been said than the peaceful ones. Obviously.

Amandajm (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a great fan of banners in articles saying loudly "SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE". I agree that the Reactions section is now too long and could do with some trimming, but Wikipedia is a work in progress and this article needs at least several days for things to settle down. Over the years I have learned the hard way not to make extensive edits to articles while everyone is watching rolling television news coverage about the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The number of quotes has diminished, with the relatively meaningless statements of distress removed and the political comment left in, balanced as best I can.

I am afraid I find it terribly annoying when a Muslim leader comes out with a very careful and balanced statement that says "The British Govt and the Muslim Community are both at fault here" and gives good reason why, and then some bright Wikipedian quotes this person as blaming the UK Govt. and conveniently (or simplistically) loses the rest of the statement!

Amandajm (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A very good map, Ian, very speedily produced. Had you thought about showing the actual location of the incident more clearly? Of course, if one reads the text there is no actual need. Just an idea. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The incident took place around the word "Street" in Wellington Street. I'll have a look at putting an arrow or marker there.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, although for people with eyesight as poor as mine it could be four or five times bigger! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done The arrow is now bigger.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask you why you keep reducing the size of the image? While it is a vertical image, there seems no good reason for reducing it from a thumb to an upright. It does nothing to enhance the image or the article, and seems merely pedantic enforcement of the notion "upright". Amandajm (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I won't argue if this is removed, but the image can be too large on some screen resolutions without the upright.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If what you say is the case, then we will need to reduce everything to the size of a postage stamp. I have left a message on the talk page. Amandajm (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, my son seems to be able to look at thumbnail sized images on his mobile phone. Do we need to cater for computers smaller than that? Amandajm (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Re this edit. 'Commentaries' seems to better reflect the content, because what we are now seeing are genuine comments and analyses. Granted that we very commonly see 'Reactions' as a title, such sections are often chock-full of blind rhetoric and sweet nothings, most of which we have now banished from the article. I want to do more to discourage this state. As to Woolwich, do as you see fit, I won't revert again for now. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This was based mainly on precedent. I also think that Reactions is clearer than Commentaries.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Just looking at it again, 'Subsequent events' could better be retitled 'Reactions', for these were genuine reactions. then 'Reactions could be renamed. I don't think there's necessary one format. Just because we often see 'Reactions' doesn't mean we must stick rigidly to it. We also often have a section for 'Analyses'. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Good work on the map! I just have a modification request: I think that the location of the attack isn't very clear, and the barracks was too central and prominent. I would suggest that you zoomed in/centred more on the killing location, and put the barracks more in the corner while keeping the name visible. I mean the map scale can be preserved, but the centre shifted, like this. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 04:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Many thanks! -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 06:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • A very good improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, having seen the new version with the arrow in the centre (and the larger arrow), it does look better.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi I see you reverted my edit - I think mine is better because the original edit makes it sound like a forceful demand to hand over weapons, whereas in the televised interview with her it doesn't seem that way. In fact she says 'do you want to give me your weapons?', not 'give me your weapons'. He did refuse though so that part is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxr033 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Where quotations are involved, it is better to give a direct quote and a source, rather than a second hand interpretation of what was said.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: not his birth name. Doesn't seem to stop him getting 24-hour police protection. There is an "Irish Defence League", of course, but it's called something else, isn't it? And not sure it has a Luton office. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It was because I was reminded of the court case in January 2013 where he tried to get into the USA with false documents. He has used several names, but Tommy Robinson is his WP:COMMONNAME.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That's vey interesting. I did not know about that. Thanks for the info. Surprised he didn't choose Tony Iqbal or Mohammed Smith. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what I'm doing so please bear with me! I noticed you commented on this article so I'm going to copy & paste my comment here. Sorry if I don't do this right.

I give a compass & straightedge construction using the Golden Mean which yields 3.14164 for pi at http://www.goldennumber.net/squaring-the-circle/ Ricci4.4428828 (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC) I have also discovered a compass & straightedge method of squaring the circle precisely in both area & perimeter on smooth Riemannian manifolds of positive Ricci curvature; despite the transcendental nature of pi: http://www.circleissquared.com/index.html C. Ricci Ricci4.4428828Ricci4.4428828 (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricci4.4428828 (talk • contribs)

Ricci4.4428828Ricci4.4428828 (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Squaring_the_circle#New_Comment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the copyright of the Dirac video from 1975. I do not know the issues related to copyright, but I contacted the person who uploaded the video to youtube and received the explanation below. I would appreciate understanding the issue that Wikipedia would have with copyright.173.181.71.103 (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

How did I come by the Dirac tapes? They were recorded by the University of Christchurch at some of our students behest - of which I was one; the 'instigator' perhaps - I don't know. I just know I'd made it clear to some professors at the time that the lectures should be filmed on 16mm film. The video equipment and tapes were arranged and supplied by the university AV department as no-one else had movie or video camera equipment at the time. The technology was in it's infancy and only black & White spool video recorders were available - the whole idea of video recording was very novel. I believe I remember that video recorders were illegal to sell or import as personal equipment into NZ at the time unless it was to a learning institution or for businesses wishing to make promotional films - copyright of television programs to air was the worry. This was customs policy; not that of any university. I know this because shortly after the Dirac tapes were in my possession; I tried to get myself a video recorder privately from Brisbane Australia and NZ Customs forbade it.

I was given a copy of the tapes by the university for my part in having them made and as an interested Physics student at the time. The copies I had were given freely with no charge and I was told by them I could share them with anyone interested in them back in Auckland. I did a arrange a screening of my tapes back in 1978 in a seminar room at the University of Auckland. Many people from Chemistry and Engineering attended these screenings along with some Physics personnel - staff and students. They were only screened once..

After the screenings, everyone thanked me and I just kept my copies given to me. I was never asked to return my copies and no-one seemed to care about copyright. I was never given any instructions about limiting access of the contents of the tapes to anyone - simply nothing was ever said about copyright or any other similar issues to this. I suppose it was this way back in the 1970s. Maybe not so now; but back then staff and students alike shared whatever resources we had - the fundamental difference I guess between scientists and business men. Scientists would share information; businesses would guard information. Well, universities in NZ back in the 1970s were not based on a business model. I think they are now. I just had the tapes sitting in my garage all this time and felt it ok to share them on youtube. No-one has yet complained about this to me or taken me to task over this. I have no connection with Universities since graduating in the early 1980s and have been teaching high school ever since.

I knew Dirac briefly only as a student back then. He was over here in NZ on a lecture trip - organised chiefly by the University of New South Wales in Australia however Dirac wanted to visit New Zealand while he was over this side of the world and the Physicists here in NZ did not tell him not to come!!!!

I hope this helps to clarify Wikipedia's minds either one way or the other. I can offer no further information regarding copyright - it was simply never an issue back then.

Thanks, it is very interesting to have the background to this video material. This is a rare chance to see Dirac delivering a lecture on video. In my view, this makes the historical status of the video material more important than pedantic quibbles over its copyright status. The policy here is WP:VIDEOLINK, and I cannot see any great problems with adding this to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lanmacm,

We are having problems again with the Jeffrey Epstein article and I was hoping you could add your input. The article seemed fine for a while but then I noticed that an editor put into the Financial Career section that he is a convicted pedophile. That is not legally the case. Pedophilia is a distinct legal category that was not applied to Jeffrey Epstein and to say so is outright slander. Jeffrey Epstein was accused of soliciting underage prostitution-- not pedophilia. I have no interest in promoting Jeffrey Epstein but am concerned about the neutrality and accuracy of a BLP. I ask that you remove the pedophilia section and notify the editor in the View History section that it is inappropriate. Thank you for your feedback. Turvill (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thepiratebay.tn domain are working, check it! Kind regarts,— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.8.239 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It is working, but there is no information that it is the current official address, which is thepiratebay.sx. The domain thepiratebay.tn (Tunisia) was registered in May 2012, but has never been used as the official address. Per Wikipedia:External_links#Redirection_sites, only the official link should be given.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you're doing over there btw - not sure if we'll ever reach a way of writing something that actually makes sense and is balanced but we'll see. As a heads up, I'll be off the net completely for three weeks from the end of this week so it's not just me ignoring the article if I don't reply to anything! Cheers. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm also at a loss to come up with a succinct wording at the moment. The media has made a fuss over this, and has said or implied things that are not supported by what actually happened. The claim that Burnham deliberately ignored or suppressed criticism has clear WP:BLP issues and would need strong sourcing, which is not available. Most of the attempts to add this to the article have had too much POV and not enough fact.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers! -- L o g X 19:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lanmacm,

I would like to remove the prostitution sentence in the lead paragraph for Jeffrey Epstein. This is an event that occurred 5 years ago now and in no way summarizes who he is as an individual. He is one of the largest individual funders of eminent scientists, the founder of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard and more. His foundation is at: Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation.

On Jan 12th 2012, you made the point that the prostitution sentence was not appropriate for a BLP. WP:LEAD Please could you reinstate this edit? If I do this myself, Nomastackity will simply revert.

Thank you and thank you for mentioning that your edit is backed by others.

best regards, Turvill (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

My view is still that the 2008 conviction needs to be in the article, but does not need to be in the lead section to avoid WP:BLP issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Video Killed the Radio Star, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that I uploaded was the audio clip, not the images. This is overzealous and should have been discussed on the talk page first. See also WP:DTR.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You however did add those files to the page. BRD doesnt apply to WP:NFCC. The files should be left out until a WP:NFCR review has taken place and deemed the images acceptable (which wont happen as the current usage is excessive) Werieth (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

To repeat, none of the photos were uploaded by me. If you had bothered to start a thread on the talk page as requested, I would have said that some of the album artwork and File:Buggles Video Killed the Radio Star.png could go as they are non-essential. It is noted from your talk page history that you have a tendency to force your views about WP:NFCC on other editors without attempts at discussion or consensus. Please don't do this sort of thing as it is incivil.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In the cases with User:Subtropical-man, Werieth is correct. We have a massive problem with users adding screenshots of music videos to various articles, about 99% of which fail WP:NFCC#8. THere are, of course, times when such images can be valid, but they are rare (particularly notable videos, for example). But he's quite correct to remove them, and if that means they get tagged as orphaned, that's the way it works. WP:NFC is quite clear that editors inserting such items should ensure that they pass all ten criteria of NFCC first; if they can't, the images get deleted. In no way are editors removing the items required to go to FFD. Subtropical-man has been informed already that WP:NFCR is the correct venue for these discussions. Thanks,Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I became interested in this because Werieth removed fair use media indiscriminately from Video Killed the Radio Star. Had he discussed this on the talk page as requested, I would have agreed to the removal of File:Buggles Video Killed the Radio Star.png because it is non-essential and not a very good image anyway (in fact it is rubbish as the quality is poor). Removing cover artwork and brief audio clips (less than 30 seconds) is more controversial. For example, I can't see much wrong with including the Geri Halliwell cover artwork in It's Raining Men. The tactic of removing images without discussion and tagging them as orphaned annoys other editors and has nearly managed to get Werieth blocked for edit warring on more than one occasion. This is why I recommend using FFD unless an image unambiguously meets the criteria for speedy deletion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Buggles one needs discussion - after all, that's a pretty notable video. I'd keep the Geri Halliwell artwork - again, that's a pretty notable cover version. The videos that Subtropical-man was adding to articles, though, are unambiguously failures of NFCC#8 (and almost certainly NFCC#1 as well, because they show nothing that couldn't be described in text). Black Kite (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There could be far better screenshots of the Buggles video, as nobody's face is clearly visible. Its main notability comes from being the first video shown on MTV in 1981. The caption on File:Buggles Video Killed the Radio Star.png is incorrect, because the only time that Hans Zimmer can be seen clearly in the video is at 2:56 here. The Geri Halliwell cover artwork is a good example of why this type of removal has been setting off unnecessary drama. Many articles about pop songs have cover artwork that has been uploaded in good faith and with a reasonable understanding of how WP:NFCC works. The safe option is to nominate the image at FFD, as this gives everyone involved the chance to have their say.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite quote: "In the cases with User:Subtropical-man, Werieth is correct" - sorry, correction: according to only your opinion "in the cases with User:Subtropical-man, Werieth is correct". Your interaction with the user is familiar (i.e. here or [1]) including suspected meat-puppetry (between you and Werieth, explained in the link). Dozens of users opposed to not only the removal of thousands of files but also Werieth-Black Kite methods considered as bad (this is fact). You and Werieth, do not accept discuss and consensus despite many objections by other users in two cases: mass remove of files with Werieth interpretation of NFCC and abuse methods. How many users have to write about this? hundred? thousand? Subtropical-man (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I would never remove a fair use image from an article without discussion, because of the obvious possibility that it would set off teh dramah, 3RR, threads at ANI etc, which is what the current situation is doing. I would ask Werieth *again* not to delete fair use images without any discussion, as he has already got it wrong at It's Raining Men and then compounded the error by refusing to listen to feedback from other editors, getting the article fully protected in the process. Sometimes images do fail WP:NFCC and have to be removed, but there should be a discussion first.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Depends. If there's a chance that the images' compatibility with NFCC may be disputed (usually NFCC#8 issues), then of course you're correct. Many images, however, are never going to pass and do not need discussion (for example, a non-free image of a living and public person). It would seriously clog up the deletion pages if we had to send every single on there; it would be like having to delete every article through AFD rather than using speedy and PROD. Black Kite (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

One of my infallible Wikipedia rules is "don't cause dramah". Werieth's recent edits have broken this rule. Even if some of the files broke WP:NFCC, "don't cause dramah" takes precedence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"don't cause dramah" and enforcing NFC in any way are not compatible. Werieth (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see the Urban Dictionary definition of "drama".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ianmacm. You have new messages at Sohambanerjee1998's talk page.
Message added 13:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

   ☸    13:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Can this be fixed? The new image of 350 × 260 (136 KB) is not displaying at File:Buggles_Video_Killed_the_Radio_Star.png.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have this problem all the time. Sometimes I repeatedly refresh the page or purge the cache of the page or even purge my local cache. Sometimes none of these work, and the only solution is to wait. FYI the image you are concerned about is presently displaying correctly for me. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 107#Images not rendering -- Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is a known bug, and seems to be especially problematic when the image is changed more than once in quick succession (as this was). It will fix itself when the servers catch up. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ian the problem is fixed in my computer, thought it was a bug too! A helluva bug!    ☸    04:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The current version of the image is edited rather aggressively. In the original screenshot the picture quality is faded, but this is exactly how it appears on the video. It is best to avoid making changes that significantly alter the original.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine.    ☸    09:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ian. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. When editing the YouTube article, you said it would be worth mentioning if youtube-mp3 were successfully taken offline. I just remembered a conversion service that was removed this way: Zamzar. It's pretty clear that Zamzar chose to comply with the cease & desist. There was no court order so I'm not sure if this counts. I just thought I'd let you know about a second time this has happened. Connor Behan (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two main types of YouTube download tool, software based and online. In the past, YouTube has attempted to prevent these tools from working [2] but with limited success as workarounds were soon found. In June 2012, Google tried a different tactic and sent cease and desist letters to several sites offering online conversion.[3] YouTubeMP3.org and Music-Clips.net were targeted but are still online, while Zamzar chose to discontinue its YouTube service after receiving the same letter. The June 2012 skirmish did not significantly alter the ability to download or convert YouTube videos, but it is worth a brief mention in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ian, You reverted a "good faith edit" in the Joanna Yeates article, in which I changed "next to the entrance of a quarry" etc. to "some 85 yards (75 metres) from" etc. Let me first say that I do not think this detail terribly important, but I am certain that the "next to the entrance" reference, dating from the days immediately following the discovery of the body, are less than exact. I invite you to view the image I linked to beneath, and the four images I uploaded before it (thumbnails at the bottom of the page), and to compare these with the Street View image. My best guess, using Google Earth, is that the coordinates of the site are 51.43922° N, 2.66885° W. This may not be in "the sourcing given", but it's much closer to the truth. The photographs were taken days after the discovery by an "amateur sleuth".

http://s212.photobucket.com/user/Gerrit_GE/media/LongwoodLaneGoogleEarthStreetView.jpg.html?filters[user]=56979587&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=0

(I think you need to copy the complete link)

This is all well and good, but it is using a source for original research purposes. The map coordinates in the article go beyond what the sourcing (BBC News etc) actually says. Since Murder of Joanna Yeates is a featured article, it needs to be careful about OR.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I get your point, I think it qualifies as original research. It's a truth that cannot as yet be properly sourced. GdB (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a really good photograph of the skull-shaped marking on the back of a Steatoda nobilis here. Unfortunately it is copyrighted, so it cannot be used on Wikipedia. It has to be said that not all Steatoda nobilis have this feature, so it cannot be used as an infallible indicator. There is a risk of misidentifying other spiders as Steatoda nobilis, so nobody should kill a spider simply because it *might* be one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Amazing but true story here. What may have gone wrong is that the postman read recent sensational media stories about alleged attacks by false widow spiders. The harlequin markings on the spider in this incident show that it is a common orb weaver, which presents no threat to a human. During the autumn in Britain, these female spiders are capable of Tarzan-like feats of swinging between trees and bushes, and building large circular webs between them. Orb weavers look nothing like Steatoda nobilis, which are not flesh-eating spiders as stated here. This is getting silly, and is also similar to the panic over Asian giant hornets.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And they're back, on the front page of the Daily Star today, with Killer false widow spiders attacked my little girl. There are no recorded incidents of a person dying from a spider bite in the UK.[4] The photograph of the wound on the four-year-old girl is consistent with others showing false widow bites. The photograph in the story with the caption "Spiders are coming in from the cold as autumn hits" is pretty absurd, as it does not show a native UK spider, possibly it is a Huntsman spider. This image has an enormous amount of hits on Tineye, and is even on Wikimedia Commons (dubious copyright status here). The tabloid newspapers really should be more careful when reporting this type of incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Today's Daily Star headline is Killer false widow spider made my leg explode!. There is an improvement in the text of the story, because it makes clear that the incident was caused by a streptococcal infection rather than the bite itself. The front page appears to show File:Steatoda bipunctata female (aka).jpg from Wikimedia Commons, not a Steatoda nobilis.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ianmacm, i don't really know how best to communicate with you, so i'm trying by editing here. You can look me up as my real name stuart longhorn, perhaps find my email if you want. You reverted some of my 'good faith' changes to the article on S.nobilis on 18.IX.13, and i have to say i disagree with many of those. So, i'm sorry, modified some as compromise, but reverted back others. For example i removed the general name 'false widow' as this is confusing with other members of the same genus, and under advice from senior members of the british arachnology society, their advice was to advocate only the single unique name of 'noble false widow'. Else, i had removed the original reference to 'bananas' because the original 1879 article on the topic mentions no such thing. It is in 1907 when the possibility of later introductions via bananas occurs. I also wish the reference later 2013 news story to say the treatment of antibiotics was for bacterial infection, simply because thats what antibiotics treat - yet some people appear to be under the wrong impression that antibiotics treat venom. Any other questions about my changes - we can discuss - but i'm not sure how to communicate except here! Sorry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjl197 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 19 October 2013(UTC)

The use of false widow in the lead section is based on WP:COMMONNAME. Virtually all of the mainstream media coverage uses this, not noble false widow. Wikipedia articles have to take into account how the sourcing describes the subject, and even the Natural History Museum uses false widow here. There is, though, the possibility of confusion with other false widow spiders such as False widow spider Steatoda paykulliana. The media has failed to make clear that the really nasty wounds were the result of infections rather than the bites themselves. None of the sources makes this sufficiently clear and gives the impression that the spider was solely responsible for the incident (the "flesh-eating" myth). See also Talk:Steatoda nobilis. The Snopes article Brown Recluse is also worth a look. These spiders are often blamed for bites and infected wounds in the United States, but there is no definitive proof that a brown recluse was responsible for this incident. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason I posted that hatnote up there was due to a recent edit that I did: I changed the target of @Google from AtGoogleTalks to Google (due to that connection most likely being more notable than the connection to AtGoogleTalks). However, the AtGoogleTalks article has a lot of names and acronyms that contain "@Google", possibly meaning that search term has a very high connection with AtGoogleTalks. So, for that reasoning, I think the hatnote should remain up there; however, I am up for debating exactly how notable AtGoogleTalks is for a determination. If the "@Google to AtGoogleTalks" connection is not notable enough, I don't have any issue with that hatnote not being there. But, I would like get that figured that out. Steel1943 (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hatnotes are best suited to situations where genuine confusion is likely to occur. The average person arriving at Google will not be looking for @Google, which is not very well known.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The point you just brought up (and I agree with) is actually backwards from the question/point I am trying to figure out ... the point being will anyone looking for "@Google" be looking for "AtGoogleTalks", considering that I just changed the target of "@Google"? Steel1943 (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the page view statistics for @Google, the lack of traffic just told me, basically, that the target might as well be Google without any confusion. Disregard my last point, and good catch! :) Steel1943 (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Poster of The Amityville Horror (film) already belongs to the film page. Free text in the novel page replaces the poster, or should I say that the novel page should not mention the poster itself and its aspects. (Or probably the aspects of the poster are inadequately explained.) If aspects of the poster are significantly covered by sources, the poster should be mentioned in the film page. May you please allow me to remove the poster again? By the way, I removed other images of The Amityville Horror. --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not in the current version of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Then allow me to add {{db-g7}} on images and audios that you uploaded for the novel page? --George Ho (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

OK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Torquay is the Administrative HQ of Torbay and when Torbay was a county of its own right from 1968 onwards Torquay was the county town as I work for Torbay Council and the Council Headquarters are at Torquay Town Hall and if you look further down the page of Torquay there is a citation and a quote of Agatha Christie being born at Ashfield which was demolished in the 1960's plus the Kingskerswell bypass was given the go ahead in October 2011 citation Herald Express verified my friend I bet your not even from Torquay/Torbay but it sounds like your Scottish whilst im a Torquinian born and bred and know alot about Torquay and Torbay's history of which anything i put on is not untrue otherwise whats the point of putting false info on the site. So please stop deleting Torbay Council's files as all the info added was true and Plymouth is 28 miles from Torquay which is done from an Ordnance survey. Don't mean no disrespect but also Hollacombe Beach is the most southern beach in Torquay which you can find out by reading the history of Torbay by Frank Pearce as Hollacombe gasworks was directly opposite the beach and they come under the Livermead area of Torquay of which Torquay had another gasworks on Barton Hill Road in the Barton/Hele area of Torquay. No disrespect Ianmacm yours StatoatTBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StatoatTBC (talk • contribs) 10:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't disputed that Torquay is the adminstrative centre of Torbay, it is where the Town Hall is at Castle Circus. The description of Torquay as the captial/county town of Torbay is non-standard, as Torbay is a unitary authority, not a county or a country. This needs a citation. Cites need to be in easy to verify form, and some of the cites added have been too vague for an average reader to follow. Book cites should have an WP:ISBN and a page number, for example. After some looking around, I did find a citation saying that Agatha Christie was born at Ashfield, and that the building was demolished in 1961, which was more specific than the previous cite, so this was added to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanx for working with me on the Sandy Hook page so collegially. Also I liked the new section you added on the report. I'm still curious about that opening point about the video game section. I wonder still if we should be clearer that there were some original news reports that suggested "thousands of dollars" of video games, then later clarify the official investigation found twelve (by my count unless I'm missing something). Might be clearer for the time line. At present, although more precise, I think it reads as if the investigation report prompted the scrutiny of video games which I don't think is an accurate portrayal. Who knows what went on behind the scenes I suppose, but I think most of the speculation in the general public was due to the rumors not what the police actually found. What do you think? Avalongod (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The final report says "Numerous video games were located in the basement computer/gaming area. The list of video games includes, but is not limited to (emphasis added here by me):

        -“Left for Dead”                                                 -“Grand Theft Auto”  
        -“Metal Gear Solid”                                              -“Shin Megami Tensei”  
        -“Dead Rising”                                                   -“Dynasty Warriors”  
        -“Half Life”                                                     -“Vice City”  
        -“Battlefield”                                                   -“Team Fortress”  
        -“Call of Duty”                                                  -“Doom”

This means that the twelve games named do not represent a complete list of all the games that police found. Unfortunately, we may never have a complete list of all the video games that were found at Lanza's home, or an idea of how much they were worth in cash terms. The police have not said that any of the games were a factor in the shooting.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

These were added as one of the references in the article. It would be unfair to the games' developers to mention them directly in the main text of the article, because investigators did not say that any of these games was a factor in the motive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Lewis Collins article: All you've done on that article is mangle & retard that text from where I'd left it & reduce the quality of it stupidly, u arrogant fucking idiot. Power-tripping busybodies like u make editing Wiki a bore & waste of time. When did a "tabloid newspaper not become a legitimate source" .....????! - lol

Bardrick.

Oh dear. Please read WP:NPA. Also, this article now risks reading like a copyvio rehash of various tabloid sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for e-mail on this one. There appears to be some sort of problem here as it thinks that the 2 revisions are already deleted and will not allow me to delete them but I can still see them even when logged out. I have raised the problem at WP:VPT#Deleting revisions problem. Keith D (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The 2 revisions and your reversion have been fully deleted rather than the revisions been hidden as the latter appears not to be working for some reason. Keith D (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This is known from BEFORE THEY WERE FAMOUS type TV shows, up to you knowalls to fill in the boring bits... Wikipedia is a stupid site for strangling progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.167.149 (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: actually there is nothing online to back this up. all "cleansed" from the web it appears since being on TV a few xmas's ago. he wore a long dog ears hat & blacked nose & was treated as a dog (in a nice way) by the other show cast. his career grey years 1982-91 is totally unrepresented online! typical egoist thinking he's better than what he was actually very good at, as why he was remembered... and never was as good since! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.167.149 (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a clear example of WP:V. One of the the reasons why this edit was reverted was that it did not give the name of the TV show involved, making it hard to check. Without a source, this is unsuitable for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I just post the facts if anyone is a victim it's the motorists she hit while driving erratically — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carryalex (talk • contribs) 19:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The law is on my side as stated on your site if it offends the family it doesn't matter truth and freedom of speech should be followed here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porshegirl (talk • contribs) 08:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFREESPEECH. These photos are unsuitable for a range of reasons. Nobody's right to free speech is being infringed here, as a web search will turn up the photos very quickly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You said talk to you.User:JCHeverly 01:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't recall any of my edits saying this, please could you explain.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Right there, in brackets, alongside your signature.User:JCHeverly 20:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I have created a stub about the Disappearance of Jayden Parkinson. Take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't fuck with another editor's edits while they're in progress. If you have a problem with someone's additions to an article, the correct protocol is to first take it up on the talk page, not just unilaterally decide to undo their additions. I was in the process of adding references to primary sources when you rushed in and reverted it. Do it again and I'll apply for page protection.Bricology (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This edit had been previously reverted by another editor. Time for some WP:BRD here. Also, please don't swear while editing this article. This is not the first time that you have done this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggested that new sources were needed for that addition. The material was re-added without any. I had also already started a Talk Page thread. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on the message at User talk:Jimbo Wales, I prefer that Wikipedia uses ID scanners to verify the user's age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismael755 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Proving a person's identity over the Internet is notoriously difficult. Username/password logins are pretty much worthless, and two-step verification is used by banks to prevent fraud. However, at the time of signing up for a bank account, a person would need to go to the bank, or when signing up for an online account, provide scans of a passport, driving license, home address and telephone number. Wikipedia never asks for this type of information from users, with the exception of members of ArbCom, who must provide information to the Wikimedia Foundation about their real life identities. Requiring this from millions of ordinary users who wanted to read articles or correct a simple mistake would be hugely expensive and damaging to the project. It would also leave Wikipedia open to lawsuits if the information fell into the wrong hands. Wikipedia is in line with other websites by trusting people to give accurate information about themselves when making declarations about their age.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I only changed the month to January as, when I read websites about his death, they say that his birthday was actually in January, not May.Ofcdeadbeat (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Ofcdeadbeat

There does seem to be a difference in the sourcing on this. BBC, Telegraph and Guardian said that he was born on 27 May 1921. However, Independent and Mirror said 27 January 1921. Without more information, it is hard to say which one is correct. This is always a problem when sources are contradictory.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• See Talk:Bob_Godfrey#Date_of_birth. Bobgodfreyfilms.com confirmed that the correct date is 27 May 1921.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you immediately changed my edit to Johnny Vaughan's record on Capital FM. Why? The existing description is misleading as Vaughan had audiences over 1 million for the last three years on the air, which made the show the clear market leader. At the moment, there is only a record stating that he achieved 860 000 listeners in one particular quarter. My claims were backed up with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.39.99 (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This was restored, with a more encylopedic tone. The sourcing about the ratings for the breakfast show was OK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

And for today's adventure, I managed to take this photo of a Steatoda nobilis and upload it to Wikimedia Commons. These are the spiders about which the British tabloid press was having hysterics in October 2013. No person in the UK has ever died from a spider bite, despite the "killer spider" headlines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)