→Files listed for discussion: Self revert to replaced template with more personal message. |
Greyshark09 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
== Files listed for discussion == |
== Files listed for discussion == |
||
Hi Ianmacm. Just wanted to let you know that I nominated two non-free files you uploaded ([[:File:Parrot sketch.ogg]] and [[:File:DeadParrot.png]]) for discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 9#Dead Parrot sketch non-free files]] because I don't think their usage in [[:John Cleese]] satisfies [[:WP:NFCC]]. Any clarification on their usage in the article would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 04:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC) |
Hi Ianmacm. Just wanted to let you know that I nominated two non-free files you uploaded ([[:File:Parrot sketch.ogg]] and [[:File:DeadParrot.png]]) for discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 9#Dead Parrot sketch non-free files]] because I don't think their usage in [[:John Cleese]] satisfies [[:WP:NFCC]]. Any clarification on their usage in the article would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 04:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
|'''''Please read this notification carefully,''' it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' |
|||
A [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles|community decision]] has authorised the use of [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|general sanctions]] for pages related to the [[Syrian Civil War]] and the [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]], such as [[:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting]], which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|here]]. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a '''one [[Help:Reverting|revert]] per twenty-four hours [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules|restriction]]''', as described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#1RR|here]]. |
|||
[[Wikipedia:General sanctions|General sanctions]] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means [[WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behaviour]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Log of notifications|here]]. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. <p>Your reverts seem to have violated the 1RR restriction for ISIL-related articles [[User:Greyshark09|'''''GreyShark''''']] ([[User talk:Greyshark09|''dibra'']]) 18:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
| Commons-emblem-notice.svg |
|||
| icon size = 50px}} |
Revision as of 18:23, 12 June 2016
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Streisand Effect - reversal
Re: Reversal of my addition in the Streisand effect. I am always wanting to improve my edits - how can I do better? What would have made it allowed?
- I am happy to include different citations, but I need context as to why the one I chose (major media outlet, covered both incident and reaction specific to the article) was unsuitable.
- I am also confused as to Original Research - I seem to run a cropper of it regularly - what was original about it? I could list other sources that reached the same conclusion. If it is because it was from a newspaper, what could be chosen other than a major newspaper, leading in my country? It would be on-par in Australia with The Economist for commentary and research (as used by another example).
- Regarding controversy not being universal for inclusion, what is the threshold I should use? Other, surviving, example include a blog about lunches at a primary school.
Kalon~enwiki (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- There has been a discussion on the talk page in the past about how and when to include new examples. Otherwise, there is a risk that the article will become bogged down with unclear or non-notable examples of the effect. The list of examples has been pruned in the past because it was becoming too long. Specifically, I reverted this edit because the source given does not say that it is an example of the Streisand effect, so there is an element of original research. I also had some concerns about the long term notability of this incident, as barely a month goes by without someone adding a new example of the effect based on news media coverage, which can lead to problems with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I'm not sure that the Peter Dutton example has enough long term notability, but you can raise the issue on the talk page if you disagree.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. You're right - I should have trawled the talk page a bit more thoroughly. Your response will make me a better Wikipedia contributor! Kalon~enwiki (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Re: Reversal of my addition in the Streisand effect. Why wasn't my edit notable? When does WP:Notnewspaper become censorship? Saltwolf (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is that nowadays barely a month goes by without the media using the term "Streisand effect" to describe a controversy. If a new example was added to the article every time this happened, it would soon be of excessive length.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Kindly want to know reason
Dear sir, I want to ask you about the change you made in Facebook. We all are quite familiar and i even added reference from Wikipedia explaining my reason to add it. But you removed it. Please reply me explainig the reason.
Thank you for time and cooperation
Yours sincerely, Ishan Banjara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishanbull (talk • contribs) 11:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Replied at Talk:Facebook.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Nice coincidence
Hello Ianmacm. Seems that this IP had two acting Ian's passing away. I am glad that it was an editor named Ian that caught and reverted one of their edits :-) Cheers and enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 16:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm always wary of Death by Wikipedia and did consider for a few moments whether Ian McShane had actually died. However, there is still nothing in the news so we can safely say that he is still alive, particularly since User:72.23.153.97 seems to have a history of vandalism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ian, could you please confirm that you are still alive. We know how much you enjoy that Sunday lunch. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes I'm still alive. I'm also reminded of the occasion in June 2013 when an IP editor said that Roger LaVern of The Tornados had died. I had to revert it due to the lack of sourcing, but it looked to be a good faith edit. Sure enough he had died, but it wasn't in the local newspaper until four days later. A scoop for Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- And there's nothing wrong with a good scoop is there, provided one is allowed to print it. But these High Court judges are just so impartial, aren't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Classic stuff. Joshua Rozenberg got it wrong about PJS, though, writing back in April "I suspect that the claimant may live to regret having taken on the media if – or, as I suspect, when – the names of those concerned become known to us all."[1] The 4-1 victory in the Supreme Court was decisive, as 3-2 would have been seen as a split vote. One of the things that the media hasn't mentioned so far is that this is pretty much a complete vindication for Max Mosley. If the 2016 UK Supreme Court ruling had been in place at the time of Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd in 2008, it would have been very difficult if not impossible to publish anything about the now-famous SM session. What will the Sunday newspapers find to write about now that Lord Mance and his friends have spoiled all the fun?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Except that Joshua was half right - we do all know. I guess they'll have to go back to digging up dirt on our beloved favourite family. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think that Joshua Rozenberg was suggesting that the courts would allow the material to be published. The UK courts eventually allowed Spycatcher to be published, but we may never know who was involved in a threesome in a paddling pool filled with olive oil. For me, it is problematic that the 2016 UK Supreme Court ruling allows only two logic states for the public interest: Yes, it is in the public interest, and no, it isn't in the public interest. There should be some shades of grey (but perhaps not fifty) involved. On a scale from one to ten, the olive oil saga rates very low for the public's right/need to know the gory details. However, PJS and YMA haven't done themselves any favours by plastering themselves all over the glossy supermarket magazines telling everyone how happily married they are. This is why Ross Cranston originally turned down the application for an injunction in the High Court. Lord Mance is made of sterner stuff, and has effectively made it impossible to publish anything criticising a person's sex life.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- You are right. And the law can look a little behind the times in the internet age, can't it. But "AB & CD" would make a great brand-name for "extra virgin", wouldn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Sun expresses some serious displeasure here. I wondered if this was worth adding to the article, but didn't want to set off a WP:NFCC deletion debate or other arguments about its suitability.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Four old duffers ignoring internet?? ... whatever next. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- The current version of the article doesn't mention the unusual use of olive oil at all, and as far as I can see the court transcripts don't either. Balsamic vinegar wouldn't have been as much fun, but it would have made a huge quantity of salad dressing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Why did the tomato blush? - Because it saw the banner headline and four-page-centre-spread in the Sun on Sunday." fnaar, fnaar... 09:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Sun also said this in its editorial, but personal attacks are unlikely to get very far. If the case went to Strasbourg, the judges would end up citing Von Hannover v Germany, which says "The Court considers that a fundamental distinction needs to be made between reporting facts – even controversial ones – capable of contributing to a debate in a democratic society relating to politicians in the exercise of their functions, for example, and reporting details of the private life of an individual who, moreover, as in this case, does not exercise official functions." This is all good stuff, but as Kathy English pointed out, it can be used by very wealthy people to bludgeon the media into submission.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Why did the tomato blush? - Because it saw the banner headline and four-page-centre-spread in the Sun on Sunday." fnaar, fnaar... 09:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- The current version of the article doesn't mention the unusual use of olive oil at all, and as far as I can see the court transcripts don't either. Balsamic vinegar wouldn't have been as much fun, but it would have made a huge quantity of salad dressing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Four old duffers ignoring internet?? ... whatever next. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Sun expresses some serious displeasure here. I wondered if this was worth adding to the article, but didn't want to set off a WP:NFCC deletion debate or other arguments about its suitability.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- You are right. And the law can look a little behind the times in the internet age, can't it. But "AB & CD" would make a great brand-name for "extra virgin", wouldn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think that Joshua Rozenberg was suggesting that the courts would allow the material to be published. The UK courts eventually allowed Spycatcher to be published, but we may never know who was involved in a threesome in a paddling pool filled with olive oil. For me, it is problematic that the 2016 UK Supreme Court ruling allows only two logic states for the public interest: Yes, it is in the public interest, and no, it isn't in the public interest. There should be some shades of grey (but perhaps not fifty) involved. On a scale from one to ten, the olive oil saga rates very low for the public's right/need to know the gory details. However, PJS and YMA haven't done themselves any favours by plastering themselves all over the glossy supermarket magazines telling everyone how happily married they are. This is why Ross Cranston originally turned down the application for an injunction in the High Court. Lord Mance is made of sterner stuff, and has effectively made it impossible to publish anything criticising a person's sex life.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Except that Joshua was half right - we do all know. I guess they'll have to go back to digging up dirt on our beloved favourite family. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Classic stuff. Joshua Rozenberg got it wrong about PJS, though, writing back in April "I suspect that the claimant may live to regret having taken on the media if – or, as I suspect, when – the names of those concerned become known to us all."[1] The 4-1 victory in the Supreme Court was decisive, as 3-2 would have been seen as a split vote. One of the things that the media hasn't mentioned so far is that this is pretty much a complete vindication for Max Mosley. If the 2016 UK Supreme Court ruling had been in place at the time of Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd in 2008, it would have been very difficult if not impossible to publish anything about the now-famous SM session. What will the Sunday newspapers find to write about now that Lord Mance and his friends have spoiled all the fun?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- And there's nothing wrong with a good scoop is there, provided one is allowed to print it. But these High Court judges are just so impartial, aren't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes I'm still alive. I'm also reminded of the occasion in June 2013 when an IP editor said that Roger LaVern of The Tornados had died. I had to revert it due to the lack of sourcing, but it looked to be a good faith edit. Sure enough he had died, but it wasn't in the local newspaper until four days later. A scoop for Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ian, could you please confirm that you are still alive. We know how much you enjoy that Sunday lunch. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The Roast of Ianmacm
I've been having a really shitty day mate, just found out some really awful news. The only way I could even muster a smile was to edit one Wikipedia article to poke fun at my friend... yet you took that away. I didn't even realise the edits go public my friend, I started panicking the minute I realised the damage I'd done. My grin turned instantly to a frown once I received your hate mail. 40 years old and I'm still put down by words on a digital screen. It's funny how deep our insecurities lie. Thank you, Ian, for ruining my day, my week...and my life. My only choice of happiness and you stripped it away, word by word. I was going to start ripping into you, bending your mind as insults hail down upon your head...but I shall simply leave you with this: You're a big bumhead!
--Bigguy4you (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Zzz... --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The Pirate Bay
Oops – didn't notice the discussion on the talk page, sorry! --Iiii I I I (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, the status of thepiratebay.se is still unclear. The Swedish government has been trying to throw TPB off the .se domain for quite some time, and looks as though they may finally have succeeded in 2016, although the site can appeal against the current ruling. For the time being, the site is operating at .org, which was its original domain. This is confirmed by the site's Twitter feed, although the purists would like a more reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Files listed for discussion
Hi Ianmacm. Just wanted to let you know that I nominated two non-free files you uploaded (File:Parrot sketch.ogg and File:DeadParrot.png) for discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 9#Dead Parrot sketch non-free files because I don't think their usage in John Cleese satisfies WP:NFCC. Any clarification on their usage in the article would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Your reverts seem to have violated the 1RR restriction for ISIL-related articles GreyShark (dibra) 18:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)