User talk:Ianmacm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Opening paragraph of Gary Glitter article.The discussion is about the topic Gary Glitter. Thank you.

And talking of famous slebs..... Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your kind email, which will doubtless prevent WMF having to appear in court. Ah, those were the days, eh? Real entertainment! "Jonathan King meets Ronnie Biggs" worth the licence fee on it's own, I'd say. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They say "50 years is a long time in politics"... Good old Jacob! He'll only be 102. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's just so laid back isn't he. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought it was going to be something in poor taste about Savile or Glitter.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like this, which is one of the cleaner ones.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This would make a great infobox image.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he looks almost human. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another ideal infobox image. This is how the nurses at Stoke Mandeville reacted when they heard that Savile had arrived.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Today's Savile meme was created by Boris Johnson.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that was before all those beery lockdown parties in Durham. But I had not realised how involved Starmer was in McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris [1997]. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And we've had a letter from someone who wants to take part in this year's Platinum Jubilee.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
just for old times' sake... [2] Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is out..... yet another Tory sleaze scandal! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since we haven't had this yet.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks also for the email. You are indeed the Savile meme king. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
£75 is not much, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was one of the items flogged off at an auction of his personal belongings which raised £320,000 in July 2012.[3] At that time it was still possible to do this before it all started to go tits up when the ITV documentary was broadcast in October 2012. This also shows why the tabloids aren't a reliable source. The Daily Mirror article states as a fact that it came from a corpse, but the official report concluded only that Savile had unsupervised access to the mortuary and the rest is hearsay.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, most of the hearsay about Savile seems to be a tiny bit salacious. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Savile picture of the day. Probably no longer on Paul or Ringo's mantelpiece.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like George had enough already... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Only Sleeping.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Already in training for the mortuary job, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paint It Black (the hair).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Savile and marathons[edit]

Did Savile really run 217 marathons? he claimed this here in 2007. Other runners found this implausible.[4] "Jason Henderson, on Athletics magazine, wrote: "I discovered that many of the 'marathons' he bragged about were actually 10km or half-marathons - not that anyone cared."[5] Henderson is probably right that this is WP:AUTO and should be approached with caution. Savile was fit, but 217 marathons is a bit like Kim Jong Il doing a 38 under par round on the golf course. Nothing was ever proved about Savile's marathon claims, but they do seem a bit dodgy. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or cycling everywhere on a pushbike... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does the name Peodo mean? "A user from Malaysia says the name Peodo is of African origin and means "Strong tribe leader". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2020s Junior Library essential. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the Pops[edit]

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

Or carefully wiping the tapes after October 2012... Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now then, guys and gals, I had a look at this page on the BBC website that lists surviving TOTP episodes in the archive. It can't be correct though, because we know that there is a video with Savile introducing Jonathan King performing "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" on TOTP on 19 August 1965, when it was at number 4 in the charts. You've probably seen this before, but due to WP:YOUTUBE I won't link to it here. Anyway, I'm sure your web search skills are up to finding it.😉--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

This really does need a source. If it isn't mentioned in a news story etc it has no suitable basis for being added to the article. It is more on topic at 2001: A Space Odyssey in popular culture, but even there it needs to be established that it is based on the film. The spacesuit isn't anything like the ones used in the film and I'm still not convinced that this has clear influence from 2001.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same as in video as still
Slowly, man, slowly... Look right at the still from same setting as my video. Look at the segmented white/beige ring around the astronaut, which surrounds the scene completely. Then compare with a scene from the Youtube video from 2001 with the exact title "4 Ways 2001: A Space Odyssey Was a Visual-Effects Pioneer" from 0:20 (I am not allowed to post it as URL) --> A woman dressed in white (not an astronaut though, but there are plenty, right?) walking very close to a beige segmented ring behind her in a spacecraft. Even the tone of the colour is quite similar. Now, how likely is it that a shop designer comes to this quite exotic setting (--> with an astronaut...) without knowing the movie and thinking of it? Pittigrilli (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC) PS: Even the diameter of the segmented ring is mainly similar to the one in the movie, and the material is leather (or at least appearing from the texture as such) - both in the shop decoration and in the movie. This is a highly unusual material for a space environment, and that the shop designer has the same, a bit strange, idea for his space-like decoration is close to impossible imho. Pittigrilli (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might be seen as having an influence from this scene where the stewardess walks until she is upside down. However, it is not something that can be added without a secondary reliable source mentioning it, in line with WP:POPCULTURE guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hi Ianmacm,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 17:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That new Charitable editor....[edit]

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

Tony Blair[edit]

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

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

Jimmy Saville[edit]

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

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

Instructions for safe use[edit]

and...... BOOM!!

Enjoying your Saturn V Sky Rocket™ from Standard Fireworks ®

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

Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I loved about the saga at User talk:WikiPhu is the classic use of a non-apology apology. This goes something like "I'm sorry that you criticised me for doing it". See the essay at WP:APOLOGY.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is an entire article Political views of J. K. Rowling which looks at her views on transgender issues. I don't suppose we will be seeing Political views of Kay Burley any time soon.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does Burley even know what "political views" are? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How could anyone take issue with the lovely Kay and her deft line of questioning?? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It gets worse. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]