User talk:Ianmacm

Removing names of mass shooting perpetrators

Hello! I noticed that you reverted my edition of mass shooting pages omitting mass shooter names. I do understand reason behind it, but do you have any idea where i could propose changing policy about naming perpetrators so that their names can be omitted at places where it is not necessary (especially first paragraph where it, in my opinion, has highest chance of being seen by viewer) without violating this policy. I would also propose a total ban on naming juvenile mass shooters, just like it was done in the article about Belgrade school shooting. I believe it is a step towards denying them notoriety, and there is evidence than many of them crave exactly that.

Space2006 (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a common argument and it has been proposed before. "We mustn't give them the notability that they craved". However, Wikipedia is not censored and the names are easily available in the news story citations of the article anyway. You could raise this at WP:VPR.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Space2006 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I must say that you have changed my mind regarding this topic. I just added name of assailant at Belgrade school shooting and as of now that hasn't be reverted. I am still strongly against turning majority of attention to perpetrators, but I do think naming them on Wikipedia won't do much harm, even if they are minors, because that means their name is already widely known. As for Wikipedia:VPR, I had not raised the issue, and I am not planning to do that. Space2006 (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi, you recently opposed my propose page rename for 2019 El Paso shooting (and that’s fine) but I am a bit confused. I was under the impression that it did not matter as much what other Wikipedia pages of similar kin were named if the common name given by reliable sources differed. When I’ve tried to change article names based on similar articles, I was told this was not good reasoning, and reliable sources take priority. Is this not true? Macxcxz (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

As WWGB pointed out, most of the supermarket shooting articles don't give the name of the supermarket. For example, it doesn't add great value to know that the 2022 Buffalo shooting was at a Tops Friendly Markets, although it is mentioned in the lead section. Wikipedia articles have their own naming conventions that are not necessarily the ones that are used in a news story.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Do you know how I could go about proposing the mass renaming of supermarket shooting articles? When looking at other categories for mass shootings in indoor venues, the vast majority either include the name of the business or the type of venue in their name. For example, see the following where the majority of titles include the names of the businesses or type of venue: Category:Attacks on shopping malls in the United States (16 out of 21), Category:Attacks on office buildings in the United States (9 out of 12), Category:Attacks on nightclubs in the United States (14 out of 15), Category:Attacks on hotels in the United States (7 out of 7), Category:Attacks on hospitals in the United States (6 out of 12), Category:Attacks on restaurants in the United States (17 out of 26), Category:Attacks on churches in the United States (13 out of 17) and Category:High school shootings in the United States (50 out of 51).

Clearly, pages in the category attacks on supermarkets are an outlier for no apparent reason. I think it is clear they should be brought in uniform with other pages relating to attacks on indoor places in the U.S., which overwhelmingly include either the name of the place or type of place in their titles (On average, 79.3% include place name or type in titles, based on those listed above). Macxcxz (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:VPR is a possibility here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your assistance. Macxcxz (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: Sandy Hook infobox

Agree wholeheartedly with your recent revert. (Thanks btw.) Was just looking into those edits myself and delving into the 2 cited sources. So far as I can tell, those exact/minutely-detailed specs aren't actually mentioned in the cited sources. Also, yeah, unless all that detail is referenced in the main article? it's not really supposed to be shoehorned into the infobox... PS: "guncruft", what a great word. - Shearonink (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The same user has been doing this at various articles. Unfortunately I haven't got the time or the energy to get involved with all of them, but there may be WP:OR being added here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Why yes there is some OR... The one that has really caught my eye (and I now see yours as well) is this, which I subsequently reverted. Have asked for discussion on article talk, as you have seen but no go yet. I have tried to engage on this editor's talk page but... Also, something odd - an anon has come along three times shortly after this editor's edits and corrected/adjusted them (see [1]). - Shearonink (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Personal photo permission

Hi john, your photo on your page isnt working. Thanks! Flidbouillon (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means, could you be more specific?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Your userpage says 'heres a photo of me', and then does not follow with a photo. Here is the text exactly as it appears on your page:

>Hello, my name is John. [citation needed]. I live in London. [original research?] Here is a picture of me: { {di-no permission}}' Flidbouillon (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks, this isn't meant to lead on to a picture of me. It was added a long time ago and is similar to tag bombing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)