Talk:Mike Buchanan (politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Buchanan's blog

This new article has been the subject of an entry on Mike Buchanan's blog. By the way, Mr Buchanan, I don't "maliciously" edit articles. Philip Cross (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Books section

Does this article merit such a comprehensive books list, considering they are all self-published, possibly vanity projects? A quick look under the libraries catalogue for London doesn’t list any of them. I would suggest possibly a couple of sentences summarising his output otherwise it tends to look like an advertisement for his catalogue. Mramoeba (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mramoeba, you're right and ordinarily I wouldn't have included them but I was worried that I would be accused of bias against the subject if I didn't. As can be demonstrated by the short history so far of this article and the comments below, also the comments on Talk:Justice for Men and Boys. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand your position. Provided we follow established policy there should be no cause for conflict and exceptions shouldn’t be made. Thanks. Mramoeba (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency, there may be an issue with the IBT references also which I will take a look at, I am aware that IBT has had previous problems with RS for some of its clickbait articles but that’s another issue to look into. Mramoeba (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC) Issue is not relevant in this instance. Mramoeba (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Email request

What, a wikipedia editor can throw up a hit-job article on an individual and then refuse email correspondence with the individual subject of that article for "security reasons"? 1. Bullshit 2. The victimiser claiming to be the vicitm (again).

** Moved from my Talk page. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi TVF, could we please have a (hopefully very short) email exchange? My email address is mike@j4mb.org.uk. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.9.61.18 (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mike, for safety reasons I have very little contact with other Wikipedia editors outside of Wikipedia itself and I do not give my personal email address. In any case given your comments here I don't think it would be a particularly good idea.

You were probably unaware but the correct procedure for issues regarding biographies is detailed here.

• Or, leave a message on the help page (public)
• Alternatively, e-mail info-en-qwikimedia.org (private)

With regards to your issues about the editing of your party's Wikipedia entry, I do not remove things that I simply "don't like", the changes I made included ones which breached Wikipedia's rules on the use of self-published sources (WP:SELFPUB). William Collins' blog is a self-published source making a claim about a third-party (a breach of rule #2). Wikipedia also has strict rules about reliable sources (WP:RELIABLE) and on neutrality (WP:NPOV). Also note Philip Cross's comments here.

Finally, edits from unregistered users, such as the "sympathetic Wiki editor" you describe, tend to be viewed more suspiciously than from registered users by the website security systems (more information on registered users here, and using the edit summary here.) --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I dont see a specific edit request here. I'm not sure if this template was activated in error, so I'll go ahead and close it. If there was something that a COI editor wished to be either added, deleted or modified in the article — and provided they have consensus to make such a request — please feel free to reopen at your earliest convenience. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 15:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo, I may be doing this wrong but... The subject of the article, Mike Buchanan, contacted me on my talk page asking me to contact him by email (mike@j4mb.org.uk). I presume it is about this article but I do not wish to give him my e-mail address or to contact him so I was trying to follow the subject advice and get the ball rolling on his behalf (i.e. Wikipedia email him and ask him what he wants) as he is not a WP editor. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the ball is in Mike's court. If he wishes to request any changes, he's welcome to do so here. Regarding William Collins' blog, Wikipedia doesn't use self-published sources, as explained above, so I don't see any other action necessary there. Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: For information purposes I am adding a link to this diff at the Mediation Committee's talk page. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion (2 June 2018) was to merge. Result can be read at Requests answered in June 2018. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Formal request has been received to merge the article Justice for Men and Boys into Mike Buchanan (politician); dated: December 2017. Proposer's Rationale: Buchanan's party is quite small, it is Buchanan who is the more notable. Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Agree Looking at party areas such as finances, discussion of membership numbers, votes cast etc. it seems the party is relatively insignificant. It also appears that in essence the party is one individual: a quick look at the blog shows Buchanan on the header, all the blog posts are by him, the contact page for the party is a link to his personal email, he is the only person with a tabbed page on the blog etc. etc. My benchmark would be whether the party would even receive a glance from the media without Buchanan and the answer to that is a clear no. He is obviously the notable element here and the subject doesn't merit two separate pages. A merge would be straightforward and uncontroversial. Mramoeba (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support the merge. --Phonet (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. Comment made after discussion was closed

Please note that the disagree comment below was made days in advance of the article deletion. The article was deleted by The Vintage Feminist and, since the party on the article is openly anti-feminist, this person could not be said to be supporting Wikipedia's neutral point of view on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenBrittworth (talk • contribs) 08:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional comments re: merger

Moving additional AGF comment into its own section. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree. (1) J4MB the political party comprises more members and has involvement that is nothing directly connecting to Mike Buchanan. The proposer says that "Buchanan's party is quite small" but misses that the party is not the founder: it is large enough that it is not the same subject. (2) Mike Buchanan has activities unrelated to the political party, which is an entity in itself. (3) It would be bad precedent to merge any established political party with either the founder or its current leader. I don't think this is done with any other party in the world and would make reading about either of them unnecessarily confused and would make searches on them difficult. KarenBrittworth (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi KarenBrittworth, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. The result of the merger proposal was to merge as of 2 June 2018 (see Requests answered in June 2018), the discussion was open for six months with a tag directing editors to the discussion at the top of both articles.

However to address your points:

1. As can be seen in this comment I made in September last year the party is actually very small and hasn't run a candidate anywhere since 2015.
2. Justice for Men and Boys still works as a re-direct to the section Mike Buchanan (politician)#Justice for Men and Boys where the information has been pasted to.
3. As mentioned in point 2. Justice for Men and Boys still works as a re-direct. In the last few months the following have either been deleted or redirected (links are to AfD discussions): Bahujan Azad Party, Party of the Truth, Abul Yatama Party and The Radical Party (UK) so it is not the only party in the world to be treated like this and it never happens without discussion and consensus.

Finally, in regard to your edit to the lead section of the original article about the party diff I am afraid they breach WikiPedia's policy on self-published sources WP:RS/SPS so I have not carried it over to this article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Given your moniker, I think it hardly appropriate for you to be making any decisions about this matter. What is the appeal process, or do I just recreate the page? KarenBrittworth (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Karen, I suggest you read the policy on "edit summaries dos and dont's" (WP:ESDONTS) before you make any more gaffs like this one. If you have a complaint about my user name then check it against the policy on "inappropriate usernames" (WP:IU), if you still think it is inappropriate then the procedure for reporting it can be found at WP:BADNAME. There was a discussion open for six months with a consensus to merge. Any other questions that you have about mergers or anything else can be asked at WP:Teahouse - which I know you have already been invited to by Cordless Larry. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Commmon sense - not needed?

The article says Buchanan says men are "pretty much" "subhuman" - this appears to be (deliberate?) misconstruction of his point - which is that he believes the STATE treats men subhumanly. Whether one agrees or not, some argue that men in 2020 are treated like blacks were treated in 1950 - anyway, the point is he clearly isn't both promoting men's rights while saying he thinks men are subhuman. Then again, the stupidity of this helps show how biased this article is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.111.148 (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Mike Buchanan here. I confirm the above is correct - I have always attributed the statement "men are pretty much subhuman" to the state, but the way it's worded in the entry makes it look like that's my view, which it most definitely isn't. Can it please be amended accordingly? Thanks. 2.26.145.230 (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)