92.23.93.50

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Paine Ellsworth, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Although you're free to perform most tasks on Wikipedia without registering, it's highly recommended you create an account as there are many added benefits. It's private and secure and it's also free, simple, and quick to do.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:   Introduction to Wikipedia   The five pillars of Wikipedia   Editing tutorial   How to edit a page   Simplified Manual of Style   The basics of Wikicode   How to develop an article   How to create an article   Help pages   What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:   Do be bold   Do assume good faith   Do be civil   Do keep cool!   Do maintain a neutral point of view   Don't spam   Don't infringe copyright   Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest   Don't commit vandalism   Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:   Ask a question

or you can:   Get help at the Teahouse

or even:   Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:   Fight vandalism   Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome   Help contribute to articles

Perform maintenance tasks   Become a member of a project that interests you   Help design new templates

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your IP address linked to your contributions page (however, if you create an account, your IP address will be hidden and you will be able to build a custom signature that can link to your own user page), a link to this (this IP's talk) page, and a timestamp.
The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. If you register an account, you can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you could put a link to it on your user page.

Sincerely,  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  02:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)   (Leave me a message)

• Español
• Deutsch
• Français
• Italiano
• עברית
• Русский
• 日本語
• Polski
• فارسی

Your edit

Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia, 92.23.93.50. Your edit to Thomas Paine was successful, but because it was not considered beneficial to the page, the edit has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  Thank you very much!  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  02:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please consider the creation of a free User account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Graham McCann. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Natuur12 (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Graham McCann, you may be blocked from editing. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 10:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

Materialscientist (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Graham McCann

Hi there, you've expressed a concern about an article (Graham McCann) of which you are the subject - did you know Wikipedia has a team of volunteers which can help you? If you contact us (either at that link or by emailing info-en-qwikimedia.org), we can help you with the issues you may be facing -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

As you can see above, you have been blocked for making a legal threat - I understand you may be frustrated, but please do get in contact and we will assist you -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a bizarre world when one is blocked for making a legitimate legal threat. I hope all companies don't follow suit. Yes, thank you, I have sent an email and I hope this will be treated seriously and promptly.

Unfortunately legal threats seriously damage the ability for others to make neutral contributions - if you could retract your legal threat it is likely you would be unblocked. Do you have a ticket number from the email yet? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Better still:retract the entry! The law isn't there to make things difficult for the People's Republic of Wikipedia. It's there, amongst other things, to prevent this kind of abuse of power. Thank god Kafka's already dead - Wikipedia would have tipped him over the edge. And no, I'm still waiting for the response to my email. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Your article

Hello. If you are who you say you are, please urgently contact info-en-q@wikimedia.org, preferably from an email address that can be verified as belonging to you. If you cc me (hjmiwiki at gmail dot com), I'll do my best to look into it or make sure somebody else does urgently. Please don't threaten legal action—either on Wikipedia or in your email; it will only slow things down and we'd have to block you because you're not allowed to edit while there is an outstanding threat of legal action. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

We probably got off at the wrong start because I was a bit overwhelmed by your legal treat. Had a bad night of sleep. I noticed the pointers you left. I read the sources and the claims made in the article weren’t directly supported by those sources and the author made his own synthesis based on those source which also isn’t allowed. (Per the policy wp:NOR). You can review my edits by following this link. Are you statisfied or did the author who wrote the article made more mistakes? Natuur12 (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't 'trained in sociology' - as I'm outspoken about disliking it as an academic activity, that's damaging in itself. But it's representative of the way in which the author has published an article before collecting and checking the most obvious and essential facts and then used it, as far as I can see, as a fishing expedition to see who adds or revises what. That's the wrong way around in my view. The author also only seems to have access to the most obscure and strikingly unrepresentative reviews of any of my books (the number of which s/he clearly doesn't know), which again produces a very unbalanced and negative impression of what modest career I've had.

What remains just highlights the desperate attempt to add flesh to a rudely unearthed bone. Was my Dad's Army book based on extensive interviews? Yes, but so were the others, so why single it out? If it implies anything it's that I didn't normally bother to do interviews. The Dave Allen book wasn't a biography, it was an edited collection. The Composing for the Films date is wrong by about a decade, and the wrong edition. I could go on. If I was worth it, it would be worth correcting, but I don't want to correct it, I want to erase it.

Like most other ordinary members of the public, I'm probably the only person who knows enough of the facts about me to ensure a correct and coherent profile, which surely ought to have been a clue as to how pertinent or not an entry on me would be.

Which makes me wonder why on earth he/she bothered in the first place. I'm not a well-known figure. I have an extreme aversion to publicity. Yes, I've published some books, but if everyone who has done that was included on here I dare say the internet would explode. And yes, I've had to promote them, but that's not a sign of any desire to be even briefly in the public realm.

I'm really busy teaching a course at the moment, and to my horror I'm now getting students asking me about this wretched thing. I'm not of any interest sufficient as to warrant an entry - I see a couple of people pointed this out to the author at the start - and it really, really upsets me. Is my case really SO contentious as to make this worth dragging on? I know it's unfashionable but such exposure gives me no pleasure whatsoever and a great deal of pain.

Graham 92.23.93.50 (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Further opinion at the article talk page. Collect (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Graham,

I agree with you and I did what I can to fix at least some of the problems though many still remain. Normally I write about Dutch university professors (either death or well known) and never about authors so this isn’t really my area of expertise. Personally I agree that the article should be deleted but it was kept per community consensus.

And yes indeed, several authors used dubious methods when writing the article mainly taking some facts mentioned in primary sources, low quality sources or sources that only seem to mention your name. This way an article is doomed to be of poor quality and in my opinion it is original research since it is merely a synthesis of primary sources (or something that shouldn’t even be called a source) while an encyclopaedia is primarily based on secondary sources of course. Unfortunately this is quite hard to understand for a lot of people resulting in a lot of poor quality people of persons someone might have heard or read about somewhere on a blue Monday.

I’m sad to see that this is effecting you in real life. I will keep an eye at the talk page discussion and hopefully the OTRS-team can help you out further. They have a lot of experience dealing with this topic. Natuur12 (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, it's really much appreciated. I haven't heard anything yet but I hope that they can put a painless end to this! 92.23.93.50 (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Graham, I've just checked the email queue and cannot find your email - what was the subject if you don't mind me asking? Which email address did you send it to, info-en-q@wikimedia.org? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The subject was the name of the page in question. I was asked to write to this address - info-en-q@wikimedia.org - and cc it to this address - hjmiwiki@mail.com. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I notice you put an AfD template on the page, but since you're editing without an account, you can't complete the process at WP:AFDHOWTO. Instead, leave a rationale on the talk page and then put a note at WT:AFD asking for someone to create the nomination page. In your rationale, mention WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Editors are a lot more willing to delete an article when the subject makes it clear they don't want it, though that alone isn't enough to override clear notability. It'll probably still be a struggle given that the last AfD was a clear keep. clpo13_(talk) 16:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you're prejudging the matter, but I can assure you that I'm up for the struggle. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, in stark contrast to your own (and everyone else's on this page), very welcome professionalism and tact in dealing with this matter, I must say I think it's very sad that the person who calls himself 'Dr Blofeld' is allowed to behave in such an arrogant and boorish manner, not only sneering at my concerns on the Talk page of the article and on the delete talk page, but also making deeply offensive claims about my motives in writing books. And I assume that none of you would think that it is appropriate to deal with a member of the public by telling him to 'shut up'. He gives you good people a bad name. I hope that someone can reason with him and remind him of how a volunteer on here should behave.92.23.93.50 (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

More from"Dr Blofeld" on the Talk page of the article:

"Without somebody like me here a lot of our articles would soon rot and be taken over by idiots. I can assure you that I'm generally well-supported here, in fact some 50 odd people have recently supported me on something I'm running in October. On the contrary, you ought to be concerned by how pompous and downright rude you are. I'm well-qualified thankyou very much, just not some snotty lecturer in a Hooray Henry university who thinks he can bully "lesser folk" on wikipedia because he is a respected author. You're quite a repellant creature aren't you?" Is this appropriate, responsible behaviour from one of your fellow volunteers? Someone who insults and bullies and then reacts like this when one tries to stand up to him? I think it's very poor and it's alarming that someone like this can intervene where and when he likes with this kind of attitude. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You got exactly what you dished out with "My god you're a smug one. The only times I've been on television - it seems it's an obsession of yours - has been very reluctantly to give information drawn from my books which would otherwise have been passed on to a substitute who'd probably get it wrong. I expected a thoughtful consideration of my request, not a series of self-admiring put-downs. Is this typical of how Wikipedia volunteers behave, or are just some lone egomaniac?" and "I don't know who hides behind that silly pseudonym of yours, or why you appear so confident about your authority to judge, abuse and order people around, even though, as far as I can see, you're just some volunteer without any known expertise or qualifications, but your presumptuousness is now going too far, and that line above about intentions and money is one gratuitous piece of abuse too far. I'm not sure if your fellow volunteers are embarrassed or amused by your actions as a self-appointed judge and jury of all things and people on here, but they really ought be concerned about quite how out of control you are. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)" and "Funny how you don't have the decency to discuss this with the very person who is the undeserved subject of your ill-informed article. I guess, in your astonishing arrogance, you think you know better than I do about myself. What a disgrace you are.92.23.93.50 (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)"

Had you assumed a more pleasant tone to start off with and treated editors here with more respect it might have been reciprocated. I can be very harsh if I think people are being abusive, but I can also be very reasonable (and friendly) if I'm treated in a way the person themselves would expect to be treated. And yes, sometimes on a site like wikipedia plagued with meddlesome idiots and POV pushers, you often need that sort of attitude, otherwise people will walk all over the articles... Given that User:Collect has been attempting to get this article deleted, the tone was largely in the belief that he had contacted you about this. Sorry, but why else would you write about people as famous as Marilyn Monroe, Cary Grant and Woody Allen if you weren't looking to sell books? Private people would write using a pseudonym and not run their own website with a biography. Nor would they appear on national television 23 times. I've requested input from you on the talk page for the "deeply distressing" material to be identified and resurrected. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Website I've dealt with (I suspect many on here have their own personal websites and that isn't a move by them to surrender all claims to privacy, especially if it's a site about certain things rather than life). TV 23 times - again, wrong. You get that from IMDB? It's wrong. If you want to persist with your own simplistic notion of what constitutes craving publicity, fine, but you should be aware it's not a universal absolute truth. And don't expect someone who wants an article taken down to do the job of researching it properly for the author! 92.23.93.50 (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that you're "craving" publicity or are even "greedy", but I am saying that you're more than happy to create your own website with a biography and large BUY IT icon clicks advertising your books and making a living selling books to the general public. Which is fine, it's good that you've made a decent career as a writer, but then don't complain when the public want to write about you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but you're being deliberately cynical and unfair here. The fact that I got paid for my labour power for doing what I did, just like anyone else for what they did, is not some simple proof of some obligation to public life. Authors show vast differences in how much or little they want of themselves to be linked to their books. I've eschewed that connection as much as I can. As for my website, that's just being petty. In an age in which most books come and go without any coverage at all, it's an author's task to at least try to ensure that someone knows their book is there. That's not the calculating, money-driven, publicity-seeking gesture you're convinced it is. If you want to think that, fine, but just don't keep acting as if it's a self-evident truth. It isn't. I had several pages in the website template I was given (I'm not remotely 'teccy' and almost didn't bother with completing the process), I covered them with as little personal information as possible, and the idea that by providing a link to where a reader might buy a book is again hardly the proof you seem to think it is that someone has surrendered their privacy. The fact that you keep going back and studying it is another matter. Go to a site that sells, say, homemade bath bombs or business cards, find a store link there - that's not a sign the seller him or herself wants to be a public figure. And it's presumptuous to think I chose any topic because of their commercial viability. I've turned down much, much more commercial projects because I didn't care about the subjects. It's this idea that my integrity can be chipped away at on here, while any complaint in response is greeted with indignation, that irritates me. Stop constantly projecting your interpretations and assumptions on to my and my motives. It's a step too far in the effort to argue your corner.92.23.93.50 (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

And if you think I 'make a living' with those links you don't understand how most book deals work these days. You get an advance and that's it. I don't get anything when someone buys a book. And I wasn't 'more than happy' to set up a website' - another phrase that is tellingly presumptuous and manipulative You keep doing this and then protest your innocence when I complain. 92.23.93.50 (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you greatly enjoyed working on Marilyn Monroe, Cary Grant and John Le Mesurier as I have on people like them, Frank Sinatra, Rod Steiger and Maureen O'Hara. But you are profiting from the general public as an author, whether or not money is your primary object or not. If you write many notable books which sell well, you attract attention, and in this case most of us think it's perfectly reasonable to have the article there. It's not really fair for you to profit from the public and then think you can manipulate what the public write about here purely because you don't like it. As I've said, by all means state what the errors are and what should be removed/improved. Please stop it with the belligerent replies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

There you go again. Making me sound like some kind of crook. You're simply not the ultmate arbiter of such issues, and you views are offensive, no matter how much power you abuse on here.92.23.93.50 (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone hiding behind an alias, making accusations and judgements and offensive remarks about others, deciding on other people's public status from a position of anonymity, writing about them without putting one's name to one's words, abusing power without any accountability - that it is unacceptable, and it has to stop. And it will. Discussing this with others has made it clear to me just how widespread is the dissatisfaction with how some people behave in the name of Wikipedia, and there is agreement to act on this dissatisfaction. I won't be looking at this page again, someone else now will be doing that, and recording it, but you will be made accountable, James, and this will stop.

Graham McCann 92.23.93.50 (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

More threats and pompous assholery... Shall I call you Bob as you call me James? A dozen odd experienced editors here have all voted to keep this article. I'm sure dozens of others would also agree. You edited here on July 13th and didn't complain about the article then. Only now Collect is kicking up a fuss again do you conveniently appear and say how "distressed" you are. Reputable editors here all agree that you're a notable author and that the article is warranted and that there is nothing damaging about it. All I did was explain to you why the community here thinks that it helps the encyclopedia by having an article on you and why it wouldn't be deleted. On the contrary, I was the one who made the effort to try to help iron out the issues you saw with the article and suggested that you list them in section and then I edited it myself [1] and [2] looking at what your concerns were originally. Regardless of my input this article would be kept, time and time again, and you know it. Again, you're most welcome to point out the damaging and false information in the article and we will try to resolve it. When this article was started I thought of you as a respectable, credible author, the person I'm seeing here is totally the opposite of the eminent sort of fellow I'd have expected. If you want a solution, start treating people with some respect and act like the professional that you apparently are. Bullying and threatening people is not the way. We were getting somewhere when you briefly changed your attitude, but then you went back to attacking me... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Graham, if you don't like the content that is featured on your page, then collaborate with the editors in a constructive manner and tweak anything that you find false or "distressing". Dr. Blofeld was nothing but kind and patient with you from the start, your hostile approach isn't adding anything good to your credibility. JAGUAR  10:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

FAKE NEWS

This article just proves why the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Data protection rights

Dear Mr Mccann,

I am a solicitor specialising in UK data protection law.

If you are unhappy with the current contents of your Wikipedia "page", I strongly recommend you explore your rights under the Data Protection Act 1998: https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/raising-concerns/.

As a "data subject" protected by that Act, you have a number of strong rights to object to processing of your personal data.

You may therefore wish to instruct a decent solicitor or contact your local Citizens' Advice Bureau for further advice.

With kind regards,

A Wikipedia editor who has read The Trial.

VeritasCurat (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Presumably you're a Daily Mail reader too, as there's a lengthy article in there today written by the subject of this entry. If, indeed, you are a UK solicitor specialising in UK data protection law then perhaps you could point out where there has been any actionable breach of that Act? All I see here is the republishing of information already in the public domain, and/or biographical information sourced from published material recognised as reputable sources. Publishing someone's date of birth is not a breach of the Data Protection Act, even when it's the first time that information has been published. Again - what do you see as actionable? Little grape (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear User:Little grape: Your presumption seems rather hostile, but is partly correct: I read most of the mainstream UK papers most days (excluding tabloids but, I suppose controversially, including the Daily Mail) . I do not assert that Mr Mccann has an "actionable breach". I simply informed him (i) that the DPA is a powerful piece of legislation that overrides Wikipedia rules (which for the avoidance of doubt are not legally binding), and (ii) that if he remains concerned about possible violations of his privacy he may wish to seek further advice. I could also have informed him (and you) that he is afforded fundamental rights to privacy under UK and EU human rights legislation, which override the DPA. Furthermore, if he waits until Spring 2018 he will benefit from even stronger legally enforceable rights to privacy under the EU General Data Protection Regulation. Again, I do not (and cannot) assert whether Mr Mccann has an "actionable claim" (as you put it) without further evidence. But I am pleased to advise that the law is rarely black and white, and that anyone who feels they may have unlawfully suffered harm will often find that English law has a remedy available to them. VeritasCurat (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I should add that natural persons have enforceable rights under the DPA even if there has not been a breach of any of its provisions; many rights are enforceable even where personal data have been processed lawfully. The DPA is intended to promote privacy in a wider sense, by empowering individuals. It is not merely a tool to punish infringers of data protection. VeritasCurat (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Question; is this even applicable, since the Wikipedia is an American business and not subject to UK or EU laws? ValarianB (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes - the DPA (and forthcoming GDPR) may apply to The Wikimedia Foundation or its affiliates, notwithstanding its nominal US domicile. For example, it must comply with the DPA if Wikipedia is hosted (at least in part) using equipment (eg servers) located in the UK. It is for that reason, I suspect, that Wikimedia UK is registered as a data controller (number Z3098483) with the UK Information Commissioner's Office. Again, I am not suggesting that the Wikimedia Foundation has breached any of its data protection obligations; I am simply reminding those choosing to view this talk page that all natural persons have a fundamental legal right to privacy and the protection of their personal data, and they have a range of legal tools to promote that goal. VeritasCurat (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's biography of Graham McCann is currently a bit rubbish, but I haven't seen anything in it that would violate Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In any case, as is often stated when legal threats are made, Wikipedia content is hosted under US law and will not be removed on legal grounds unless it violates US law. Simply listing McCann's publicly available works is not a privacy or data protection violation. If Graham McCann is reading this (dubious as IP addresses are often dynamic) his best bet is to go through WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Despite several lengthy replies, there's been no coherent reply to 'If, indeed, you are a UK solicitor specialising in UK data protection law then perhaps you could point out where there has been any actionable breach of that Act?'. Otherwise I'm not sure what the point is of you advising this chap to visit his local Citizens Advice Bureau'! Little grape (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear User:Little grape: Well, it's been more than a year and a half since this discussion began, so I'm not sure there's much merit in pursuing it! However, to satisfy your (again, rather hostile) question: please refer to the second sentence of my first reply to you above where I clearly state: "I do not assert that Mr Mccann has an "actionable breach"." Not sure how much more coherent I can be?VeritasCurat (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

---