Talk:Alan Mcilwraith

message: OK, I've now listed this twice for speedy deletion. Can't list for AfD, as the old AfD is still in existence. Please look at the deletion record and the previous discussion. You'd think Wikipedians would be keeping more of an eye out for hoaxes at the moment... Average Earthman 17:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is complete BS--Looper5920 10:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete

message: Oh, this is such a goodie.  Frontpage news in the Daily Retard today.  
But if he was rumbled as far back as October, why is it only making the papers today?
Now, how do I go about writing my entry??
11 April 2006
:Dunno why it hit the news today - from the Daily Record articles, it looks like he annoyed his co-workers to the point they started digging themselves. But it's actually a pretty good example of how Wikipedia deals with hoaxes - patiently and carefully the first time, less patiently the second time, tagged for speedy within two minutes of creation the third time ;-) See the Daily Record articles:   I don't know if he's actually broken the law or is just sad and delusional. I'm also not sure if he's notable enough for an article yet. But I've just been answering a press inquiry about the matter, so we'll see ... - David Gerard 18:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea why these things take so long (see Joshua Gardner for another, more unpleasant one - we spotted that fake in May 2005 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV (Joshua Adam Gardner), 5th Duke of Cleveland). Average Earthman 18:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: here he is again, SqueakBox 03:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And another newspaper gets it wrong. Why can't any of them tell the truth - Wikipedia noticed he was a fake months ago! Average Earthman 08:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also mentioned in the Daily Telegraph today, also stating that he was only discovered as a fake yesterday! I agree with some who say he should have a page for his infamy, then again whether or not it is high profile enough is debatable. Northeasternbeast 14:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Times.  Scotsman.  More Daily Record and also .--Henrygb 15:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Guardian & Daily Telegraph and others

message: This article was started on 5 October 2005; spotted as a hoax with verification requested on 10 October; listed for deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Mcilwraith on 20 October; deleted on 26 October; recreated on 21 December 2005; deleted again on 24 December; created yet again on 17 February 2006 at 10:53; marked for deletion at 10:55; text removed by its author at 11:00; and the blank page deleted at 16:19. --Henrygb 11:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical note

message: Notability of the hoax is now very well established - I think its time it had its own article. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - as long as Alan Mcilwraith isn't allowed to write it this time ;) . Not only is it a notable example of fakery (real live Walter Mittys) but it is interesting from a Wikipedia point of view as he tried to use it to forge his history and I think that angle needs exploring and I think (given the shaky information being handed around by the news media) that it is worth clarifying how quickly it was spotted and removed - a good example of the self-correcting mechanism. So two reasons it is notable. (Emperor 15:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep - it is Walter Mitty and it is worth checking what links to it Special:Whatlinkshere/Walter Mitty as there are a lot of people described as Walter Mitty-like. This new entry should be added into Impostors with the Impostors category - the other examples there show that this kind of thing is notable enough to warrant an entry. (Emperor 21:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK cool as I was posting it came back up so I've added in the category and linked in from military impostors. I would still favour what I mention below - having an entry to show the fictious entry he created. (Emperor 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Its time to recreate

message: A mirror of the original article still exists on Nationmaster.  Was the Wiki entry as replete with spelling errors and poor punctuation as this one?
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Alan-Mcilwraith
Beth
:I've left a comment—let's see how quickly their team react. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 16:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find. I'm unsure how unusual this would be but perhaps it might be worth grabbing that and putting it into a sub-entry, e.g. Alan Mcilwraith's fictious entry, to show what all the fuss was about. (Emperor 21:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Nationmaster is notoriously bad at updating. Those bastards. Mackensen (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationmaster 

message: It was claimed he wrote the wikipedia article to bolster his position. Yet it may well have been that this whole thing started when he developed what was basically a vanity article about himself (and we have hundreds of those a week) and until we can source that the fraud came before the wikipedia article we must not imply that this was so, SqueakBox 17:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vanity article

message: :The current version of the article doesn't meet CSD criteria as far as I can tell.  The contents appear accurate and the press url's speak toward notability.  I don't know if the article should stay but I think it needs to be decided through another AfD.  Phr 14:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll stay out of this one.  I'm not going to put up an afd nom.  I just think it shouldn't be deleted without an afd. Phr 15:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  speedy deletion 

message: is up on my blog:  - David Gerard 15:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with referencing a high-quality blog, e.g. mine. I didn't put it in the article itself 'cos it's mine, but if you think it's worthwhile (I think it gives info not commonly available anywhere else), please do put it in - David Gerard 08:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The story I told the Times

message: For a while now there has been folk wasting time reverting there and back again with an external link... No Wikipedia article should be more external links than content - and this article was 14 external links to 7 lines of content (YMMV). I have trimmed this down to 2 external links. If any of the rest are essential then consider adding them as references (to specific points in the text). Thanks/wangi 22:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dialy Record links are the story.  Dump the rest if you need to.  --Henrygb 22:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you write them into the text as references? /wangi 08:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Is a LiveJurnal entry  even worth including in the external links? -Will Beback 06:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LiveJournal 

message: Today's Grauniad has a follow-up article on Mcilwraith: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1827956,00.html where he's claiming that the whole episode stemmed from a knock on the head. Someone may want to integrate some of the information into the article. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, I've also expanded the article a bit. -- ChrisO 20:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Guardian 25/7/06

message: I have reverted back to the original photo (:Image:Alan.No2.jpg) since the retouched image is claiming it's PD when it's not and the retouch adds nothing - in fact it is way too bright, off colour and has excessive JPG artifacts. Thanks/wangi 20:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original retouched version was done by me and maybe it was too bright.  I have done a new version which removes some of the murk while retaining the basic feel of the original photo.  The copyright is not an issue since the tag now clearly states that it is PD.--Ianmacm 09:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, certainly better than the first retouch. I have added an explicit source to the retouched image plus removed the PD tag. The image is not PD. Thanks/wangi 09:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: User Cola4 has edited this article several times in a way that is essentially vandalism.  The article on Alan Mcilwraith is serious and necessary due to the amount of media coverage that the case has received. Hopefully it will not be necessary to block Cola4's IP address.  This should be done if the unhelpful edits do not cease. --Ianmacm 14:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a  warning on 's page. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stop vandalising the article. Mcilwraith's claims about himself are central to the controversy, so of course they have to be mentioned. -- ChrisO 10:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think the vandalism has reached the point where it's necessary to semi-protect the article. We appear to have one rather obnoxious anonymous user editing from 75.24.* but that's about it as far as serious vandalism is concerned. I suggest we leave it a day or two longer to see if the problem persists. -- ChrisO 12:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism by Cola4

message: Mcilwraith is not a reliable source about himself.  All his claims have been deleted. -- 75.24.107.158 07:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop vandalising the article. Mcilwraith's claims about himself are central to the controversy, so of course they have to be mentioned. -- ChrisO 10:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the truncation 

message: Due to the ongoing problem with vandalism to the article on Alan Mcilwraith and its accompanying talk page, it might help if the pages were semi-protected for a while.  This would be a pity for serious users, but it is becoming tiring to keep having to remove vandalism from these two pages. See Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy for more details on this policy. --Ianmacm 12:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the vandalism has reached the point where it's necessary to semi-protect the article. We appear to have one rather obnoxious anonymous user editing from 75.24.* but that's about it as far as serious vandalism is concerned. I suggest we leave it a day or two longer to see if the problem persists. -- ChrisO 12:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further vandalism of article, and request for semi-protection

message: Could someone please clarify the copyright status on the image of Alan Mcilwraith?  The image was uploaded by Mcilwraith himself. --Ianmacm 19:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He actually uploaded two versions.  The one used here is a variant of [] where he attached the tag :Template:NoRightsReserved which at the time said "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author." --Henrygb 00:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright tag on image

message: It is a pity that some people are still trying to get this article removed.  Alan Mcilwraith is worth a brief Wikipedia article due the amount of media coverage that the case has received, and also because a hoax Wikipedia article was involved at one point. This article has survived a full debate about its merit and registered Wikipedia users should abide by the decision.--Ianmacm 14:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest ignoring User:Marlboro2006's attempts to vandalise the article. He's been blocked, anyway. -- ChrisO 20:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: He is not the first and only one. I wonder if anyone has tried to check if anyone of those who have tried to have this article deleted might have been Mcilwraith himself? - Skysmith 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for deletion

message: >>>Mcilwraith created a Wikipedia article about himself on 5 October 2005. The article was created under the username "MilitaryPro"
How do we know it was McIlwraith himself who authored the initial wiki entry?  Has he admitted to being "MillitaryPro"?  I understood from newspapers interviews MacIlwraith was claiming a "friend" (aherm) had written the entry.  Did I get this wrong?
Beth78 10:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attributed?

message: This article was speedy deleted 9 times, I'm sure I nominated a couple of those. --ArmadilloFromHell 17:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The log says it was deleted 3 times , once following the AFD and two speedies for recreation. It was tagged for AfD by User:RussBlau and speedy twice by User:Average Earthman. Then it was protected from recreation until the story came out in the media.  Cheers,Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Record for speedy deletes

message: Have I gone COMPLETELY bonkers or has this article been reverted to the original gem again??
Help ma boab!  This guy McIlwraith sure is persistent.
Beth78 21:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can say that again... - Skysmith 10:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it's Mcilwraith himself. It seems to be some idiot who wants it to be deleted - he's gone through numerous sockpuppet accounts (, ,  etc) which I've been blocking each time they appear. He's now editing anonymously from his ISP (BT Broadband). I've semi-protected the article to put a stop to this ongoing stupidity. -- ChrisO 21:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted to original AGAIN??

message: There is still confusion over whether the name is spelled Mcilwraith or McIlwraith.  Media coverage has given both spellings, and the Wikipedia article contains both spellings, which is unsatisfactory.--Ianmacm 08:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is confusion, as is common with such Scottish names.  The original Wikipedia autobiography had Mcilwraith, while the Daily Record had McIlwraith.  So I prefer the former as being a more direct source, but there is no certainty. --Henrygb 11:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling of Mcilwraith/McIlwraith

message: Someone has added a quite detailed descrption of the military uniform that Alan Mcilwraith is wearing in the photograph.  Not being a military expert, I am not in a position to comment on how accurate it is, but any other comments on this would be welcome.--Ianmacm 06:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Description of Mcilwraith's uniform

message: This person is not notable as a person and the article title should properly identify that. There is precedent for this at Henryk Batuta hoax and Essjay controversy. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is revisiting old territory.  The article has survived several requests for deletion, since it is a notable story in its own right, with widespread coverage in the mainstream UK media.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Alan Mcilwraith hoax]]?

message: After a look through the early page history of the article, it became clear that the saga was not confined to a few edits in October 2005.  The article was online for most of December 2005, and was still available after requests for speedy deletion in February 2006, when a template protected the article from recreation.  Although the initial suspicions emerged after five days, it would have been possible to read the article for a considerably longer period.  This is important and the current article should make this clear. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to read the history with the logs.  It was first created on 5 October 2005, deleted after AfD on 26 October, recreated on 21 December, speedily redeleted on 24 December, rerecreated on 17 February 2006, respeedily redeleted and protected the same day, unprotected on 12 April so the newspaper reported hoax could be described with the history restored the next day.   Before the newspapers had run the story, it could have been read for 21 days in October, 3 days in December and 7 hours in February.  16:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment.  The article was created at 18:28 GMT on 5 October 2005, and this edit can be read here. It was created from the IP address 195.93.21.102. It is a reasonable assumption that all of the edits from 195.93.21.102 and User:MilitaryPro were by Mcilwraith, and for this reason I have removed the infobox at the top of the talk page saying that Mcilwraith edited the article only twice, since the revision history between October 2005 and February 2006 shows that this is clearly not the case.  The saga began on 4 October 2005, when Mcilwraith (as MilitaryPro) added himself to the List of honorary British Knights at 21:18 GMT (here). This was reverted two hours later by Necrothesp, who noted that "Google has never heard of him — pretty good for someone supposedly knighted this year" (see the Signpost article).
User:MilitaryPro made his first appearance in the edit history of Alan Mcilwraith at 20:34 GMT on 5 October 2005 (here). MilitaryPro made numerous edits in October 2005, and added the photograph of Mcilwraith in military uniform at 22:45 GMT on 9 October 2005 (here). The page was nominated for speedy deletion on 22 December 2005 (here). The article was recreated by MilitaryPro at 10:53 GMT on 17 February 2006 (here), and it was deleted and protected from recreation the same day. The article was unprotected to report on media coverage of the hoax on 12 April 2006 (here).
Incidentally, in October 2005 Alan Mcilwraith was a CBE, but by December 2005 he had been elevated to the rank of KBE.
On another note, I have removed this description of the military uniform that Mcilwraith is wearing in the photograph that he uploaded to Wikipedia:
He is wearing the number 2 dress uniform of the Royal Highland Fusiliers, while the diced band pattern around the Glengarry is specific to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.
This may be true, but it needs to be reviewed by someone who is an expert on Scottish military uniforms, or it could be unreliable. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mcilwraith's edits

message: Please note that the spelling in the section in quote marks contains the exact text of Alan Mcilwraith's original Wikipedia entry, including the spelling mistakes.  The article points this out, and there is an HTML comment as well.  The word government is spelled as goverment in this section, but this is intentional, so if it is changed it will be reverted. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The spelling in Alan Mcilwraith's self-penned Wikipedia entry

message: All of the material in the article is reliably sourced from the newspaper articles mentioned. Unfortunately some of the links are now dead due to link rot, so some editing is needed to create up to date citations for the article. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag does not question whether it is sourced, it highlights the lack of the use of inline citations. MickMacNee (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Although if some of the content was only referenced from now dead links, that is also a problem. MickMacNee (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the article is created from newspaper material that was available when the story broke in 2006.  There are no major problems with the accuracy of the article, but some tweaking to the references and the addition of inline citations would help. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is understood. The tag is a direction for improvement. However, as said, if some material came exclusively from now dead links, then that is an accuracy problem, as the article can no longer be verified. MickMacNee (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a fact of internet life that links to online newspaper articles often expire after a certain period of time.  Fortunately there are enough remaining links to verify most of the material, and I will create some inline citations as time permits. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References and tagging

message: It's been nearly 10 years since the main matter of this article occurred, and 6 since there has been any mention of him in the news.  I fail to see why Mcilwraith is considered notable enough to warrant an article, when he is not only a fraud but it seems the news has long since moved on to other subjects.  I feel it's also worth mentioning that Mcilwraith created the article about himself specifically so he could achieve recognition and notoriety, and his later activities show this to be a major part of his personality disorder.  By keeping the article about him, we are not necessarily shaming him (which is itself not a valid reason to keep an article), but rather playing right into his hands.  Any attention is good attention to someone like this.  I would like to have a discussion about this before I recommend the article for deletion.Legitimus (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would vote oppose to deletion. There is enough sourcing for him to be notable.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sourcing is not enough for biographical articles, per policy.  It has to follow the rules of WP:NOTEBIO and there has to be some kind of WP:PERSISTENCE.  I have already had several articles about military phonies successfully deleted this month because they fail notability, including those that, unlike Mcilwraith, were convicted in course of law for there deceptions.  I'm not defending these individuals, but rather attempting to uphold the policies of this wiki.  Wikipedia is not a pillory, and I feel since there motivation is attention, a more just punishment for them is damnatio memoriae.Legitimus (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion.  Again. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alan Mcilwraith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014712/http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid%3D16929538%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D66633%26headline%3Dmeet-sir-walter-mitty--name_page.html to http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid%3D16929538%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D66633%26headline%3Dmeet-sir-walter-mitty--name_page.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014712/http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid%3D16929538%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D66633%26headline%3Dmeet-sir-walter-mitty--name_page.html to http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid%3D16929538%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D66633%26headline%3Dmeet-sir-walter-mitty--name_page.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Although I've taken a look through the various AfD discussions, I can't find any evidence that the original page was created by Mcilwraith. the Guardian exposé from July 2006 states that "Friends set up a Wikipedia page" about him: while it's plausible that these "friends" are, in fact, Mcilwraith himself, does the assertion that "Mcilwraith created a Wikipedia article about himself on 5 October 2005" need to be changed to something like "On 5 October 2005 a Wikipedia article was created, either by Mcilwraith or someone close to him"? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting, and I've given this some thought in the past. What we do know for a fact is that the article was created at 18:28 UTC on 5 October 2005, from 195.93.21.102, which is registered to AOL. As for who was sat at the keyboard and tapping the keys at the time, Wikipedia doesn't know and quite likely the newspapers don't either. Some sources said that Mcilwraith created the article himself, but the Guardian source says that his friends did it because they were in on the joke. Nobody really knows, and the wording should reflect this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit is a definite improvement. All the best, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Talk:Alan_Mcilwraith#Attributed? above. The exact authorship of the article was questioned soon after it was created. Some edits were made by MilitaryPro, who made his first appearance on 4 October 2005  by adding Mcilwraith to the List of honorary British knights and dames in this edit. MilitaryPro then edited this article between 5 October and 24 December 2005. The media hoo-ha over this article did not occur until April 2006.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page creator 

message: In September of 2023, user Humok (who it turns out was a sock-puppet) removed a few unsourced paragraphs, but also a sourced paragraph. They then removed the entirety of the section quoting Mcilwraith's Wikipedia page. I find these edits to be a bit unhelpful, as the first is removing sourced content, and the second removes what the article is about. Would anyone mind if I restored the version before these revisions? I would re-add the constructive edits made after. Slamforeman (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this could be restored.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of content on somewhat harsh standards  

message: Pasting in the entire article as it was written in 2005 is entirely undue. Perhaps a single passage could be quoted, as is done on the Daily Record article (), and a link to the previous version of the page can be linked (). — HTGS (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be fine with this proposal. Slamforeman (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on [[Alan Mcilwraith#Wikipedia entry|Wikipedia entry]]