Talk:Scottie McClue

message: The sources were part of Wiki for many years all researched and verified and accurate then last year the 2 pages were merged in an act of vandalism - they just need to be unlinked so that when users enter Scottie McClue they get Scottie McClue and Colin Lamont they get Colin Lamont there's no new material no verification required or any reason not to sort this it's a perfectly reasonable legitimate claim it's already worked fine for 13 years not to sort it challenges the integrity of Wiki and it's editors.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.168.12 (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

message: Please note that this page is regularly edited by an IP address connected to UTV. The JPStalk to me 09:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These edits appear to have been continuing for over three years now, mostly coming from various dynamic IP addresses in the 86.x or 81.x ranges registered to BT Broadband. Most of the anonymous edits come from IP addresses which only edit this article and others related to Scottie McClue - e.g. L107, Scot FM, and other radio articles which mention Colin Lamont [] [] and often remove 'unwanted' information, replacing it with more self-congratulatory material (e.g. (Scottie) 'was widely credited with saving the station' and so on.) All very suspicious. Bonusballs (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  If this is so then it should be no problem to add a reference link to a page from a newspaper website which covers the topic and uses those kind of words. But without such a reference, and in concert with the large amount of highly slanted text added recently, such a statement is out of place. Bonusballs (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

text:  The changes made by 86.138.170.52, noew reverted, can be seen in the diff here: [] Bonusballs (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems that IPs in the 109.158 range (also registered to BT, like the two ranges above) are up to the same tricks - repeated attempts to remove the COI templates from the article without discussion, and again editing, but not contributing to, this talk page - see []. Note the same pattern of behaviour - only editing this and other closely-related articles, removing the same information from articles see [] for a 'Colin Lamont' removal on the Scot FM article. This is exactly why the COI template is in place as it's clear that a vested interest is at work. Bonusballs (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Despite this, the wholesale removal of large chunks of referenced content continues to be a problem. I suggest this needs to be discussed further, and perhaps consideration given to whether it is reasonable to maintain that the 'stage name' and the actual performer are separate individuals, and that there should be no mention of one in the other's article. I'm not sure this really stands up, but obviously it's worth thinking about. Bonusballs (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting that the an anon editor is inserting titles in an article about a subject who has a biog on Debrett's -- an etiquette "authority". The JPStalk to me 09:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] edits 

message: Given the multiple issues raised regarding this article, is it time to consider a full re-write? There seems to be a fair amount of material which has no references (can't find any trace of these "live videos" or CDs on Amazon or Google, for example), and similarly some of the material repeatedly deleted by the anonymous IP editor mentioned above does not seem unreasonable to include - for example, Scottie McClue has been repeatedly described, by Reliable Sources as a "shock jock" - e.g. [Scottie McClue Replaced By MP3 Player] - so while that does not appear to be to the taste of the person who has been anonymously removing it from this article for the last four years, it seems like valid to include a note that the personality has been so described. But these are just initial thoughts - any other comments? Bonusballs (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Biography at Debrett's [] might be a good place to start for good quality, unbiased information - does anyone have any views? Bonusballs (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete re-write? 

message: Havengore, at this point I can only give you the advice to (finally) drop the stick, or you will almost certainly end up with a block. This is not a threat, just a friendly piece of advice and, sort of, a prediction. DVdm (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop now 

message: DVdm While you sound like a lovely fellow I can't think why this is of any interest to you whatsoever as you have made it quite clear here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Havengore that you have absolutely no connection to the subject(s) or any interest in them and just 'happened' upon one of my edits of another well known person and 'corrected' it 13 minutes later. 
Once there has been a move by editors towards the interests of 'fairness' and 'balance' in the article in question so that when one looks it up under 'Scottie McClue' they are not faced with 'Mr Lamonts early career in banking' my work is done and then if it helps you DVdm I can look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stick . 
I have also explained that any attempts to 'block' me or any other innocent parties will be dealt with accordingly by the powers that be at Wiki at the highest level as they have been made fully aware of the situation and are monitoring it closely and that is not just a prediction that is a fact.
--Havengore (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  All that, of course, is background, a summary of how we got to this place. What I'm hoping can happen going forward is that, via this talk page, everyone can discuss and work to improve the article together. No-one wants to see an article which is outrageously one-sided or slanted either against or in favour of Mr McClue. But at the same time the principles of Wikipedia remind us that no one person "owns" an article, and an article about a living person might contain claims of which that person might not approve. As long as those claims have factual validity and are backed by Reliable Sources - i.e. a published article in a proper newspaper or trade publication, then it is not unreasonable for them to appear in an article, and an ongoing multi-year-long pattern of removing referenced claims would certainly count as vandalism. But as I say, no-one wants an article which would 'do down' Mr McClue or pointlessly air anyone's dirty laundry - Wikipedia is not the place for that either. Just as you don't get to write your own entry in Who's Who, neither do you get to write your own Wikipedia page. What everyone wants, and what Wikipedia needs, is an article that is fully correct, accurate, referenced, and encyclopaedic. Something that everyone would be happy with. That's the aim. No personal grudges. I hope you'll agree that the material I added to the article - a nice photo, and a fair summary of the event - was neutral and even-handed, and that's the kind of spirit which I hope everyone can move forward with. Hope this makes it clear where I'm coming from. Bonusballs (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

text: You are going to get blocked too if you don't stop the personal accusations -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop What? 

message: What if we make;
Scottie McClue is the on-air pseudonym of media consultant, actor, writer and broadcaster Colin Lamont.
The character started life in 1992 at Red Rose Gold in Preston,[2] where Lamont was a Senior producer and presenter for the station, creatting the on-air pseudonym Scottie McClue for the Scottie McClue Mega Phone-In which was then networked on various Independent Local Radio stations across the UK.
into
Scottie McClue started life in 1992 at Red Rose Gold in Preston,[2] as a Senior producer and presenter for the station, creating 'The Scottie McClue Mega Phone-In' which was then networked on various Independent Local Radio stations across the UK.  
--Havengore (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think that would be good. I think we really do need to say the Scottie McClue persona was an invention of Colin Lamont, rather than making it sound like Scottie McClue just appeared from nowhere one day. And I honestly don't understand why you are so keen to remove as much possible mention of Lamont as you can - frankly, I'm baffled -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Oh, and also, in 1992 surely he would have fulfilled the role of Producer as Lamont, not as McClue, wouldn't he? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

text: (PS: I've added another heading, to make editing easier) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Sure that's how he's best known, and it's right that that's the name that should take priority. But when I first read about Mark Twain, I genuinely was interested to learn that he was born "Cliff Richard" (or whatever it was ;-). And when I saw this stuff about Scottie, I genuinely was interested to hear of his origins and of Mr Lamont. (The reason I'd never head of him is probably that from 1992 until quite recently I was living a long way from Liverpool) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, it's absolutely not practical or realistic to remove all mention of Mr Lamont or Scottie's creation. We can't have an article about a "not-quite-real person" which does not explain the situation at least once. All major similar articles like Mark Twain, Cliff Richard and Ali G mention the person's true name, or the names of their creators, in the very first sentence. In such illustrious company it doesn't seem that this can be avoided - but I have coalesced the first two paragraphs into one, meaning that Mr Lamont is now mentioned once rather than twice. Better? Bonusballs (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks better to me. As an afterthought on "not practical or realistic to remove all mention of Mr Lamont or Scottie's creation", I really am at a loss to understand why anyone would even want to. (And I don't buy the "It's confusing" thing - of course it's not confusing) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Excellent - happy bunnies all round :-)
I think this is the definitive version now as Scottie McClue is Scottie McClue and nothing to do with Colin Lamont who has a separate page. I think we can all agree this makes a lot more sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.29.234 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit suggestion

message: Is it not the fact that it was the 1997 BBC Give_Us_A_Clue series with Tim Clark.
: Distantly possible, I suppose, but hard to say. It really needs some kind of source. Bonusballs (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: BBC TV (Give Us McClue

message: As of March 2012 Scottie Mcclue has begun broadcasting his own chat show via his website using the Shoutcast Servers, Monday to Thursay from 21.00 - 22.00. His intention is to bring the Scottie McClue talk show to the entire world and claims to have over 20 million unique listeners per evening.
Ref www.scottie-mcclue.com
Spiri7u (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-published sources are not Reliable Sources (RS) for audience size claims, even if stated as a claim, it isn't noteworthy unless independent third-party sources have noted it. Re-activate if you can cite such a verifiable source. Dru of Id (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 20 July 2012 

message: Can Someone please edit this page removing the re-direct so that when you search Scottie McClue it goes to The Scottie McClue section.Thank you. 
The problem with this page seems to go back to the 24th March 2019 when editor 'Klbrain' for no apparent reason decided to merge the two pages one for Scottie McClue the radio guy and the other for Colin Lamont the academic which had stood perfectly well for 12 years. This presents the dichotomy that when someone wishes to access Scottie McClue they get Colin Lamont which makes a mockery of Wiki. 
What is required here is either a demerger or some clever editing which brings up the Scottie McClue sector when Scottie McClue is searched anyone got any bright ideas. Why Klbrain decided to touch it in the first place is anyone's guess. 86.157.47.32 (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The page already redirects to the Scottie McClue section of the target page. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2020