Talk:Colin Lamont

Untitled

This article has been 'vandalized' by an administrator 'The JPS' who would appear to have a not inconsiderable and often unhealthy interest in thi particular subject and in the one it is linked to. References to the subjects formal education properly referenced in Debretts have been removed and the article 'protected' so that it cannot be legitimately edited. This sort of behaviour would appear to be the trademark of this particular editor/administrator and is a blatant abuse of editorial & administratrative power all other editors & administrators take note and be vigilant at all times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.218.214 (talk • contribs)



Why does none of this surprise me? I have encountered gruelling opposition by this user in my legitimate attempts to make the articles more accurate. The JPS has been told and also had it pointed out several times that 'COLIN LAMONT' does NOT broadcast for The Commonwealth Broadcasting Association but 'SCOTTIE McCLUE' does which is the whole point in splitting the articles in the first place but he does not appear to be able to take this on board. Consequently he would be better not touching the articles as he does not have enough knowledge of the subject although he does appear to have a vested interest in it. as well as the articles on John Myers, John Simons Smooth Radio and other radio industry giants. Also I see The JPS has again been disruptive and removed the educational references which YES quite correct are in Debretts for no reason which is a clear abuse of admin powers as you have so rightly said above. --Havengore (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listen dude, friendly warning here - you need to stop making this personal and accusing other editors of vandalism when what is actually happening is a content dispute. I see you have just come back from a block, and I'd hate to see you blocked again. So I suggest you try to relax a bit, and try to discuss this in a less confrontational and personal way. And I would suggest you give serious consideration to the mentorship idea, as your current approach is, sadly, probably not likely to be tolerated for too long -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The JPS does have a vested interest in the John Simons article as he started the page in the first place. and he is a heavy editor of the one on John Myers but exactly what his connection is with all these senior radio people remains to be seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.218.214 (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude I see where your coming from with your 'friendly warning' to user--Havengore (talk) but you may have stumbled accross something that would benefit from further investigation with your eagle eye. havengore is appealing to people like you to sit up and take notice happy days love to Liverpool. A well wisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.218.214 (talk • contribs)

Hi. My comment was advice regarding Havengore's style of discussion, which I think has been unproductive - this is an article Talk page and it is for discussing the article itself, not for interpersonal warring. If anyone thinks some part of the article needs to be changed, then they should make their proposals here in a calm, civil and collegial manner, and with documentation to support any additional material they wish to introduce. Other editors will then examine their suggestions and a consensus will arise. That's the way to do it, not by edit-warring and slinging mud at people. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Havengore would benefit from a far less heavy handed and confrontational attitude and far more understanding from those who purport to know better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.218.214 (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, this page is for talking about *this article*, not about other editors - so please, can we drop the argument and concentrate on the article now? If anyone proposes any changes, I'll be happy to add my opinions on them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please remember to add "~~~~" to the end of your comments, which will be replaced by your signature, so we can tell who's talking -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, thanks Boing said Zebedee. After much lobbying this article was split into two last week Scottie McClue and Colin Lamont When it was just the The Scottie McClue one it had a mention that Scottie broadcasts around the world for the CBA when it split it was put in the Colin Lamont one in error as Colin Lamont has never broadcast for them Scottie has but the editor in question keeps reverting this and refuses to put it in the Scottie McClue page where it belongs and no one else can as he has protected it. Also some of Colin Lamont's educational details had been added from Debretts and were removed by this same person. We just need others to get access to update the articles which should have more than one admin looking after them. You will see the history at all the talk pages including mine. All I've tried to do is gain access and right a few wrongs but got 'set upon' and 'bitten' from the start.--Havengore (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

eg. this piece;


Lamont has also broadcast internationally on behalf of the London-based Commonwealth Broadcasting Association.[1]

Should be removed from the Colin Lamont page and should go in the Scottie McClue page as

More recently Scottie McClue has broadcast internationally on behalf of the London-based Commonwealth Broadcasting Association.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Havengore (talk • contribs) 12:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this sentence entirely as a Google search reveals no evidence that either McClue or Lamont have engaged in any such broadcasts. The Commonwealth Broadcasting Assocation's own web page indicates that they are an assocation which broadcasters can join, not broadcasters in their own right. Therefore any claims to have broadcast "on behalf of" such an assocation need a far better reference to be made in EITHER article. Incidentally, can we drop the fiction that "no-one" can edit these articles? They are freely editable by anyone who does not hide behind the cloak of anonymity, and has an account in good standing. Meanwhile, I'll look at the point you made re education. Bonusballs (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right - as far as I can see, the "Educated at The University of Glasgow where he obtained a Degree of Bachelor of Arts" text was added by an anonymous IP address registered to BT Broadband. It was added to the 'Career' section, where it would have been out of place. That doesn't disqualify it from being included in the article (perhaps in an 'Education' section) but this information is NOT mentioned in the Debrett's reference, and that pretty much rules it out from being included. A Google search reveals no other mentions of Colin Lamont and the University of Glasgow together, apart from some print sources published in 1780 - which I think we can confidently assume is not the same individual. Since Colin Lamont is a living person he is entitled to the full protection of Wikipedia's Biography Of Living Persons Policy which states that unreferenced, poorly sourced or contentious content added to the article of a living person MUST be removed. Again, TheJPS would appear to have taken exactly the correct action here, in response to anonyous editing of an article relating to a living person. Bonusballs (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I just get one thing clear - are Colin Lamont and Scottie McClue not actually the same person, with "Scottie McClue" being Colin Lamont's radio persona? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Arguably they should have the same article but the separation was more of a pragmatic attempt to end a sustained and long-running campaign of anonyous deletions of Lamont references from the Scottie article, which has been occuring on a constant basis since as far back as 2007. Bonusballs (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it's not possible for Scottie McClue to do something without Colin Lamont doing it, because Colin Lamont *is* Scottie McClue - but it is possible for Lamont to do something without McClue doing it, as he might not be in character. Does that seem reasonable? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, seems logical. Bonusballs (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Re: "All I've tried to do is gain access and right a few wrongs but got 'set upon' and 'bitten' from the start" - Can we please just *drop* all that now and stick to the article? Please let's not rehash what others have done and what you have done - just tell us what you want to see done *now*, and provide some links to support it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CBA stuff available here it's referenced in Debretts and I'm sure the CBA would confirm as would the stations. http://www.scottie-mcclue.com/sounds/falklands.mp3

http://www.scottie-mcclue.com/sounds/falklands.mp3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.218.214 (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The mp3 is not usable as a reference, as there's nothing in it that says who is broadcasting it or on behalf of whom.
  • "I'm sure the CBA would confirm as would the stations" cannot be used as a reference - we need an actual published source.
  • If it's in Debrett's, can you please provide us with the full reference?
-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Debretts was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

One article/two articles

I don't see why there are two articles at all. As someone pointed out last week Cliff Richard & Harry Webb ar not separate. I feel there is only a need for one Scottie McClue article only referring to Scottie McClue and going from from 1992 covering Scottie's exploits for the last 19 years. That is the article and there is absolutely no need for any reference to Colin Lamont. Which is a red herring causing unecessary confusion which means nothing to anyone searching for or interested in Scottie McClue.--109.154.218.214 (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two articles now precisely because 'someone' spent many years trying to erase all mention of Colin Lamont from the Scottie McClue article and this seemed to be a possible way to prevent the ongoing abuse of the article. Unfortunately it seems the goalposts have now changed from "no need for mention of Colin Lamont in the Scottie McClue article" to "no need to mention Colin Lamont on Wikipedia at all". Unfortunately Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not someone's personal website - nobody gets to decide to wipe someone's history off the face of the earth, whatever reasons they may have for wanting to. Bonusballs (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we only really needed one article. But of course it should cover Colin Lamont, as he is the real person behind the radio persona. And there's absolutely nothing "confusing" at all by saying so -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think ONE article about Scottie McClue with a reference to Colin Lamont well into the article rather than Scottie McClue being known only as 'the pseudonym for Colin Lamont' which will mean zero to serious students of Wikipedia looking for Scottie McClue. I also think we need to drop the attitudes and egos of individual editors in favour of the article being of sufficient quality to reflect its important subject.

This article has attracted such controversy from so many people that I actually went on record last week as having emailed Scottie McClue at scottie@scottie-mcclue.com through http://www.scottie-mcclue.com urging him to ask for deletion of all references to him on this website as I felt that the infighting and vandalism were not worthy of or in keeping with all other reference works on him on the internet and beyond.--Havengore (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re "drop the attitudes and egos of individual editors" - again, STOP the personal attacks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An example of how misleading this is and can be is this direct quote;


Scottie McClue Main article: Scottie McClue In 1992 Colin Lamont moved to Red Rose Gold in Preston,[6] to become a senior producer and presenter for the station. While at the station he created the on-air pseudonym Scottie McClue who became a controversial figure, subsequently presenting on a variety of stations across Scotland and the North East of England, and in syndication.

From day one Scottie McClue was the producer and presenter of the phone-in programme and no reference to Colin Lamont would ever be made during broadcasts so Scottie would have arrived at Red Rose Radio as Scottie McClue and would have left two or three years later as Scottie McClue and that will always have been the pattern over the last twenty years so the public will have no knowledge of any Colin Lamont so how are they being served by this kind of writing in a supposedly important and definitive work of reference.--Havengore (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Scottie McClue is, in effect, a 'stage name', that would only apply to on-air activity. Senior producer is a role which must, obviously, be assigned to a "real" person and that person in that sense would be Lamont, which is why he is mentioned - once - in that paragraph. It's necessary to give at least one mention of how the McClue character came to be. You seem to want the article to start from his first moment on the air, and not to mention anything before that, or any detail of who or where this person came from. I'm not sure there is any precendent for someone to demand NOT to be mentioned on Wikipedia. It is arguably no business of Scottie's anyway, unless the information is factually inaccurate (to a degree which is libellous or otherwise actionable). You yourself have already said (remember?) that you were quite sure that Colin Lamont and Scottie McClue were such broadcasting powerhouses that they would be entirely uninterested in the insignificant doings of Wikipedia. If they did wish to take an interest - and to not fall foul of Wikipedia's Conflict Of Interest policies, then they would certainly be welcome to register their own accounts and perhaps discuss their suggested edits on the talk pages of the articles in question. But fundamentally, people do not get to edit their own biography, and if other editors do not agree with the edits being suggested, and if no concensus can be reached after discussion, then no changes would be made. Even if Scottie McClue were to come on Wikipedia in person, using his own name, and demand all references to Lamont be expunged from his article, he'd be refused too. Discussion and concensus are the only means by which such controversial edits can be made. Bonusballs (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it were libellous then Scottie would be within his rights to ask for removal or action to be taken. This article over the last ten years or however long has become almost unrecognisable has had at times no bearing on the truth and has at times been unrecognisable to those of us who are fans and followers of Scottie McClue. Rest assured if Scottie wanted it removed the site owners would have to take cognisensce of that, so let's not get too carried away with our own importance. As recently as a fortnight ago this article reflected its subject well and then the vandals struck again. Perhaps if we all did three reverts each until we were back there, peace would reign again for a while and the article would sport a degree of accuracy to its subject and title of Scottie McClue. --109.154.218.214 (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


We're going around in circles here. If any aspect of either article is wrong, say EXACTLY what it is, and say what it should be replaced with, citing appropriate references. By the way you seem to have the same problem as Havengore of forgetting to sign your edits - if you type ~~~~ at the end of a message it'll be signed for you automatically. Bonusballs (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK quite right, Right, mentioning Colin Lamont at the start of an article on Scottie McClue is wrong and of little value to the public in their search. Scottie McClue is Scottie McClue end of. Using it as a football to say personally "I know another name for Scottie McClue" as if you knew him better than the rest of us as a sort of claim to fame doesn't impress. Sorry if I forgot to sign the last time. I can't be held responsible for omissions of others.--109.154.218.214 (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In short we jettison the Colin Lamont article and remove virtually all career references to Lamont from the Scottie McClue article and we are then true to Wikipedia as a work of reference.--109.154.218.214 (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not a chance - removing factual and relevant material would be stupid. The point of a work of reference is that it should be of use to people looking for information that don't already know - having a reference work that only contains what is already common knowledge would be of little value -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK what would you suggest?--109.154.218.214 (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The default position for an article is to contain as much detail about the subject as is relevant, and referenced. You yourself made the point, both here and on Talk:Scottie McClue that the Cliff Richard article mentions Webb. The point of splitting the McClue/Lamont articles was an exceptional attempt to quell the non-stop anonymous removal edits that had been plaguing the McClue article since 2007. But as was said on Talk:Scottie McClue even an article split would never expunge all mention of Lamont from the McClue article, it would be impossible not to acknowledge the dual identity. Bonusballs (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would I suggest? All I'm doing is helping to review the suggested changes - I have no agenda myself and there are no changes that I want. I probably wouldn't propose merging back to one article for now - but whether it stays as two or goes back to one eventually, I would strongly oppose the excision of Lamont from it - there hasn't been anything close to a credible reason given by anyone for it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zeb are you editing and removing my responses?--109.154.218.214 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowingly - hang on and I'll check back over my changes and see if I've accidentally screwed anything up -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, there are my last few edits and I can't see anything gone wrong in them - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attention - Wiki Editors This article has been vandalized anyone searching for Scottie McClue gets Colin Lamont as The Page Scottie McClue has been removed. If there's to be one page then it should surely be titled Scottie McClue. 

Great Rivers (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudonym

The on air pseudonym it's not it's the on air name of the presenter.--109.154.218.214 (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, name/pseudonym - tricky. I think it comes down to what name he currently goes under in real life. Is he still, in real life, known as Colin Lamont? If so, I'd say "pseudonym" is the better description of the name "Scottie McClue". But if he actually goes through life as "Scottie McClue", maybe "name" would be more accurate -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about a compromise, something like... "While at the station he created the on-air persona Scottie McClue" ? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I've added a new heading to help make editing easier - hope that's OK -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Excellent thank you Boing! said Zebedee. We have all benefitted from your wise counsel today thank you. People like you would make it worth staying on.--Havengore (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree - the term "persona" is used several times elsewhere in the article, so "pseudonym" in the McClue paragraph was perhaps an unnecesary attempt to avoid repetition. Have changed this. Bonusballs (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colin Lamont. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5v9fchfrH?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftvannouncers.thetvroomplus.com%2Fchannel-12.html to http://tvannouncers.thetvroomplus.com/channel-12.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 merge proposal

Support the proposal to merge a his pseudonym with his page, potentially as a separate section. I note that there were a lot of strong opinions on this issue about 5-7 years ago, but it seems reasonable to revisit this new(er) proposal. Klbrain (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Whoever merged Scottie McClue and Colin Lamont pages has made a massive error of judgement as the two are totally separate entities creatively and culturally.[reply]

This merger should be reversed with early effect as users seeking Scottie McClue get Colin Lamont who is of little interest to them and it makes a mockery of Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.16.243 (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This concern was duplicated on my talk page, so I'll move my response over here (best place for the discussion).
I'm sorry that that merge has upset you. That merge was completed about 9 months ago, in response to a 2017 proposal (see the October 2017 version of Colin's page) which was uncontested for two years. I'd expressed an intention to merge (given that there had been no objections over the course of 15 months), which you will have seen at Talk:Colin Lamont#2017 merge proposal. That seems to me to be a reasonable course of action.
Also, I can't agree with your claim that when one searches for Scottie McClue one gets Colin Lamont which will mean nothing to them, as Scottie McClue is linked to its own Scottie McClue section of Colin's page. The first sentence is then the referenced: "Scottie McClue is the on-air persona of Colin Lamont". This makes the association very clear to uninformed readers; while it may come as a surprise to some fans that Scottie McClue is a persona, Wikipedia has taken a policy against the use of spoilers as it is an encyclopaedia rather than an in-universe fandom.
Regarding the request for a reverse, I don't think that this is appropriate given the 9 months of editing which has occurred in the interim. Perhaps you could propose a SPLIT. Klbrain (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again it makes absolutely no sense to merege these pages as one is an relatively unknown academic while the other is an international broadcaster. Why on earth did you merge them in the first place? as I say it makes a mockery of Wikipedia. If I am searching for a subject I don't expect to get something totally different. Given your reasoning any 'pseudonym' ot 'nom de plume' for writers should throw up another name. in that case each incidence of this should be changed but a credible reason should be given. These pages existed for about 8 years without conflict until your unsolicited editing. perhaps you could provide some explanation for your actions and idicate if similar 'vandalism' is going to occur on the pages others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.143.9 (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To answer some of your questions:
  • I merged the articles because there was a 2017 merge proposal which had been uncontested and seemed reasonable
  • It is indeed the case the 'nom de plume' for writers and the actual names of the authors usually point to the same page; sometimes this is the authors name and sometimes it is their pen name; this is considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the name they're commonly known by, and perhaps whether they have several different pen names. For example, we don't have a page on Charles Dicken's contributions under the name of Boz, but rather use Charles Dickens. List of pen names provides a few hundred such examples. Having a single page for the legal name and the pseudonyms, stage names, nicknames or hypocorisms is also enshrined in the manual of style: see particularly MOS:NICKNAME.
  • My editing wasn't unsolicited; the merge template is a solicitation summoning all editors to contribute to the cause, should they so wish.
I hope that this helps to clarify how such cases are handled. Klbrain (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may be useful to outline for new or unaware editors of the history of these separate articles. Originally the 'Scottie McClue' article was the only one in use. It, naturally, explained that McClue was an on-air persona - a character, if you will, played by Colin Lamont. Unfortunately over a significant period of time, the McClue article was subject to extensive astroturfing and WP:COI editing - frequent removals of any material of no controversy to anyone except Lamont himself - and even more frequent addition of self-reverential praise and WP:PEACOCKing text in praise of 'the big man', 'the internationally renowned broadcaster and polymath', etc. The whole thing did get quite ridiculous. During the course of attempting to stave off this issue it did become clear that - for whatever reason - McClue/Lamont objected most vigorously to the combination of the two subjects in one article. A split was proposed, perhaps more for a quiet life than anything else, and eventually that brought peace to the article for a decent amount of time. Now, however, it seems that the self-editing has returned - just look at the recent edit history of the article(s) and the return to insertion of self-aggrandising praise and unsourced "factual information" - and presumably will continue again until Scottie/Colin gets what he wants. Just be aware, almost any edit on this subject from an IP address starting '86' or '109' is almost certainly McClue himself. Do bear that in mind when responding to 'anonymous' enquiries such as these. Just read this whole page from the top to see the history. 'Havengore' is Scottie too, by the way. Bonusballs (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think ONE article about Scottie McClue with a reference to Colin Lamont well into the article rather than Scottie McClue being known only as 'the pseudonym for Colin Lamont' which will mean zero to serious students of Wikipedia looking for Scottie McClue. I also think we need to drop the attitudes and egos of individual editors in favour of the article being of sufficient quality to reflect its important subject.
This article has attracted such controversy from so many people that I actually went on record last week as having emailed Scottie McClue at scottie@scottie-mcclue.com through http://www.scottie-mcclue.com urging him to ask for deletion of all references to him on this website as I felt that the infighting and vandalism were not worthy of or in keeping with all other reference works on him on the internet and beyond.--Havengore (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.143.9 (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The merger appears to have been an act of vandalism and compromises Wiki as 2 pages had been the accepted norm for serious students of media and casual searchers alike there appears to be no reason for the merger and editors should reinstate the status quo with early effect A page for Scottie McClue and a page for Colin Lamont 

Great Rivers (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.47.32 (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

The problem appears to be that whoever has merged them has # tagged a re-direct so that when anyone does a search for Scottie McClue They get The Colin Lamont section rather than the Scottie McClue section. it can be easily fixed if some kind switched on editor can attend to it with early effect. I would do it myself but I'm not an editor and the article is semi-protected as it's been the subject of vandalism over the last 13 years with the merger last year causing the present difficulty. 86.174.168.12 (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scottie McClue

The problem here is that there were for many years 2 pages one for the broadcaster Scottie McClue and one for academic and TV personality Colin Lamont - somebody then vandalized both pages by attempting to merge them. Now if you search Scottie McClue you only get Colin Lamont it needs a competent editor to fix it by reinstating the two pages properly so that the reference work isn't compromised. Any takers? thank you Great Rivers (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another user account who only edits this article and no others, and falsely claims that the subject only requiring a single page is 'vandalism', continuing a campaign by a series of similar single-issue accounts over a period of years. Not suspicious at all. Bonusballs (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

someone has vandalized the Scottie McClue page so that when you search Scottie you get some other guy this needs putting right asap

HELP REQUIRED attention editors can anyone help to put this back to two pages one for Scottie McClue and one for Colin Lamont so that when someone searches Scottie McClue they dont get Colin Lamont Thanks for that. The problem with this is that there were 2 pages for many years which was correct as Scottie McClue is a major mainstream broadcaster and there was a page dedicated to his work. Some Editor for reasons best known to himself some Editor merged the pages as an act of vandalism and now when you look up Scottie McClue you get Colin Lamont the academic which compromises Wiki as a reference work. I don't have the experience and people like yourself would not allow any substantial changes and would keep undoing them which would be counter productive if you weren't seeing the whole picture. Perhaps you could put your experience to good use and make an attempt to repair the damage caused by the merger - Thanks again GR Great Rivers (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Great Rivers (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yet another user account who only edits this article and no others, and falsely claims that the subject only requiring a single page is 'vandalism', continuing a campaign by a series of similar single-issue accounts over a period of years. Not suspicious at all. Bonusballs (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, similar appeal from that user on my talk page: User talk:Klbrain#Scottie McClue Colin Lamont Merger Causing Terrific Confusion For Searchers Needing Fixed asap. Klbrain (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colin_Lamont&oldid=1200235546"