Talk:Peter Oakley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
England Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Removal of surname and city

I have edited out Peter's surname and city from the article as per the request he made through his website (http://www.askgeriatric.com/), and also intend to nominate this article for deletion, although I'll make sure that's okay with him first.

While I do appreciate that he is, arguably, a 'notable' enough person for inclusion in the Wikipedia, this page, by disclosing personal information, serves as a personal security risk. Have some respect (if not for him as a person then at least the law), and don't put it back. --Unreadablecharacters 17:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] factual error

"...he served as a radar mechanic during World War II"

No, he served AFTER the war. 1945-1927 = 18. Highly unlikely. Brainhell 03:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

*TiA Part 1 4,700 people E-Mailed him prior to the making of this video, The relisation of his popularity sets in. born in 1927 young life spent when world II was happening. At the age of 11 "they" decided to ithor further educate you or throw you out at the age of 14, he went on to learn things like latin. He loves motercycles. Tears up at the end. Skeeve KAM 05:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

*TiA Part 2 Peter explains how he left school and looked for a job. His mother bought him an expensive new suit with 'a year's worth' of ration vouchers, and got a job in a local government office in the public health department. During this time he underwent training, and was unhappy that he had to return to a nightschool. Peter explains about not being able to use his motorcycle as much as he would like, because petrol was very highly rationed, and when he did get any petrol vouchers (admitting it was 'probably dodgy'), all the signs had been removed. He was conscripted to the army soon after, and explains that it was a gruelling experience, where 'your brain is scrambled' and you are changed 'from a boy to a man in six weeks'. He explains that he wasn't a soldier on the front lines, but (worked with?) radars, still in the country. Old m 16:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

*TiA Part 3 He travelled around the coast durring WWII, and glad that he didn't have to face the horror of the front. Met his wife in a college in Leicester (wife worked in art/design). Because of going to college, he got qualification. Competed in bike trials/competitions. Eventually got a job in Lester (public health inspector). Managed to get a business selling motorbikes after working in the industry. Ben 20:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

*TiA Part 4 His motorbike business was a good success, and married his wife six months after his business was set up. Frist child (daughter) year after marriage, second (son) 1 1/2 years after that. One of his friends sold him his (profitable) business, which allowed him to move into a town with good facilities. 10 years on Peter and his wife fostered a disabled four year old. He developed a liver problem, and sold his less profitable business and left the managment to someone he trusted. Peter's wife died in '97. Ben 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Old M; could you add details for TiA part 1 & 2 and we can decide what to add to the wiki

  • Done and done. Special thankyous to Skeeve :) Old m 16:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


And he says quite clearly in one of his videos that he is 79. My guess is the profile is out of date. Perhaps we should just include the discrepancy in the article at this point? --Siradia 18:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I reckon the profile is out of date. I figure it is best to state his age as 79 for the moment because he stated he was 79 quite clearly in one video. --Haplo7 19:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Im brand new to actualy adding content to Wikipedia, I have used it for a while but want to give back... tell me if there is some etiquite I should know about and if im doing something wrong... Id like to help build this up and coming page considering i know it wont get deleated. Skeeve KAM 05:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telling it all subpage

What about some like this as a subarticle? --24.91.83.121 04:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Official Website Discussion

User:172.200.37.178 22:25, 15th October 2006 (BST) Peter clearly states in a few of his youtube videos that he does not own a website and that any websites set up in his name are not authorised by him. Therefore I have removed the link untill his ownership of the website has been cofirmed.

He has said numerous times in his more recent videos that it is official. Also, now that he has a Director account, which allows a link, he links to it on the side of all of his videos. Here is the video where he first mentions it. Siradia 22:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Argent009 08:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Whoever is editing the entry for askgeriatric.com to say he has no control over the site, stop it now, you are a bold faced liar. That is Peter's official website and he has complete control over it. I am Michael, his friend who set it up for him, none of you have any knowledge of this situation so quit your nonsense. If it's edited again I will report it.

Reply:First off, please sign your comments with ~~~~, so that we know who you are. Secondly, we can not use Wikipedia talk pages as a reliable source for such a claim. Thirdly, you cant report someone removing unsourced information, because Wikipedia policy clearly shows that you can do such a thing. It would be worth reading up on the main policies of Wikipedia (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR) before threatening someone on here again. Remy B 03:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Argent009 08:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)1. I do not do wikipedia that much so I don't know all the commands and formatting conventions. 2. You can verify who I am simply by GOING to the website or viewing any of Geriatric1927's latest videos, #REDIRECT[[1]] #REDIRECT[[2]] he mentions me plenty. 3. I am Argent009, view me on YouTube, what other proof could anyone need? Peter himself tells you who I am and that this is his official website. I think any more proof would be redundant, how can their be a more reliable source than the man himself? So, again I state, do not change that entry or I will report the violation to Wikipedia, simple as that.

State it all you like, there is no such thing as "reporting" a "violation" on Wikipedia (other than banning users who do silly things like threatening people like you have). Everyone here edits this site, and if the consensus disagrees with you then you need to argue your case better. As for the issue at hand, all that needs to be stated is that it is the official page. Please do not mess up the links section with notices such as "DO NOT EDIT" and links to YouTube videos. BTW the #REDIRECT command has nothing to do with making links to external websites, it is for redirecting one Wikipedia article to another. Cheers. Remy B 10:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
See Point #1, wasn't I clear enough there for you? I don't do a lot of Wiki editing. As for arguing my case better. Sorry, I wasn't aware that having the person that this Wiki article is about say "THIS IS MY OFFICIAL WEBSITE AND THIS IS MY FRIEND WHO IS DOING IT FOR ME" wasn't a valid enough arguement. Next time I'll have him write it out in triplicate, have it notorized and delivered to the homes of everyone who uses Wikipedia for you. Adding the links (redirects, what the heck ever) was an attempt to show you the PROOF of what was said. As for "threats", reporting someone for messing with a wiki article, you're just plain wrong. Users have been blocked from even accessing Wikipedia for abusing it in the past and if you continue to abuse it you can be blocked. Do I need to show verifiable proof of this too? http://www.civicactions.com/node/405 <-go here. Persons no less well known than Stephen Colbert have been banned from Wikipedia for doing just this kind of thing. http://prezkennedy.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=276 <-congressional networks banned from wikipedia. I could go on but I've proven my point as far as it needs to be. Anything you may say from here on out is worthless blithering and you should just save your breath. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Argent009 (talk • contribs) .
We understand that what you are claiming is very true to you Argent009, since you may personally know Geriatric, but please try to get verifiable evidence for what you are claiming. There are rules for making edits on Wikipedia. Remy pointed you in the right direction as far as how to go about accomplishing what you want to do. I suggest reading WP:CIVIL before making threats to other users (and specifically one that was trying to help you). Like I said, there are guidelines for what are and aren't reliable sources, specifically for cases like this one. You are claiming to be his friend but that really holds no weight. Suppose someone claiming to be the friend of George W. Bush comes on wikipedia and says he knows for sure that George W. Bush is actually an atheist and wants to edit that wikipedia article accordingly. He can't do this properly unless he has verifiable evidence. I understand your frustration but threatening wiki users is a sure way to get yourself banned. So I'd suggest you calm down, read over some of the policies, and focus on being a valuable editor to the community. Regards. --Ubiq 00:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It isn't something you need to understand or not understand. If I said I was a personal friend of George W. Bush and George W. Bush had gone on television and made a statement that I was in fact a friend of his, it isn't for you to debate reality, it is what it is. In this case, Peter had stated long before any of this arguing started that he had a website, established by me, with a link to it in his videos, the same link I provided. It isn't for me to try to mold reality so it fits your perception of it, it's up to you to come to terms with reality and deal with it. I did not edit this page until long after Peter had announced to the public that his website was up. If you intend to be involved with the editing of a private individual's Wikipedia page then it behooves you to know what you are talking about, not to question the facts as they are provided by the man's webmaster, personal friend and official contact person. All media dealings (And yes, Wikipedia counts as far as Peter is concerned) go through ME and NOBODY else. That means if Peter does not want this Wikipedia entry to exist, it will be removed by me. If some random person decides to come along and continue to create false information I will continue to remove it and replace it with correct information at my discretion without anyone else's permission. Should any of the staff who are responsible for the operation of Wikipedia attempt to post incorrect information or interfere with the placement of correct information into the article, the owner or person responsible for Wikipedia in total will be contacted about the problem, if this does not resolve the issue, I'm sure Peter's attorney would have reason to file suit on behalf of Peter or his estate for the slanderous and/or falsified information being aggregated through Wikipedia. To put it plainly, this page exists only through the permission of Peter J. Oakley and should he ever find fault with it, it WILL be fixed or removed regardless of what anyone here has to say. If that was not clear enough for everyone, please feel free to contact Peter or myself directly through his website, which I am sure you know the URL for by now. 68.81.29.236 10:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

I removed this ENTIRE section as a WP:BLP violation. exolon 22:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

# 7 List of videos by geriatric1927 - seems pointless, as it is not kept up to date and it is hard to maintain - when Peter deletes videos and Peter's latest video has not yet been added in over a week. The link to his profile videos section is more than enough. It just makes the article too long for no reason. Deanbb 22:12, 6 September 2007 (GMT)

I also feel the "A reluctant farewell" and "Returning to YouTube" sub-headings are kind of redundant now, since Peter has established himself and has since taken more than 8 days off from posting a video. Deanbb 22:12, 6 September 2007 (GMT)

I also just noticed that "79 LAUNCH OF YOUTUBE UK" has been removed by Peter so there's another reason for that section to be removed - are you trying to maintain an exact replica of Peter's YouTube video list - because that to me, seems like too much work. If Peter deletes a video, will it take 3 months for that to be reflected on this wikipedia video list... Deanbb 22:24, 6 September 2007 (GMT)

I also don't like the "First Aired" heading (we are talking YouTube here... on the computer), I would maybe prefer "Uploaded On". "First Aired" just seems rather cheesy and contrived. Deanbb 22:24, 6 September 2007 (GMT)

This entire Wiki page is very outdated and due to the censorship by certain people, cannot be kept up to date. The page would be better served if it simply provided a brief bio and links to Peter's website and YouTube channel and that's that. The following is directly from Peter with regards to this Wiki entry, this is not a paraphrase but a direct cut and paste from his email to me.

"People keep reminding me that I have a page on Wickapaedia so went there and find that it is very outdated. Is there a way to update it? e.g. I don't think that there is anything there about the Zimmers and my involvement." -PJO

The content of this Wiki, as it is about a private individual, should either be subject to his approval or written by someone such as myself with the ability to ensure that it is accurate.

Additionally, the location is incorrect, but then again, Peter does not wish his location to be known anyway so it should be removed outright. In fact, his last name was first leaked on this Wiki page, it was not something he gave anyone permission to leak to the world but so be it, it's out of the bag now. I believe Peter would appreciate it if the people in charge of Wikipedia would allow his designated representatives only to give the information that is appropriate. When dealing with a private individual there are certain rights that should not be violated, please respect Peter's rights in this matter. Any further inaccurate or inappropriate content on this Wiki page will be removed, by me, without delay and I will not listen to criticism, it is not your business to decide what is and what is not appropriate to release about a private individual on a website, nor is it anyone's right to print false information. I will continue to check this article for errors or inappropriate content and remove it, if you wish to complain about that, visit Peter's website and speak to him about it. No further argument or discussion is required or will be tolerated about this subject. Argent009 03:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, we don't do that here. First of all, even if you own Mr. Oakley in the wonderful land of IRL, that doesn't apply here. Secondly, the people in charge are not in charge of individual articles, such as this one. We have a policy on biographies of living persons but I don't see where it says we have to listen to a "designated representative" on what to put on a page like this - in fact, subjects of articles have traditionally been discouraged from editing their own articles, and I can see how that could be extended to discourage "designated agents" of article subjects from editing them as well. You are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material; however, it remains the "business" of the Wikipedia community (of which you are but one member) and the Wikimedia Foundation to "decide what is and what is not appropriate to release about a private individual" on Wikipedia. Furthermore, you are not in a position to state what "will be tolerated" here. Policy on Wikipedia is made by the Wikipedia community as a whole, in addition to core policies mandated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Not by you. You are subject to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:3RR, and every other policy on this wiki. The same as everybody else. For the purposes of this wiki, you are no more of an authority on Mr. Oakley than I am. Have a nice day. - ∅ (∅), 20:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of what you say, I beg to differ, I am obviously more of an authority on the gentleman than you are as I speak to him every single day. How could you possibly be knowledgeable enough to say anything with any sort of validity moreso than myself? It doesn't matter what you or anyone else here thinks, this article is about a private individual, and I use that word in the very literal sense, in that he did not ask to be "famous" or achieve "celebrity" status, but rather, had this forcibly thrust upon him, due in large part to whoever initially created this Wiki entry releasing information which they had NO RIGHT to do, such as his last name and area of residence. I have repeatedly removed instances where they insist on placing those things in here but at this point, it's not really an issue, his last name is now well known. However, I did remove his city and if it appears on this page again, I will remove it again and continue to do so until or unless I am blocked, at which point I will continue to do it anyway, proxies and TOR make that easy enough. This is not vandalizing the page, it is keeping it within the boundaries of the wishes of the person whom it is written about. If you cannot manage to keep it within those boundaries it will be my duty to suggest to Peter that he have his attorney file suit against this website, which is his right and as I must point out, others have been successful at doing in the past. The only alternative you have is to continue to allow me, at Peter's discretion, to ensure that this entry remains proper. If this continues to be a problem for you I suggest you cease viewing or editing the entry. If you are someone in an administrative capacity with Wikipedia, contact me via e-mail and I will be glad to discuss this with you further either via email or by telephone. I have nothing to hide and less to worry about. On a side note, due to the fact that the list of Peter's videos was so incomplete and outdated, I have removed it from this entry, since anyone who wishes to view all of Peter's content can do so either on YouTube or, should they wish to view everything he has that is available, they can visit his official website. I do remember there was some question as to the validity of that website as well... Do we still have an issue with that? If so, you can remove this article now, his website is the ONLY authorized place on the internet outside of the content he places on YouTube for information about Geriatric1927. That means that this Wikipedia entry is NOT authorized or in any way official and ALL content in this entry is suspect. I realize that this is the very nature of Wikipedia, that all data on it is "user submitted" but I also believed that said data was supposed to, at least, be properly researched and was subject to verification. As it stands now, this entry can only be verified or researched by someone in personal contact with Geriatric1927 and that means me. I urge you to cease belaboring the points about the policies of Wikipedia, which have no weight here and consider the policies of law, which apply everywhere. In this case, the laws of the United Kingdom. Peter has the right to say that no, you may not release certain information about him, as a private citizen of the UK and you have NO right to disagree. These rights supersede any policies of a website such as Wikipedia.
Sorry, the policies of Wikipedia do apply here, since this happens to be Wikipedia. The laws of England, however, do not apply here, as the English Wikipedia is hosted in the state of Florida, which ceased to be governed under British laws upon its transfer to the Spanish in 1784. Said laws do however apply to the BBC, which nonetheless chose to publish Mr. Oakley's last name and home town. We consider this a reliable source and have therefore included the information in this article. Have a nice day. - ∅ (∅), 03:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Having said that big mouthful, I hope you will simply respect Peters wishes and stop this nonsense, both he and I use Wikipedia and find it to be a very helpful tool and I'm sure neither of us wants to get involved in anything as pathetic as legal battles over this issue. So simply allow me to make the corrections and additions to his page here and ensure that they meet with his approval. Otherwise, this could go on for a long time and in the end you can't win this. A quick note here, I see that as I was writing this, someone felt it was appropriate to throw Peter's city back into the article, I have removed it AT THE THE DIRECT REQUEST OF PETER OAKLEY, If it is put back into the article I will remove it again and again until such time as you grow tired of putting it in. If need be, I will write a script which will edit this page repeatedly, changing my IP address if necessary, and run it on a separate machine where it will continue to keep this page within Peter's demands. DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR ENOUGH YET?Argent009 16:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
One last point here before I leave the site for the day... I have asked Peter to make a video in which he tells you, himself, on camera, that he does NOT WISH you to publish his city and that I am, in fact, the ONLY PERSON authorized to publish ANYTHING about him on the internet other than himself. Anything else found online is unauthorized and may be challenged, in this case, specifically relating to Wikipedia. Therefor, when this video is made public, you will have your marching orders. I will ensure that this video is seen by the administrators of Wikipedia. Argent009 16:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well he sounds like he means serious business.--Memoryisawful 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
At this point it's clear that I'm not dealing with anyone associated with Wikipedia, but rather, a bunch of fucking trolls. Goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argent009 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Please, no personal attacks. They hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.--Memoryisawful 06:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For Your Information (Re: Sources of information) from Wikipedia itself

"The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings. It can refer to 1) the piece of work that is being cited, 2) the creator of the work (the author or artist), and 3) the publisher or location where it is to be found (a website, book, album or painting). All three can affect the reliability of the work. Portions of this page use "source" exclusively in the first sense for the sake of clarity, but that does not limit the scope of this guideline.
A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology. Authors may be reliable outside their primary field if recognized as having expertise in a secondary area of study. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."

Argent009 16:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6178644.stm - ∅ (∅), 16:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someone add a picture

It would be really appreciated if someone added a picture of Peter. It would be nice to add to his wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtyharry1994 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)