This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In "The Angry Island" he claims that his grandfather was Indian. Should the article mention this and add him to the catagories of "English people of Indian descent" and the like? Also, why is he called a Scotsman. He may have been born in Edinburgh, but the articles on both his parents simple refer to them as English, and mentions they were both born and raised in England. Whats his claim to Scottish descent, other than happening to be born there and his general loathing for the idea of being considered English?
Why was this change by JohnBull removed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=A._A._Gill&diff=66546730&oldid=66432139 --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:82.195.186.220 10:54, July 31, 2006.
He also offered many Irish people by impling in an article that the IRA has strong links with the Irish Army!!! What a crank
I have removed the descripion of his comments as "provocative and acerbic" and changed them to "racist". It is hard to describe his comments on the Welsh as being anything other than racist. If he said this about people of African descent, or Asians, he would quite rightly be called racist. There is no excuse for an encyclopedia condoning comments like these with the words "provocative and acerbic", which are tacitly complimentary.
Either the comments should be removed, or the encyclopedia should not take its current positive position on them. Does Bernard Manning's entry refer to his "witty and amusing" comments about black people and jews?
are the welsh a "race", strictly speaking?
198.147.19.2 ( talk) 14:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem very balanced. I don't think Mr. Gill is hated by the public at large, and this article seems to imply that he is some kind of fascist rather than perhaps a tongue-in-cheek humourist.
I don't really agree. The article doesn't suggest or imply that he's hated by the public. I've removed the bit about Branson calling him a 'prick', because it seems totally irrelevant. Personally I think Gill is absolutely brilliant, and if there is evidence of any acclaim (awards, praising quotes from others) then it should definitely be included. The quotation section is a bit quote-heavy I think, but since he's known and appreciated for his use of language rather than any opinions he might be thought to hold, this seems justified. Maybe, there should be less of his satirical take on individual nationalities and more from his restaurant or tv criticism. What do you think? Either way, I don't really see the need for a neutrality tag here. SamuelSpade79 18:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
if you didn't know of his work, he might come across as a nasty bigot from reading the quotes in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.164.67 ( talk) 23:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It is true that there is something odd about someone known primarily for being one of the UKs leading food and television critics, being exclusively represented by his satirical take on various nationalities. What do you suggest? Either the quotes could be removed or they could be slimmed down and others included as well. I think that some should stay at least, since they do exemplify his style of writing. SamuelSpade79 ( talk) 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 19:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Read the article. There is no context for the quote, and in the context of the article, he doesn't seem to be advocating hate of the Welsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedarxide ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I have read the article. It is impossible to conclude that he is advocating anything else. Substitute "black" or "asian" for Welsh and see what it sounds like. If you choose to revert then please explain how you do not construe these comments as racist. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Delboy666 (
talk •
contribs) 14:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you capable of actually defending your point? The "toast" in question is in reference to a much later event than the date of the quotation in question. The article linked to recounts things that Gill said earlier. If Stalin had said he quite liked Gelfilte fish would that mean that he wasn't really an anti-semite? The quotation stands by itself and is part of a consistent pattern of racism on the part of Gill.
If you revert again then I would appreciate your comments being less oblique than "headline says it all". If you are not prepared to defend your actions then please don't revert again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I have added footnotes to BBC news in which he is described by governmental representatives as racist. Unless you have some more credible evidence that he is not racist, then please stop reverting my changes with no explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The CPS did NOT say he wasn't racist. They declined to prosecute, which is a different thing entirely. Most racists are never prosecuted (see Jade Goody for the most well known example).
The Welsh Assembly says he was racist. Please find some body of similar standing who says he is NOT racist if you choose to revert. I have clarified the text to incorporate your viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 ( talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I approve of the current edit Thedarxide ( talk) 17:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have tagged this article for a neutrality check, specifically if the many quotes (since removed, see the history) attributed him make this a balanced article, or a hit piece. One Night In Hackney 303 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Material in a biography must always be referenced from reliable sources, particularly negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.
The section seems to be cherry picking quotations and making an implied assumption that AA Gill is a racist based on these quotations, and I have removed it pending discussion. One Night In Hackney 303 22:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The quotations have been in there for months, and were described as witty and amusing comments he had made. It is only now you care about them, because I added some stuff about the reaction to them. You are fine with people calling welsh people "ugly trolls", but not OK with Welsh people pointing out how offensive it is. I have reverted. I did not add these quotes. They all contain reliable citations (BBC etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
These quotes have been there for months. Do not delete until there is consensus.
There is no need for a neutrality tag on this page and i'm removed it again. If somebody wishes to reinsert it, can they please provide a justification for doing so? SamuelSpade79 ( talk) 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe OneNightinHackney can explain how the article as it stands can possibly be considered less than neutral. The quotations have been removed and there is nothing any vaguely imbalanced about it. What could 'convince' I wonder? 144.173.6.75 ( talk) 12:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, i'm very curious. So, without any rocket-science cracks, can ONIHack explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.227.121 ( talk) 12:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
RFCbio | section=RFC: Inclusion of controversial published statements is in dispute!! reason=Should AA Gill's published controversial statements be excluded from this article? Uninvolved editors are invited to please comment. !! time=10:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(RFC tag removed Daicaregos ( talk) 10:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC))
Should AA Gill's published controversial statements be excluded from this article? Uninvolved editors are invited to comment.
Mr Gill's name has been mentioned many times (in conversation, letters pages, message boards and newspaper articles). Usually as a form of shorthand for someone who has been able to state racist views without having to face the consequences of their actions. I'd heard some of the things that had been attributed to him and found it hard to believe. Firstly, that anyone would hold such hateful views, let alone put them in print. Second, that any newspaper would publish them. And last, that having written those awful things, no charges were brought against him. I decided to see for myself if these allegation were true by seeing if there was a Wikipedia article on him. Well, there is, and there isn't. There is an article on the person, but apparently, "His essays are known for their humour and satirical content." Well, not by any of the people who've spoken to me, they're not. He's known for a completely different reason. I've read this talk page and I am at a loss to know why the article has been sanitised and why none of Mr Gills controversial statements (for which he has become famous) have been allowed to remain on the article - despite the last comment in this discussion, implying that the article may not be balanced. I note that yet another attempt to create some balance in this article was reverted only this morning, with the edit summary 'see talk'. As far as I can see there hasn't been any talk for nearly five months. I'd be interested to hear your views. Yours,
Daicaregos (
talk) 22:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
How about "'His essays are known for their humour and satirical content, but have caused offence in Wales [and elsewhere?]." Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
With regard the comment left on the talk page of the Guernsey article, I don't see that the passages are terribly relevant - Gill is a restaurant critic, not an historian. If an historian made comments to the effect that Channel Islanders could have put up more of a fight (and some have), that would be worthy of inclusion. As it is, the comments are hyperbolic and emotive, with little to back them up. In any case, the comments would be better placed in the article on the German Occupation of the Channel Islands. Mon Vier (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In answer to the original question. No, of course not. The Welsh comment, for example, is verifiable and noteworthy. It needs to be in there. 13:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcewan ( talk • contribs)
Here's a typical example of lack of neutrality. Read the Barber article. It's ironic and about trying to like Gill. It isn't (especially for Barber) unduly negative. Wikipedia is all too frequently used to settle scores. Perhaps it is time (with the current Twitter issues in mind) to start discussion at a higher level the whole issue of anonymity and Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavelboy ( talk • contribs) 10:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Can someone provide a citation for the welsh being a different "race" my parents are welsh, I was unaware of being a different race. Don't get me wrong I think he's a an idiot for his Welsh comments, but calling it racist when it's xenophobia helps no one. 77.98.164.98 ( talk) 13:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
hasn't answered the question above. I too am troubled by an anti-welsh sentiment being included in the knee-jerk catch-all "racism". 198.147.19.2 ( talk) 15:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see anything controversial about Michael Palin's observation or AAG's review of Morrisey's book, which won Hatchet Job of the Year which is a British journalism award given annually since 2012 to "the writer of the angriest, funniest, most trenchant book review of the past twelve months".. which is a positive not a negative. For it to be a controversy it has to be a two sided argument. Greglocock ( talk) 07:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 ( talk) 05:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Does it not follow that if one had a "first" wife then there must have been at least a second one?
So the second sentence "They later divorced" must be obvious, and is therefore pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.142.0 ( talk) 20:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
What kind of cancer(s) did he have? And did he smoke??? (I have seen a photo of him with a cigarette in his hand). How much did he smoke? Were the cancer(s) possibly related to his smoking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Stephen: I contacted the photographer who took this photo, which has still "all rights reserved". I am still awaiting his response. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, I contacted other photographers and then asked those at Commons about recruiting more photographers. Pinging Marchjuly, with whom I discussed at File talk:A. A. Gill BBC 2012.jpg. George Ho ( talk) 10:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Can't use
this photo; the uploader via email told me that he did not create this photo. --
George Ho (
talk) 10:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on A. A. Gill. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Philafrenzy. You uploaded File:A. A. Gill.jpg months ago. I appreciate your efforts to visually identify this person. However, the image may have commercial interests, which prevents it from meeting WP:NFCC#2 ("respect for commercial opportunities"). The "Use the image" option from the National Portrait Gallery website reveals that the image's only license is "Professional licence", which requires a purchase and registered account on behalf of one's own organization. Also, Iconic Images probably owns copyright of the image, even when Terry O'Neill (the photographer) created the photo, and Iconic Images requires permission to use the photo. Besides the image, do you know any other image that displays the person accurately
BTW, I uploaded one image previously, but then I removed it to be consistent with the decision on another image at Wikipedia:Deletion review George Ho ( talk) 10:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
db-g7}}
there if you want to request deletion.
George Ho (
talk) 11:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In "The Angry Island" he claims that his grandfather was Indian. Should the article mention this and add him to the catagories of "English people of Indian descent" and the like? Also, why is he called a Scotsman. He may have been born in Edinburgh, but the articles on both his parents simple refer to them as English, and mentions they were both born and raised in England. Whats his claim to Scottish descent, other than happening to be born there and his general loathing for the idea of being considered English?
Why was this change by JohnBull removed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=A._A._Gill&diff=66546730&oldid=66432139 --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:82.195.186.220 10:54, July 31, 2006.
He also offered many Irish people by impling in an article that the IRA has strong links with the Irish Army!!! What a crank
I have removed the descripion of his comments as "provocative and acerbic" and changed them to "racist". It is hard to describe his comments on the Welsh as being anything other than racist. If he said this about people of African descent, or Asians, he would quite rightly be called racist. There is no excuse for an encyclopedia condoning comments like these with the words "provocative and acerbic", which are tacitly complimentary.
Either the comments should be removed, or the encyclopedia should not take its current positive position on them. Does Bernard Manning's entry refer to his "witty and amusing" comments about black people and jews?
are the welsh a "race", strictly speaking?
198.147.19.2 ( talk) 14:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem very balanced. I don't think Mr. Gill is hated by the public at large, and this article seems to imply that he is some kind of fascist rather than perhaps a tongue-in-cheek humourist.
I don't really agree. The article doesn't suggest or imply that he's hated by the public. I've removed the bit about Branson calling him a 'prick', because it seems totally irrelevant. Personally I think Gill is absolutely brilliant, and if there is evidence of any acclaim (awards, praising quotes from others) then it should definitely be included. The quotation section is a bit quote-heavy I think, but since he's known and appreciated for his use of language rather than any opinions he might be thought to hold, this seems justified. Maybe, there should be less of his satirical take on individual nationalities and more from his restaurant or tv criticism. What do you think? Either way, I don't really see the need for a neutrality tag here. SamuelSpade79 18:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
if you didn't know of his work, he might come across as a nasty bigot from reading the quotes in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.164.67 ( talk) 23:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It is true that there is something odd about someone known primarily for being one of the UKs leading food and television critics, being exclusively represented by his satirical take on various nationalities. What do you suggest? Either the quotes could be removed or they could be slimmed down and others included as well. I think that some should stay at least, since they do exemplify his style of writing. SamuelSpade79 ( talk) 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC) 19:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Read the article. There is no context for the quote, and in the context of the article, he doesn't seem to be advocating hate of the Welsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedarxide ( talk • contribs) 09:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I have read the article. It is impossible to conclude that he is advocating anything else. Substitute "black" or "asian" for Welsh and see what it sounds like. If you choose to revert then please explain how you do not construe these comments as racist. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Delboy666 (
talk •
contribs) 14:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you capable of actually defending your point? The "toast" in question is in reference to a much later event than the date of the quotation in question. The article linked to recounts things that Gill said earlier. If Stalin had said he quite liked Gelfilte fish would that mean that he wasn't really an anti-semite? The quotation stands by itself and is part of a consistent pattern of racism on the part of Gill.
If you revert again then I would appreciate your comments being less oblique than "headline says it all". If you are not prepared to defend your actions then please don't revert again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I have added footnotes to BBC news in which he is described by governmental representatives as racist. Unless you have some more credible evidence that he is not racist, then please stop reverting my changes with no explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The CPS did NOT say he wasn't racist. They declined to prosecute, which is a different thing entirely. Most racists are never prosecuted (see Jade Goody for the most well known example).
The Welsh Assembly says he was racist. Please find some body of similar standing who says he is NOT racist if you choose to revert. I have clarified the text to incorporate your viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 ( talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I approve of the current edit Thedarxide ( talk) 17:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 ( talk • contribs) 18:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have tagged this article for a neutrality check, specifically if the many quotes (since removed, see the history) attributed him make this a balanced article, or a hit piece. One Night In Hackney 303 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Material in a biography must always be referenced from reliable sources, particularly negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.
The section seems to be cherry picking quotations and making an implied assumption that AA Gill is a racist based on these quotations, and I have removed it pending discussion. One Night In Hackney 303 22:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The quotations have been in there for months, and were described as witty and amusing comments he had made. It is only now you care about them, because I added some stuff about the reaction to them. You are fine with people calling welsh people "ugly trolls", but not OK with Welsh people pointing out how offensive it is. I have reverted. I did not add these quotes. They all contain reliable citations (BBC etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy666 ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
These quotes have been there for months. Do not delete until there is consensus.
There is no need for a neutrality tag on this page and i'm removed it again. If somebody wishes to reinsert it, can they please provide a justification for doing so? SamuelSpade79 ( talk) 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe OneNightinHackney can explain how the article as it stands can possibly be considered less than neutral. The quotations have been removed and there is nothing any vaguely imbalanced about it. What could 'convince' I wonder? 144.173.6.75 ( talk) 12:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, i'm very curious. So, without any rocket-science cracks, can ONIHack explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.227.121 ( talk) 12:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
RFCbio | section=RFC: Inclusion of controversial published statements is in dispute!! reason=Should AA Gill's published controversial statements be excluded from this article? Uninvolved editors are invited to please comment. !! time=10:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(RFC tag removed Daicaregos ( talk) 10:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC))
Should AA Gill's published controversial statements be excluded from this article? Uninvolved editors are invited to comment.
Mr Gill's name has been mentioned many times (in conversation, letters pages, message boards and newspaper articles). Usually as a form of shorthand for someone who has been able to state racist views without having to face the consequences of their actions. I'd heard some of the things that had been attributed to him and found it hard to believe. Firstly, that anyone would hold such hateful views, let alone put them in print. Second, that any newspaper would publish them. And last, that having written those awful things, no charges were brought against him. I decided to see for myself if these allegation were true by seeing if there was a Wikipedia article on him. Well, there is, and there isn't. There is an article on the person, but apparently, "His essays are known for their humour and satirical content." Well, not by any of the people who've spoken to me, they're not. He's known for a completely different reason. I've read this talk page and I am at a loss to know why the article has been sanitised and why none of Mr Gills controversial statements (for which he has become famous) have been allowed to remain on the article - despite the last comment in this discussion, implying that the article may not be balanced. I note that yet another attempt to create some balance in this article was reverted only this morning, with the edit summary 'see talk'. As far as I can see there hasn't been any talk for nearly five months. I'd be interested to hear your views. Yours,
Daicaregos (
talk) 22:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
How about "'His essays are known for their humour and satirical content, but have caused offence in Wales [and elsewhere?]." Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
With regard the comment left on the talk page of the Guernsey article, I don't see that the passages are terribly relevant - Gill is a restaurant critic, not an historian. If an historian made comments to the effect that Channel Islanders could have put up more of a fight (and some have), that would be worthy of inclusion. As it is, the comments are hyperbolic and emotive, with little to back them up. In any case, the comments would be better placed in the article on the German Occupation of the Channel Islands. Mon Vier (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In answer to the original question. No, of course not. The Welsh comment, for example, is verifiable and noteworthy. It needs to be in there. 13:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcewan ( talk • contribs)
Here's a typical example of lack of neutrality. Read the Barber article. It's ironic and about trying to like Gill. It isn't (especially for Barber) unduly negative. Wikipedia is all too frequently used to settle scores. Perhaps it is time (with the current Twitter issues in mind) to start discussion at a higher level the whole issue of anonymity and Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavelboy ( talk • contribs) 10:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Can someone provide a citation for the welsh being a different "race" my parents are welsh, I was unaware of being a different race. Don't get me wrong I think he's a an idiot for his Welsh comments, but calling it racist when it's xenophobia helps no one. 77.98.164.98 ( talk) 13:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
hasn't answered the question above. I too am troubled by an anti-welsh sentiment being included in the knee-jerk catch-all "racism". 198.147.19.2 ( talk) 15:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see anything controversial about Michael Palin's observation or AAG's review of Morrisey's book, which won Hatchet Job of the Year which is a British journalism award given annually since 2012 to "the writer of the angriest, funniest, most trenchant book review of the past twelve months".. which is a positive not a negative. For it to be a controversy it has to be a two sided argument. Greglocock ( talk) 07:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 ( talk) 05:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Does it not follow that if one had a "first" wife then there must have been at least a second one?
So the second sentence "They later divorced" must be obvious, and is therefore pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.142.0 ( talk) 20:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
What kind of cancer(s) did he have? And did he smoke??? (I have seen a photo of him with a cigarette in his hand). How much did he smoke? Were the cancer(s) possibly related to his smoking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Stephen: I contacted the photographer who took this photo, which has still "all rights reserved". I am still awaiting his response. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, I contacted other photographers and then asked those at Commons about recruiting more photographers. Pinging Marchjuly, with whom I discussed at File talk:A. A. Gill BBC 2012.jpg. George Ho ( talk) 10:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Can't use
this photo; the uploader via email told me that he did not create this photo. --
George Ho (
talk) 10:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on A. A. Gill. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Philafrenzy. You uploaded File:A. A. Gill.jpg months ago. I appreciate your efforts to visually identify this person. However, the image may have commercial interests, which prevents it from meeting WP:NFCC#2 ("respect for commercial opportunities"). The "Use the image" option from the National Portrait Gallery website reveals that the image's only license is "Professional licence", which requires a purchase and registered account on behalf of one's own organization. Also, Iconic Images probably owns copyright of the image, even when Terry O'Neill (the photographer) created the photo, and Iconic Images requires permission to use the photo. Besides the image, do you know any other image that displays the person accurately
BTW, I uploaded one image previously, but then I removed it to be consistent with the decision on another image at Wikipedia:Deletion review George Ho ( talk) 10:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
db-g7}}
there if you want to request deletion.
George Ho (
talk) 11:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)