User talk:Icairns/archive/archive 07

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can[edit]

The article Braveheart, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.

userpage categories[edit]

hi;

i don't really care what the addressing is, but i do need some ways of categorizing my stuff to keep it sorted. i had a look thru the links you sent & didn't find any clear instructions for how to do so.

i'm open to suggestions here?

Lx 121 (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. There are several precedents where categories such as yours as officially deleted (i.e. there's forum for discussing categories). I'd suggest deleting and recreating a new category with the word Wikipedians at the start, e.g. "Wikipedians called Lx 121" or some such. This puts it firmly into the class of Wikipedian users, which is usually sufficient to show that you have taken the trouble. see WP:USERCAT. Ian Cairns (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

london article[edit]

I would like to know why you reverted my edits to the London article. I referenced the changes I made to an independant reliable source. You reverted it back, but only the text. It still links to my source which now contradicts what is being said in the article. (ITOMIC (talk))

This has been going on for a few days, and I'm getting a little tired of it. I have emailed a wikipedia beuacrat to help resolve this issue.

Firstly, please sign all contributions to my talk page. When a bot auto-signs your earlier contributions to my talk-page on _your_ behalf, then you come along and remove that auto-signature, it suggests that you are trying to remove your attribution from your comments.

Secondly, if this reversion has been going on for a few days, then it suggests that more than one person has been involved in rolling back your edits. You will note that I reverted your London edits _once_ and once only.

Thirdly, if you asked, I would have gladly explained my reversion. However, your tone above, and in previous edits to my talk page, is hectoring and unlikely to achieve anything

Fourthly, the edit I was reverting was the addition of the second equals sign in the URL. This looked to me as subtle vandalism - hence the revert. Checking the history, I note that you corrected the problem between this edit and my reversion - it could only have been seconds between all these.

Please note that I sign my response to you. Ian Cairns (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Ill sign my posts for now on. I don't use discussion pages often, so please forgive me.

No, it was not vadalism, and I appologise it appeared as so.. However I am getting tired of people rolling back my edits to incorrect information. Yes, my inital tone was out of fustration, thus why I edited it to a more passive approach after I calmed down, and I appologise for that as well. Regardless, one of the beaucrats has gotten back to me and agrees with my stance, so this issue, hopefully, has been resolved. Thank you for your time. ( ITOMIC (talk) )

Thanks[edit]

Hi, Ian. Thanks for your help at the WP:ANI vandalism site. I noticed a mess of warnings, but didn't check the dates and didn't realize it mattered. Live and learn. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RMS - Thanks for that. It was actually WP:AIV, but no matter.. Welcome to the world of timeslip... :-)) As a fully-fledged member of the mob and bucket brigade, I have to look out for these aspects.... Ian Cairns (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the category edits![edit]

I'd forgotten about those. Thanks! -moritheil^Talk 19:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - but I had to look them up as well !! :-)) Ian Cairns (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email received and published here[edit]

"Tonight, you’re all gonna be a part of a social experiment. Through the magic of hacking skills and steward powers, I’m ready right now to blow your minds sky high. Anyone attempts to block me or revert, you all get desysopped.

Each of you has a button to block another editor. At midnight, I desysop and block you all. If, however, one of you indefinitely blocks as many constructive editors as you can, I’ll let that admin keep their admin powers. So, who’s it gonna be? Wikipedia’s most-wanted scumbag collection or the sweet and innocent contributors? You choose. Oh, and you might wanna decide quickly because the other administrators may not be quite so noble. — The Joker

This e-mail was sent by user "William S. Saturn" on the English Wikipedia to user "Icairns". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents." —Preceding unsigned comment added by William S. Saturn (talk • contribs)

Eh? The names given were as in the email - I cannot confirm the origin of the email. Ian Cairns (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies[edit]

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a PhD student from the University of Glasgow, UK and I am conducting a project entitled: “Producing encyclopaedias for the 21st century: Covering scientific uncertainties and controversies in global warming and climate change”. I am inviting you, as major contributor of Wikipedia articles listed under the Category: Global Warming and Category: Climate Change, to share your view and experience.

Participation in this study consists mostly of filling a one-page survey questionnaire, to be returned by email by 30 June 2009. Later, if you want, you could also participate in the follow-up 30 min phone/Skype interview which will occur in September-December 2009.

If you are interested in participating, just reply to this email providing your username and the email address you want the questionnaire to be sent to. In fact, you can also download the questionnaire from my student webpage (see below).

I thank you in advance and I am looking forward to hearing from you,

Best,

(Wikipedia Username: Encyclopaedia21)

Hello Encyclopaedia21, Thanks for your email. I'm afraid that I have been mostly copyediting the global warming articles and have little specialist knowledge in this area. I'm also slightly concerned by having to disclose my email address to you - although I accept your good faith. As a result, I wish to politely decline to participate. With best wishes for your research, Ian Cairns (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Icairns. No problem at all. I have not foreseen this issue of anonymity before actually starting the project but I totally understand it. And yes, copyediting articles may have relatively limited impact on how a point is presented... though it may add into clarity. Anyway, thanks for coming back to me. Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Username[edit]

You recently identified an unacceptable user name, I found another (no vandalism yet) that you might want to take care of. – Zntrip 22:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I banned it since it had turned up on a noticeboard (WP:AIV). It would be best if you reported this name to one of the boards, e.g. WP:UAA. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Joseph Priestley lead image alignment[edit]

A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

autocatalytic[edit]

Hello, just a question: Why did you add a hyphen to "auto-catalytic" in Tropospheric_ozone_depletion_events? The main wikipedia article Autocatalysis uses autocatalytic without the hyphen. User:RolfSander —Preceding undated comment added 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for that. It came up as a spelling mistake in my web browser. Ian Cairns (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I changed it back to autocatalytic and also added a link to Autocatalysis now. RolfSander (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBC World News categories[edit]

Hello, I already put both categories for propose speedy renaming to BBC World News and one user refuse to speedy rename. And I already put both categories to it's regular CfD. And you are invited to the categories for discussion. And the discussion is about changing it's rename from BBC World to BBC World News in 2008. If you want to participate in the categories for discussion you are welcome to talk on the propose categories. I will see you at the categories for discussion. Steam5 (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kendrick Old Girls Association[edit]

A tag has been placed on Kendrick Old Girls Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Abductive (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming:Category:Alumni of the Hochschule für Musik "Hanns Eisler"[edit]

Sorry to use your personal talk, but I can't find the discussion about this renaming nomination. I think it is not neccesary to add "Berlin", since there's only one Hochschule für Musik "Hanns Eisler". In Germany there're hochschules that have no name (ie. Hochschule für Musik, Munchen), and in that case it is neccesary to specify the city. The name of the city is not neccesary here, as it is not neccesary with "The Juilliard School" ("Category:Alumni of the Juilliard School, NY"?) or "The Royal Academy of Music" ("Category:Alumni of the Royal Academy of Music, London"?). Thank you. --Karljoos (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Atlantic Records[edit]

How the heck is this an attack? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The early version contained a reference to 'distrust' by Atlantic Records. This has now been edited out by other contributors - but after my suggestion of a CFD. Ian Cairns (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ICL 7500[edit]

I know extremely little about it beyond having seen one and having seen the programmer's guide (though only for the ICAB-02 spec), my own background having been far more on IBM kit. Is this an area that warrants expanding beyond the single mention on the template? ClickRick (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ClickRick - Thanks for that. I remember the 7502 and 7503 but not 7561 (well, not yet.. it may come to mind later). These were basically terminal controllers - but were clever enough to do field validation, which could be set / instructed by the mainframe. Please feel free to add / expand as you wish. I'm just filling out this area - as per my early career. Thanks again, Ian Cairns (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was familiar, from the programmer's guide, with the field validation capabilities of the terminal, but was unaware of the extent of the "range". If someone else sees fit to create an article and links it from the navbox then I'll notice it and will expand with what information I have, though I have nothing from secondary sources with which to make such a start myself. I notice there is nothing indexed in the Science Museum Library's ICL archive on the subject, though that archive might be a fruitful source for other articles in the ICL area. ClickRick (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi both of you, I was just looking to see who was interested in the ICL stuff and saw this. I remember those old terminals, I don't suppose they are worth too much of a mention now. I wrote a program once to generate a cartoon on them, The commands were quite slow and one could send 4K bytes to a terminal in one message so one could get about 5 seconds of animation. The program let one edit a picture for successive frames and it would generate a good minimal sequence of commands to just draw the actual changes between frames. My best one was a big foot stomping down in Monty Python's Flying Circus on a van carrying IDMS between the Bracknell and Kidsgrove sites when the project was moved. Dmcq (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Talk:7500 series - thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User page[edit]

If someone vandalizes your user page by incrementing the counter of the vandalism user box by one, do you leave it as is?--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting philosophical question... nay, a paradox!! Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen F. Roberts[edit]

Hi, I proposed the deletion of the article on Stephen F. Roberts. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. Thanks for letting me know. Ian Cairns (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monivong[edit]

Idef'd for creating an article about a company and removing the speedy tags? Don't you think that's a bit heavy handed? You blocked when no edits had been made after the final warning; I was actually declining the block on those grounds while you were indef'ing. "Vandal only" is penis type, not good-faith advertisers who simply don't understand how Wikipedia works. If you bite that hard, you never give them a chance to learn the ropes and become valued contributors. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. There were good warnings at :36, :44 and user's last edit at :55. I indef'd at :56 responding to an AIV report. Feel free to unblock, as you wish. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be pointless at this time, and the noob hasn't requested it. I am merely saying it is fairly clear this isn't willful vandalism like the SUCK MY BALLS kind, and indef is very bitey and final. Suggest you at least attempt to give someone a chance in the future; if they are this new and trying to create articles then a simple 24 hr/36 hr/ 72/hr progression is more appropriate. One puppy's opinion; feel free to continue stomping on the little noobs if that is where your heart leads you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Campbell[edit]

Hi ! I'm writing the Malcolm Campbell's Biography for it.wiki. I search the name of Campbell's first wife. The name Marjorie D. Knott is insert by you [1], but i don't find this name everywhere in internet. Where you find the name ? I wont to insert referencs in my voice. Thanks, and excuse me for my bad english. Bye !--151.20.237.226 (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ? Thanks for your message. The article Malcolm Campbell has a link to [2], where it gives to understand that Malcolm was married shortly after 1912. Using www.freebmd.org.uk and knowing that Chislehurst is in the Bromley district of Kent (now London), it is easy to show:

Births Jun 1885 (>99%)

Campbell, Malcolm born at Bromley 2a 409

Marriages Sep 1913 (>99%)

Campbell, Malcolm married Knott at Bromley 2a 1239

Knott, Marjorie D married Campbell at Bromley 2a 1239

from where I got my references (NB: The "MAR 1885" is the March quarter year, and could be any one of Jan, Feb, Mar 1885. "SEP 1913" is the September quarter and implies any one of Jul, Aug, Sep 1913). However, I did not include the name in the article without other corroborative text - otherwise it could have been accused of being original research. Hope that helps, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended the Malcolm Campbell article accordingly. Ian Cairns (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ! Thanks for link...! But...I speaked whit a it.wiki's admin that usually help me. The site is free, ma the registration is necessary. Another, we think that the Malcolm Campbell in the site is this Malcolm Campbell, but is a deduction. Pratically, is not a obvious information, but is necessary an interpretation... I'm sorry...Howevere, thanks a lot ! Bye !--151.20.237.226 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The FreeBMD site is free and no registration is necessary to use it. It contains a substantial proportion of the historical Births, Marriages and Deaths recorded in the UK since 1837. This is _the_ Malcolm Campbell. The place of birth, place of marriage match. The marriage details match data given by the websites referred by the article. Ciao! Ian Cairns (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Former Colleges of the University of Oxford[edit]

You are most welcome. Ian Cairns (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:PHANTAS.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:PHANTAS.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. No problem. Ian Cairns (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia policies[edit]

I am very confused by this category. Since 2006, it had been a redirect to Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines. A 5 July 2009 CfD decided to merge another category into this one, even though it was still a redirect at that time. On 17 July 2009 an editor blanked the page; on 22 July you "put it back" by adding some text to the page; then a few minutes later you reverted to the category redirect version, without explanation. This is a populated category: why is it redirected to another category, especially in light of the recent CfD vote? I'm not accusing you of anything, just trying to understand what should be done. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Russ. This category turned up in uncategorised categories recently. I thought there was a simple rollback required - but when I looked, it was more complex - so I reverted myself. I agree that something needs to be done - but without further study, I'm leaving it alone for the moment. I also want to deal with Wikipedia Contents - but that one needs some discussion... So, no real answer to your question.. Sorry. Ian Cairns (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain[edit]

preferably with reference to a dictionary, what the word "latter", a comparative, can refer to in a list of >2 objects.

I'm waiting... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.11.170 (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian[edit]

The problem with lifetime, a template that was originally intended for fast adding categories by substing is that it hides DEFAULTSORT and categories, and creates in the longer term a number of problems. First people cannot see the categories, and especially the DEFAUTLSORT so they tend to re-add them. This happened on some thousands of articles. In some cases people add lifetime and leave on or more of the things it replaces. Here for example is the cycle has run its course and a second lifetime template has appeared - there are probably only a dozen articles left as extreme as that. Thirdly people miscount the | s so you get this sort of thing - or this. Or indeed spaces get between the pipes putting them in Category:Births. And {lifetime|1222||Blogs, Fred} will be a living person. Moreover it makes it hard for processes to work with defautlsort, synchronising with listas parameters from the talk page, to test for membership of categories by examining the source, causes pages to look uncategorized when they are categorized, and so forth.

However as a time saver it has been useful, for that reason there is {{ltm}} which is a subst only equivalent. Thus typing {{subst:ltm|1901|1999|Jones, John}} will give the same results as using lifetime, without hiding any information.

Best regards, Rich Farmbrough, 13:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

File source problem with File:Sirjohneliot.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Sirjohneliot.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NW (Talk) 14:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Binary prefixes[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Binary prefixes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. Cybercobra (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Law Enforcement Insignia[edit]

Your renaming nomination of Category:Law Enforcement Insignia wasn't completed so I have started it here. Your input would be useful. Tassedethe (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tasse, Thanks for the above. I'll look in at some stage. Rgrds, Ian Cairns (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Meetup[edit]

2009

Sunday, October 11, in St. Paul.
R.S.V.P. here.

Please share this with anyone who may be interested.

Jonathunder (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite - sadly last time I was in the USA was 1968... and not likely to get back any time soon... Ian Cairns (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for adding categories to the categories I start.--Karljoos (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I've been adding categs to hundreds of categs... Rgrds, Ian Cairns (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now for something completely different[edit]

I remember reading - circa 1992 - that the movement of stars relative to us is fast enough that some of the constellations were markedly different ten thousand years ago, and will be ten thousand years from now. I haven't run into the idea again and don't know if it's true, but it's at least feasible that this line was factually correct.

Not that your reversion wasn't right, I just figured you might get a laugh of the idea of the line being accidentally true. --Kiz o r 17:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, I was imagining a caveman running between his astronomical telescope and recording his results on his cave wall painting... Ian Cairns (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for block of IP 209.175.69.228[edit]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For protecting Murder from vandalism by anonymous vandals. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you most kindly. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

First time I've dealt with a vandal that intent on disruption. Let alone vandalizing immediately a after 6 month block. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 10:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. We have to reduce vandalism. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Revision[edit]

Is there a reason you reverted my edit?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banana99 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Banana99, Please sign ("~~~~") your contributions to my or anyone else's talk pages. Although I think I remembered the incident that you reported, the follow-up throwaway comment (2nd sentence) seemed to be unnecessary, and subtle vandalism. In addition, there was no edit summary supplied, which often happens with vandalism. As such, I reversed the edit. If you wish to re-insert the first sentence, please add a reliable newsworthy source for this information using the ref or cite construct. You can see type of construct in the Tony Blair section on Personal health, which I added. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. I thought it was a nice bit of trivia witnessed first hand, but it's your game I suppose :shrug: [citation needed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banana99 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we're creating an encyclopedia here... It's not my game, as much as it's not your game. We are both playing by the Wiki rules... Ian Cairns (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand that and there I was contributing to this great project. You'll forgive me as a seldom and occasional contributer if I'm not completely au fait with the rules. May I ask how much content is verifiable by a "reliable newsworthy source" (round to the nearest percentage point if you like)? I suspect that it is close to bugger all [citation needed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banana99 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to justify it then Banana99 (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For justification, I refer you to the answer I gave previously. On another tack, I tried googling for 'tony blair' and 'basketball' and couldn't identify any reference to this incident. Can you prove it happened? Which newspaper reported it? If so, please re-insert your sentence with your reference. However, please no encyclopaedic commentary. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would an affidavit help?. I wonder why I bother Banana99 (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No comment? Banana99 (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Banana99 - sorry, I thought we had talked it out. (A lot has happened in the last month..) If you are not familiar with them already, then please read WP:OR and WP:SOURCES. The fact that you personally witnessed something and are prepared to provide an affidavit, yet it was not reported reputably elsewhere, counts for nothing under Wiki rules. If you can provide a reputable 3rd party source that confirms your assertion, then fine - go ahead and quote / re-insert it.

What has happened here is that you made an assertion without an edit summary. I was unable to confirm this assertion using readily-available public sources, and suggested that this might have been or appeared to be subtle vandalism - this does happen.. so I reverted. I have politely asked you to provide a 3rd party source if you wish to re-insert the claim / fact. Straight-forward and within the remit of WP:OR and WP:SOURCES. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your username[edit]

Is it about a cairn terrier?Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 21:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Accdude92, Errr.... no. Nor is it to do with stones... It took me over 30 years of research to find out where it came from... but now I'm fairly certain... Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to St simons community church[edit]

Hello Ian. I think this edit, which you reverted, was almost certainly a new user with poor understanding of Wikipedia and imperfect spelling trying to add a {{hangon}} template to their article. Please don't think I'm intending to tell you off or anything - I just thought you might be interested and it's perhaps the sort of thing to watch out for in future. Best, Olaf Davis (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Olaf - Please note I did consider that the user was inept, and as a result my reversion carried no warning. However, other Wiki editors went so far as to identify the user's editing as vandalism - which I'm tempted to suggest was likely. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the edits described on their talk page as vandalism I disagree: at least two of them look like good-faith edits and the third is not obviously vandalism to me. Anyway, I've declined the speedy tag they were attempting to dispute so it's fairly moot now. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erromintxela[edit]

Hi Ian. I've - for now - reverted you. As Erromintxela is a Basque Romani mixed language (Basque being a language isolate and Kalderash Romani Indic), I don't see how this page falls under variants of spanish. On the other hand, Erromintxela seems to be the only listing in the Language contact in Spain and I think the category was inherited from when I started to expand the page, so if you're unhappy about that category in general, we can talk about that. Some other languages would probably qualify for language contact in Spain, thinking of Sephardic, Andalusian Arabic, Mozarabic language and so on, if you're worried about Erromintxela being the only language there. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Akerbeltz - Thanks for that. The phrase 'language contacts in spain' or similar - has no meaning in English - what do you intend here? I tried to use the closest category I understood to this non-existent phrase. I wouldn't have a problem with this construct - _provided_ the category name was intelligible. 21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well... it does, in a linguistic sense. Language contact is a technical term so LC in Spain refers to any such events in Spain. I hasten to add that I neither created not added that category to the page and that I'd be quite happy with Category:Language contact. Language contact in Spain is an odd category ([3]), it's the only of its kind and I'm not sure why it exists. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Blakops262[edit]

Hi. In regards to the above user, I do not see any edits that justified a block being issued without prior warnings. 90% of the edits made from this account appear to be tests (some edits were even to the sandbox), or good faith attempts at improving an article. As such, I am willing to give this user a second chance and unblock their account, but first I would like to hear from you. Thoughts? Tiptoety ^talk 05:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just spotted this one as well, and my analysis matches Tiptoety. Do you have any evidence of other shenanigans (socking, block evasion, earlier accounts?) which do not show up in the contribs? Because I am inclined to see this as a new user trying out some stuff rather than the sort of thing that mandates an instablock. I myself blocked two accounts without warning today, but that was for blatantly obvious socking/disruption and I am just not seeing that here... --Jayron32 06:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to an AIV bot report - where the user had tried circa 20 times in about 5 mins to achieve a particular piece of vandalism. This was beyond my willingness to give him a second chance - and more like I wanted to prevent him from finding a way past the bot. Please come back to me if there is any problem with this - but you need to look further into this editor than you have done. Ian Cairns (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the bot's report in the user's talk page. Please review before unblocking. This is not 'messed up a little'... Ian Cairns (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the edits you blocked him for were those that were disallowed by the abuse filter here. It would be a good idea to next time mention this fact in either your block summary or on the users talk page. Tiptoety ^talk 00:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that next time. Ian Cairns (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI notice[edit]

Hi, your editing is being mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deleted_AIV_report. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Society[edit]

Perhaps you can help me better than Wikipedia or Google. I wish to contact the Socirty of the Friends of St. George. I became a member but moved since then an forgot to update the society. My name is Steve Clemens and thnak you in advance for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.148.2 (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Steve, I'm afraid that I do not have any contact details, but believe the Society maintains an office within the castle precincts. As such, I'd write to the Society c/o Windsor Castle, Windsor, Berkshire. It's likely to be forwarded - if this isn't correct. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggar Man, Thief[edit]

Just found this article which you recently modified; it should probably be merged into Tinker, Tailor under the "alternative version" section. 199.172.210.153 (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC) (don't leave messages on this IP talk page, they will not be received)[reply]

Thanks for that - I'll look further. Ian Cairns (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ip[edit]

Could you undo all recents edits of this ip [4]- all of them are vandalism. thanx Mathiasrex (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mathias. Thanks for your message. Those edits may be vandalism, but they weren't obvious to me. I notice that no-one has 'talked' to the anon yet - have you considered opening up a discussion to find out what is going on? At the least, if you are sure of the vandalism, then you could warn the anon, and maybe report him to WP:AIV ? I'll leave it to you. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:203.129.61.83[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your feedback on my recent request for an IP block, which you declined. You say the edits were not vandalism, and I respect your judgment - but it leaves me at a loss to know how to deal with the problem we just had, so I wonder if you could help me? The IP had repeatedly added a statement that Catholics are often referred to as "Rock Choppers", which is apparently a derogatory (and now rare) Australian term, and several other editors agreed that it was inappropriate for the Catholic Church article and had reverted it, but he kept re-reverting - there are many derogatory terms for Catholics (and people of most religions), but I don't think we want them all added to each main religious article, do we? Could you suggest how we should deal with cases like this when someone repeatedly adds the same thing, several others disagree with him, but and won't Talk in a calm and constructive manner, instead accusing those who disagree with him of persecuting him? Oscroft (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, please forget that. I've just realised I made a mistake in my last reversion, and it was an entirely separate addition that I reverted - I'd thought it had again included the re-reversion of the "Rock Chopper" thing - I guess a psychological effect of sitting waiting for him to "do it one more time". Sorry to have wasted your time. Oscroft (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oscroft - Apologies for my absence after the AIV. I thought there was much room for discussion. The anon had a reasonable point that he wanted to make (WP:AGF), and I thought it was worth discussing. It may be that his edits were being slightly disruptive, but I thought he was polite even if single-minded. I hope you were able to discuss and progress this issue. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, he did have a reasonable point (and that article does seem to have some highly partisan followers). I've offered an apology on User talk:203.129.61.83 and have struck my final warning. The anon hasn't been back since, but debate on Talk:Catholic Church seems to be getting a tad warm, so I'm going to back off now and leave them to it. Oscroft (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Icairns's Day![edit]

User:Icairns has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Icairns's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Icairns!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Service award update[edit]

Hello, Icairns! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system.

Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Icairns! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 943 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Dilly Braimoh - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Sultan bin Mohamed Al-Qasimi - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Florian Pilkington-Miksa - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dashbot. While I have edited these articles, I did not perform these edits. You need to speak to Erik9bot. Ian Cairns (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Vandal writes...[edit]

h1 th3r3 icairns. I ju5t w4nt3d t0 c0mm3n7 on h0w much I appr3ci4t3 al1 th4t y0u d0 f0r th3 W1k1p3d14 c0mmun1ty.Y0ur 3d1t1ng 1s s00 ub3r 1337 !! By the way, word is spelled "capitalizing," not "capitalising." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiax (talk • contribs) 20:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I am 1337-0 so I do not understand most of your contribution. However, I think you need to precede your statement with a US-centric warning. Ian Cairns (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of BA Econ Society[edit]

The article BA Econ Society has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cant find any google hits on books or news, own website is dead

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Codf1977 (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. If you review the edits, you will see that I am no advocate for this article. Ian Cairns (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Hi Icairns

The IP-address 74.254.87.126 have been doing vandalism again and I can see you were one of the last admins to block the address so I just wanted to point your attention in that direction. --Thomas (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thomas - My apologies for not replying here sooner. I did have a look. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

69.207.6.142[edit]

Might be an idea to block access to his talk page if he's going to post stuff like what I reverted... HalfShadow 22:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Halfshadow - Sadly, no. This needs reverting immediately - but unless we know it's a fixed IP address, this could be a new person. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk)

File permission problem with File:ChancellorFloellaBenjamin.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:ChancellorFloellaBenjamin.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Feydey - Please note that I have forwarded my explicit permissions to the email address provided. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Companies associated with ICL[edit]

CfD nomination of Category:ICL mainframe computers[edit]

CfD nomination of Category:ICL programming languages[edit]

Trooper James Howells[edit]

New user MAKMPM (talk · contribs) posted a question in the form of an article which read: "I am trying to find Trooper James Howells, QLR who is shown visiting... the grave of Michael Murphy who died on April 4, 1893. He served in the British Army and was awarded the Victoria Cross on January 4, 1860. If anyone knows how I could reach this gentleman, I would appreciate your help. I am trying to trace my family heritage and would like to see if we are related. My ancestors go back to Cahir Co., Tipperary Ireland. Thank you for your help." The photograph must be the one you uploaded to illustrate Michael Murphy (VC); I have told the user that I would ask you to reply on their talk page if you are able to help. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your quick intervention with User talk:213.83.78.71. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Still there... Ian Cairns (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long and short scales[edit]

discussion moved to article talk page. Ian Cairns (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:TeragX[edit]

I wish to appeal the block currently on my account. I understand why my account is blocked and would like to apologize for my actions. I was being very immature at the time, but since then I feel as though I have grown up. I honestly can't see why I found it fun to vandalize wikipedia, and all I would like to do now is add to the sites content as best I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:TeragX (talk • contribs)

I've copied your request here rather than respond from my home email address.

Please follow the instructions and include a {{unblock|reason}} on your page / talk page. In this way, another Admin will come past and consider your request. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

You are so mean for doing the revert on Downe House School. All of it is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.8.124.238 (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Ian Cairns (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to reblock this IP?[edit]

Maybe until the year 3000? Şłџğģő 06:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, for that matter, this one, who's obviously the same person. Şłџğģő 06:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sluggo. One was an obvious immediate re-offend, and has been blocked. The other has been BVed, since he had received no prior warnings. I would prefer you to use the WP:AIV route for notification - since any admin will pick these up. If you wish to take the sock allegation further, please see WP:SOCK. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIV does not constitute the path of least resistance, so no. The second IP, which also mentioned someone named "NAIRN" (or "CDNAIRN" or something) and made highly similar, incoherent edits, is obviously a sock, so the standard attempts to open a sockpuppet investigation also do not constitute the path of least resistance. Kind of pointless, me going through the steps, when you can immediately block per WP:QUACK, but whatevs. Şłџğģő 19:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm on holiday / Wikiholiday, then you may still be grateful to AIV just for someone to talk to... Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borne of that specific concern, I also checked your contributions and saw you have been a wikinerd for quite a while now. Of course, at my new SPI, a possibly illiterate individual is wondering if those IPs are related at all. Şłџğģő 05:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for having improved my English in František Nušl! --Sokoljan (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email received from User:Nothingtodowithwff[edit]

Dear active administrator,

As an advanced user here at wikipedia, I am sure you are familiar with the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking out for their own interests. Heck, maybe you are one of them! Hopefully though you are not, and would be willing to help us restore fairness and integrity to the project...

We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts and perhaps you could consider sharing yours with us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!

Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

Kind Regards,

The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters

This e-mail was sent by user "Nothingtodowithwff" on the English Wikipedia to user "Icairns". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

Ian Cairns (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above username has been indefinitely banned as a phishing account. Now why would they want my login details...? Ian Cairns (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10th Earl of St Germans[edit]

Hello! Did you create the article about Peregrine Eliot, 10th Earl of St Germans? I'm asking because a part of the article looks very suspicious to me even though it was added by you in 2004 (actually it's been part of the article since its creation). I'm talking about:

Lord St Germans was educated at Eton College and has published his interests as:

Career: Landowner, 30 years in a job without prospects
Recreations: Mucking about, sitting still
Clubs: Pratts

English is not my first language and I may be misunderstanding this text but it looks like vandalism, at least on the first sight. Surtsicna (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Surtsicna - Thanks for your message. I can confirm that the information I supplied is accurate, and summarises an entry in one of the main books (Debretts, etc) without copying. It shows a very dry sense of English humour, typical of the man. So, no vandalism. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets[edit]

Re DPeterson socks - this uses User:AWeidman is a sock but as I'm not an admin I can't put the category on the page. I'm just trying to sort this out as this character has so many socks it's as well to keep track.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this - but it probably needs some rationalisation. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - but it ought to be Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DPeterson, not the suspected. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Ian Cairns (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gameboy67838[edit]

I've just extended your block of Gameboy67838 (talk · contribs) to an indef block as this is an obvious sock of the indef blocked editor Gameboy1947 (talk · contribs) whom I blocked a while ago for major copyright violations and lying about sources (they've continued both behaviours using IP accounts while blocked). Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this - I don't usually patrol socks and thought the investigation was still proceeding. I appreciate you letting me know. Ian Cairns (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gyppedagain[edit]

There was more than just one user. If you look at the report filed, at least three other usernames were present and one anonymous IP. --Morenooso (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I was just adding a parent categ - rather than investigating the allegation. Ian Cairns (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not really sure what a parent categ is but I accept your work. --Morenooso (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The suspected sockpuppet category came up as orphaned in Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories - so I added the regular template to this type of category, as per my edit. This connects it into the regular owning category, and makes it more visible to the sock patrollers. Hope that helps, Ian Cairns (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. I feel enlightened. --Morenooso (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RUTH ELLIS People's Policy statement[edit]

Hi Why did you edit out the reference I made about the recent Yahoo People's Policy and the efforts to clear Ruth Ellis's name within seconds of the page being saved? Charlton1 (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: it was poorly constructed with a signature included. I have no problem about the policy, but it should be properly added. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earth, Earth in culture[edit]

I have rolled back your edits. The Anglo-Saxon derivation is cited / referenced. Your assertion is not. Please provide a reference for your assertion if you wish to re-insert. There are few, if any, linguistics links between Arabic and Anglo-Saxon. Ian Cairns (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

although i don't have any documented sources in english, the word have a very strange resemblance to the arabic word Ardh, which was at the very least, used in the fifth century, as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon word which as stated originates in the eighth century.

and the word Ardh is documented in the holy quran, which was written in the sixth century.

and, European languages has borrowed a lot of Arabic words.. for example: Alcohol, Algebra, Sugar which are the most common. Knightofbaghdad (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of St Anne's Church, Kew[edit]

The article St Anne's Church, Kew has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so quick to tag this article. Did you notice the words 'work in progress' on the creation tagline? I'll continue for the moment. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I caught that too. It's amazing that some editors are so quick to tag articles without following WP:BEFORE. Looks like your article is off to a great start. --Morenooso (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it keeps moving, being tagged - too busy for the moment - I'll leave it there for the moment... Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my Watchlist. I will watch a master working at the canvas. --Morenooso (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was never much use at pitching tents... Ian Cairns (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

72.37.171.52[edit]

My report of this IP was removed, but I don't agree that it was stale when the long-term pattern of disruption from this IP is considered. An editor from this IP has been adding nonsense and deliberate information and reverting attempts to undo his vandalism for months. Edits like these follow the same m.o. as the chronic edits from all throughout April and last night and show a pattern of long term abuse by single user from this IP:

[5] -adding deliberate misinformation
[6] - undoing removal of vandalism

[7] -adding deliberate misinformation
[8] - adding deliberate misinformation
[9] - undoing removal of vandalism

When this user was given a 4im warning on April 28, he resorted to using alternate IP addresses to evade a block and resume his vandalism. (See ANI report) When those alternate IPs were rangeblocked, he just went back to the unblocked shared IP to continue his vandalism again[10]. I think its unfair and counterproductive to show leniency through inaction towards this user because he's using a shared IP address to vandalize on occasions that are days or weeks apart. I think action should have been taken to prevent further abuse from this IP. --GD 6041 (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GD_0641. Thanks for your comment regarding 72.37.171.52 on WP:AIV. According to my data here:

anon edit at 08:49

added to AIV by GD 0641 at 08:59 [11]

further anon edits at 08:54 and 09:11 but then nothing

tidied off WP:AIV at 14:59 by myself [12]

I am unable to see any problem with the above sequence of events. One of the prerequisites on WWP:AIV is that "Unregistered users must be active now, and the warnings must be recent.". This was true at your report at 08:59 - but was well out-of-date by 14:59. As a result, with no action by any Admin, I was entitled to tidy down the report. I was unable to action your report, since I thought it required more specialist knowledge to detect this abuse. I could have been more helpful and directed you to WP:ANI, as per the top of the WP:AIV page, for which I apologise. Long-term patterns of abuse or inactive anon users should be reported to ANI instead of AIV. The problem with IP addresses is that some are static, and some are dynamic. Please feel free to raise this person's actions at WP:ANI. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reply and I understand. There's no need to apologize. In hindsight, I should have realized this. In any case, I'll continue to keep an eye out for this user and make a WP:ANI report in the future if the disruption continues.--GD 6041 (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visual angle[edit]

Hi,

Just read the article you started (named in the title line), I think it miss the calculations of VA for cases where the distance from the fovea increase. Virsu and Rovamo(?) (1977) have published two detailed articles on that matter, but I don't have them at hand or have internet access to them. Anyway, I think it could contribute alot for the subject. Regards--Gilisa (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I did some copyedits to dab degree and to tidy the layout. However, I didn't start the article, nor did I introduce the formula. So, anything you wish to do is fine by me.. Ian Cairns (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reason[edit]

The message says that I destroied one of the pages in wikipedia-haber process. It was an accident. Since I am a Taiwaness, I set up my computer to translate all english websites when I see them,google translation function also translated the part I edited, so when I see the page, it was full with chinese. i tried to find out the way of solving this problem, but i can't. So I copied the words and pasted it in the edit page, that's the only thing I think I could do. Sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.27.234.44 (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation / reason for the destruction. Unfortunately, this destruction is indistinguishable from vandalism. Please take more care if you wish to continue to edit the EN Wikipedia. Your contributions would be welcome. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite the newcomers[edit]

Why did you jump to a level 4im warning for User talk:98.166.83.61 that vandalized Humanism?. The vandalism itself looked like it was mild and probably would have warranted only a level 1 or 2 warning. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. My thoughts were that it was deliberate. Happy to disagree. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long and short scales[edit]

Hi Icairns, Your GAN nomination is now under-review and is currently still a "work in progress". My comments to date can be found at Talk:Long and short scales/GA1, I'm still working on them, but in summary I would anticipate that the review with reach a hold point and that the article is likely to need to be improved if it is to gain GA-status this time round. These are more points of presentation than any technical failings. Pyrotec (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Long and short scales[edit]

The article Long and short scales you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Long and short scales for things which need to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review of this document - my apologies for the delay in replying due to out-of-Wiki priorities. I'll take a look in the next day or so. Thanks again. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, Thanks for your note. There's more work needed, so don't let me stop you improving it. It was mostly just sitting there marginally at GA-level (sorry to put it that way), so I passed it. Current usage needs so more cites. The tables have been improved, which was my main concern. Pyrotec (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heritage rock radio stations[edit]

I have removed your Categories for Renaming tag, because you didn't make a nomination for it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 7. If you still want it to be renamed, feel free to retag it, and add a nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 8 to allow discussion for your proposal. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought the name didn't reflect the US-centric nature of the category, but accept that I didn't respond in time. Thanks Ian Cairns (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing pages[edit]

If you want to flag that an article needs categories, please don't manually paste the entirety of

“

{{mbox |type = style |image = [[File:Wiki letter w.svg|50x40px]] |small = |text = This {{pagetype|subjectspace=yes}} '''has not been added to any [[Wikipedia:Categorization|categories]]'''. Please help out by [[Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ#How do I add an article to a category?|adding categories]] to it so that it can be listed with similar {{pagetype|subjectspace=yes}}s. {{#if:May 2010|<small>''(May 2010)''</small>}} |smalltext = This {{pagetype|subjectspace=yes}} has not been added to any [[Wikipedia:Categorization|categories]]. }}{{namespace detect|talk=|user=|other={{DMC|Uncategorized|from|May 2010|Uncategorized pages|Category needed}}}}

”

into each individual article. You don't need to manually cut and paste the entire template itself into each article; if the article has no categories, you can simply add {{uncat|date=(current month and year)}}, and if it has some but needs more, you can add {{more cats|date=(current month and year)}}. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. It looks like a duff copy and paste, and was not intended. Thanks again, Ian Cairns (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Date of death unknown[edit]

Category:Date of death unknown, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Units of magnetic induction[edit]

Category:Units of magnetic induction, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 06:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cp is eaual to cv? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.62.20 (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for adding links to my typology categorys. Category:SVO_languages. cheers, Bruinfan12 (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome... and hopefully you can do this next time? Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

216.108.4.72[edit]

216.108.4.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi. Strange one here; we have a registered user (with a legitimate work issued e-mail address) who has lost her password. She can't use the password retrieval function because the IP is blocked. (I'm in touch with her through the unblock mailing list.) Would you mind if I unblock it for 24 hours (possibly less) to give her an opportunity to get her password back? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up - please take this forward as you wish. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do; thanks much. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico[edit]

Why did you revert my edit with no comment?[13] Thats rude and unconstructive. You haven't participated in any of the discussions.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. Thanks.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you look at this?[edit]

Theory of shells in concurrency and tensor networks reads to me like a spoof. I put a {{hoax}} on it and the article creator removed it. I'm not an expert mathematician, and I'm not sufficiently sure it's a spoof to propose it for deletion. What do you think? Philip Trueman (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip - Thanks for that. Yes, there is a mathematical definition of shell, which is not far away from this article - so I do not think it is a hoax article. I've moved it to Shell (mathematics) and tidied it a little. There is much work to be done on this, but I am not expert in this particular branch - so will leave this mostly to others. Thanks again for raising this - hopefully, it can be left to improve naturally for the moment. Ian Cairns (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Best if I leave it alone, then. I still have my doubts - only one contributor who doesn't use edit summaries, terribly obscure reference title, text completely re-written to say something entirely different after a speedy tag was applied, WTF is the "Lang-Lang program"? (in my book Lang Lang is a concert pianist whose style I do not enjoy at all, but I digress), at least one silly joke ("Closed shells can be cracked open ...") - altogether too much like a spoof to be credible, IMHO. Best wishes. Philip Trueman (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here about the same subject. Since your edits yesterday, two Oxford University IPs have edited the article further, including introducing a suspicious-looking box saying "She sells sea shells by the sea shore: – J.D.Matsudo, about Y. Yum"; a third Oxford IP then (a) added a hoax tag, (b) blanked the content, and (c) tagged it {{db-a10}} as adding nothing to Kan extension.

I have restored the content and declined the speedy because, though the author started from a copy of "Kan extension", the articles do not now seem to my untutored eye to cover the same ground. However, I have left the "hoax" tag to encourage more eyes, and have posted at Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Mathematics#Shell (mathematics). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John - Yes, it seems to have been blasted since yesterday. Yesterday's version was possibly plausible - today is not, as you say. I agree with your action. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has run all the way to the dump while I had my back turned. Well done, all; I am at any rate pleased that my initial hunch was correct, and somewhat dispirited that the culprit is at my old university. Does he realise that this is one alumnus who is going to be less keen to fork out when they pass round the begging bowl? Why not do something less disruptive, like writing appalling poetry, or rowing a boat, or drinking beer? That's what we did in my day. Philip Trueman (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pricer1980[edit]

The IP address that I reported was a sockpuppet of the banned user Pricer1980 (talk · contribs). The editor has a pattern I have been able to pick up, such as adding the company "HandMade Films" to 127 Hours when there is no such relationship. Since the editor pops up on a different IP address each time, he cannot be fully blocked. I've monitored recent changes of film articles and watchlisted articles he especially targets (like 127 Hours). When you say that unregistered users must be warned, this logic should apply to unproven editors. I would not report an IP address unless the pattern is clear, and I realize that I cannot quite share my tacit knowledge so readily in an AIV report. Would it help to provide a summary of this user and the typical pattern? I have a kind of historical log at User:Erik/Draft, though the editor has changed targets over time. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Erik. Thank you for this information - however, it remains your (informed) opinion. It requires a judgement / ruling that this is definitely a sock. Otherwise, it could just be a anon newbie, who we are asked not to attack. The best way to progress is to report this person on the right maintenance page for the investigation of socks to confirm your suspicions. At this point, the entire Wiki machinery for socks can fall down on any confirmed sockpuppetry or exoneration can happen in the opposite finding. However, I would not wish to make this ruling _on my own_ with no backing from a proper investigation. I hope you understand my explanation of my earlier responses to you. BRgrds, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:DUCK not apply? This and this are previous instances by the same editor that led me to watchlist this article. These three addresses' contributions Special:Contributions/86.173.170.57, Special:Contributions/90.211.190.125, Special:Contributions/86.173.170.77 (and there are more) show how Buried (film) is especially targeted currently. I cannot monitor recent changes all the time, and when some IP addresses fly under the radar, it is burdensome to clean up the acts of vandalism when there are ensuing edits. Basically, I'm trying to play whack-a-mole as effectively as possible. The "Handmade Films" vandalism at 127 Hours lasted long enough in the past for wiki-clone websites to pick up on it, and I'm trying to prevent that kind of thing for the long run. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very probably. There is also WP:BITE. I sympathise with your frustration with these acts of vandalism. The Sockpuppet investigators may be able to add value, maybe locate some other not-currently-suspected sock identities? - if only they were informed and had your evidence to hand. Otherwise, in the worst case, we may just be hitting some newbie vandal (but unlikely). Ian Cairns (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsula Pilots amateur vs. Pro teams[edit]

You put a link to the Peninsula Pilots article into the Peninsula Pilots Players Category page one day after I removed the link. If you read the article or the explanation I gave for removing the link, you wouldn't have re-added it. Because

The article is about Peninsula Pilots a collegiate amateur league baseball team

and

The category page is for Peninsula Pilots a professional minor league baseball team.

They aren't related. So the Category page doesn't need a link. I reverted your edits and created a separate article for the Minor League team.- William 18:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't the articles so named that this confusion is dispelled? There's only so much that you can do from 5,000 miles away to fix the uncategorised categories for the originators. Ian Cairns (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I Notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Rogerelliott2.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Rogerelliott2.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 19:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Granvilleelliott2.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Granvilleelliott2.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 02:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Hsmurphy.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Hsmurphy.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 06:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Michael Murphy.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Michael Murphy.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 06:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who attempted suicide[edit]

As a person who's edited this category, you may be interested to know I've nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 9#Category:People who attempted suicide. Robofish (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification - but this was a copyedit addition of a category - no other interest. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Poetlister/Runcorn[edit]

I don't follow this edit. A mistake? Cheers, theFace 10:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The category is named after two sockpuppet masters, not one. So, the usual templates do not work. Any fix for this is a good fix.. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it need to be fixed? Does every sockpuppet category need a {{sockpuppet category}}? You know, this is the only sock cat I know of which is named after two main accounts, instead of one. I wonder why we don't just refer to this person as 'Poetlister', but the cat was created following investigation and discussion by the Wikimedia Foundation and the ArbCom, so I guess they have good reasons for naming it like this. Cheers, theFace 12:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing FactStraight with sockpuppet of User:LouisPhilippeCharles?[edit]

Why am I listed as "User" here? FactStraight (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Apparently my Wikipedia account has recently been hacked: Anytime I look at a User's page, his IP or handle disappears and is replaced by my own, so that my account information comes up instead of that of the account I'm trying to "see". Example here (I don't know if the hack is visible when viewed by others: if you see your own name following "User:" and before "Namespace" rather than "FactStraight", then the hack can only be seen from inside my account). Unless a virus is attacking Wiki accounts randomly, it's a safe bet that this act of revenge (in addition to his increasingly using random IPs to edit the usual royalty articles) is being perpetrated by indefinitely blocked User:LouisPhilippeCharles. But where do I report the problem? FactStraight (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factstraight, you might like to visit the Village Pump and ask there. It also has links to Bugzilla if you need to report a problem. HTH, BRgrds, Ian Cairns (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Particle number for deletion[edit]

The article Particle number, to which you have substantively contributed, is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Particle number until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Lambiam 12:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.26.17.4[edit]

This appears to be an obvious sock of a banned user, Ananny, and the filter log shows as much (if you haven't already, see here). Is there a reason you declined this report? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This bot-report sat for over 2 hrs without any admin taking any action. As such, an anon report is stale ("Unregistered users must be active now, and the warnings must be recent."), and I tidied it. Please note that sock reports should normally go to WP:SPI and not here. If there had been continuing vandalism, then an admin would have taken instant action. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I do mostly NPP, so I'm not all that familiar with AIV procedure. Now I know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - you're welcome. Ian Cairns (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at all your blocks, and I noticed that many of them were after 1 edit and you classified them as Vandilism only accounts, I find that very stupid and unfair. Not even 1 warning... — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierAJones (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unhappy about your 'ad hominem' attack above - particularly since your comments were unsigned - please reconsider your words. Most of my admin blocks occur after a report appears on WP:AIV and have been fully considered. Very very few of my blocks are 'after one edit' - this would have been exceptional - I can only recall one which was particularly offensive in racial abuse. Several of them have involved bot-reports on WP:AIV, which do not appear in the edit record - since the bot bounced / disallowed the update. However, the vandalism attempt had occurred and any block I have ever made was to prevent further vandalism. For named user accounts, the entire editing record is taken into account. If you remain unhappy about my admin record, you are most welcome to report this in the right place - start at WP:RFC/U. I am happy to append my signature, as is standard Wikipedia practice. Ian Cairns (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

someone needs blocked[edit]

Hello Icairns, You may want to revert this fellow and block access to the talk page.

38.101.210.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has a 2 year block

While on the same subject (same school), their other address;

168.9.214.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block evasion by chronic school vandals. They are evading and frequently blanking warnings and whois tags to mask what is apparently a vandalism-only account. Long-term abuse as the vandal knows policies and gaming the system. Suggest the same six months block to hopefully halt them for a while. Thank you for looking at this,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you Berean Hunter. I hope you have reported this through the normal WP:AIV channels? There is no 'special' service on this page... Thanks again and hope you catch a Berean soon.. Ian Cairns (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will report it through AIV (as I have been). I'm following Wiki custom of notifying & deferring to the blocking admin in the case of block evasion...no special service requested. Thank you for your attention in this matter.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:High school national record holder[edit]

I posted a further response on the talk page. I'm not sure you read the original comments I posted there that essentially suggest the same direction. Trackinfo (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - yes, I'm just looking at uncategorised categories. I haven't read all the surrounding comments.. Oh well, Thanks!, Ian Cairns (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Default Sort[edit]

Hi, I see that you added a default sort for two articles that I worked on previously, one of which is Gwladys ferch Dafydd Gam‎. I'm still somewhat new here, learning as I go. Do you mind letting me know: Is that something that should be added to each article? Thanks! --CaroleHenson (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carole - Thanks for your message. I was looking at categories: Category:Welsh royalty and Category:Welsh monarchs, and noticed the the article entries in the categories were sorted fairly randomly. Some were sorted into houses, some were sorted on first name, others' sorting wasn't obvious. I've applied some defsorts to the articles in question - hopefully in a sympathetic way - to achieve a usable sorting in the above categories. Usually, royalty / monarchs / princes / princesses are sorted by first name within a suitable category - so this was reasonably compatible. Where an article deals with a title, and isn't a person, then I've attempted to separate from the people. I would suggest that if you are creating a new article and you have chosen the appropriate categories for that article, then you need to be careful with where the article appears within the category. e.g. 'John Smith' should normally appear under 'Smith, John' but a monarch 'King John Smith' should appear under 'John, King John Smith' or similar. There's plenty of discussion around this on Wikipedia - so use the above as a starting point. BRgrds, Ian Cairns (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you! I have been working on clean-up of articles, rather than creation of new articles, but I'll be mindful of this information going forward - and look this up on WP for more direction. (It really helps, though, having this as a starting point! Much appreciated!!!) --CaroleHenson (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background field of Infobox musical artist[edit]

Regarding this edit, please note that you can't remove underscores from the values of |Background= in {{infobox musical artist}} (see documentation of the template). Thanks Rjwilmsi 11:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Apologies if misunderstood. Ian Cairns (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special mangling rules for DEFAULTSORT[edit]

Heya, I've noticed you seem unaware of some of the special rules for defaultsort (and the relatively recent change thereto). To paraphrase them:

only the first letter is to be capitalized in the sort key
most punctuation is to be removed

See WP:MCSTJR, and around there.

Also, for a couple years the standard practice was to expand the Gaelic prefix M' or Mc to Mac uniformly; that practice was reverted recently, last fall, I think. Thus, the sort key for "McDonald" is "Mcdonald", the key for "MacDonald" is "Macdonald", and the key for a name with an apostrophe such as "D'Arcy" is "Darcy".

The capitalization thing is because reference works in English, such as this Wikipedia, use case-insenstive sorting ("a" and "A" are treated exactly the same), but the Wikimedia software uses case sensitive sorting. Because English names are roughly 99% "first letter capitalized, the rest not", we do the same thing to ALL defaultsort keys, regardless of how the name is presented normally. Studerby (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rosanacurso[edit]

Hi, what's your advice in dealing with dozens of irrelevant talk page edits from apparent sockpuppets? You just deleted one from AIV, so I guess that is not the place. Here is another one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jruiz-martinez

Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LC, You should identify all the issues regarding sockpuppet activity with your sockpuppet investigation. AIV is for quick response to recognisable vandalism - not for response to irrelevant (according to you) edits. I have only ever tidied down AIV entries that have stood for hours, with no admin taking any action. AIV needs to be tidied down regularly for it to work efficiently. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Locomotives of Taiwan or ROC[edit]

HELLKNOWZ completed your request for discussion of merging Category:Locomotives of the Republic of China and Category:Locomotives of Taiwan. However, it was not noted that you had tagged both categories. The discussion took place at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 1#Category:Locomotives of Taiwan and was closed with a "no consensus". The closer, Mike Selinker, indicated here that a new discussion was necessary. I noted that Category:Locomotives of the Republic of China had been marked for merger to Category:Locomotives of Taiwan since 7 February 2011. I completed that listing at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 17#Category:Locomotives of the Republic of China. You are being notified, as you suggested the original discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - apologies for any omissions I made. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism from 168.8.212.139[edit]

I was just wondering if that was a permanent ban for that IP. As you notice on the talk page, there are many warnings and blocks on anonymous editing on that account and if it was a permanent block, I support it. Should be any issue to login and make vandalism edits, right ? :P Cliffsteinman (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Cliff - we are not allowed to permanently ban IP addresses - only named users. I've given the identified school a one-year block. Longer is available, if the vandalism restarts next year. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another vandal 64.88.86.200[edit]

You seem to be on the computer right now so I'll send this one to you...maybe I'll get admin someday. Same sort of issue, Middle school with lots of violations. Cliffsteinman (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too late... by the time you edited, he was blocked. Reporting it to WP:AIV is fine - lots of admins are watching that. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Did you or a bot make this edit to this user's page? I am confused because the history for Water Music (Handel) does not show edits from that user, and the user shows no contributions. I appreciate your input. Thanks, Cliff (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cliff - Not all attempted edits are allowed. Some trigger bots which disallow the edit and make a report to WP:AIV (bot report section). I responded to a number of these reports all referring to the same user, and the same article - i.e. frustration retries. I therefore edited the user page to warn the user. However, no edit was allowed into the audit record. Does that help explain? Rgrds, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is very helpful, thank you. Cliff (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Service award[edit]

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen McCook[edit]

Hello, I deleted a page about me: Kathleen de la Pena McCook. It had been done by students. On the page under "talk" someone (?who?) suggested the page be taken down as it looked to be vanity. I agree and would like it taken down as I am just not that interesting.

--Kathleen McCook/gracetupelo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracetupelo (talk • contribs) 01:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kathleen. Thanks for that. Sorry - but it isn't quite that simple. Blanking is simply seen as vandalism. If you believe your article is "non-notable", which is the primary reason for deletion, then you should mark it as such. See the templates starting "db-" or Template:Db. Insert this at the top of your article with the correct assertions. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking it off.

 I enjoy your work.

--Kathleen (McCook) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracetupelo (talk • contribs) 02:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ARV Tidy[edit]

Question; when you did this tidy without addressing the IP I had reported, was that a way of saying that no action was warranted against him/her? I've never seen a report removed without at least a comment as to the action taken (or lack of action if that was the case) so I thought I'd ask to make sure I understood. That particular IP has been a thorn in the side of the Film project for some time. No worries if it was an accident on your part - he'll be at it again soon enough and I'll just report him again. Millahnna (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Millahnna. I note that the complained activity was 21:52 on 25 March, your report was timed 09:13 (>12 hours after the activity) on 26 March and that I tidied it down at 12:12 (>15 hours after the activity). The issue here is that we are requested to ensure that:

3. Unregistered users must be active now, and the warnings must be recent.

After 3 hours, many dynamic IP addresses will have been reallocated to other people - so there is no point in blocking an IP a long time after the event and hence the advice above and my tidying - we needed to see current vandalism activity. Unless we can determine a static IP address exists at the location, then there is also no point in a long block - since it will affect others. In your particular case, if you suspect that the IP is static and a long term problem user, then please consider taking it to WP:ANI who can deal with it more easily that the WP:AIV terms of reference. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a static IP so I will follow your advice on next problem edit. Thanks for the explanation. Cheers!Millahnna (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If static, then there is no need to wait - report away - you could re-use your above example if you wish. Ian Cairns (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Andrew, edits[edit]

Hello: Believe it or not, we were editing Kerry Andrew's page at the same time. However, you saved your edits first. I have done a rather massive rewrite, but I saved the text to a separate location and not saved my changes just yet. I was thinking of making the changes now, but this will overwrite the work you've just done. Does this bother you? Thanks for reading, DJRafe (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DJR - No problem go ahead with your edits to cousin Kerry's pages... :-)) Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I'm about to paste them in a minute or so. Will be interesting to see your reaction, and to see if your cousin approves. DJRafe (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it turns out I lost all my changes and didn't save them in time. Back to the drawing board. DJRafe (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! Hope you can find them. BRgrds, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, my edits are gone, so I'm starting from scratch. The big loss in terms of time and work was the list of her compositions that I created from her site. Her website listed them in a certain way, and my first version tried to be strictly chronological. I can rework the next version it in such a way that it'll be less work on myself, perhaps. I'll send you a note when the edits are done, so you can let me know what you think. If nothing else, it might go more quickly then second time around; practice makes perfect, or some such cliche. Thanks again for replying, DJRafe (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My changes are done, and I decided just to create the list of her compositions the same way that I had done so before. Please feel free to critique and suggest changes. Many thanks, DJRafe (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the tardy reply to your note. Hopefully the rest of the family approves, or at least one person thereof :) . Thanks again, DJRafe (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Revision history[edit]

Please could you delete all the edits by "WiryJames" in the Revision history on the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valley_School_(Technology_College)&action=history

This is because it is incriminating towards the school, and causes threats to teachers at the following school,

Many Thanks, I will look forward to a reply,

ZookeyGuy — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZookeyGuy (talk • contribs) 14:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I have just found your edits to the talk page of the above article - not impressive at all? I suggest that you take this to WP:ANI and explain why his edits need to be reverted and not yours? Ian Cairns (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Sudipta.dasgupta[edit]

I see that you blocked Sudipta.dasgupta indefinitely as a "Vandalism-only account". I have examined a substantial sample of the user's edits over their time on Wikipedia (since April 2010). There are some very unacceptable edits, especially recently, but I did not see anything that looked as though it was not done in good faith, even if mistakenly and contrary to Wikipedia policies. Even if you disagree over some of them, there have certainly been a significant number of edits which were nothing like vandalism, so I don't understand how it could be described as "Vandalism-only". I agree that a block is necessary, for several reasons, including edit warring and highly contentious editing, but the sort of problem involved is usually dealt with by a fairly short block in the first instance, so I have reduced it to 48 hours. Please do let me know if you disagree with my assessment. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email from Sudipta[edit]

The incidents mentioned in the article "History of West Bengal" and facts like "Buddhadeb Basu" as the Chief Minister of West Bengal are all incorrect with incorrect description of incidents, dates and verbatim. Please check the facts first before the allegation of vandalism. Please either remove the article completely from your website or consult with a bench of historians on the topic before blocking / banning any individual's editing account. If you do not do so, it would be an act of taking political side from the part of Wikipedia. Regards, Sudipta.

The incidents like Marichjhapi, Nandigram, Baranagar etc. mentioned in the article "History of West Bengal" and facts like "Buddhadev Basu" as the Chief Minister of West Bengal are all incorrect, biased and without any unbiased reference. Please check the facts first before the allegation of vandalism and also consult with a bench of historians, or else it would be considered that wikipedia is taking side in political history of West Bengal. The article itself should be edited by some renowned historians and should be blocked from public editing. The content of the article is completely unacceptable for different sections of the Bengali society. The change of facts in the article is more important than unblocking my account. Deleting the wrong contents of a poisonous article is much benign than vandalizing Wikipedia by posting historically debatable and biased paragraphs on history.

Response to James, Sudipta and WikiPuppies[edit]

I am not a subject expert on this area, and was responding to an earlier vandalism report in WP:AIV. I looked at a sample number of this editor's recent edits and was satisfied, as per James and the original reporter, that there had been edits which were problematical. Indeed, my sample only found problem edits - hence my VOA block. I am content that James has spent more time closer to this user's edits and is in a better position to judge the intent of the edits. Clearly, one person's 'facts' may be POV, without prior discussion. Regardless, I am content to accept James' revision of the block for the reasons he set out. Ian Cairns (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AIV[edit]

Weird. I guess it's because I hit report from the second page of contributions. Thank you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it was right?? BRgrds, Ian Cairns (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just found out it was this guy I meant to report: Efficient vegetariannnwf607 (talk · contribs)—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or indef will work fine[edit]

[14] :) –MuZemike 18:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry- great minds think alike at the same time... Ian Cairns (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spate of vandalism - 1 May 2011[edit]

(show/hide) 14:48, 1 May 2011 Icairns (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 80.192.58.228 (Talk) with an expiry time of 72 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (Block evasion)
(show/hide) 14:45, 1 May 2011 Icairns (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 94.173.28.202 (Talk) with an expiry time of 72 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (Block evasion)
(show/hide) 14:42, 1 May 2011 Icairns (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 94.168.190.234 (Talk) with an expiry time of 72 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (Block evasion)
(show/hide) 14:39, 1 May 2011 Icairns (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 94.172.126.19 (Talk) with an expiry time of 31 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (Block evasion)
(show/hide) 14:36, 1 May 2011 Icairns (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 82.45.61.156 (Talk) with an expiry time of 31 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (Block evasion)
(show/hide) 14:29, 1 May 2011 Icairns (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Freddyfreak1996 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Vandalism-only account: see Sockpuppet investigations) (unblock | change block)
(show/hide) 14:06, 1 May 2011 Icairns (Talk | contribs | block) blocked 94.173.29.62 (Talk) with an expiry time of 31 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (Vandalism)

Check users. Ian Cairns (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Rebound (Rebind) Propulsion[edit]

Hello

Why have you removed Rebound (Rebind ) Propulsion which is my work and I own the sole rights to it intelectually to publish it. The purpose of the patenting it is to document that it is my solution and I am not trying to get money for it. It is not something which can even be built in the next 50 years - I am trying to document and propagate my ideas and solutions and you are blocking this by deleting this - I dont understand this . Would you like me to remove the link to my website ? I dont see any conflicts and dont understand your motives. Please clarify for me why you dont want me to publish this approach to propulsion in your Wikipedia.

What would you have me do to reverse your decision. I dont work with a third party so how can I refer to a third party? Frankly your motives really confuse me. I takes a while to work out the intricacies of the Wiki and those fine points I have not worked out yrt. First it was do I have the right to publish my ideas and next add it to a catagory - I have yet to figure out how to do this and will do so. There is a page on Microsoft - it that just an advert? Your reasoning does not seem to make any sense to me.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan197 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stefan197. Thanks for your message - I take it from the lack of a signature (please use ~~~~ to sign your Talk page contributions) that you are relatively new here, and may not appreciate some of the rules in place? In particular, please can you read: WP:OR. As you can see, in order for Wikipedia to build a free encyclopedia, we must _NOT_ have copyrighted material present. If the idea had widespread credence and was referred to at websites other than your own, then you could write a neutral article describing the concept but avoiding copyrighted material at all costs. You could then use the 3rd party references to back up the existence of the idea. However, your "sole rights" is incompatible with Wikipedia's "open rights" whereby anyone can copy any Wikipedia article and publish it anywhere. I hope you appreciate the dilemma. I removed all material that was stated to be copyrighted - in conformance with Wikipedia policy. Maybe, Wikipedia is not the place / way for you to promote this idea? Alternatively, donate your idea to the public domain and then write your Wikipedia article? Hope that helps, BRgrds, Ian Cairns (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply Ian, I now understand your reasoning. I will consider the suggestion of donating my work and relinquishing entitlement to my work because I want to see it propagated. It is doubtful that I will ever see remuneration of any kind for this work as it is not something that can be used by a corporation or business but rather a body like NASA or ESA and it is doubtful that even should they decide to use it that it would be used within the next 25 to 50 years . The problem of patenting something and presenting it as your idea; people who are shown it run a mile and try to distance them from you with great effort because the only thing that seem to go through thier minds is that this person wants money for something they already have. Most promenent artists of note usually answer fan letters with a thank you for being a fan or some such token and fans appreciate this. Consider for example the life of Josepf Ressel who died resulting from poverty and stress trying to get recognition and remuneration for inventing the ship's propeller advancing from the steam paddle. His reward for invention is the legacy of a heavy stone obelisk on top of his remains when seen, one thinks what a success he must have been. Perhaps if i maintain my claims I might get that reward. Inventing as a trade is much like that of being an painter or musician etc. There are many examples I could give you. Most inventions never make it and for this reason companies even having decided to try an invention always seem to contest claims to it and should they succeed with a product assert that thier efforts having internalized the product etc and that seems to be the nature of the beast. Another example which illustrates this is the inventor of the intermittent wiper for automobiles appropriated by the Ford Motor company but invented by Robert Kearns. I try to entice interested parties by asking for a very reasonable 2.5% premium on what I offer which is infact standard brokerage for transacting large exchanges shares stocks that type of thing. Some of my ideas should make it and I learning from the examples of others am not looking to my patents to make a living. I have to look elsewhere to make a living and ofcourse the status quo being what it is will contest successfull application of my ideas on things other than Rebound (Rebind) propulsion which I simply would like to see succeed. The mental reward for that acomplishment was considerable and I am detrermined to continue to contribute in this field of progress . Shame I cannot use the Wiki platform in my efforts rather my Shwaycoms website. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan197 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Locations and sort keys[edit]

On what justification are you changing the default sort of many churches etc to sort by place name rather than article title? I do not believe that Fulneck Moravian Settlement, Pudsey should sort under "Pudsey", and I see you have changed a whole load of other sort keys similarly. I have reverted Fulneck. PamD (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think you're perhaps working through a category like Category:Grade I listed churches and changing the sort keys. While I can see that in this category it might be helpful to sort by place, I don't think this is so in the many other categories in which Fulneck is listed, such as Category:Grade I listed buildings in West Yorkshire. I suggest that you leave the sort keys for churches to be the article title but specify placename as the sortkey for the church-specific categories. Has your project to change so many sort keys been discussed/agreed anywhere? PamD (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently re-sorting various categories where the church is listed under, e.g., "Church of" - so all file under "Church" - or under "St X.." - so all file under "St". This gives multiple categories where the church's attribution is often but not always the primary sort key. It is next to impossible to locate a church within any of these categories without knowing the attribution in advance. As such, I have adjusted the defaultsort to refer to the town / village first and the attribution second. As such, you can locate a church if you know the location. This was not previously possible. This is bold editing to correct a problem with the current sort criteria. Ian Cairns (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these sort keys are helpful other than in categories which only list churches - and somewhere like Fulneck is listed in many categories. I think it is bold but misguided editing, as churches will appear in inappropriate sequence in many categories such as Category:Grade I listed buildings in West Yorkshire, where other buildings are listed by name and not by location, and no-one would expect to see churches listed by location. I see nothing under WP:SORTKEY which justifies what you are doing. Please stop. PamD (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Fulneck is the only problem, then I am happy to correct its sort keys - but it isn't the standard English church entry. I am almost completed, and will re-visit Fulnect now before completing. Ian Cairns (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no surviving history of my edit - so I presume that knowledge of my edit has been wiped from the record? As such, I can no longer adjust. Why would one not expect to see buildings by location within a geographical category? Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history of Fulneck is probably confused by the fact that you moved the page to a title including the location, quite unnecessarily. I think the same argument applies to all churches: if I am looking in a category such as Category:Listed buildings in Leeds I want to see St Aidan's Church, Leeds under S, not L. Will you be giving it a default sortkey under "Leeds"? By all means sort by location in categories specific to churches, but please leave the default sortkey at the natural title of the article, because this is where people will expect to see it sorted in most categories. PamD (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per discussion below with Greyfriars Reading, I am most happy to correct incorrect sorting where necessary. However, my edit on Fulneck no longer appears to have happened - so unable to correct. Ian Cairns (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the articles are sorting correctly within county and within national categories. It only seems to be within City categories that there is a sub-optimal sort-key, and these have been minimal. Ian Cairns (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my edits are complete. I'm happy to correct remaining mis-sorts - but I believe that I have corrected very many more previous mis-sorts. Ian Cairns (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DEFAULTSORT[edit]

How does adding (DEFAULTSORT:Reading, Greyfriars Church) to Greyfriars' Church, Reading help? If you look at Category:Churches in Reading, Berkshire, it puts it under R. Sorry but I just can't understand why it would need to be organized in this why. Reading really has nothing to with the Church itself its just the town its located in. 22:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. This is a very large edit on various church categories to sort them under location rather than attribution. I have adjusted Greyfriars back to where it should have been. This was an oversight. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, i'm sure you know what your doing. Good luck. Bald Boris 22:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandilised[edit]

I did not vandalise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facebookman123 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your unsigned comment. Every one of your edits to date (barring your talk page) is vandalism. Ian Cairns (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi, could you please check out my request for possible blocking of user Cameron Scott. He used his IP to do unconstructive edits and being rude towards me, now he is using his old username Cameron Scott to make edits on the Caylee Anthony article, which he himself via his edits made protected last night. Now he is trying to avoid the protection and edit anyway. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BabbaQ - Thanks for your message. I had reviewed the edits you mentioned once already - I have been blocking other vandals with clear evidence - but lacked the knowledge to be sure that your accusations were real vandalism. I was hoping another admin might be better able to handle this choice, but will keep these accounts under watch for the moment. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yes here are the edits of the IP that was responsible for a protection template being added to the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here are the IP also known now as Cameron Scotts latest disruptive edits. Only made to make me and other users upset I guess see here.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here is Cameron Scotts own confession to using his old username to avoid a protection that he caused, he earlier tried to unprotect the article. see here for confession. I hope you now see what I find to be wrong. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here is also a confession from his unprotection request that his IP was a reason for the article being protected in the first place.see here. I think it is a clear cut case of a IP-vandal using an old username to continue with his business.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these evidence is enough, simply putting it IP 87.194.194.250 and user Cameron Scott are the same and Cameron Scott is used to avoid a protection that the IP caused. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Winterbourne, Gloucestershire [edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Winterbourne, Gloucestershire , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Ian Cairns (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Kimberley4224[edit]

You appear to have blocked User talk:Kimberley4224 as a vandal-only account, but I see no evidence of vandalism at all - in fact, I see reversion of vandalism. I hope you don't mind, but I've unblocked - please do let me know if I've missed anything here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the bot logs as I mentioned.. there were two good edits on log and dozens of vandalism edits that were blocked... Ian Cairns (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberley4224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Tripped 10 abuse filters in the last 5 minutes: (details). Mr.Z-bot (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the "See bot block log" comment altogether and only checked the user's actual and deleted contributions. I've reblocked now and will leave it to you (I've been fighting with what seems like an unfair block today, so I was a bit too keen here, and you have my apologies) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - the facilities don't make it easy to spot those... BRgrds, Ian Cairns (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Zack Heart Wikipedia Page, and user Krystic1[edit]

I have some concerns with the Zack Heart page. I'm a blogger who writes on IP issues, and I wrote a post about a Trademark Squatting issue:

http://madhatter.ca/2011/05/28/trademark-squatters-0001-outbackzack/

Which I followed up a week later with

http://madhatter.ca/2011/06/03/trademark-squatters-0001-%E2%80%93-outbackzack-part-2/

In the second one I noticed some really curious patterns with the Zack Heart page, and with the Krystic1 user account. It appears to me that Krystic1 is probably Zack Heart, and therefore is in conflict of interest. He's already blocked discussion of the Trademark Squatting issue (which whether he likes it or not is a valid controversy).

My apologies, I'm not signed on right now. I usually edit under the user name UrbanTerrorist, but I'm not at home, I don't remember my password, and I don't want to use the mechanism to change it :)

I probably shouldn't have posted the link to my own article on the page, but I was curious to see what he would do about it. That was one way to find out, and we can say he exceeded my expectations. If you'll read the first blog post, you'll note that his lawyer has made threatening noises at me. Me being me, they have of course had no effect. As you may have gathered from the blog I'm a bit of a bastard at times.

I can understand the need to get a Wikipedia page up and running. Often the only way to get something started is for someone who is closely involved to provide a seed. In this case however the page does not meet the Wikipedia editing guidelines. I've provided the seed for several pages, including the Diesel particulate filter page (the original edit from October 16, 2005 is mine). If you look at even the earliest edit, you'll note that it is done in Wikipedia style, even though at the time I was working as the Major Accounts Sales Representative for a company that manufactured Diesel Particulate Filters at the time.

The reason that I am passing this on to you, is that I've never been involved in the administration end of Wikipedia. That's not my interest. I write articles, when the spirit takes me. You on the other had have been involved, and you have also been involved with the Zack Heart page. Quite frankly I'm not sure exactly what to do, you probably know without thinking about it.

So, I'm asking you to take a look at the situation, and make a decision. Should something be done about the Zack Heart page, and the Krystic1 user?

You can reach me at my user page, or my email address - wborean@gmail.com Wayne Borean aka UrbanTerrorist on Wikipedia

Through the Looking Glass
About Writing
Web Lit Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.248.231.68 (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message above. I'd rather deal with these issues in the right Wiki forum - rather than a personal review service on my talk page (it brings the right admin with the right experience to bear on the issues). Clearly, you need to be aware of WP:COI. Otherwise, if you have concerns about your editing or someone else's editing or threats, then please raise this in WP:ANI. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information - I wasn't sure who to approach. It's sometimes hard to figure out where to go on Wikipedia. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the thanks may have been premature. I've now developed a splitting headache. None of these really describe the situation as I see it (I should mention that I'm an ordained minister, so that rather from seeing things from two points of view, I'll see it from five). Is there a specific forum to discus editing issues in a general, non-confrontational way? I am not ready as yet to make direct accusations. It could after all be a case of not understanding the editing rules, and he/she/it might respond well to having another older,wiser hand who is from a similar background (i.e. also from the Australian Television Industry) to explain the rules to them. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Icairns, I have left some thoughts to both UrbanTerrorist and Krystic1 on Talk:Zack Heart. I've also added material to User talk:Krystic1. Krystic1 made me aware that they work for Zack Heart up front. I told them at the time that they could edit the page, but be very careful. You can see what I wrote to them here on my talk page. I'm trying really hard to be neutral... if you see something I'm writing that isn't valid or something else should be added, etc, please add. Bgwhite (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 10 zeptometres for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 10 zeptometres is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10 zeptometres until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Anthem 20:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know - I created this as a redirect and have no problem with your intended action. Ian Cairns (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock investigation notice[edit]

You were previously involved in blocking one of the related socks; please see - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince-au-Léogâne. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

What's your justification for this block? Unless something has been deleted, a new user made one attack, was warned, and didn't seem to repeat it [15].--Crossmr (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is now being discussed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_of_User:Tamimo at AN/I--Crossmr (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a moot point now, as the block has expired. I feel that your block was not warrented for the reasons pointed out at ANI. Firstly, it appears that the editor had not been warned when they were reported at AIV, and secondly, there was no repeat of the behaviour after the level 4 warning was issued. Your comments as ANI would be appreciated. I agree that the posting to Delta's user page was inappropriate, but can understand why Tamimo was getting frustrated. Delta could have done much more to alleviate the situation than he did. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reported the user to AIV initially, and I do think it was justified. I think so even more now that we know, based on editing patterns, that

Tamimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tamimomari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.80.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.81.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.67.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.93.73.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

are likely all the same user. Tamimomari was indef'd for copyvios and personal attacks, the same stuff that Tamimo continued to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to all for being offline until now. I'm grateful to Bugs who has explained here and elsewhere my hopefully straightforward rationale. This was reported to AIV - I responded. It seemed to me a clear threat, and came fast after a previous 'final' warning (for 3RR). I did not see enough for a voablock - so I gave a short temp block. As the discussion on ANI is now closed, I haven't repeated this text in that forum. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a non-admin close for who knows what reason, but it seems to have worked out. Whoever brought the complaint about Delta, it had the serendipitous effect of uncovering Tamimo's activities, and he's now been indef'd. Thank you for your help! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

Hello! I noticed you contributed to Middlesex University entry on Wikipedia. If you studied at that University, please consider including this userbox on your userpage. Simply paste {{User:Invest in knowledge/mdx}} to your userpage. Thank you. Invest in knowledge (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I've edited just about every University article in England at some stage - so I could be in for a lot of investment. Sadly, I went elsewhere for Uni.. Ian Cairns (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link to an interview with Carley Stenson marked as spam[edit]

Hi Ian I posted what I considered to be a ligitimate link to an interview article with Carley Stenson that was deleted as being spam.

I know Carley Stenson and have met her on several occasions and the external link was to an interview with her that also includes links to an animal charity that she actively supports. I take objection to the link being considered to be spam! If you ask HER whether she would like a link to it I am sure she would say es! Assuming that you have her email address or phone number to contact her?

Carley is the lead actress in Legally Blonde the Musical at present and has a considerable following and I am sure that fans would appreciate hearing what she has to say in any website venue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by London2305 (talk • contribs)

Hello London. I do not doubt what you say - i.e. WP:AGF. The problem is that only you consider it to be a legitimate link, and not Wikipedia - BLOGs, youtubes, social network pages, etc. etc. are rarely if ever / never acceptable to Wikipedia as definitive sources / links. Please find and quote equivalent source information on an actual website, e.g. a news website. I've deleted your above blog link for this reason. Also, please remember to sign your contributions to talk pages. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Protium (computer language) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Protium (computer language) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protium (computer language) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Destynova (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I know nothing of this topic, and probably created this as a disambig originally. Thanks again, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

defaultsort for churches[edit]

Hello, I know that you recently chnged the defaultsorts on many articles; you might be interested at a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Sorting of churches.--Beloved Freak 18:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for alerting me to this - much appreciated. Ian Cairns (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) --Beloved Freak 19:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block modification[edit]

I hope you don't mind, I extended 64.121.19.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)'s block to a week per previous abuse and evasion on multiple IPs. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DeltaQuad - No problem for me at all. I was in a rush and probably didn't look far enough. Rgrds, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]