User talk:John

• /Archive 1: January 2006 – June 2006
• /Archive 2: July 2006

Irving

No idea; I'll take a look. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think he just means that I reverted him when he posted as an anon. I don't recall blocking anyone in relation to David Irving. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC statement

Hi! As I expected, the RfC regarding me proved to be made up by sockpuppets and is invalid. Anyway, I saw you decided to present an outside view of the dispute and I'd like to clarify some points.

The dispute was not whether Vlachs as an ethnic group are Romanians — I don't know that and don't care about it. What matters is that the 2001 census data counts them separately and the user was trying to make it look as if that's not the case, as if they're counted as "Romanians (Vlachs)" when they're not. For example, we have one group for "Roma (Gypsies)", but not for "Romanians (Vlachs)". This may be because most of our "Vlachs" are actually Romanian (or Vlach)-speaking Roma, Ludari, as evidenced by the provinces they inhabit (not the ones that have historically had a Vlach/Romanian minority). The people that you'd expect to declare as Vlachs or Romanians, those living in Vidin Province and cognate with the Vlachs of Serbia, actually declare as Bulgarians (since there are only 16 Romanians and 155 Vlachs there, compared to 118,543 Bulgarians),^[1] and speak Vlach and Bulgarian.

Thanks for the accurate current population estimate from the World Factbook and thanks for the help offered! Todor→Bozhinov 09:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter August 2006

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The August 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Rules of the road

I'm just writing a talk page message now, actaully. I was going through the article flagging unsourced statements, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. 86.136.0.145 22:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dachau Image

No problem. Greetings from Germany. Leipnizkeks --84.168.212.115 02:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Carbon Silicon / Danny the Red

In changing the band member's names from forename to surname (final paragraph), you've changed "Danny the Red" from "Danny" to "Red". As "Danny the Red" is a nickname, this is incorrect. Not sure what would be appropriate alongside the other surnames though; can't be "Danny", so I guess it should be "Danny the Red" in full?

My RfA

Thankyou for your participation in my RfA. Due to an almost even spread of votes between Oppose and Support (Final (16/13/6)) I have decided to withdraw for now and re-apply in a couple of months as suggested. I thank everyone for their kind support of my editorial skills; it meant a lot to me to get such strong recommendations from my fellow editors. If you ever have any hints as to how I can improve further, I would love to hear from you. Viridae^Talk 15:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

United States

So, in essence, bad wikiquette is having your version up while the discussion is going on.

btw, i hope you're not counting the joke that Jaxad made as support. 2nd Piston Honda 22:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A Scot correcting my French?

Will wonders never cease! Thanks, mate! ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Gaborone map.png

Hi - this image's copyright status doesn't seem right to me - I've listed it on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images - see there or Image:Gaborone map.png for the concern. Thanks. CDC (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

But it wasn't me. You really quite confused me there untill I came back and realised I had posted my RfA thanks right under an unsigned comment. Viridae^Talk 22:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Ther has been a 3RR violation on the Bubble hash page. Report it if you see fit and if you do could you leave me a messageon my talk. I would do it myself but I have to go to class and don't expect to be back for a good 6 hours plus. Viridae^Talk 01:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. Viridae^Talk 22:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't talk to me

Please don't talk to me. 2nd Piston Honda 17:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

I placed your award in WikiProject awards--Ed 18:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I moved it to the PUA page. I like the idea. Check out my comments at the discussion page. --evrik 18:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm sorry about that. I didn't know we had to wait 2 wks. to reach consensus. I reverted everything about the football barnstar back to the discussion page. However, I kept the discussion in the archives. I can't remove it from there, well, because it's an archive!--Ed 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

your comment

You are probably correct that my comments on the USA page were innapropriate, could you please tell me if it would be acceptable for me to write an article on anti-americansim? Frogsprog 18:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

user pages

Hi can you tell me how to get my user page to look like yours? with the ME box on the right? Frogsprog 19:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA and your vote

Hi Guinnog, Thanks for participating in my RFA! Ultimately, no consensus was reached, but I still appreciate the fact that you showed up to add in your two cents. You can feel free to talk to me about it or add some advice on my improvement page. Sincerely, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me)

Stadiums

Kudos. I don't know anyone who says "stadia" except the language purists, up with which I will not put. :) Wahkeenah 02:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I saw that he had been doing that. I don't know if this qualifies as "classical" vandalism. It's not as bad as the lunatic that kept insisting the team articles should say "the Yankees is" rather than "the Yankees are". This one apparently isn't arguing with anybody... yet... he's just doing it. Wahkeenah 02:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this one Guinnog. I believe I've undone the damage, though it was so thorough and convoluted a set of changes that I fear I may have missed some. Let me know if you see this happen again. Gwernol 10:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, if he can get consensus for the change, I'm fine with it. My personal view is "stadiums" is preferabl. The real issue is you can't just go around making changes on that scale without at least asking a few folks first. Gwernol 11:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Crimeexposa.org

Alas, I wish I could vote directly on the VFD page, but I can't for "technical reasons"... I would write my vote here and ask you to add it for me but I don't think it's worth it (and I'm tired now). Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 15:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, how about you simply copy what I said on that talk page, put it under Delete, and refer people to this request here? Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 15:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm limited to only editing 1024 characters, so I can't add to anything longer without a "+" tab (to add to the end without editing). It's a longish story... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 15:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

FPC photography

Hi. I'm a great admirer of your photos and see you at Featured Pictures quite a lot. I'd be interested if you could review my picture gallery, especially Image:TornadoTakeoffJM.jpg and see if you think any of them might be eligible for FP status. Be as critical as you like, I am looking for honest feedback here. Thanks.

I’ve looked at all your Gallery pics and here's my (strictly honest) comments. Your photos are most enjoyable to go through because they are of so many different subjects. However, in terms of FPC, I fear that few would have much chance for two reasons: most are too grainy and most are not in a good enough focus for an FPC entry to be successful. The grain is easily dealt with – go to www.noiseware.com and download their free grain-reducing program called the Community Edition. It’s totally free and works very well indeed (every pic of mine is treated with it). It’s very simple to use and the grain reduction is startling, although too much grain reduction can make the pic look plastic.

In terms of focus your pics could be sharpened in a graphics program (I use Unsharp Mask in Photoshop) but I find sharpening often makes artefacts such as haloes and more grain so I rarely sharpen. Best to get the focus good when you take the pic.

My camera is a 6 mega-pixel mid-price Canon S3 IS compact, which cost me £330 a few months ago from the local camera shop (I’m in Bristol). The telephoto is times 12 which is obviously brilliant for aircraft. Most of my pics on WP (about 1300 in all) were taken with my previous camera, an Olympus C750UZ 4 mega-pixel compact with times 10 telephoto.

The pics I think you have an FPC chance with are the beautiful Railway to Lhasa graphic, Graffiti, Stromness, Emperor Moth Caterpillar and A380 with Red Arrows. I fear the Tornado is too far out of focus to have any chance.

I suspect that your camera just won't produce the necessary focus and that you need a higher-priced one. Here's hoping you will not be too downcast over my comments! Good luck with your photography, Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 16:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

USERPAGE

Take a look at my userpage, ive even created my own userbox, what do you think? --Frogsprog 19:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Have you noticed the barnstar I gave u hehe? --Frogsprog 21:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job

Hi Guinnog,

Just wanted to give you a Scottish pat on the shoulder. I've come across you a few times now, and it's always good to see people with a constructive approach and some common sense. Keep up the good work!

Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In the main, I saw you editing articles and fixing problems rather than kicking up a fuss on the talk pages. I call that constructive, and that's what we need. So well done. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Unofficial standings

In regard to the final rankings I deliberately labeled them unofficial to avoid them being labeled as false and subsequently deleted. I have in fact seen standings published. Unfortunately it would be quite an undertaking to retrieve them. I do not recall at this time where. They are seldom published because people tend to care only of the winner. I felt that the standings speak for themselves there are all relevant statistical columns listed beginning with games played. An encyclopedia provides information and the table provides easy to read team statistics. It would be only natural to apply tie breaking rules regardless of their inception date since that would have been their intended use. Furthermore I do not feel a knockout tournament invalidates standings. It simply requires a games played column. I don't feel that I am alone in saying that I think it is a wonderful addition to the pages. I do not know what userfy is but welcome the assistance. Thank you. Libro0 11:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I have managed to track down one of the sources that I saw the standings in. It is 'Italia 90' Author: Dosal, Juan, 1942- Publication: México, D.F. : Editorial Pax México, Year: 1990. I will try to recall where else I have seen the stats. I also took a look at the history page as well 1930 in particular. As you mentioned there were two previous versions. The first was titled FULL TABLE and at first was ok until the rank column was added. The second was titled Performance Of Teams which was also ok and did not include any form of number ranking. It is beyond me why they were deleted. I think they were better than mine. As far as WP:NOR, I don't feel this applies since either stating its unofficiality or titling it 'team performance' is not trying to advance a position but merely listing statistical data which happens to be factual. It cannot be original research since the information comes from the same sources as the rest of the page. On a personal note it is kind of draining when one spends a great deal of time doing something only to have another take a split second to delete it all. Another contributor was in my opinion nit picking when he deleted the goal difference columns because it was not in use at the time. The inclusion does not mean it was used in such a way however and therefore harmless. My suggestion is to have the table listed as final or cumulative team statistics without a ranking column. Libro0 15:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for pointing that out. I was on his page earlier and I don't know how I missed such a large red sign! Must be going blind in my old age. :) Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Tag

Quote:- "I read with interest your coversation above with User:Wangi and yet I noticed that you continued to upload images with the tag he (rightly) objected to. Would you be willing to re-edit those images to remove the copyright statement, which is rather confusing, and the link to your own site, which breaches policy? Obviously you may take as read my intense gratitude for uploading so many high quality images to our encyclopedia. Please have a think about it. Thanks. --Guinnog 16:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)"

Hello Guinnog. Images no longer have the Copyright tag as previously shown. Do you mean the small underwire with the site name? I can disconnect that feature in my image resizing if it is contravening a rule somewhere at Wikipedia. There is no (C) indicating copyright, nor is there any hyperlink from the picture. I am not sure what you mean. I have a link to our encyclopedia of images in the "External Links". User Wangi misunderstood that this was my personal site which it is not. I contribute to it but it is a user uploadable database that (like Wikipedia) is free for everyone to use, within the parameters allowed.

Thank you for your kind words regarding the quality of the images. I shall continue to contribute in the free spirit of Wikipedia, and augment the text based articles with some bright pictures where applicable and appropriate. Please clarify where you bear issue with the images.

Dotonegroup

I was thinking of the text at the bottom of, for example, Image:Boeing 707 engine view.jpg, where it says (c) ScotlandOne.com. This appears to contradict the copyright information on the description below, which is the template Permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

I'd be much happier if you edited your images to make it plain you are the creator of the image and that you donate the copyright to Wikipedia under the terms of the GFDL. Aesthetically, it would make the images look much nicer too. --Guinnog 17:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dotonegroup"

Hello Guinnog,

I did not realize that some of the images have the (C)at the bottom. I am removing the whole bottom underwire and will disconnect that feature when resizing for Wikipedia. You mentioned making it plain that I am the creator of the images, this is indicated in the image description. You also mentioned a link to "my" site. Wangi explained that a direct link on the user page was acceptable. I am still not understanding where the images are contravening Wikipedia guidelines (other than the (C) issue). I am donating the images freely from a photo encyclopedia of the United Kingdom. There are no links from the photo, nor the photo description to any site. If linking to a database of 2000 images in the external link section is somehow not allowed, then I'd be questioning it's existence. The link is relevant and is not a personal homepage.

Your gentle diction and suggestions are appreciated.

Dotonegroup

Replied on my talk page, thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dotonegroup

Thanks for the Photography Barnstar. I am humbled considering I only started contributing one week ago. (Add blush emoticon here). Dotonegroup 20:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! As I say, you deserve it; these are some very fine photos. --Guinnog 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Issues

I have created a discussion on the issues that are being fought about in the Bubble hash article at Talk:Bubble_hash#Issues. If you wish to comment, please feel free. Viridae^Talk 14:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Pre-script: we are currently undergoing peer review, see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland.

Great. To count yourself in, please scribble here:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject/List_of_proposed_projects#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scotland

--Mais oui! 20:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Guinnog 20:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

You have a tedious job, Guinnog. Thanks for the diligence! Congirl 00:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The spelling "publically" appears in two dictionaries (American Heritage and Oxford English) so I think its kind of harsh to replace it as a spelling mistake. Otherwise, good work :) - FrancisTyers · 00:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the link, I have to say I think my "Oxford Shorter" (in two volumes) and access to Oxford unabridged (through ATHENS) trumps the "Websters Unabridged" (at least in terms of volume and mass! :) But seriously, I don't see any problem with using "publically", same as many other spelling variations. This isn't a definitely/definately case, but more of a organisation/organization case I think. Of course I'm willing to be proved wrong ;) - FrancisTyers · 00:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. Knowing people I like and respect have that opinion of me means so much to me. Thank you, Guinnog. Also, I agree with the comment above; you've done an great job pulling up all those errors. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I think an RfC is perhaps the way to go. I have been thinking about it, that dispute on that page is just getting ridiculous. Viridae^Talk 06:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh good. I was getting around to it but I have a friend staying. Viridae^Talk 14:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Crime Expo SA

I got nothing about this on Alexa. Does that signify? Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 23:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reminding me about that. I meant to go back and check if he had expanded on his question and answer section, but I completely forgot about it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank very much!Have an wonderful day!:) A.S. Brown 14:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Article Names

Hi, how do you get the name of an article changed? do you know? --Frogsprog 15:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that. Likewise your edits - we seem to have some similar interests.PhilLeotardo 16:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Football (soccer) barnstar

Thanks for your barnstar! Two barnstars in ten days... I guess it's time for me to cut down on my Wikipedia edits and do some real work! :-P Chanheigeorge 17:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey - thanx for that - my 1st! - nice to get a barnstar from the guy what designed it! Camillus (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And a thanks from me as well Guinnog, much appreciated. Forbsey 05:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Song

Song does not exist any more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.37.251 (talk • contribs)

Torbett

You're right - mentioning this on the main Celtic page would stir up a hornet's nest, particularly from the BJK brigade - despite what they would have you believe, this incident 30 years ago is not one of the most important things to mention about the football club. I could envisage it being mentioned in the History of Celtic F.C. page, but it would have to be carefully worded to deflect the same old crap from the BJK brigade. Of course fans of a particular team's biggest rivals are going to make all kinds of allegations/slurs/smears against their rivals - but of course, these "BJK" allegations are inherently unverifiable.

Something on the lines of "In 1996, two former members of the Celtic Boys Club took its founder, JT, to court accusing him of sexual abuse twenty years previously. JT was sacked as coach of the Boys Club by Jock Stein in 1976. JT was convicted of kissing and fondling boys in his care, and given a two-year sentence." (ok, needs tidied up grammatically etc., but the salient points are there, facts only, no speculation). I can't guarantee that mentioning it on the History page won't lead to a hornet's nest anyway, but concede that not mentioning it at all will always lead to allegations of "cover-up". What cannot be accepted is speculation as to what Stein "knew", particularly when the only people making these allegations are rival fans.

There are many excellent contributions to various WP articles from editors who are proud bluenoses - I just wish the BJK brigade, whose only input is to spread scurillous speculation/slander, would take a leaf from their book, or failing that, just "get a life". Camillus (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Guinnog. Can you help me again, Tchadienne has started again with my RfA (see history) and my talk page (diff). Thanks. —Mets501 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently this user is under the impression I am banned from Wikipedia. As JzG has yet to pull this off, I suggest you inform this user that removing votes from his RFA is usually looked down upon. Tchadienne 15:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User: Tchadienne isn't banned, but your sockpuppet is, and your other sockpuppet is. —Mets501 (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tchad, I thought you were needlessly uncivil on the RfA. I can't reply on your own talk page as would be my usual practice as it is still protected. You were blocked recently, and did try to vote under a sockpuppet account which is still blocked, so you should cut Mets some slack for the misunderstanding, if such it was. I removed your vandalism warning from Mets' talk, Tchad, as it was clearly not vandalism.

Also, I absolutely forbid you two to bicker about the matter on my talk page. Let's consider the matter closed and move onwards, please. --Guinnog 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mets. I took a look at the situation. Although Tchadienne has been very uncivil about it, and I shall say so to him, I don't think he (she?) has done anything actually wrong in voting against your RfA. I suggest you let the vote stand; removing it might make you look bad. I will make a note to the closing bureaucrat against Tchad's vote, but, having been unblocked now, there is no reason that the vote will be invalid. Whether the vote was cast in good faith is another matter, and one I am sure the closing bureaucrat will take into account. Don't worry about it; I think you're cruising the RfA anyway, nicht wahr? Let me know if I can do anything else to help you. Best wishes, --Guinnog 15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize. I'll let the vote stand; I won't remove it again. How about the test2 on my talk page though? Would you remove that? —Mets501 (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. —Mets501 (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for everything. —Mets501 (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar for your help

For your wonderful help and guidance with "incidents" relating to my RfA, I hereby award you the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. Thanks again. —Mets501 (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I've given a barnstar, and I'm really glad I've given it to someone as deserving as you. Thanks for your help and persistence! —Mets501 (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous

Fine, I'm more than happy to abide by your absurd logic. Re-add the warning I gave you for vandalizing my talkpage, without distorting what I posted, and I'll be more than happy to re-add JzG's "warnings." One thing I refuse to do is allow him to change comments I posted. Tchadienne 17:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tchadienne, I did not vandalise your talk page. I had to warn you for removing previous warnings. Your warning to me was removed by User:JzG. If he, or any other Wikipedian in good standing who is a disinterested party in the matter thinks it should be put back, then I will happily do so. You could always take it to a RFC if you feel strongly about it.

But it cannot be a quid pro quo; we are all bound by the rules of Wikipedia when we are here. You were unwise enough to break some of the rules and be caught and blocked for it. You then evaded the block and got up to all sorts of silliness. I am the one who argued for giving you another chance, on the basis of your good edits to the encyclopedia. I am not interested in bickering with you. I hope you can move on and learn from what happened. If you cannot, and insist on stirring up trouble, I can't see it going anywhere good for you. In spite of everything, I still wish you well and think you can contribute well here. But you must show that in your behaviour; the ball is in your court now. It is up to you. --Guinnog 17:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

Also somewhat belatedly is my thank you -- I was on WikiBreak when you gave it to me. I'd like to thank you somehow for this, so I'll second the Barnstar Barnstar that Ed gave to you. I'll add this to your trophy shelf in a few seconds. Thanks again! Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)