User talk:AllanHainey

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 14:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

IDRIVE

subst:

You helped choose {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

Sun and Planet Gear

Hi Allan. Is your Sun and planet gear the same thing as described in the Epicyclic gearing article? If so, maybe it should be merged into that and redirected. If not, apologies. Tonywalton | Talk 11:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

colloidal silver / argyria

hello Allen ! Here a list of the literature i collected (+ some extra links to webpages). some info sources are in german of course, but i think around 90% in english. some articles are dificult to obtain, i may copy them for you if needed. somer newer articles are not yet included. look also at pubmed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi there you may enter keywords like: argyria or colloidal silver the list: http://www.redecke.de/michael/silverreferences.htm regards, michael Redecke 22:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Peel

Allan, I slightly modified and corrected the language about John's having reported for the Liverpool Echo (in his own words, he actually called in the story to the Liverpool Echo and it was printed), modified the first mariage bit (some details are unclear), and re-added his having been a computer programmer in 1965 which was in the English Who's Who, and an interesting, largely unknown facet of his career. Have a look. Cheers. -- Wikiklrsc 14:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Allan. Thanks for your kind note. I mis-worded my edit note. I hadn't corroborated the bit about Peelie's having married an underage girl. I will leave that to you, since you have the data. I made a minor language syntax correction, too. No big deal. I did want to keep the bit about John's having been a computer programmer in 1965, etc. since very few people know about that. I mentioned it to people I know he worked with at the Beeb and they were happy to find out. Please re-correct as you see fit. I trust your integrity. Who couldn't trust a Scotsman in England ? ;) Cheers, ever, and many thanks ! ;) -- Wikiklrsc 15:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Allan. As I mentioned, in the British Who's Who, it distinctly said computer programmer in 1965. Being closer to Peel's age than yours ;) I can vouch for the fact that he likely was doing some sort of computer programming even if it was with punched cards and wiring tabulator boards. I think we should give him what he wrote in Who's Who ! Up to you. Can we put something like "he worked with computers in the 1960's for an insurance company" ? It would be an added dimension ? Let me know. Either of us can put it in, but I will wait for your take on it. It is in Who's Who, and the way Who's Who works, is that Peel must have filled in the questionaire himself, having been invited myself to make a biography for Who's Who, but never succumbing to it. As I said, it adds a dimension of John's technical abilities which would not have been clear otherwise. Although, I am told by his colleagues and producers that he refused to use a computer and typed on a mechanical typewriter !

Oh, I should have looked before speaking. You did include the bit about filing computer cards. Good. Looks adequate. But it wouldn't be like Peel to exaggerate his function in Who's Who. (?) Perhaps he was doing some punched card computer programming of sorts. He said it. But I am fine with the toned down version you made. Unless you feel we can up it to what Who's Who has. Thanks ever for your kind thoughts. (Bob) -- Wikiklrsc 15:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mightily, Allan. The article looks great, now ! -- Wikiklrsc 16:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Splendid isolation

Hello, good work on Splendid isolation, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Splendid isolation? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or see WP:CITET if you wish to review some of the different citation methods. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 23:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Refrence Desk Question

I just noticed you asked who the guy with the 2x4s was. He was called Oofty Goofty, and you can find a little about him in 'Eccentrics', whose authors I cannot remember. Ductape Daredevil 18:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COA

Hi Allan. I'm just replying to your question (over a month later - I'm so sorry!). Anyway, Churchill I know for a definite because he was made a Knight of the Garter so he was entitled to a coat of arms. Gladstone's I'm not too sure why he has them, but I believe the only PM not entitled to arms was Ramsay Macdonald. Thanks Craigy (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Allan. For what it's worth I found out that those arms are actually for WEG's father, who was a baronet and then subsequently WEG's elder brother who inherited the baronetcy. This is most evident in the "Ulster Hand" in the top left corner which indicates he was a Baronet in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom. I'm not sure what the 1st Viscount Gladstone's arms were, but at least we know now where they should be (and, like you say, I don't think WEG had arms). Whether or not you're interested, the bloody man in the middle is either a druid or a local, Lanarkshire savage who was hanged for kidnapping sheep and the birds should look like gledes (Gla/e/d/e-stone), from the old English word for 'kite' (part of the hawk family) and not look like beakless-ducks! :-) I've deleted the image anyway. Thanks a lot for the correspondence. Craigy (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton...

...for your heads-up on dyk. Unfortunately, no one seemed to take note of it. In future, please use Talk:Main Page for such concerns as thay get addressed very fast there. --Gurubrahma 18:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The matter of Dr. James R. Russell's article

Hi Allan. Perhaps you can help out. I wrote Professor/Dr. James R. Russell's article as he is indeed a world known scholar in his field and very notable. I checked that his colleague, Dr. Wheeler Thackston had an article, which he has since 2004. They are both in the same department at Harvard, and on comparable par. Dr. Russell's opus "Zoroastrianism in Armenia" is a major work published by Harvard University amongst other works of his. The article is not a vanity article and Dr. Russell who occupies the Mashtots Chair in Armenian Studies, at Harvard University, which is a very prestigious chair, is more than noteworthy. As much as Dr. Wheeler Thackston is. Dr. Russell's article is James R. Russell. I have no idea who User_talk:Dsc is and why the person flagged it. The stated objections are not valid. The warning should be removed. I don't know where else to turn to. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 21:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Allan. Thanks for your kind message. It isn't really resolved. User:Sannse formerly of the Wikipedia arbitration committee had removed the warning in the light of reason, and the person User:Dsc has slapped on the warning again on Dr. James R. Russell's article without any discussion. I do hope this gets resolved but (a) I don't feel the warning is justified and it should not be there (b) the person has taken no time to discuss it as per your suggestion, and (c) I have no easy internet access on this end due to serious outages, and (d) the objection by the person does not stand up to reason and a test. I am writing this from a stand-up kiosk in a library. If you could do something appropriate, I would be appreciative. The person is acting in my opinion, irrationally. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 21:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Allan! I give full copyright to wikimedia foundation to use the iceberg image for any purpose whatsoever. Professor. Dr. habil. Uwe Kils Uwe Kils 12:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Service

I left you a note on your Wikisource user talk page today about this authors name. --Droll 10:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response at Talk:Robert_W._Service#Robert Service or Robert W Service and at s:Wikisource:Scriptorium--Droll 21:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SisterProjects template

Hi! I'm preparing to bring the disagreement over project slogans to the Communications Committee weekly meeting, and I've asked for input on the talk page where the discussion had been occurring, but perhaps it might be better if you could respond either by e-mail or on my wp talk page to these three questions:

On what basis does en.Wikipedia ignore another WMF project's slogan?
On what basis does en.Wikipedia ignore another WMF project's description?
Is the SisterProject template on Wikipedia using slogans or descriptions for all projects?

- Amgine 21:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you direct me to the discussion on Wikisource where the decision was made regarding the Wikisource slogan and description. As a personal note, the free library is not descriptive of the contents of Wikisource. - Amgine 16:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: A descriptive phrase regarding a library might be "Collection of literary and information documents"; most libraries have a target mission and may be described specifically regarding that mission, i.e. The Ford Library at the UofMI Ann Arbor "Biographical and primary source materials for the 38th US President." A descriptive phrase for Wikisource might be "Source documents." - Amgine 17:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The committee did not reach any decision regarding localised logos, descriptive texts, or self-identifying slogans. Some members of the committee would like to draw up a style guide, which would cover this issue. Because no decision was reached the discussion is ongoing. - Amgine 22:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Murdoch

Alan, are you OK with me putting this up as a Good Article nominee ? Seems to me like it should be ok to pass, but maybe you've still got plans. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:NFUMutual-logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:NFUMutual-logo.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does one become an ADMIN?

Wondering about that. I've done lots of editing and have a tremendous background in history, languages, the classics, romance languages, etc. I've done a ton of editing and started a number of articles including several that are the result of unique historical research on my part. Thanks. SimonATL 01:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SSP

Hello. Regarding Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mayor Westfall: I looked at the RD question, but I did not see an explicit edits that seem to confirm that Baron Von Westfall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Mayor Westfall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Is there anything else that seems to confirm they are the same user? Iola k ana|^T 12:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages listed on Categories for deletion

Discussion on CFD - proposal to merge all subcats of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies up into the main cat. Relevant categories which would be deleted are:

I think that this is a rather important discussion for editors interested in Scotland-related articles, especially Scottish politics and Scottish biographical articles (particularly local history). Please have a read and ponder, and contribute to the debate if you like. Thanks. --Mais oui! 17:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be relevant in this context to consider the discussions in the parent category for the UK parliament: Category talk:British MPs. I find it regrettable that Mais oui! has engaged in a restructuring of that category without entering into the discussions there. --BrownHairedGirl 17:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_23#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_Scottish_constituencies is just about to close. I would really appreciate your contribution, because this debate needs some serious input. --Mais oui! 09:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

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

I am beginning to think that the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board is not the best vehicle for pushing up the quality of the Scotland article (we ought to try to get it to WP:FA, in order to get into Wikipedia:Version 0.5, or, failing that, Wikipedia:Version 1.0), and the other key Scottish articles. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that we really ought to start up the long-mooted WikiProject Scotland.

Most of the stuff at the notice board (at least on the bottom half) is actually WikiProject material anyway, and the Talk page is really being used as a WikiProject talk already! The notice board should be just that: for bunging up brief notices and signposts. I am thinking of launching a Wikiproject and correspondingly radically clearing out, and chopping down, the noticeboard (a re-launch if you like). The Scotland Portal concept is fine (but currently mediocre/undynamic content), but in stasis: it needs a good kick up the jacksie.

For comparison, have a look at:

And, if you are at a loose end, have a look at:

Thoughts? Please express them here. --Mais oui! 18:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Following a successful period of consultation WikiProject Scotland has now been launched. As a participant in the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board I wonder if you may be interested in this new endeavour too? If so, please sign-up here. The WikiProject will be replacing some of the functions of the notice board, especially those in the lower half.

While I am here, please also have a look at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland and give it a "Watch". It was started up by User:Visviva a few days ago, after long being mooted at the notice board, and effectively replaces all the AfD listings at the notice board. Being a transclusion of all the on-going discussions it is a much more useful tool.

Even if you do not want to spend too much time on the WikiProject, please give it a "Watch" and feel free to contribute to Talk page discussions: the more contributors the merrier.

All the best. --Mais oui! 11:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:AlexNewArtBot

Hi AllanHainey, as a WikiProject Scotland participant, please check out this this thread and consider adding the bot results page to your watchlist so we can manually update the New Articles page. There are some false results for the first batch, but I'm sure we can collectively tune the rules to improve the output.

If we get enough people watching the results page, we'll be cooking with gas as they say :) This looks like a great helper in finding new Scotland related material. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 01:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood electrification article is up for deletion by deletionists

I noticed that you had contributed to the talk page of the colloidal silver page, and that your coments seemed unbiased, permitting the possibility that certain types of properly made CS are not dangerous. I have copy-pasted this next text from something I sent to someone else's talk page too... If you are interested, please read on...

Deletionist WP editors have elected the Blood electrification and sister Bioelectrification articles to be deleted.

The argument is being used that Blood electrification has not been publicized in the mainstream media or scientific / medical journals sufficiently so is "not notable" a.k.a. WP:notability.

Also they claim that patent documentation is not a reliable source and then never check the documents to see if these patent docs cite scientific journal articles as part of their basis for patent claims. Thereby, none of these deletionist contributors want to enhance the article by providing any WP:RS reference links. Furthermore, waves of these editors edit the article with different mindsets / agendas as to what they consider acceptable coverage and scope of references usable, otherwise even WP:RS sources are deleted as having been seen by individual editors as being associated, but not exactly addressing specifically microcurrents, or blood, or specific pathogen types, and so on. The article is trimmed down so much that it shrinks to non-existence--as is the initial intent by these editors with any bioelectric alternative medicine articles since their point of view (POV) is that electromedicine is quackery without exception.

Voting is done by following the deletion tag link and contributing to the deletion voting discussions. You can read the article, examine the article history, view earlier versions, view / contribute to the talk page for Blood electrification, then visit the Articles for deletion page (Afd page) for the article linked from the tags placed on the article.

All of the mainstream scentist and medical type people are voting for deletion as is their usual thing with alternative medicine pieces. Your input would be welcome. Oldspammer (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource calls

Hi, just a quick note to let you know that Wikisource is collaborating on s:Author:John Gould, who it appears was a major contributor to s:The Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle which you have been working on. It would be good to see you back on Wikisource.. :-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, AllanHainey. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]