User talk:Iain1917

Hello, Iain1917, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Thank you for your updates to the Burnt mound article, which was in need of expansion. I notice that you have removed the information and reference to the Birmingham burnt mounds. Whilst bold updating is encouraged it is not considered good practice to remove factual text which has its source provided. If there is another (sourced) viewpoint then this should be added as a contrast.

I am sure there is more for you to add to this article, so carry on, and do add your sources, even while it is a work in progress. Best wishes :)

Again, welcome! Oosoom ^Talk to me 12:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite book

Thanks for incorporating the Birmingham information into your text of Burnt mound. The article is fleshing out very well. Have you considerd use of the cite book template for citing sources which are books? This allows you to specify id=ISBN 123456789 (with hyphens as appropriate) to help others track down the reference - Wikipedia:Citation templates. Many thanks. Oosoom ^Talk to me 18:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reports the debate, it does not engage in it.

I saw your comments on John Foxe's talk page. I think you might want to take a look at WP:NPOV. The only facts on WP are 1) undisputed facts, like, "there is a planet called Mars", and 2) facts about what people believe about disputed topics. For example, LDS believe JS,Jr. translated the Book of Mormon as he claimed, and others believe he made it up or got it from some other source. In other words, the origin of the Book of Mormon is disputed, and when it comes to disputed topics like this WP does not take a position, does not and should not attempt to 'prove' anything, except that group A believes X and group B believes Y, as evidenced by WP:RS statements by experts D, E, and F. WP does not participate in the debate, it only reports the debate. 74s181 (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate lain1917's work with John Foxe. The article was much improved by their combined effort. John Foxe has a definite POV that was appropriately tempered by lain1917.97.126.140.221 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

See my talk page

I've replied to your query on my talk page. AnteaterZot (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irgunist

From your home country I can see why you consider the Irgun terrorists. British were a target of the Irgun. The British however, worked very hard to create a balance of terror in Mandatory Palestine. The policy was to help whichever side was weaker. One case is Orde Charles Wingate, who went native with the Jews. Saltysailor (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My nationality has nothing to do with why I consider Irgun terrorists. I consider Irgun terrorists because they behaved in exactly the same way as Hamas does today, with a very similar rationale and outlook. Hamas are terrorists, Irgun and the Stern Gang were terrorists. It does no disservice to Israel to recognise that they were terrorists, and trying to pretend that they weren't is just silly.Iain1917 (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was a teenage pupil

In US common usage, the level distinction between pupil & student doesn't exist. Pupil is merely a more formal synonym. xod (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your statement was held to be universal, as opposed to specific to the British dialect. xod (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should endeavor to avoid confusion across English variations and avoid using phrases that are either specifically British or specifically North American. xod (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Haha, I just heard a college student referred to as a “pupil” on a podcast out of the UK. Sorry! xod (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2010 (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) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Iain1917. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Iain1917. 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]

Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_bJy5jkZUzhyQKnX&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Iain1917. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]