User talk:Icairns/archive/archive 06

Userbox

UoExThis user studied/studies at the University of Exeter.

I have created the following University of Exeter userbox which I thought you might be interested in. Just add {{User:Benjaminevans82/Userboxes/Exeter}} to you user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminevans82 (talk • contribs)

?

are you online now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gheeeey (talk • contribs)

<br clear="all"/>

Wouldn't you rather have your boxes not overlapping your userboxes? It looks so much better. :) -PatPeter 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and this is now achieved with any br codes... Ian Cairns 09:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Subpages

According to StS I had to turn your box about real life into a subpage, as it put you in CG:UT.

• User:Icairns/reallife

216.37.85.1

This is a loaner laptop so whoever had it before must have done it, in fact I'm turning it back in at the end of the day to get my (hopefully repaired) laptop back. Sorry it didn't get to him.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.37.85.1 (talk • contribs).

Smile

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Weasel123

Thanks so much for your help in vandal-blocking. I must admit I was shaking for a couple minutes when I thought I had been the one blocked. Only question is: I see the vandal has stopped, but why doesn't the block show up here? Thanks again! John J. Bulten (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John. I can't explain the absence of a log at your link - but I can see it at: [:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Ipblocklist&ip=Weasel123]. The block only applies to Weasel123's username - not to any IP address he / she was using. Ian Cairns (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Berkshire WikiProject invitation

File:Berks arms.gif

Hello, Icairns/archive/archive 06! I'd like to invite you to join the Berkshire WikiProject. It's a user-group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Berkshire-related content. There is a discussion page for sharing ideas as well as developing and getting tips on improving articles. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of members. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We hope to be working with you in the future!

Seaserpent⁸⁵ 01:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my user page from vandalism. --Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 00:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No probs. Ian Cairns (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user continuing to violate WP:BLP

User talk:Glaiza kandalika, who you blocked for 31 hours for vandalism and violation of WP:BLP, continues to make personal attacks and libelous statements on their talk page.[1] I think this Single Purpose attack account should be permanently blocked, including making edits to their talk page. Thank you, ~ priyanath talk 20:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added some further comments. Please keep me informed should the sourced references eventually appear. Please be prepared to discuss / refute any such references as may be appropriate. Ian Cairns (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The only 'sourced' reference he posted earlier is to an unreliable attack website that doesn't come close to meeting WP:RS for a BLP. In fact, leaving his latest statement, as is, on his talk page is a clear violation of WP:BLP that should be removed. I don't understand why it's allowed to remain. Violations of WP:BLP are not supposed to be shown such easy tolerance, according to policy:

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

I request its immediate removal, please, especially since it's libelous. ~ priyanath talk 20:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Go for it!! The user is blocked and you can, and should, remove any libellous material from this article now. If this user should be able to produce reputable justification, then you may need to discuss the merits of the sources. However, it sounds very unlikely at the moment. If you have prior knowledge of his source, then please mention it and any shortcomings as a valid source in the article's discussion page - this will help an Admin to follow the arguments faster when this user returns from the block in a day or so. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep watching for any re-adding of these things without WP:RS (which there are none). ~ priyanath talk 21:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Historical websites

Category:Historical websites, 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. – Cgingold (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Cgingold - I was going to do this and you beat me to it. --Lquilter (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No probs - sounds good. Ian Cairns (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

British v English

You're adding British Mathematicians to many who are already in Category:English mathematicians (and therefore already in Category:British mathematicians via category inclusion). Is this an error or are you making some point about nationality? -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You have excluded a third option - they are already in the category but misfiled... Someone has concocted a British mathematician stub which takes the current / default filing. This put them some time back into the British mathematicians category (.. and not my choice..) where I am endeavouring to sort out the correct filing. And that is all I am doing... Let me know if you cannot verify my assertion above. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Let us consider Miles Reid. I see that the UK mathematician stub puts him in Category:British mathematicians and he's already in Category:English mathematicians; and you added Category:British mathematicians. Why? (I myself am definitely British and arguably English, and arguably Scottish, so have no problem with people being removed from 'English'. Not sure how you establish whether someone is English. Miles Reid is very likely English but if both his parents were Scottish ...) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Righto. Miles Reid was filed in Category:British mathematicians under the letter M by dint of the deficiencies (in my opinion) of the UK Mathematician stub template. I moved the stub above the DEFAULTSORT and then replaced the Category British mathematicians _after_ the DEFAULTSORT - result: Miles Reid filed itself under R. You have now removed the second Categorisation. Result: Miles Reid is now filing itself back under M - which is what I was trying to avoid. If you check the category, you can see that I am going through them serially correcting the alphabetical filing by surname. I have no intentions of doing this twice and will leave your edits as they are. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: I am a Cairns from Buckinghamshire / Surrey - please do not read any nationalism into my surname...

Hmmm.. On second thoughts, It's probably better if I abandon my corrections for today. I'll have another look in a few days, but I'm not putting back what I had corrected once. It was tricky enough as it was. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now grasped the problem. The culprit seems to be the UK stub template. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made an edit to Template:UK-mathematician-stub which might have sorted it. (You might have to close and reopen your browser before it notices.) At least for me Reid is now under R. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Aegis (magazine) & Francis Perceval Eliot

I've rather changed the tone of The Aegis (magazine) which you created - and haven't actually read the paper in question - so thought I should run it by you in case I've erred. If you've no objection, I suggest moving the page to The Aegis (London newspaper). I've another (unrelated!) query: the dates in Francis Perceval Eliot are eccentric. Was this short-lived experimentation on your part, or part of a larger vision? Best, Dsp13 (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the Aegis was a magazine rather than a newspaper - although I am unclear what was the difference at that time - but that is how it is usually referred. It was created to dab links to the existing US newspaper article which were being inadvertently picked up by the FPE article.

The dates in FPE appear fine from here? What effect are you seeing? IIRC, the dates were created when the ISO 8601 date format was possibly becoming predominant in WP - being blind to the article's variant of English - and dependent on the viewer's Wiki settings for the actual display format. Feel free to change or let me know what effect you are seeing. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all I see is the raw ISO 8601, 2008-01-05 etc. Must be my Wiki settings (which I didn't know I had changed in any relevant way). Interesting! Thanks, Dsp13 (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Genealogics automaticals

I deplore that some (you?) have started formulaicly to use the Genealogics things to replace genuine and considered links to Genealogics in individual articles. My griping is mostly based on the fact that the formulas you created, fail to appreciate that in Genealogics, the linker may chose how many generations are needed/ useful to present. Perhaps the template is not such a bad thing, but its existence leads some to replace careful links created by others with your formula, losing occasionally some information needed in the article itself. Blind replacements should be banned. Marrtel (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

My previous reply has been removed in favour of the second discussion you started on Template talk:Genealogics pedigree. Ian Cairns (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI

This user reported here [2] has been impersonating you and trying to tell users you've blocked them. MBisanz ^talk 22:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted!! and thanks for letting me know. Ian Cairns (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: User 206.82.19.62

Ian. Hi. The anonymous User(s) 206.82.19.62 of a shared workstation that you had warned previously continues to be disruptive in their collective edits. You may want to block them again. Regards, Steve. Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've issued a test4 final warning. You are welcome to do this (in a more timely fashion) if you saw this vandalism earlier. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

CFD notice

I've nominated Category:Victims of psychological abuse, a category you created, for deletion. The discussion is HERE. Thanks. Snocrates 09:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Block of 75.50.103.48

Just a courtesy note, I tweaked your block of 75.50.103.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to remove the anon-only bit, as the The Great Hunger article has a torrid history (inclduing an arbitration case on the article). Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note - I of course gave up monitoring vandalism at that point. Ian Cairns (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

William Esson

Thanks for starting William Esson! It was on my list of things to do. The redlink in Template:Savilian Professors of Geometry was bugging me too. Happy editing! LeSnail (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome - there's very little worthwhile information on him publicly available... n'est-ce pas? Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Diplomatic missions by country - Turkey

I already had left a comment on Talk:Diplomatic_missions_of_Denmark and asked that the discussion be brought to Category_talk:Diplomatic_missions_by_country. No adequate reason was provided by the user of that IP address and another (who cited reasons like Turkey's population relative to Greece), and the user(s) proceded to undo my changes without consulation.

To follow due process I have posted a request on 88.244.70.228's talk page to explain why Turkey should be categorised as Europe. However I fear that every user of that Turkish IP address is now aware of the issue and is barracking for their country...Kransky (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If you feel that vandalism is still taking place (NB: Vandalism has a well-defined formal meaning), then we need to see appropriate warnings on the user's talk page outlining the articles / edits / times when you feel vandalism has taken place. These warnings are reviewed by the admin when looking at whether the 'vandal' is to be blocked. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sage advice. I am afraid the person in question, who today assumed the user ID User:Izmir lee‎, went ahead with further disruptive changes, without giving other regular contributors the chance to state their case. I fail to see why the utility of articles should be reduced to satisfy his nationalist prejudices. Please advise him of the rules - note his youth (15 years) Kransky (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment on WP:AIV - these are no formal warnings on the user's talk page - e.g. test3 or test4. We'd then need to see some vandalising after this final warnings. Ian Cairns (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Two level 2 warnings given (bad faith and vandalism). Thanks for your comment. Sure he can be bold, but there are good reasons why editors have chosen to format these articles in a particular way. Kransky (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Izmir has started reverting his changes back and has not given any response. Consequently vandalism warning level has been raised to 4. Bad faith warning removed. Kransky (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am presuming 81.214.118.199 is Izmir, since the reverts are taking place in a systematic alphabetical order.Kransky (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem with warning templates

When we revert vandalism by someone who already received a level 4 warning, any other warnings make it seem like, "Oh, we didn't really mean it when we said that was your last warning," like the parent who says, "This is the last time I'm going to tell you" five times before taking action. What about something like this:[3]. I'd like some feedback on this as a possible template for non-admins to use when they revert past a level 4 warning. Thanks. Doczilla (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I'd have no problem using that. Ian Cairns (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll run it by a couple of other people and then, unless anyone sees a problem, move the page to make it a regular Wikipedia template. I'm just trying to think where would be the best place to present this for general feedback. Maybe the talk page for WP:UTN? Doczilla (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Go for it!! Ian Cairns (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A majority of those I got feedback from on this favored the idea but not a strong consensus. Of course, not everybody has to use something like this. At the suggestion of User:Master of Puppets, I've opened the discussion up at WT:AIV#Past-last_warning. Thanks again! Doczilla (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Appalling misuse of admin powers

I have raised an incident report on AN/I, as per my unblock request I consider your actions to be quite extraordinary. --Pete (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking my thoughts into consideration and unblocking Skyring; he is often on the opposite side as I am with regards to content disputes and ideologies regarding the Australian political system and its major figures and policies, but I simply had to speak up on his behalf in favour of a swift unblocking, because blocking someone with whom you are involved in ANY kind of dispute with is administrator anathema, and for good reason.

I am glad you swiftly reversed yourself, but I think both Skyring and you should now drop the issue, admit fault on both sides (Pete could have done it a better way - edit summaries are your friend, and would perhaps have aided in the alleviation of the initial confusion about which editor was supporting what date system), and move on. Unfortunately, Skyring is not a person to take such things lightly, and he may need some convincing to drop the issue, if not from you but from other editors and admins; but he seems to be getting that from the related AN/I thread he refers to above.

I again thank you for taking my opinion on board, and hopefully we will come into contact with one another in a more amiable fashion next time! DEVS EX MACINA _pray 13:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I really appreciate that you got involved as and when you did. Thanks! Ian Cairns (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:151.202.126.116

Hi! If you think it's appropriate please block the user. He/she repeatedly edits August 13. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Oda - Please report this user if you think his / her vandalism meets the criteria at WP:AIV or WP:ANI - Thank you, Ian Cairns (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now left a BV tag on his talk page - but he has not vandalised since these warnings. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. I read WP:Vandalism but there's no mention about what the user did, meaning repeatedly entered a non-notable person's name in the birth section on a date article. Is it vandalism? Or not? Did you see [4]? It would be helpful if you let me know. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is vandalism but I'd guess that it is almost certainly self-promotion, which I believe is included? Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. But there's a mystery. The first entry was this by RGG122 and the IP user added 'NYC' three minutes later. Looks like a vandal collaboration. Anyway thanks a lot. I learned that this kind of edit was Vandalism. (Smile) Oda Mari (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Turkey issue on Diplomatic Missions by Country (again)

Icairns, Another user has entered the debate. User:Eae1983‎ only initiated his account on 31 January, and like Lokum has been seeking to have Turkey categorised as Europe. I suggested a comprimise in which Turkey would be included as Asia, but I am inflexible on the idea of breaking up transcontinental countries just to satisfy his nationalism. He is not assuming good faith - sending out to Turkish wikipedians this comment:

Hi fellow editors, Can someone answer the question "where is Turkey?" Is it in Europe, Asia, or in the geopolitical entity named "the Middle East"? I was discussing it on Category_talk:Diplomatic_missions_by_country, as are many Turkish wikipedians, since in every Diplomatical Mission page without exception, Turkey is classified as "Middle Eastern". Each time any Turkish wikipedian reverted that page to "Turkey = Europe" someone frantically would put Turkey back to "Middle East" we discussed it with User:Kransky, the very creator of these page, who more or less obviously hates Turkey and does not want to give away his or her nationality, who flagged me for Vandalism and "Not assuming good faith" when I was only trying to protect what I believed was right and discussed politely.= Dear Turkish Wikipedians, I beg you to give me a hand on this very problem.

I suggest you visit the talk page and form your own opinion; I am worried Eae1983 may be trying to mobilise recruits to an edit war. Kransky (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:193.113.48.17

Hi Icairns, I noticed that you took action against User:193.113.48.17 in December for repeated spamming and vandalism. I wanted to let you know that this user has continued to make some unproductive edits, including one for an article on my watchlist, List of London's gentlemen's clubs. Just thought you'd like to know. SaintCyprian ^Talk 01:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Cyprian. Thanks for that. Yes this was old vandalism - back in January. Since the user is anonymous, it could be a shared user. In which case, there is little use in taking action this far after the event. If he starts actively vandalising again, please let me know ASAP or better still report to WP:AIV for action (you may have to wait for me to become available, but AIV will deal with it quickly). Thanks again, Ian Cairns (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm Ok

You said I couldn't edit because I told the Truth about Medved, and you let them tell lies about my friend Vox Day, you guys are a joke, and I have the software to get around your friking IP block. But I don't do shit like that, like the trolls that are attacking Vox Day. I don't have much respect left for your "rational" decisions. And besides, don't give a fuck.

Gregg Tompkins Fort Worth, TX

AfD nomination of University of Exeter Halls of Residence

I have nominated University of Exeter Halls of Residence, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Exeter Halls of Residence. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Reordering Categories

I notice that you have reordered some category listings by using, for example, [[Category:Unsolved problems in mathematics|Hilbert]] to place the listing of the "Unsolved problems" where "Hilbert" would go. Is there some rhyme or reason to this work? For example, is there a project that identifies pages that are in need of this kind of category re-ordering? Also, is there a WP: reference that explains when to do this kind of thing? Thanks.—GraemeMcRae^talk 22:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. The best links I can come up with are:

• WP:CATP
• WP:SORTKEY
• Wikipedia:Categorization#Category_sorting

In the example you quoted, I noticed that the Hilbert problems were being sorted in alphabetical order, i.e. ninth, sixteenth and twelfth were sorted in that order. I merely adjusted the sorting order to be numerical, i.e. 9th, 12th, 16th. I hope that explains things a little. Let me know if you feel I have messed something up. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand now what you did. For example, in this edit, you changed it so "Hilbert's sixteenth" appeared after "Hilbert's twelfth" in the "Unsolved problems in mathematics" category. Nothing wrong with that! (I was just having a mental block understanding the effect of this edit until now.) Thanks for the references.—GraemeMcRae^talk 22:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:username

You appear to have blocked this user despite them not having edited for two years? Black Kite 22:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Scratch that, there's something funny going on at AIV - [5]. Black Kite 22:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Formation and evolution of the Solar System

FYI, I've undone one of your edits based on a not-entirely clear subtlety of WP:MOSBOLD; see the article's talk page. ASHill (talk | contribs) 14:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Email blocks

Hey, Icairns. Just a reminder that email should not be disabled as a default when blocking accounts. Per the blocking policy, email should only be disabled in response to abuse of the email function. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Ian Cairns (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

or —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.121.162 (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Guyver99

Ian, in response to this, which was removed between the time I left to come to work and had a chance to check it, the user is very, very clearly a sock of the same person that has been blocked indefinitely three times from Wikipedia for adding spam links (User:Vgmfm, User:Red911 and User:Bbb104) . As far as I'm aware, we aren't required to go through the whole escalating warnings process when a user continues to do the exact same things on the exact same page that have already had him blocked indefinitely from three other accounts. --Smashville^BONK! 15:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Smashville - Many thanks for that. There was fairly little evidence of editing let alone vandalism from the user concerned, so I left a comment but did not remove the AIV report. It may be worthwhile considering reporting at WP:SSP next time. Thanks again, Ian Cairns (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sage1989

Re [6] I realize he had insufficient warnings, but due to the fact that it seemed like compromised account and the vandalism was in violation of WP:BLP, I thought immediately going to AIV would be the optimal course of action. Stale report now though, so moot point. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 17:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No probs. Thanks for your help. Ian Cairns (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

212.219.7.3‎

Per [7], do we really want to play whack-a-vandal on a weekly basis? Feel free to hand out 1 year schoolblocks whenever its warranted. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going by the 'must be active now' guidelines - but I agree that schools are the basis of much of the AIV work. Rgrds, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

SORRY

Sorry about vandalising.

SORRY

Sorry about vandalising.--Adidasnike619 (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message - let your new-found behaviour speak in its actions..... rgrds, Ian Cairns (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:205.221.150.3

Hopefully you don't mind, but it occurs to me that I'm fiddling with a block you set, and possibly should have asked you, first; I can at least let you know, now. Explanation at User talk:205.221.150.3#18 month block and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#205.221.150.3 Permanent IP Block at Request?. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Luna - No problem. I should probably have given a longer block. Thanks for letting me know. Ian Cairns (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Glam rock typo

Sorry, it was supposed to be Category:Rock songs by subgenre, genre → subgenre. Thanks for catching the mistake. Is my new edit correct? JackSchmidt (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jack - Yes, that's fine. I was working through uncategorised categories and fixing them how I could. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oz Symbols Cat

When I removed the vndlsm on the cat main page - i didnt think i'd removed the cats - odd - and thanks for fixing it - cheers SatuSuro 10:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Suro - You're welcome. Cheers, Ian Cairns (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Blacktygrrrr

Mr. Cairns,

I am not very computer savvy, but I looked you up because there was a Wikipedia issue, and I was not sure if I did the appeal thing correctly.

Here is what I wrote:

"Mr. Cairns,

I noticed that I was blocked. I was surprised by this.

I was told that my nickname "blacktygrrrr" violates the guidelines somehow. I have had this nickname since college. It is my favorite color and favorite animal. Also, it is a takeoff on 80s rock bands with colors and animals such as White Lion, Def Leppard, Whitesnake, etc. I have been known as the Black Tygrrrr for half my life.

I also saw that I was labeled as a spammer. The links that I posted were actual interviews that I conducted with people, or my interactions with meeting them.

In every instance, they were pleased with the results of the interview or meeting.

I have only recently learned about Wikipedia posting because somebody I did an interview with decided to put my interview on their page. That gave me the idea to add my other interviews to pages.

I have gotten thank you notes from more than one interviewee for doing so.

Please let me know if this is sufficient to remove the block, or what procedural steps I need to take. Any rules violations were accidental.

Respectfully,

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express"

I hope this email was not an intrusion. I just wanted to make sure that my request for unblock does not languish because of my possible inability to file the request properly.

Respectfully,

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express

Hello eric aka the Tygrrrr Express - Thanks for your message - first names please, no formality around here - Thank you for making contact - this is much appreciated. My block was expressing concern that your username was being used to promote a website / organisation that was related to your username, and was being used to add a repetitive link to your website / webpage. Please check WP:U and then the paragraph on Company / group names and Inappropriate usernames (Promotional usernames) - it was this point that caused me to consider blocking your account. Wikipedia exists to be an encyclopedia - and is not a promotional medium for any company or cause. To paraphrase, you are most welcome to add material to Wikipedia - provided that it is sourced (i.e. you can provide a reference to it), true, and does not soapbox / promote your own cause. If you are happy to conform to this standard Wiki format, then I have no problem with releasing your username - but you must not then use it to promote your interviews. Please read up and let me know what you think. Best regards, Ian Cairns (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

i would take that picture of you off, and change it to a colourful abstract picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adidasnike619 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

SORRY

Sorry i threatened you.So i gave you this to cheer you up:

Adidasnike619 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Adidasnike619 (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

60.241.50.197

31 hours is not enough. He was first vandalizing the Bayeux Tapestry article 9 days ago. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello BB - Thanks for your comment / opinion. This anon has made just 6 edits since arriving. He received a final warning a few days ago. The 31 hrs is in line with the level of block that most admins would give for this. I do not think this is lenient. Please feel free to raise this at WP:ANI if you feel I was lenient. If further vandalism ensues, any subsequent blocks will be for longer and longer periods. Ian Cairns (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rogereeny. I watch the Bayeux article, so if he hits it again, I'll know it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a big difference between lenient and not lenient, but I'm defering to your judgment for the time being either way. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Telescope

This is an overview of all telescope types. History of telescopes exists as its own article and probably doesn't need to be added to every telescope article. Material in intro is not really a history, it is a definition of the word, and as such is not intended to cover the history of all the types listed in the article. There is talk about this at Talk:Telescope#Was the telescope really "Galileo Galilei's instrument"? if you want to put forward editing suggestions. Thanks. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The section has a link to the main article - so it was not intended to be a thorough treatment of the history of telescopes - for that it links to the major article. It certainly tidied up the existing mish-mash of sentences. Ian Cairns (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: I was not commenting of the inventor of the telescope - so I will not comment on the Talk page you are pointing to. I was making bold editing to tidy up the existing text. Ian Cairns (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help.

He was bouncing back and forth so fast that I was really having a time keeping up. I warned the one account, but I figured warning both wouldn't have mattered much. Thanks for the block...but I've somehow managed to earn a 3RR warning!  :) Go figure. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging categories

Hey there. For future reference: when you find duplicate categories that need to be merged, use the CFM template ({{subst:cfm|TARGET NAME}}) and take it to WP:CFD, rather than posting an article merge template like you used for Category:New Media. I've already taken care of that one -- you're welcome to join the CFD if you like. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Point taken! Ian Cairns (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

1987 ballet premieres

Thank you for categorizing Category:1987 ballet premieres and Category:Ballets by Michael Torke. — Robert Greer (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Ian Cairns (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Refusal to block user

I'm trying to learn why an AIV report was removed by you with no action taken. Another user, who is not an administrator, flagged it as having been insufficiently warned, but the vandal's talk page was littered with warnings about his/her activities, and had been blocked twice within the previous week for the same offense. Thanks. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dhett - I removed the reports since they were relatively old and were not being actioned by myself or fellow sysops. Looking into the users concerned I find:

User:24.207.238.186

last edit: 6 July 21:18

talk page warning: 22:52

AIV report 22:09

tidied 7 July 00:04

User:Wisdom89

last edit: ??

warning: nothing on talk page?

AIV report: 6 July 22:34

tidied 7 July 00:04

As you can see, both reports spent 90-120 mins on AIV without any action. It is unlikely that they would then be actioned. Note the criteria: "active now". Any original issue was now well past and any vandal was inactive. In particular, it appears the anon was reported to AIV before any talk page warning was issued. The original edits were almost 3 hours old when I tidied down the report. I am having difficulty in finding the original problem with user Wisdom89, and there appears to have been no user talk page warnings. Ian Cairns (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not issue a further warning to the IP address talk page before logging the AIV. The user had been warned repeatedly before each of the previous blocks, which I felt was sufficient. I don't understand why a new set of warnings would be necessary for each blocking event, but just in case that is required, I added the new warning dated July 7.

If I'm reading you correctly, basically, the AIV died because no one took it up, in which case I really cannot get a definitive answer as to why. That's frustrating, as the vandal has been prolific and persistent, but it also looks as if he/she is managing to stay a step ahead of our efforts to crack down on him/her. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Dhett. Quoting from WP:AIV,

1. The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism.

2. The user must be active now.

3. The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop.

Compare that against the IP's chronology:

User:24.207.238.186

last edit: 6 July 21:18

AIV report 22:09

talk page warning: 22:52

tidied 7 July 00:04

The sysops reviewing the case would be looking to see some recent vandalism _after_ a final warning on the anon's talk page. That final warning happened at 22:52 - almost 2 hours after the last edit / vandalism - too late for the vandalism to be current. So, on the original criteria: 1: tick 2: cross 3: cross (well, not timely warnings). If the report does not meet the AIV criteria, then it is a matter for reporting to WP:ANI, where it should have been reported. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the explanation. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A vandal writes...

You are a faggot!!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevierox007 (talk • contribs)

Aw, man...

...I was waiting until 12:22 but you beat me to it... Cheers!  Frank  |  talk  15:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that - but I thought it was straightforward... Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No apology necessary; I guess it is hard to catch the [mock] sarcasm around here. It was only a matter of time...from the look of things, 1 hour, to be exact :-)  Frank  |  talk  15:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Genealogics template

Since I think you designed it, I thought you might be interested in the discussion here. - Nunh-huh 20:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks kindly for letting me know - much appreciated. Ian Cairns (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Genealogics

I have nominated Genealogics, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogics. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice - I thought it was already deleted last month?? Why reinstate to delete?? Ian Cairns (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Because I asked him to - I think Genealogics needs an article, and thought that the deleted article does indeed assert the site's importance. So we will see what the community thinks... - Nunh-huh 14:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Now explained... many thanks!! Ian Cairns (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Abusive vandalism

On User talk:172.163.123.77, the IP is abusing the right to freely edit on his/her talk page. Can you check it out? Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the job's been taken care of. Thanks anyways, ~ Troy (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - I wasn't around when you left this message. Ian Cairns (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Re-deleted. Thanks for the note. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Victory Road

Thank you for your adds to Category:Victory Road. I forgot to add a category to the category. I've only made 2 category pages before so I wasn't sure what to do. Thank you for fixing my mistakes.--WillC 07:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It was being flagged in Uncategorized Cats... Ian Cairns (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well thanks for fixing it.--WillC 18:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:65.246.8.200

Hi there. I just want to let you know that the user you recently blocked had not vandalized since his final warning. I actually had already declined the block at WP:AIV. Okiefromokla ^questions? 18:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Okie. Thanks for that. I went straight from the AIV page to the user's contributions and you will have seen that your AIV contribution and my block were simultaneous - but I seem to have an hour's variance in my timestamps on different Wiki pages, due to local summer time - and this may have contributed to my mis-reading of the edit timings. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I doubt the user really cares, or wants to contribute constructively, so there's probably no need to unblock. Okiefromokla ^questions? 18:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

One Problem

You thanked The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb for changing the category name, but now there are users threatening it to be deleted. Could you please help out on Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:User:The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb? -- Prem ^{(Give me some banter)} 21:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. I understand the user and all his sockpuppets are now blocked?? Ian Cairns (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Middle East cat

hello! it's hard to tell what you meant in the edit summary for the category:Fauna of the Middle East, so i thought i'd ask in person, so to speak. you said: "+replace Middle East category - this is not a faunal category. If you have a problem with this, please take it up at category:Middle East". as the ME is more a political, historical, and cultural category, i was attempting to 'replace' it with a more well-defined geographical category, and one that meshes more closely with biogeography. i was in no way intent on replacing the whole Middle East category (as you can see, for the sake of continuity i subcategorized Mammals of Southwest Asia here, and plan on doing the same for birds and reptiles as well). i hope i haven't stepped on any toes somehow. - Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 02:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Metanoid. You managed to remove all the categories from Fauna of the Middle East - both the faunal and the Middle East categorizations - so the category then wound up in Uncategorized categories, which is where I picked it up. While I agree that there is no hard boundary to the term Middle East, and so there is an arguable point to removing the Fauna categ, I couldn't see the point of removing the categorization 'Middle East' as well, even if it is only loosely defined. So, I replaced it - giving the category at least one owning category. No toes stepped on - but it needs at least one categorisation. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and "{{Cleanup}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 12:56 14 August 2008 (GMT).

Regarding the 'Milliard' article

Hi, I have left a note for you at Talk:Milliard. Thanks! Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention

I've had this ongoing issue with user Jman505 and what is likely his anonymous IP address, 72.224.49.240, for a while now. They/he consistently inflate chart stats for certain songs (Peter Gabriel, Sting) and have recently taken to wiping out pages and leaving offensive edit summaries (Feist, Michael Jackson discography). I've been communicating with user JaGa about him for months, and he has nobly tried a few times on different admin boards to get someone to address the issue. I noticed you placed something on Jman's talk page in the form of a temporary block, so I just wanted to thank you for acting on this. It won't surprise me if he comes back, but at least the proper channels are being navigated. Thanks again. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

dirac LNH

I'm disappointed that you edited Dirac large numbers hypothesis to provide links to Scott's papers. A little before you made your edit, he deleted an edit by me in which I tried to dilute his eulogistic appraisal of his own work. He restored the eulogy and then you added the links to his work. Intentionally or not, you thus seem to have endorsed his use of the article for self-promotion. It is to be regretted that he has identified himself in this manner and it is to be regretted that he uses the article in this manner. It's an ugly business and I am tempted to leave him king of the castle he has made for himself, since it makes him look quite ridiculous to me. However, Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a satire, and I think it would be in everyone's best interests if Scott's performance was kept under close watch. Lucretius (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. If you re-check the editing history, you will note that the links were already present - I simply reformatted them to the usual Wikipedia standards for references. i.e. this was a copyedit / tidy of existing non-standard layout. As such, I did not introduce the links; they were already there. Yes, I am concerned about the vanity of SF's edits, and his Wiki edits need to be monitored. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

OK - thanks for your prompt response. Another editor has now deleted all SF's input. Lucretius (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Woud you also remove the bogus file by the iP troll?

The indef.troll reported a bogus file on me three days ago, and then repeatedly vandalising WP:ANI, so would you remove the crap[8] and semi-protect WP:ANI and WP:AN to prevent from his vandalism? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Caspian. Thanks for the report. I have noted that the anon is now blocked on WP:ANI. However, I would prefer not to s-p WP:ANI for the moment. I am unaware of the full extent of these discussions for the moment - I have reacted to the self-evident vandalism with the block. Ian Cairns (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. No, I am sorry but this is utterly bogus. I had nothing to do with any filing three days ago. But I am working on Caspian's case have been doing so since June.

There is a long term race hate campaign going on here. Korean versus Japanese across the usual Comfort women pages etc. Caspian is an American Korean and engaged in persisten wiki-gaming.. I have been following him and documenting since June now. See here; Jimbo's talk page.

I was willing to back down to produce my evidence. I see he is not. it is as simple as that. --58.94.57.6 (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The troll still evading. How pathetic. You filed three days ago, the Plala IP and the same writing habit do not cover your repeated lying. Icairns, please do block this troll in his IP range.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Show us your diffs, stop the gaming and I am very willing to be reasonable. --58.94.57.6 (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Shame on you for your repeated lying.[9]--Caspian blue (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello 58.94.57.6 / 58.94.57.254 / whoever - Thanks for your message. Please do not use my talk page to discuss this - we'll run out of room. WP:ANI seems like the correct place to complete your discussions / argument. Please note that your recent actions alone were vandalism. If you have a correct argument, then play by the rules and present your case. WP:ANI will judge - not me. Ian Cairns (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have no intention to talk with the indef.blocked troll, but just want to ask you to enforce Wikipolicy. The 9th evading troll is not blocked yet.. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dirac Large-Numbers

I am perplexed that a number of (perhaps jealous) nudnicks on this site continue to delete my entry indicating that I have solved the Dirac Large Number Coincidence. I have provided references to two separate articles published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society in which i provide the solution. My work on this subject was also featured in Nature and in the upcoming edition of Science et Vie in France. There is no scientific question about what I have done. It is a little tiresome having people who clearly are not experts in this matter delete information from Wiki that is clearly relevant and unequivocally correct. Scottfunkhouser (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Scot Funkhouser

Hello Scott - Thanks for your comment. Also, please see 'dirac LNH' discussion above, which refers. It is not usual on Wikipedia for anyone to provide material which relates to their own personal reputation / scientific reputation, regardless of the probity with which said reputation has been established. i.e. it is usual to leave your Wikipedia peers / other cognoscenti to provide the 'factual commentary' on your developments. Reading between the lines, it appears to me (as a non-expert in this area) that some of your developments are not universally recognised as original by everyone, but considered derivative by some. There may be aspects of your work that are not (yet?) fully understood / appreciated by the other editors. I have zero knowledge, and even less opinion, on the truth or otherwise of all this - I am just trying to describe the ambiance of the editing that I see. Clearly, these editors see your involvement in the editing as at least potentially self-promotional. If I were to place myself in your position, I think I would wish to have an extended discussion in the talk page of the article concerned, but to keep clear of editing the main article page itself. Place links, references, sources, issues, reading lists, whatever in your talk page discussions. Try to clarify any issues that arise in other people's perceptions of your contributions on the historical record, and I would fully expect a consensus to evolve amongst the editing community of the article. This consensus may or may not be 100% compatible with your viewpoint, but it should be justifiable from the evidence presented. Whatever happens, try to avoid editing the main article itself - because of your proximity to the historical record. With your having been heavily involved in this subject area, I understand how difficult what I have asked will be of you. However, it is often peer editing in Wikipedia that is its main strength, compared to, say, the mainstream encyclopaedias which feature a tract by a single guest academic who is either 100% right or 100% wrong, if you see what I mean. Please be assured that I am sympathetic to the aspirations of both sides in this argument and wish to see a consensus calmly reached. Thanks again for contacting me. Ian Cairns (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

____Reply by Funkhouser:________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottfunkhouser (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, Ian. I'm sorry -- I thought that Wiki encouraged experts with first-hand knowledge to contribute. If somebody else posted the same sentences I posted, which are completely substantiated by publications in major peer-reviewed journals, it would be no problem? One person's self-promotion is another person's sincere effort to contribute to Wiki. Unfortunately, this experience reinforces in my mind the reasons why Wiki is not a valid scientiifc reference. Best wishes -- I'm rather done with Wiki,but it was a learning experience.

Hello Scott - It's a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia - for example, you can post rubbish, provided that it is sourced rubbish, and that's OK. However, if anyone were to provide unsourced corrections to the rubbish, then they would be vandals (even though they would be right). Yes, it's counter-intuitive - but it ensures that no original research appears here, that everything is sourced, and that no-one takes over personal ownership of articles. If you are interested in staying as a Wiki editor, and I would encourage you to stay, then you need to take these Wiki policy directives on board. As I pointed out elsewhere, there are strengths and weaknesses to this Wiki paradigm, but you are required to follow the policy in editing the Wiki. You may or may not agree with what I wrote above, but you can check my sources to see that I am trying to explain things as they are. I hope that has helped? Regards, Ian Cairns (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Probable Searchtruthseeker sockpuppet

Hello Icairns. You may want to notice that User:Verdadeverdadeira is a probable sockpuppet of User:Searchtruthseeker. Could you check it out? Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ogre, the place for the above is at WP:SSP - there is nothing particular that I can do.. Expert admins live at the Wiki page given. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've opened a case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Searchtruthseeker. The Ogre (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for taking care of that vandalism..., Best wishes, --Badgernet ^Talk 13:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

AIV Request Against rkb669

I can't see any disposition of my request for AIV against rkb669.[10] Can you direct me to where that is? Thanks. --Danorton (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Danorton. Not all requests at WP:AIV end up with a disposition, either positive or negative. Some end up as effectively ignored for various reasons. The page operates such that if any of several 'duty' admins wishes to take action on any report (block, comment or otherwise), then they are at liberty to do so and will usually do so in a timely fashion, due to the nature of the page. However, sometimes, the admins find inadequate evidence or similar. In this case, either they leave a comment against the report or they simply fail to action the report and leave it for one of their peers. After a while, usually an hour or so, reports are tidied off the page - to keep focus on remaining reports (It is unusual for reports to be actioned after an hour). In the specific case above, you would be best advised to chat with User_talk:Gb, who responded to your report but did not take it further. It is usual to report sock-puppetry to WP:SSP rather than WP:AIV, as per the advice on the page. HTH, Rgrds, Ian Cairns (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So an active vandal who is a sock puppet should be repeated through the sock puppet procedure instead of the vandal procedure? --Danorton (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So if someone doesn't take action regarding an active vandal request within an hour, you remove the request? Should I just ignore the vandal or should I repeat the request? --Danorton (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(Apologies for delay in replying) - I note that the wording on WP:AIV has been tightened so that only anon vandals have to be active now. Previously, IIRC, it was all vandals. In the case you reported, the RKB669 user hadn't edited for an hour and was only warned once - and that was 2 weeks previously. The Kolby669 user hadn't edited in two weeks, and as you mention had probably moved. Normally, non-active / past vandalism should be reported at WP:ANI, sock-puppetry should be reported at WP:SSP and current active vandals at WP:AIV. I can't speak for all admins but someone should have reviewed the case within the time, and decided against action, e.g. the admin who raised a query. Because of the high turn-over on that page, it is kept as clean as possible and it is rare to see any report more than say one or two hours old - but not all reports are actioned. If you spot further offending, then I think you should either annotate an exstant report or raise a new report (noting that a recent report was cleared down). Ian Cairns (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but you seem to have overlooked the central point of this spammer. Combining the known aliases and IP addresses, the number of warnings is much greater than two and much more recent than two weeks ago. I'm going to drop this and remove all related pages from my watch list. I've got better things to do than to report spammers to admins that delete reports before review, discussion, or comment. Contact me on my talk page if you expect a response. --Danorton (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Careful

Please be more careful about your block rationales. Unnecessarily describing people's actions as "vandalism" leads to them making angry phone calls to the WMF (case in point: user:SUPERPOWER the Movie).

I strongly recommend you read WP:NAS, and WP:BITE. Remember, interaction with editors can get us valuable informatio, even if they're single-purpose editors. DS (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello DS. Thanks for your comment. I presume you meant / are describing User:SuperpowerTheMovie, who was reported on WP:AIV and was blocked by me in response to the (AIV) _Vandalism_ report ?? If so, I understand from your comments that an angry phonecall has been made to WP:WMF ? If so, it was fortunately not a lawsuit from the copyright holder whose IP has been serially violated by this user, contrary to WP:COPY. Before I decided to block the user, I noted several editors / admins had left earlier comments / warnings / final warnings on the user's talk page - none of which had been answered. Please can you explain (or rather just link me to the explanation) why describing this user's actions as vandalism is 'unnecessary'? Has WP started taking an enlightened attitude to copyvios recently, i.e. provided the user didn't understand that what they were doing was illegal, or should I have described the user's actions more narrowly, as in, say, 'copyright vandalism'?

Your reference to WP:NAS had me rushing to check your and my dates of adminship - very interesting. I trust that your references to WP:BITE were also copied to the other editors / admins who had commented / warned / final warned the User's talk page earlier? Ian Cairns (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Putting copyrighted material into an article, although it is in violation of our policies, is not actually vandalism (unless, of course, the material is grotesquely inappropriate). The negative connotations of 'vandalism' can make people very upset if they feel they're being wrongly accused. Furthermore, in such cases as this one, where it's fairly obvious that the user is doing self-promotion (which, although it's also counter to our policies, is still not actually "vandalism"), the contributor typically is the owner of the intellectual property in question. Are you willing to unblock this user? DS (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This matter was also brought to my attention. I think the primary issue is labeling someone a vandalism-only account when they were inserting copyright violations. As I understand it, that was the crux of the complaint. Maybe a more specific block message in the future ({{GBlock}}?) will save the Foundation the phone call headaches. MBisanz ^talk 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I accept that the user's inappropriate editing / self-promotion, was not technically vandalism. I have removed the user's indefinite block. Ian Cairns (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Block restored for different reasons

Since this user had created and edited an article about an eponymous film, I have softblocked him indefinitely per the username policy. This is not meant as a reflection on your actions (someone reported the username to UAA). Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I was only responding to a user report on WP:AIV also - but copyvios although illegal aren't technically vandalism... Ian Cairns (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ta

Thanks for fixing my userpage. The little twit was having a field day... oh if only I had block powers.. ;) Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome. All sorted now. Ian Cairns (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for sorting out the categories I recently created. I still haven't quite got the hang of them, and I meant to call the Poussin one Nicolas Poussin but had a brainstorm and typed just Poussin and then wasn't sure how to change it. Roisterdoister (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

recent edits

like this seem unnecessary, especially since you have not added "the" before the reference to the universities in question. PS redirects are a feature, not a bug. Iamaleopard (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I count 66 errors still not fixed a week after I pointed out what you were doing. Ironic that you justify your edit because it's the "correct" (sic) name, when you can't even use the correct grammar. And for what it's worth "University of Warwick" is the official name, not the correct name, because it's false to imply the incorrectness of the colloquial variant. The Times uses it, The Telegraph uses it, the BBC uses it, and so does Warwick University. So why can no one on Wikipedia use it?

And I see you got reverted twice, here and here. But you edit warred to put your version back in. I guess the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle doesn't apply to you, just like 'do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken' doesn't apply to you either? Iamaleopard (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying to your first email. I shall reply shortly. Ian Cairns (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies but real life has intervened (hence the odd time of this post), including a visit to Gibbet Hill. I hope to frame that reply tomorrow - but it will have to wait a spare moment. Thanks for bearing with me. Ian Cairns (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Another quick note to apologise again for intervention of real world pressures, and severe difficulties with PC / internet (recently sorted). Your post was not forgotten - I will refresh memory before replying. Ian Cairns (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for the delay in replying to your message - as explained above. I'll ignore the baiting - I do not recognise the personal qualities you describe and it detracts from the cogency of your argument. Thank you for raising the matter of WP:R, which has changed emphasis since I was last there. This is no excuse for my not keeping up-to-date, but it may explain why I thought my edits were simply removing 'unnecessary' redirects. As you describe, the edits themselves were unnecessary, contrary to WP:R but not errors. As a result, I do not intend to spend any further time on this. If you feel that you need to put the redirects back to an alternative correct form, please go ahead. Ian Cairns (talk) 10:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

CFD

Hi Ian. Thanks for your contribution. After considering your opinion I have to strongly disagree. You can be of Irish descent, Sicilian descent, Cornish descent or Cork descent. My catergory is about people who have been successful in life who happen to have ancestors from the county of Cork in Ireland. County Cork is either as large or larger an area than Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Samoa or Luxembourg. Kind Regards, Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadghbetal (talk • contribs) 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:SI base units

Template:SI base units has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Physchim62 (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy of the the note. Ian Cairns (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please Block IP 76.103.200.228

I think it is an open computer, but there have been many extremely disgusting edits made by this user, including curses, racist comments, and sexuall comments, as well as attacking user pages. Paticularly, I noticed this on Eekster, but I tracked it down and found many gross edits. I am not paticularly friends with eekster, but to keep the community clean... Please block this user at least for a long period, because there seems to be no sign of change, even after the block is lifted. Thank You.

PS(I am not logged it because it is annoying, so you can just post in on my IP talk page. Thanx) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.224.176 (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying - caused by intervention of non-Wiki world, and severe computer difficulties. I'll assume that your issue was dealt with elsewhere, while I deal with my backlog. Ian Cairns (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Václav Havel

Category:Václav Havel, 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. Cgingold (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Ian Cairns (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

for block him! RoyFocker (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome - he was _only_ vandalising, and WP can do without his editing. Ian Cairns (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Undone

Just to let you know, I have undone your edit, policy states that users are allowed to remove content from their own talk pages. Have a nice day! :) — neuro^(talk) 18:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Ian Cairns (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Block needed

Another Wiki_brah sock [11]. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Got somebody to take care of it, never mind. Darkspots (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

198.236.11.67

Thank you for blocking. Please consider broader measures. We've had a number of ipvandals from that K-12 school range, apparently an entire /14 continuing over the past two years. See [12], [13] LeadSongDog (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. As an individual admin, I can't take broad-based action. Please can you raise this as an issue on WP:ANI for discussion and possible action. They are the ones with the potential to do something about this, following suitable discussions, etc. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I am truely sorry for "vandalising"/ abusing the website therefore I shall no long edit the website so other users can recieve useful information from pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodychester (talk • contribs) 20:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry again

I fear I may not be able to keep the promise above but I will at least try to contribute helpfully to pages on the website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodychester (talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not here to frighten users away from contributing. Most Wikipedia users wish to see useful additions _WITHIN_ the Wiki Policy guidelines. Please look at the Welcome page that I left you. For starters, you need to sign all your contributions on Talk pages with ~~~~. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Ylem (organization)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ylem (organization), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ylem (organization) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ylem (organization), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Alternate accounts

You may do so. MathCool10 04:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

IP looking for another block

74.94.169.177 - thanks Aepryus (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Please report such vandalism through usual routes - see WP:AIV Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

least lines as possible

First of all, thank you for greeting me. And a short question : would you have been automatically advised of my thanks if I had only written them on my page, after your own lines and signature (this hasn't been clear for me after 3 year on the french part of wikipedia, and I would like to start the right way on the english part) Thank you, 2rh (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello 2rh. No, a reply on your talk page is not alerted to me - except for my Watchlist, provided that I have added your talk page to my watchlist. There is also a template that can be used to inform the other party, but I can't locate this for the moment. Hopefully, you were ok with not displaying your email address? Did you find the email facilities in User Preferences ?? Best wishes, Ian Cairns (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Bo Cantrell

Thanks, Springnuts (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Just keeping on top of the problem... Rgrds, Ian Cairns (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A vandal writes...

Hi

I Hate you. ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.41.25.158 (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Whilst it's not wheel-warring, per se, is there any particular reason that you ignored the comments that I'd made against the AIV report when you blocked here? There had been no vandalism past final warning, and certainly no edits for over an hour..._Gb^T/c 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. My apologies for overriding - and my apologies for not extending you the courtesy of a note at the time - I was called away shortly afterwards. I thought that the IP's final warning from yesterday was ample. There was also a substantial AIV backlog at the time - so individual entries didn't get as much time as they might normally. Apologies again, Ian Cairns (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I figured that the backlog may have had something to do with it. No worries. _Gb^T/c 08:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

201.220.215.14

You recently blocked 201.220.215.14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). Looks like you may want to consider these as well:

• 203.81.211.242 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 206.188.60.177 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

--♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please report these through the correct procedure WP:AIV or WP:ANI. There is no private blocking service available here.... Ian Cairns (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Honorary Fellows of Lucy Cavendish College, Cambridge

Category:Honorary Fellows of Lucy Cavendish College, Cambridge, 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. Cgingold (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!

Thank you for taking care of my report of User:Thetruthreport. Magemirlen (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome... The truth was outed... Groan... Ian Cairns (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

71.64.141.62's edits of United States presidential election articles

This editor is deleting a lot of information, and perhaps the edits are correct, but given the history they may all deserve scrutiny...? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.64.141.62 Шизомби (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - this may need specialist knowledge to determine whether this is 'good faith' or 'vandalism' - I would prefer to leave it for an American Admin. I would suggest taking your concerns to WP:ANI in the first instance. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I'd just like to thank you regarding your improvements to the "Fundamental theorems" category I created. It's much appreciated. Though I'm surprised no one's made a template for such boilerplate. Anyway, thanks! --Cybercobra (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome - you're welcome...  :-)) Ian Cairns (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Cana

You were an early contributor to the subject. There is now a revived discussion of the article, and your participation would be welcome. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't wish to contradict you, but I don't remember contributing to this article, and I can find no evidence that I did... Maybe I'm missing something? Ian Cairns (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Passedflatus

Why was my username blocked, it falls under the userename policy. And you didn't sign your edit.71.246.99.196 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that the policy says that. Could you elaborate on that? I would like to understand what is offensive about my username? And if it's offensive, who is offended?72.68.204.12 (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to explain to me in some sort of detail why you blocked my username, could you tell me how I can appeal to someone above you? And if i can't edit under that username, i don't think that gives you the right to block my IP Address. Its the name and name alone that you said was a violation of the rules.72.68.199.171 (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion in one place. Try the talk page of the username in question. Ian Cairns (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A Wikipedia editor writes...

You're a CUNT. 128.243.253.111 (talk)

The work of deleting IP vandalism on chem element pages

Since you're involved, I wonder if you'd like to comment on this discussion on semi-protection for element articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements Thanks! SBHarris 23:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

your recent edit to Category:University of York alumni

A better way to redirect a category is to use the {{Category redirect}} template. Cheers, --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to let me know - much appreciated. Ian Cairns (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Turkish musical forms

Any ideas on how to incorporate the formal aspects of the music in pages of category:musical form and represent the subject well in "music genres" cats? Please note that these articles are currently the only ones populating category:musical forms. This has been a problematic category as many take it to mean "styles" or "genres" - there's enough trouble distinguishing between those two! So all truly formal aspects have moved to "form" - and it is right that all forms of suite should appear there. How about an article "form in turkish music"?? I'd be glad to hear your thoughts. Redheylin (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Help Request

Would you be so kind to check out Rehoboth Carpenter family? Gene has really tried communicating for months with Iwanafish (talk) via emails. He has been known in Carpenter Family research circles for over a decade. He can do really good work, but he can get stubborn. Right now he is not communicating and reverting edits. I am asking because you wrote a comment on the article's discussion page.

Any suggestions would be welcome.

John R. Carpenter La Mesa, CA Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello John. Thanks for your message. I made a dab edit to this article some while back, while running down an exception list - otherwise, I have no particular knowledge / interest in this subject. I've looked at recent edits and confirm that the Iwanafish edits are often destroying the layout of other editors, as well as making significant content adjustments. Now, I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to discern the content matter edits - but the layout edits should be warned and reported through the standard means (WP:AIV). Any admin should be able to deal with this. I'll look further into this shortly. Ian Cairns (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Username

Hi, Ian. Thanks for fixing Honourary Dames Commander of the British Empire, but it was not a misspelling. I was using the British English spelling given the content matter. As an American I would not spell it that way for my own use, but whatever...

As for the Username ado, please be advised that I am not authorized to change my username as this is the name that was agreed to on February 5, 2009 when I was unbanned; see "Unban proposal for Rms125a@hotmail.com" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive512#Unban_proposal_for_Rms125a.40hotmail.com_.2F_User:Robert_Sieger.

You can also contact User:Alison, User:Durova or User:Eliz81 for more on that. This username has been grandfathered in, at least according to the colloquy below during the last unbanning discussion during the same proposal at the link I provided.

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, I had seen your history before I made my comment. BTW, The British English spelling is 'honorary', which is why I changed it. Thanks for getting back to me. Ian Cairns (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate edits?

Hi Icairns: I reverted one of these edits [14] to an apparently unrelated article talk page--are these legitimate? They seem to come from an established user...Thanks, JNW (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello JNW - the previous edit to the one you indicated seems fine here, and I can't see why you edited this? However, the Talk page seems fine after your edit - so I'm not sure what is happening here.. I'll look again. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, this is the one I reverted: [15]; it seemed out of context. If I'm wrong, my edit can be reversed. JNW (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Right. Got it. Yes your reversions are fine - these edits were irrelevant to the articles in question. Sorry, I missed this first time - it's a bit late here... Ian Cairns (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get it--it's a link to an article in which numerous Wikipedia articles were cited. But it looked like some kind of mass soapboxing. JNW (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam intervention against anonymous IP's

Hello - I've noted your comment regarding my request for semi-protection of articles such as Keystroke logging. Please could you advise how to report spammer's user accounts when they use a different IP every time they add the same spam link? Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I should have made a better reply. Please can you report any such incidents to WP:ANI rather that WP:AIV. Many thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for revrt

Hi, this is a bit late ;), but thank you for reverting that user's blanking of my user page. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. My pleasure. Ian Cairns (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)