User talk:AlistairMcMillan/Archive10

AfD nomination of Theodore Ts'o

I have nominated Theodore Ts'o, 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/Theodore Ts'o. 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? _→AzaToth 12:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving Talk:MaraDNS

Real quickly: When I archived Talk:MaraDNS, I removed the entire ~~flame war~~ discussion which you participated in about nine months ago because there was a link triggering the spam filter in the discussion. If you wish to restore this discussion to the archive, be my guest. Samboy (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for proerly archiving the discussion. We can now hopefully put this entire unpleasant discussion behind us; since tqbf doesn't really edit the Wiki anymore, I just had a friendly email discussion with him putting old wounds to rest. Let's just let bygones be bygones. Samboy (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hl2ep2 gorge.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hl2ep2 gorge.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hl2ep2 cinematicphysicsshack.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hl2ep2 cinematicphysicsshack.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Snarky"

Nothing "snarky (lol at your choice of words) about saying Gabe worked for Microsoft. It's a fact, and it was already there. It's either coincidental that the system he despises is a direct competitor to his former employer, or not. However you want to view it is fine. But that doesn't merit a removal. Zombie007 (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put bias aside. I can see reading your talkpage you're a Microsoft fan anyway. Zombie007 (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MobileMe removing duplicate links

When removing duplicate links please take a moment to ensure that all linked are valid. Your link to the Mac OS X v 10.5 page was an invalid link. NightKhaos (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Genericized trademarks

You might be interested in this CFD discussion. Cheers, Postdlf (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of generic and genericized trademarks

Your recent evisceration of the List of frequently misused trademarks was ill-advised and counter-productive. As an index of articles which assert that certain trademarks are commonly used generically, the list provided a review point for editors covering the subject.

The proper forum for adding and deleting items from an index list is the home article being indexed, not the list. If you actually believe that "Band-Aid" is not used generically, you should first delete the reference from Band-Aid, then update the index list.

Your drive-by deletions removed articles from the list which are mentioned in the main article, as well as entries whose articles point to the list. You removed entries which are sourced in their primary articles, but you left intact entries with no source at all regarding their generic use.

Please go back and undo your damage so we can resume using the list as an index of articles in the subject area.

Regards, ComputerGeezer (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you need to re-read our policies. Particularly WP:V. "Any material without a reliable source can be removed..." If there is even a remote chance that one of our articles contains incorrect material, that material should be excised. If you care enough about the subject you are more than welcome to restore the content with sources. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have apparently not made my point clear. Please take a look at a few lists and "verify" for yourself that the vast majority are not sourced. That's because the vast majority are lists of information sourced elsewhere in Wikipedia rather than stand-alone articles.

If you believe a list entry is in error, you must delete the information in the main article - otherwise the list will not serve its function as an index. If you believe that Lassie is not a fictional dog, the proper course of action is to remove the error at Lassie AND delete it from the list. Simply deleting all the dogs you don't think are fictional from the list leaves the erroneous information in place in the primary articles without alerting future editors of List of fictional dogs that Lassie is mischaracterized in its main article.

"Lassie editors" are far more likely to notice your change at Lassie and take action to source their "fictional" claim there. Deleting the list entry only will leave the unsupported claim in Wikipedia without attracting the attention of the very editors we need to fix it.

Again, please go back and undo your damage so we can resume using the list as an index of articles in the subject area, making sure that each list entry reflects a claim from its host article. ComputerGeezer (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again I'm sorry but our policies are clear. Articles have to contain reliable sources for everything. You can't just say the reliable sources are on some other Wikipedia article, go find them. If you are aware of a policy that states otherwise, please let me know. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if YOU delete the list entry, YOU are responsible for deleting the corresponding claim in the source article. ComputerGeezer (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that the list itself needs citations, why delete it when you can simply copy sources from the original article? However, on the deletionist side of things, ComputerGeezer is correct; if you believe the list is in error, you should also be removing the claim from the parent article and removing it from the accompanying category. You're only doing one third of your task here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And of course this got dragged over to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#List of generic and genericized trademarks. I repeat what I said there that AlistairMcMillan is correct the list requires sources, see List of ministers of the Universal Life Church for a good example of that. List dealing with people and real things, not fictional dogs, need extra care and sources provide that. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airfix

Well, whilst this article (which is one of the refs I produced) doesn't use the term trademark, it actually does use the term Airfix generically. So I personally think you are wrong on that one. But the cat may be deleted anyhow.Crispness (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe only Airfix can create an Airfix kit. If someone 'creates' it, then it is in essence generic, no matter what logos they put on it. Crispness (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A genericised trademark is one which has entered the lingua franca to describe anything of a similar form or style of the original. Which this is. And as I said in the edit summary, my edits are just the beginning of the Legacy section. What your original edit did was to highlight the lack of any content on the subject. There is lots of evidence out there that Airfix has entered common parlance in a generic way. Its just a matter of collating it and including it all in the article. Crispness (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me! Why did you remove the Legacy section? What was wrong with the content? Crispness (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. But you know that I don't have to provide a reference "that states that Airfix is a genericised trademark". All I need to do is to produce a series of references "that show that Airfix is a genericised trademark". Which I have started to do. And actually I'm not fussed about what categories are on it. What is important is what the article informs the reader of. Crispness (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freedoom

I worried about a single-purpose account adding information to what appears to be their own garage band to the Freedoom article, which was previously just a redirect to the relevant section of Doom WAD. If you have time to look at this, I would appreciate it. Samboy (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC) (Time to go back to my Wiki retirement)[reply]

W. Mark Felt

Oops. Hope you'll agree Infobox police officer is a better fit. Bazj (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cairo (graphics) URLbreakage

Sorry about that. The perils of global search-and-replace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Web Kit Screenshot

Hello, I was wondering what made you think that Image:WebKitss.png was a screenshot of Safari? According to my computer, it's WebKit, however obviously, WebKit isn't a browser - so the chrome part of the picture was Safari, but the insides were WebKit.--daniel folsom 22:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually read that page - as I said, the chrome is part of Safari, however the internal stuff is part of WebKit, I mean if you're really that worried about the chrome I could crop it out ... as proved byt the WebKit page you gave me - the screenshot is of both Safari and WebKit--daniel folsom 11:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - if you really don't think there should be a screenshot of the layout engine displaying the webpage then I won't argue with you, although, as to your "time" comment, whether the image should be put in or not is not dependent on how much time you have .--daniel folsom 23:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

This is just a friendly note that edit warring on Webkit really doesn't help things. Discuss issues on the talk page instead of reverting and broadsiding via edit summaries. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free resolution

I could have sworn there used to be a policy that non-free images couldn't have a resolution of more than 300 px on either dimension, but I'll be damned if I can find it now. I've asked User:Melesse (who actually reduces all of the images that other people tag for reduction) for clarification on this; I think it unlikely that I completely fabricated that policy, but it may well have been changed while I wasn't paying attention. If so, my apologies for the tagging. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Melesse's response. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Safari image displacement

The image you recently added to the article on the Safari web browser is inferior to the displaced image in that it depicts a less relevant web page, has a tab displaying a YouTube video, and is of an older version. It seems more appropriate, therefore, that the displaced image be in the infobox, and the older image be used later in the article. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of generic and genericized trademarks

Thank you for removing my two entries in the "List of generic and genericized trademarks" page. I added them without sources, and I didn't even try to find sources. Rookie mistake, my apologies! You were undoing the entries aroung the same time I was attempting to undo them, and since you got to them first (I think), I thought I'd thank you. Have a good day. Vchao (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ipod

thanks for telling me how 2 act "mom" maybe i will approach the confirmation of a new ipod in a more mature way. i deeply apologize.

Dock OS X

I have returned the precursor to the dock section as a few of my fellow RISC OS users have helped out by producing an article on the Icon bar, along with the right references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.230.97 (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

System 7

I noticed that you removed a link to Apple's System 7 forums from the System 7 page. Although I generally agree with not using posts as references, this link was not a reference but a link to the closest thing available to a System 7 page on Apple's website. If you did this intentionally, that's fine, I just wanted to check that you thought about it first (since the comment for it as kinda generic). :)--Steven Fisher (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tricky one, but I think Sdfisher may be right here. If the most official thing that Apple provides for System 7 is a support forum, then we probably should link to it. Warren -talk- 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm thinking now that Alistair did the right thing. Deciding factor? Web page is "System 7.x and older System Software," not system 7 specifically. Could probably put it in an external link, though. --Steven Fisher (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave my user page alone

please dont erase stuff from my user page. edit your own damn page fuck my sig love- brento1499 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brento1499 (talk • contribs) 23:08, October 11, 2008

RE: Fair Use

Excuse me? I could've swore every single Mac app Wikipedia page has 512x512 icons. If this isn't the case, I'm very sorry. We both know this is the case though, don't we?

Thanks for your input.

Not

Stevenrasnick 23:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinksecret.com is not totally gone

I noticed you removed a number of Thinksecret references, with a "thinksecret.com is gone" edit summary. I'm not sure what the rule is, but wouldn't it be better to just leave the links as is (with a note that the site does not exist anymore), or replace them links with archive.org links? I feel that replacing them with ^{[citation needed]} makes it look as if there never was a proper source for the statement.

I've done one "semi-revert" here. OK by you? -- Mvuijlst (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mac OS X v10.6

Hi there. I'm trying to learn how Wikipedia works. You reverted an edit I did today, and gave no explanation that I can find to why. Would you care to show me what I did wrong, or point me to where I can find this information myself? 19 October 2008, Andrés —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.76.56 (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit:

Could you perhaps lay off the word 'vandalism'? There's no reason to assume that this was indeed vandalism. That was the IPs one and only edit, so chances are they were just experimenting. Take a look at WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Cheers :) _Talk Islander 22:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this took me a while to understand. Firstly, look at your edit you labled as 'reverting vandalism'. You didn't revert the vandalism, the IP before you did, but only partially. You finished the job, but as such there was no need to label it as reverting vandalism, as to me that suggests that you're labelling the second IP as a vandal. Get it? No, me neither. Sorry, it was a bit of a mess, and your edit summary wasn't great, but I came down on you a tad too hard. Appologies... _Talk Islander 21:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette alert

Hi

I don't know if you're aware already, but you're the subject of a Wikiquette alert. I couldn't see any notification on your talk page.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 01:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of genealogy software

Just because an application runs as a web service doesn't mean it's any less an application. Please post to the discussion pages before making large sweeping changes based on your own personal criteria. David (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I have not edited that page at all during this time. Like I posted elsewhere - the last thing I want to do is be expected to clean that page up. I posted my 2 cents have been waiting for you to explain where it says a web application is any less an application. David (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel harassed

I feel harassed. Yes, a year ago I made some mistakes and made some edits I shouldn't have made. You won. I haven't made those mistakes again, and I just want to move this in to the past because it really upsets me to remember it. However, another editor doesn't want to let go of it and in this edit is trying to restart an argument that has been resolved months ago.

I consider this harassment. I am asking for this editor to leave me alone and just let it rest. Samboy (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]