Jump to content

User talk:AlistairMcMillan/Archive4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


iPod article

I don't understand why you accused me of vandalism on the iPod article when I edited to talk about an accessory case. Other accessory products are mentioned in the article but you chose only to remove my edit. Why? Belkin and Griffin products are mentioned, yet you unilaterally erased my entry. Many software accessories are mentioned as well. (spunkmeyer)

I apologize, I misunderstood (spunkmeyer)

Thanks

Thanks for your very helpful work on the Cambuslang article. You can see I am a total rookie in this

Adminship

AlistairMcMillan, I would be honored to be your nominator! :)

Please forgive me, by the way, for not posting a follow up on my offer. I remember asking you just hours (minutes?) before I found out about the 7 July bombing, and I can see that you were immediately busy making edits concerning the tragedy.

Please allow me a few minutes, (er, perhaps between 60 to 120 minutes as I'm at work), to create the nomination page. :) Func( t, c ) 14:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

AlistairMcMillan, here is your nomination. Good luck! :) Func( t, c ) 15:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted, however...

I accept your apology. However the only difference between what I said and what was previously said was an issue of semantics. Since no official statement has been released, the "expectation" is just as speculative as the "rumour". The only reason to use the word "expectation" over "rumour" is that "expectation" sounds more credible, when only the supporting links should affect credibility; which I neglected to include, so that fault is mine. Paul Cyr 09:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe I saw the information on Paul Thurrott's Winsupersite; I will try to find it again. Until updated information from a credible site can be found I agree that we should stick to the source you found. Paul Cyr 09:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Chubb

Thanks for finding something more suitable than that redirect for Chubb. Has to be some nasty americanism to even have that redirect. --Kiand 02:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I've little better to do when trying to sober up before going asleep (best hangover prevention ever) other than hit F5 on my watchlist. And I don't -ever- expect that vote reciprocated, as I could make it to 50K edits here and still not be suitable for an admin :) --Kiand 02:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Boolean searches with spotlight

Thank you for letting me know about boolean searches with spotlight. I tried to perfom some boolean searches with and, or and not on my mini-mac, but those were unsuccessfull; therefore I thought spotlight didn't support it. --Fredrik Orderud 11:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Wahey it's me, Apple Fanboy!

Hey, uh, sorry about all the messy edits and articles and stuff. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, and I was pretty shocked to hear they might freeze stable pages! It'd keep n00bs like me out I suppose... anyway, thanks a lot for clearing up after my edits and stuff, keep it real! *Edit i've started the Microsoft Messenger for Mac page, how do I categorize it? sorry.. *Edit - thanks! :D The Fish 01:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)

Alistair, thank you for supporting by adminship! I am sure yours is going to be successful. :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e,  ) 03:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

You're an admin! I offer free advice if you're interested. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're quite welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) 09:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Let me join the club in saying Welcome aboard! Also, I echo Uninvited's offer of advice, and leave a word of wisdom or two I learned after my recent promotion: Take it slow with the admin actions over the next week, ask for a lot of advice before you do anything, and ignore the inevitable uncivil notes about how you are abusing your admin powers. Good luck, and if you need anything, you know where to find me. -- Essjay · Talk 09:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

yes! you're welcome. have fun with your new powers :) dab (ᛏ) 11:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome - congratulations, and enjoy the extra buttons. The JPS 12:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

My belated congratulations!! --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing

But I've already got a login User:MJA. I just install different OSes on this box often enough that I've become lazy WRT logging in to make edits here. BTW, do you see anything terribly wrong with the layout of the two Darwin pages? I'm starting to be happy with them myself, despite the fact that they could still use a little more content.

24.226.122.241 05:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Pre-emptive multitasking

I think you've expanded the pre-emptive stuff on Mac OS 8/9 a little far. Very little could run pre-emptively; I don't think any applications ever used this feature. It was just for hardware drivers. I'll probably take a stab at fixing it tomorrow, but right now I'm too hungry/tired. :) --Steven Fisher 05:54:15, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

NTFS

Why not revert the edit when the page is up to replace the copyright violation? At least this way users aren't confused by many mouse clicks for information -- they shouldn't need to see a copyright violation to get at information. Quadra23 August 26, 2005.

Win32 has to do with the Win32 API that runs underneath Windows that prevents the usage of the filename -- therefore it's not Windows directly that causes the issues with the reserved file names. You can note this in the command I referenced in my edit ( echo delete me > \\?\C:\TEMP\NUL ) and how it works at the command prompt level but not with Windows applications because they all run under the rules of the Win32 API. Does that help explain it to you? Quadra23 August 29, 2005.

Yes, but the source of the problems with such filenames is how the Win32 API acts with such files, and not Windows directly. Therefore, it should be seen that way. Quadra23 August 29, 2005.

Help needed

Beachy is vandalizing the Mozilla Firefox article again (and again). --minghong 15:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Aberdeenshire

In the dab's with links project, we are trying to redirect links that lead to dab pages. Aberdeenshire has a considerable number of links to it. Using your local knowledge, when I come across phrases like

  1. "John Skinner (1721 - 1807), historian and song-writer, son of a schoolmaster at Birse, Aberdeenshire" (from John Skinner)
  2. "Stagecoach Bluebird is used for services in the north east of Scotland covering Aberdeenshire", (from here)

where should "Aberdeenshire" link to, the unitary or traditional? Cheers, --Commander Keane 13:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Jeri Ryan images

Hi, sorry for being a pain, but if you want to claim images as fair use you need to list a source. Wikipedia:Fair use#Justification for fair use AlistairMcMillan 02:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Saw your note this morning and went back to the source, listed them on each image. They were clearly created and released for promotional purposes (CBS and Paramount respectively) - and noted them as such on the image file. Thanks! -- Barrettmagic 17:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Alright - I'll work on this some more, but I went back and found those images at those sources, links I provided. May I have the weekend here? (thanks :)
Are you asking for exact sources, in terms of who took that picture and who released it to the commercial/news sites? Isn't it appropriate to assume that images provided to legitimate, commercial sites that are clearly used to promote a movie/TV program are part of the public domain? I work in PR - we release company materials for appropriate public consumption all the time. It would be weird for us to get a call requesting usage rights. -- Barrettmagic 21:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What's about those dates?

Please leave a comment at Talk:Microsoft Small Business Server#4.0 release date

Windows Vista / WindowsVI

Hi, I noticed that the claim on the Windows Vista / WinVI thing is actually false. See the Talk:Windows_Vista page for my comment. I wanted to ask, what would be right way to do in the article itself: is there a way to indicate that a statement within an article is up for debate? Or should it be removed until it is resolved? Advise is welcomed. Kind regards Felsir 09:47, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The matter seems solved, sorry for the invoncenience. It appears that WinVI is picked up by many as a name for Windows Vista. Felsir 13:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Tidy abbrev mention to match Internet Exporer etc. -- so what, no more mention of Roman numerals word-play? I don't think it's a clearly obvious one, maybe better point it out? --tyomitch 20:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

iMac peer review

Hi there, Alistair

I see that you've contributed to the Apple Computer article. I've recently edited the iMac article and put it up for peer review; but beyond owning an iMac, I have little in-depth knowledge on the topic, historically or technically. I wonder whether you have time to read it and add your critical comments at the peer review page? Tony 08:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

iPod nano - Good point

Good point on the colors - I completely forgot about that. **Hits self in head** Feel free to change it or I will when I get back (I'm about to run out for a few hours). Nrbelex (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

articlesandtools spam

Please refrain from deleting the link -

  • Gmail, Hotmail and Yahoo Mail: Which one is for you?

I have spoken to the admins and they agree it is a useful article which should be left alone.

Thank you for your cooperation, Soroush King,

Address which have spammed this site

The procedure of moving an article

Since you're the only admin here that I know of, I will ask your advice on this :-)

I've listed "Windows Scripting Host" on WP:RM#4 September 2005, and there's no action taken and no discussion started. It's like noone cares anyway.

The page says that articles are moved in a week when there's a clear consensus. I guess that total lack of attention to the article is a clear consensus, no?

Anyway, what's my next step to get the article moved already? Can I do anything to speed up the move, other than just sit and wait? --tyomitch 20:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! WRT when the name was changed, have you seen [1] (I put this link on my talk page a little earlier)? --tyomitch 00:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

ON linkspam

You may wish to add your voice to the consensus here where the discussion was supposed to have taken place before Uriah923 spread it to a bunch of different pages to try to avoid the consensus. I've left a final warning on his talk page also. Thanks for adding your support. - Taxman Talk 20:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your support. He appears he's going to refuse to give in until we have him permanently banned. His job at ON is promotion of the site. Can you help me keep an eye on him and his contributions, and make sure ON links don't get added all over the place? I'll probably have to take it through formal dispute resolution unless he makes the need for an immediate block obvious. Thanks - Taxman Talk 23:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

iPod nano

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1270/ Gateman1997 21:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

User:RememberOctober29

Blocked for a week for vandalizing your user page. Just thought you'd like to know :) Ral315 20:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Internet Explorer

The last time I was at the website they were available but a quick search of Microsoft's website, [2], reveals that this isn't true anymore, but they do still offer IE for Mac for download [3]. Sorry for the mixup, it wasn't intentional.--naryathegreat | (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Nandesuka's RfA

Alistair,

Thanks for supporting my RfA. I'll work hard to try to live up to the confidence you're showing in me. Nandesuka 01:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Your revert at Longhorn

Is seems to go against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), being just like the "Grateful Dead" counterexample given there. --tyomitch 09:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

THANK YOU GREATLY

Thank you for making great improvements to the Cambuslang page.


iPod Video

This is no longer a rumor. It has been CONFIRMED as FACT by the BBC. They are a content partner for it per their own admission. Unless the BBC is in the habit of lying you are dead wrong. Please refrain from further reverts.Gateman1997 23:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  • BBC pulled it down two hours after placing it up because they were jeapordizing their relationship with Apple by having it up. It's premature placement on the web was a mistake, but that doesn't negate the fact they DID put it up and confirmed it during those two hours.Gateman1997 23:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


About your Safari question...

Alistair, unlike Internet Explorer, Safari doesn't have a bookmark sort feature. I use BookDog, which is not free, sad to say, but worth the price since I've got about 2,300 bookmarks. GeorgeC 08:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


Windows XP 64-bit Edition

Not to beat a dead horse, but why did you re-add the redirect on the Windows_XP_64-bit_Edition page? I wasn't claiming that it's just 'another port', it is, indeed, a completely separete edition, like Media Center or Tablet. That's why it has a different name. "64-bit Edition" was for Itanium processors. The x64 edition is "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition", and is completely separate. (NT 4 for alternate processor architectures had no mechanism for executing x86 code, you needed platform-specific programs. And the variations were all on the same CD, and were all called the same thing, a.k.a. 'Windows NT 4.0 Workstation'.)

And Microsoft still sells '64-bit Edition'; even though they seem to have wiped it from their website. It is neither a 'dead' product, nor is it a simple port of Pro x64. (In fact, quite the opposite is true, x64 is closer to a direct port of 32-bit Pro than 64-bit Edition is.) Ehurtley 11:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I at least added real information on the Itanium version stub-page. The current x64 page just barely mentions it; and as x64 really is a separate edition than 64-bit, putting 64-bit info on the x64 page is out of place, that's why I re-separated the pages. (x64=="Windows XP Professional x64 Edition", 64-bit=="Windows XP 64-bit Edition") Ehurtley 11:10 UTC


RE: Starship specifications

Hello! I hope you're well; thanks for your note. No problem; I will cite what I can. Also exercise caution when outright deleting (and not necessarily revising) specs; you also removed those that were derived or adapted from canon source (or did not revise them appropriately). For instance, in the episode "Conundrum, Worf gave a brief description of the Enterprise-D's armaments: 10 phasers, 250 torpedoes, high-capacity shield grid. As well, the crew complement has been cited on numerous occasions (1,012 or 1,014).

Remember: specs needn't necessarily be solely from canon sources but can also be from 'semi-canon' sources like licensed reference works, tech manuals, and magazines. For example, many of the Enterprise-E specs appear in Star Trek: The Magazine (semi-canon). I've added such notations to the template (which you removed, inadvertently?). Fanon additions should be discouraged and rightfully excised.

I know this may be problematic to some, particularly given the incoonsistency of some of the manuals et al., but to remove the information as you have obviates the template and cannot possibly provide visitors with an informative perspective about this and that in the Star Trek universe. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 03:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I will cite what I can; as well, however, verifiability is not about truth. It is what others can corroborate by consulting appropriate sources. You indiscriminately removed information that is from multiple sources (canon and not), and this is unacceptable. You must discount this information before doing so.
'Inferences' are from canon/semi-canon sources; for example, the aft torpedo launcher on the saucer module. We don't see it in any episode, but is in the ST:TNG manual; ditto for the Captain's Yacht. Specs for the Defiant (and many other ships) are in the DS9 tech manual. My point: as long as information is sourced, there shouldn't be a problem in verifying it. Please take the time to do this before your deletions. E Pluribus Anthony 03:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes: sources should be elaborated upon (and I regret not doing this more); see Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek for appropriate guidelines, some of which I've contributed. Feel free to remove information which does not conform to the guidelines laid out (I was somewhat exasperated when all the specs were totally deleted, so forgive my restoration of the E-history link you cited), but please investigate beforehand, don't obliterate. :) E Pluribus Anthony 03:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, you are mistaken: you removed almost all the information without discussion. Have you even attempted to verify any of this information? Where is the discussion regarding this? Nada. If you cannot take the effort to validate information and discuss it before deleting it (and I doubt you afforded appropriate attention given your wholesale deletions of even canon information), just as I did when restoring the information, don't do so; otherwise, this will proceed to higher channels. E Pluribus Anthony 03:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
First, I am not a dude.
Second, you failed to retain information (even if it wasn't cited) from canon sources; this is indiscrimate. The bulk of specs in the infoboxes for both the Enterprises-D and -E were removed, without regard to its canonicity.
You also did not discuss any of your removals before doing so ... and have done so in the past, unsuccessfully. This is untenable. If you merely remove information and do not attempt to contribute or validate it, it can be construed as being vandalism. Wikipedia is a work in progress (and capacity may preclude an instantaneous provison of all information). However, just because the information is not to your satisfaction, that does not obviate its existence or validity: that didn't stop you from removing information that was sourced.
Lastly, I'm willing to work with any user to round out and enhance articles and source them, not to emaciate them as you have. If you cannot contribute positively and enhance the information which many Trekkie Wikipedians have contributed and have a stake in, then I will gladly escalate this. I doubt you will overcome that. E Pluribus Anthony 04:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I get it fine, thank you; no personal attacks. I acknowledge your position and (if it isn't clear already) I'm willing to work to round out these articles; however, you will not indiscriminately delete information that is sourced, as you have, without discussion. If you do, or consider my words of advice "threats", then I will act on them and move this to mediation or arbitration. Get it? E Pluribus Anthony 04:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for your co-operation. If anything, our engagements have been a reminder of the importance of continuously improving these articles (I know, they aren't perfect) ... that can only be a good thing. :) E Pluribus Anthony 04:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

RE: Data (Star Trek)

My reasons are perfectly valid. And your unilateral changes, not necessarily consistent with any standards or Wp policy, are justified? Again, your changes have not been discussed or agreed upon ... at least mine have. Feel free to propose and discuss an alternate system on the Wikiproject page first. E Pluribus Anthony 07:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

No: that's but one type of referencing; more to the point: Wikipedia:Cite_sources#In-line_references #6.1. Uh-huh. E Pluribus Anthony 07:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Both styles can and should co-exist (as the above link indicates): refs at bottom, but (current) in-line references that enable users to glance at the episode of note.
As well, you imply – through your edits and approach – that they are the only ones or are superior and should supplant others (that have been agreed upon) without proposing, presenting, or discussing any of them. Perhaps you should modify your approach, not be so condescending, and propose wholesale, conciliatory changes to the plethora of Star Trek articles before going ahead and just implementing yours ... you may get more buy-in and collective assistance to implement them. E Pluribus Anthony 07:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Not exactly (but not exclusively): in-line wikilinks, not merely in-text references/footnotes. E Pluribus Anthony 07:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Of course: fortune favours the bold; I empathise and relate. However, being bold means knowing when and what to hedge, and means nothing (in Wikipedia) if you incense compatriots and drive them away. It would be truly bold (as I have done/tried, with contributions to the Wikiproject page (and also Template_talk:Infobox_Country#VOTE.21.21_-_HDI_in_country_infobox.2Ftemplate.3Fhere)) to propose and compel consistent, sweeping changes that others will buy into. That way, a consistent style will result and everyone is happy.
Believe me: I'm not trying to shut you down (though the converse has seemed apparent), and want to work to mutual advantage (and nor am I portraying myself as some sorta paragon), but to use an adage: you'll attract a lot more bees with honey than with vinegar. :) E Pluribus Anthony 07:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Of course I noticed that. My points are (1) both should be there, not one or the other (you replaced the prior style; you didn't add to it or add any value in changing it), and (importantly) (2) you should discuss or propose such changes first before doing them; otherwise, the articles will remain in a perpetual hodge-podge (inconsistent) state. E Pluribus Anthony 08:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I feel your edits (save fixing some of the wikilinks) did not add any substantive value and colluded the article. Wikilinks in articles to appropriate articles/episodes are sufficient: most episodes have their own articles (with production details, numbers, etc. (or should)), and repeating all the ep production details in this summary article (about Data) is superfluous. You will also note that this article section also lists relevant eps and highlights. Perhaps the two should be consolidated.


My point remains, though, that you took it upon yourself to make edits that are neither here nor there. Is it your intention to transform every Star Trek article in the style and format you propose? Why don't you propose this on the wikiproject page. Until then ... E Pluribus Anthony 08:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes: a style, not the only style. And for the last time: you need to change your approach. E Pluribus Anthony 08:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
As well, there are some 780 654 articles in Wikipedia, so 'this' style is used on only 4.74% of the articles therein. This is hardly precedent-setting. E Pluribus Anthony 09:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, what's good for the goose may not be good for the gander. I don't have any uncertainties about the function of that particular section: given the wealth of information about characters, a summary section listing highlights and milestones aides understanding. Why don't you/we combine the 'Milestones' and 'Ref' sections: that would kill two birds with one stone? E Pluribus Anthony 08:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Of course not; however, I'm just as able to edit (and will) as you are. And you still don't seem to get the point about collaborating. E Pluribus Anthony 08:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
In your opinion. In my opinion, your additions/stylings colluded and muddied the article. What am I talking about? Case in point: did you even read or consider my suggestion about consolidating the two sections (e.g., collaborating)? Until you do, this discussion cannot proceed further. Good day. E Pluribus Anthony 09:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Something like that. We have to judiciously include a reference section (in this and other articles), since everything in the article and, thus, all canon/other material – 178 eps/movies – would have to be cited.
To that end: I propose we consolidate the "References" and "Milestones" sections into one at the end ... actually, thereby making it an "Endnotes" section (perhaps entitled "Key episodes and endnotes" (or similar). Wikilinks should remain throughout the article as currently or similar. Make sense? E Pluribus Anthony 09:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not re-inventing the wheel: in academic writing, an endnotes section includes citations and extra text, like (as proposed) episode summaries/highlights. "References" is too narrow a description (though may do) in this regard: a reference section generally lists/cites appropriate works solely. I'm not suggesting we don't include it and that policies do not apply to the ST articles, but we need to do so descriptively and practically. There are a plethora of articles/pages that use varying terms for such a section, so the ST articles are no different in that respect. E Pluribus Anthony 09:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
He he; no problem! Thanks for your input. E Pluribus Anthony 10:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Architecture of Mac OS X

You tagged this for copyright violation over a week ago, and since I have still not changed the content it needs to be deleted. Thanks, — Wackymacs 19:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

I'm sorry you found reason to object to my adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to clear the slate. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future.  ALKIVAR™ 07:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Tone of language

Please watch the tone of your language, whether it's within an article or the edit summary box. Something like "OH MY GOD, this thing made of plastic SCRATCHES!!! WHY DID NO ONE WARN US???" could be considered a personal attack. While you may find the lawsuits to be trivial, you shouldn't marginalize consumers who have been legitimately affected by thie issue. Thanks --Madchester 21:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

True, but I did rather enjoy reading the edit summary ;-) Barefootguru

Michael Moore

I wanted to talk to you about the Michael Moore page. You continue to replacing the parts of the "depictions" section that I have removed several times. I'll leave it up there for now, but let's talk through this. I find the entire depictions section unnecessary. His depiction in "Team America" belongs under controversy and his Simpsons appearance is relevant because it's actually him. Why should the fact that a comedian mocked him on MadTV belong in the article?


i think you'll find this helpful: As a result of the strikes, and the union negotiations that took place over the subsequent decades, autoworkers became middle class. By the time Moore was growing up, his father, as a member of the United Auto Workers, was entitled to free medical care, free dental care, and four weeks of paid vacation. If he needed legal help for any civil matter, the union provided a lawyer free. He had two cars and owned his home outright. He lived not in the city of Flint itself but in Davison, a white middle-class community a few miles away. His family took nice vacations and he sent his three children to college. Moore’s father didn’t particularly like his work at the plant, but it paid well and could be relied upon—something he appreciated, having grown up in the Depression. He worked the first shift, from six until two, then played golf at the public course—paid for by families whose money came from General Motors—down the street from the factory. He retired with a full pension after thirty-three years, at the age of fifty-three, whereupon he took it easy and did volunteer work at the church.[4]

POV categories?

I seem to understand your logic now, POV categories are okay as long as they are left-wing biased or anti-Bush. Wikipedia - fair and balanced? /Slarre 16:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

90% figure

E.g. [5] says so — is that reliable enough? --tyomitch 03:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Contra-sadinista

You're in good company. Guettarda 19:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Powerbook G4 Tiger

Hi Alistair - Makes sense to remove the "on". I have also removed it from Template:User_powerbookg4tiger. Steven Plunkett 22:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

In response to your question re why two templates - I created Template:powerbookg4tiger first, but then discovered that that would not work in a Babel box, so I created Template:User_powerbookg4tiger. If the former can be removed, then I will edit it with an AfD. Steven Plunkett 23:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Play nice

"Accusing another editor of vandalism within your first twenty-five edits, isn't the best way to start editing here. The security problems with ADS were already covered adequately within the Fork page. And most of your subsequent contributions still stand. Please try to avoid personal attacks. Thank you. AlistairMcMillan 16:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)"

  • I'm sorry Alistair I mistook you for someone else. As you can see I have removed a lot of my changes (additional links, possible over dramatisation, etc). You're quite right the security issues have been covered (by me) on the Fork page. But in which case a Security Issues section on the NTFS page pointing to the Fork page is necessary and appropriate. Any possible Security Issues should be one of the main facts mentioned on the NTFS page and is deservant of an <h1> heading and a listing in the NTFS contents page. In the interests of peace I will include this section as part of the Limitations section. Please DO NOT revert these changes. If you don't like them discuss them on Talk:NTFS. That is the way things should be done.
--gorgan_almighty 16:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


TNG Evolution image

Restore previous image. For purely aesthetic reasons. Enterprise looks better from this angle.

It should at least match the thumbnail that is in the main index page: List of Star Trek: TNG episodes. I could care less really what ANGLE the ship is in. Cyberia23 07:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

iPod article

Sorry for messing that up I apologize. (68.88.194.206 00:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC))

Your Brain is gone

Did you sell you're brain to Steve Jobs? Does he pay you for your advocacy or it is a pure vocation? luxiake

GNU-Darwin

Are the references you quoted in my talk page mentioned anywhere in the article? Because the way that the GNU-Darwin FAQ reads, other editors might make the same conclusions I did. --JohnDBuell 00:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

if you haven't seen my reply on the talk-page, please take a look. --Yoasif 00:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

George Galloway

Alistair, sorry to bother you with this, but I just noticed you blocked Dbiv, even though you were involved in the content dispute. That's a violation of the blocking policy, so it might be best (for your own sake) if you were to unblock him and let an uninvolved admin handle it. Message for you about it at WP:AN/3RR#User:Dbiv. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, I've only just started editing the article, so I don't know the issues or who is taking which side. All I know is that we're not allowed to block people we're having content disputes with, so regardless of the consequences, you should really unblock him, for your own sake as much as anything else. Another admin is likely to come along and reblock if it was a genuine violation (and I'm not saying I think it wasn't, only that I haven't looked at the diffs). SlimVirgin (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
We should really have this discussion on the 3RR page, so I'm going to move the comments there. By "for your own sake," I meant that you have violated the blocking policy, which is regarded as a serious offence for an admin, particularly in the current climate, as there have been a couple of recent controversial instances of it. You'd therefore be doing yourself a favor if you were to unblock and perhaps ask an uninvolved admin to look at the situation. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Alistair, you have only undone the autoblock; you haven't unblocked the account yet. Could you do that, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek work

Memory Alpha > Wikipedia

Memory Alpha

You list STar Trek episodes in the pages you created, but they all have better equivalents on Memory Alpha.

How do the goals differ? I'm being honest here, because I can't tell.

WikiProject Macintosh

I have started a WikiProject that aims to improve all Apple Macintosh related articles to featured article standard. The project is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Macintosh, I hope you are interested in becoming a participant in the project to improve hundreds of articles in a group of valuable Wikipedians. Thanks! — Wackymacs 12:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Alistair, please help

I would like to request your help with serious NPOV and verifiability problems on the Arabic numerals page. I have mentioned it, yet again, here Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#December_17. Please help me recruit as many neutral and well-intending editors to the page to counter the strong and manifest bias. Regards, and thanks. csssclll (14:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

Burnbank

Thanks for sorting the direct link to Celtic FC - I am a bit of a Wiki newbie and tend to make quick starts to pages that I see missing, and am learning the basics.

Moore

Please keep in mind WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL when discussing issues on the Michael Moore talk page. It will be difficult to reach consensus without these policies and guidelines being kept in mind. --badlydrawnjeff 03:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. IronDuke 02:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Thirded. AlistairMcMillan 03:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for apologizing. I know it ain't always easy. ;) IronDuke 05:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I was actually trying to take the piss, but never mind... AlistairMcMillan 05:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Ditto, Jocko. Appreciate your falling for it. IronDuke 22:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

More SEO spammers

File Allocation Table edit error.

I think your edit on the File Allocation Table page: 05:19, 19 January 2006 AlistairMcMillan (→Design - Change "Length" to "Length (bits)") was incorrect. After checking the official Microsoft Extensible Firmware Initiative FAT32 File System Specification, they have the Boot Sector structure "Lenght unit" as bytes, not bits. Dohzer 14:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

People like you remind me just how amazing Wikipedia can be.

Andrea Shubert 15:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AlistairMcMillan/Archive4&oldid=1093541460"