User talk:AlistairMcMillan/Archive12

AfD nomination of Windows Neptune

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Windows Neptune. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Neptune. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Implementations Section of Remote Desktop Protocol

Alistair,

I agree that the "Other Implementations" section of the Remote Desktop Protocol article is an invitation to spammers, I think you might be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

If we are supposed to maintain a NPOV on a protocol where it is largely perceived that the only client and server implementations built into the windows OS, we should point out the alternatives. If we publish a laundry list of RDP clients, then there would be a diminishing return for spammers to add their product to the list. Zippy1981 (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the laundry list of all clients is not the correct approach. Also, I think I didn't correctly define the baby, either to myself or you so here goes:

RDP is a proprietary protocol. The article mainly deals with the reference implementations of it, namely the Microsoft Windows clients and servers. I believe some third party implementations of the protocol do "contribute" to the protocol even if they don't submit changes, or influence new features in the following ways:

* An open source implementation of the protocol that interacts with the reference implementation (e.g. rdesktop) provides "proof" of the specs completeness (or incompleteness if reverse engineering beyond the spec was necessary), and supplements it. Therefore I think rdesktop rates mentioning.

* A client implementation on a non Microsoft OS improves the utility of the protocol. It changes the protocol from a tool for remotely using windows from another windows macine, to a tool for remotely using windows from one a variety of OSes. Therefore I think rdekstop and the official mac client rate mentioning.

* I could make a case for Royal TS that you would probably find weak based on it being centered around administering multiple machines.

* CoRD would be intrinsically derritative of rdesktop, Royal TS, and the official mac client. I can't argue for its inclusion other than arguing for a list which you point out violates standards.

To defend my NPOV argument against your its a private protocol argument, creators of a protocol, program, or tool of any kind are subject to biases and limitations of understanding their own inventions. Man had mastered fire for millions of years before understanding the fire tetrahedron. People have found new uses for existing tools they could not build themselves. The fact that these third party tools exist and are used for practical purposes affects the impact the protocol has. 66.195.65.126 (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Camino logo

Hello, AlistairMcMillan. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MacBook Pro

Hello, NJA. I'm just letting you know that I have nominated MacBook Pro, an article you contributed substantially to, for Good Article status. The review can be found at Talk:MacBook Pro/GA1. Cheers, Airplaneman ^talk 23:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Colloquy (IRC client)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Colloquy (IRC client). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colloquy (IRC client). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of App Store applications (Science)

Hello, I have removed your prod from List of App Store applications (Science) as the talk page comments indicate that deletion is not uncontroversial. I have no opposition to listing the article at AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of App Store applications (Science)

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of App Store applications (Science), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of App Store applications (Science). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Atama頭 23:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Boot Camp Large.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Boot Camp Large.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 72.85.202.152

I see you gave the IP address 72.85.202.152 an indef block as a vandalism-only account. Please note that an IP address isn't any kind of account, so Vandalism-only account is clearly wrong; and that IP addresses should almost never get indef blocks. Please either unblock the IP, or set a reasonable expiry on the block. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Living Videotext

Hi there, I think we were working on Living Videotext at the same time, and I hit a couple edit conflicts. I tried to merge what we both had (we were adding similar information), but thought I should let you know in case you feel that some of my changes were regressive. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of articles

I have nominated two of the articles I created, and contributed to entirely, because I just cannot get any information about the events which will help me to expand the article and make them better. I may have been over-zealous, and have gone into an overdrive for creating articles. I hope you can help me - I have tagged these two articles under author-deletion :-

I hope you can help reduce the backlog.

Thank you,

AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 15:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macintosh FAR

Hi, I've seen you around on Apple-related articles. Macintosh is undergoing a featured article review and if you are able, any help you can give the article would be very appreciated. It's the only Apple FA, and it's worth defending. Thanks, HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Am mac os x menuextras.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Am mac os x menuextras.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning on Apple TV

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

I have posted a request for review on the admisitrator's noticeboard here AshtonBenson (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is being a child. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Rumors about the September 11 attacks

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rumors about the September 11 attacks. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumors about the September 11 attacks. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apple TV

I've listed this issue with AshtonBenson at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious editor on Apple TV. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

iPad

I'm glad I'm not the only one who realized that the sources were not tied to the iPad. I'm not sure if you looked at any of the sources which supposedly had commented on the link between iPad production and the suicides or not, but the sources said nothing of the sort. Pretty misleading content for sure and either way, with no connection to the iPad other than as its manufacturer (among hundreds of other devices), I just axed the whole section for undue weight.--Terrillja _talk 21:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and deduced (but I may be wrong!) that you're a Scotsman (I went to Edinburgh not that long ago and I really appreciated the people and the wonderful place! Beautiful and really nice!), so I guess this helps you understand what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Keep on preserving your great culture, country and language! Mar sin leibh! Capsot (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Am windows95 taskbar.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Am windows95 taskbar.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow Hospitals

I derived the figure for the Western from this total minus Gartnavel bed figures cited: http://www.nes.scot.nhs.uk/sfas/prog_by_region/west/hospitals/western_infirmary/

GRI figure of 1077 cited here, which is more specific than approx 1000: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=215786

82.23.124.2 (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi Alistair

You were the first admin that I came across, so I'm hoping you can help me out with something. I need someone impartial, so I've come to someone who may not be involved in the subject. We seem to be having an ongoing edit war over at the 2011 World Rally Championship season page: a new team has joined for 2011, and it is causing some contention. The team is to be run by a group named Prodrive, as detailed in the relevant reference, but a user, Gedwards 1990 has constantly been changing this to MINI because the team will be using MINI cars. He has been asked to stop on the article history page, on his user talk page, and last night I asked him to stop on the article talk page. He has ignored all three requests, and has since made changes to the pages again. I was hoping you might be able to intervene, please. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Finder icon.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Finder icon.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation

Hi. A couple of things, that I thought would be best to discuss on your talk page. First, you seem to think that in see also sections explanatory language is verboten. My understanding is the opposite. Specifically, that the rule is " Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." Should you wish to make the annotation more brief, that is of course fine. But your deletion of the annotation to me would appear to be somewhat contrary to the direct guidance. Second, "spam" doesn't apply here -- this is a highly significant matter, covered worldwide, that's been the subject of over 8K hits on wiki a day. Nothing is being sold. I also corrected per MOS some casenames that you input -- litigants' first names generally are not to be reflected (nor their middle names), and casenames are to be italicized. Furthermore, I'm not sure if you appreciate the groundbreaking nature of the case -- it led U.S. (asst) Attorney Michael L. Levy to say: "The issues raised by these allegations ... involve the meeting of the new world of cyberspace with that of physical space", and led Senator Specter to hold a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the subject of privacy and telecommunications, and to introduce legislation in the Senate as a result. Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If litigant's full names aren't to be included, then surely the article Blake J. Robbins v. Lower Merion School District needs to be moved?

And I'd dispute whether this is a "highly significant matter". It was covered worldwide, but more for the salacious/amusement value than anything else. Putting links to this case, on generic articles like Macbook, laptop and webcam is perhaps a little excessive. Also the huge number of redirects... again a little excessive.

BTW If you are going to suggest that the MOS supports your argument, then its generally a good idea to point to which part of the MOS. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just read your most recent edit. Public figures are pumped for quotes all the time. Legislation is changed all the time. Still not convinced that this article needs to be linked from half of the other articles on Wikipedia. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to your first point, you are of course correct, and as you will note from looking at the talk page to the article I had already requested as much.

As to the significance of the matter, I strongly disagree. I know a bit about U.S. law, and it is highly unusual for the U.S. Attorneys Office to comment as it did on an ongoing investigation -- as the RSs point out, that is a sign of the significance of the matter. Secondly, it is of course highly unusual for a case to prompt a U.S. Senate Subcommittee hearing, with the plaintiff asked to testify. And for a Senator to say that on the basis of the testimony at the hearing, he will introduce new legislation in the telecom/laptop/privacy area. And do so. This, I would think, would be rather obviously unique to all who are aware of it. Unlike your characterization, this the US Attorney comments and US Senate actions speak to its significance as a practical matter (far beyond its notability for wp purposes).

I don't believe, therefore, that it is excessive to provide the links, though I'm happy to discuss the form of the links if you have thoughts in that regard.

As to the hugh number of redirects, I completely agree that there were too many. I don't know who had provided the bulk of them. I did provide or was in favor of the standard ones -- the case name(s), the names of the plaintiffs, the popular names, in their possible forms. Someone seems to have undone all, including those. I hope I caught the "good" ones that were deleted in their over-exuberance. I wasn't able to figure out what was deleted.

As to MOS, if we are referring what part of MOS I am referring to when I refer to citation form for a casename, that would be MOSLAW.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your last comment above, you say "public figure are pumped for comments all the time". Perhaps I wasn't clear -- it is highly unusual in the U.S. for the U.S. Attorney's Office and/or FBI to comment on an ongoing investigation -- just the opposite of all the time. That is reflected in the very article; I can provide you multiple citations to that effect if you would like, but it is well known in the U.S. It is exactly the opposite of "all the time". Second, it is highly unusual for a case to spur a Senate subcommittee hearing, and for it to spur proposed legislation in the United States. True, legislation is changed all the time. In this area--I can't point to any legislation spurred by a particular case as this has, and as Specter points out this has been in need of revision for thirty years. It is highly significant.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time will tell I guess. Still not sure whether the case needs to be linked to generic articles like webcam and laptop. And please forgive my over-exuberance, if you can see the page at the below link you should be able to see all the redirects that I deleted. Sorry but excessive redirects are a particular hate of mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=AlistairMcMillan AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the redirects you list -- many thanks. As I said, I had thought there were a good number of odd ones, and would only favor the typical ones used in cases as discussed above (all of which I believe I restored). Let's both take a look at the facts, and rejoin, if you will. I have a few decades experience in the area of law, and am confident--for the objective reasons cited, which I can supply refs for if there are not enough in the the article for you -- that this is a unique case, and that that is reflected in the highly unique reaction by the US Attorneys Office and the U.S. Senate. Perhaps there is a way to pare down the mentions to a barer form that we would both find acceptable? Could I trouble you to take a look with that in mind?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- I took a glance at the deleted redirects, and agree with all or almost all of those I had not restored, which are the bulk. Is there a way to check how may "hits" the deleted and non-restored ones had? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could try this site... http://stats.grok.se/ Only shows you stats a month at a time though. So pretty laborious, but it does seem to be pretty accurate. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Perhaps when I have more time. My sense is that most or all of those that remain deleted should well remain so. I would not have created them, and unless I'm missing something (and I've read most of the refs to the article), they are not common or intuitive names for the article. I could always I guess also try a google search to check my supposition. For now, I think for the most part I'll just let those lie dead. Tx for the input. BTW -- if OK w/you, on some of the other see also's I think I would like to revive them, either a) trimming the explanation, or b) mentioning the "led to Senate ...". I think just a trim would likely be more to your liking, but wanted to run this by you first. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles to be deleted

You took part on this Article for deletion discussion, but you failed on these ones:

Why? Partly it makes your result of your deletion article invalid. That's why i propsed all these articles for deletion for the same reason as your previous discussion about the List_of_XMPP_client_software today, but User:SarekOfVulcan reverted all deletion proposals. This should you know. --91.89.137.62 (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mac OS X DevTools

Template:Mac OS X DevTools has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ℳono 03:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Optimus10108pieces.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Optimus10108pieces.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RHUB socks

You came up with a good list of RHUB Communication article creations by various sockpuppets- can you open a sock report for happysantacruz? tedder (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jmao1 as requested. Unsure of the process myself so just followed Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Handling suspected sock puppets AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thanks, I'll watch and/or comment. I'm short on time and am impressed that you seem to understand this sock fairly well. tedder (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: ISL Light

Hello AlistairMcMillan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of ISL Light, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Ged UK 15:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]