User talk:SirIsaacBrock/Archive 2

Fall/Autumn

Thanks. I felt the English term more appropriate considering the context! 213.160.120.156

Vandals

Hi Isaac. We always warn a user, usually more than once, before we block him for vandalism - a single dubious edit isn't enough to block someone. In that case, I posted {{test1}} on his talk page. If he continues, further warnings can be issued - see WP:TT for the full list, and the Counter Vandalism Unit has more guidelines. {{test3}} and/or {{test4}} (which warn a user that he can be blocked) or some variant thereof usually have to be issued before a user is blocked. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

I just found the idea of small dogs being killed for entertainment horrible. 132.241.246.111 20:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey-baiting

Hi Brock, Sorry for the long time for response from my talk page. Anyway, when I tagged the article for monkey baiting for proposed deletion, I sort of thought it was a hoax or at least unverifiable. I did a Gsearch and couldn't verify a lot of the stuff in that article, in fact I found very little. In the interim, I've seen that you guys have the baiting WikiProject and that this is one of your featured articles; this gives me a lot more confidence in the article right there to know this article isn't just a random orphan.

All in all, sorry for the inconvenience, I was mistaken to put the tag there in the first place. I guess the good news is that prod tags are easily removed. --Deville (Talk) 14:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! --Deville (Talk) 14:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi architecture

Hi. Re the categories "Nazi architecture" and "Buildings and structures in Germany" which were applied to the article also called Nazi architecture, I removed "Buildings & structures in Germany" simply because the category "Nazi Architecture" is already a sub-category of "B&S in G"; and I was under the impression - although I can't immediately put my hand to the cite - that it was considered bad practice to put an article both in a category and one of its immediate sub-categories.HeartofaDog 17:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC) and edited by the same for greater clarity 17:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

Hpuppet aka Hipocrite has asked me to intervene on his behalf. He has stated that he is leaving the project, so I see no reason to continue to edit his pages, so I have protected them. Let's let him go in peace. Thank you.--MONGO 11:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

he does not appear to have edited at all for a couple of hours. My guess is that he is gone.--MONGO 12:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa

I'm not sure if you realize, but you linked the Ottawa coat of arms to an image that doesn't exist. — nath a nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 19:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-references

Hi SirIsaacBrock. I notice you have been putting a few articles, like Accountancy into the user categories in the Wikipedia project namespace. These are called self-references, and are usually a bad idea. Some of these changes have already been reverted, and the rest will need to be. I also notice, for example, in your changes to the user categories that you've put Category:User CA as a sub-category of itself. Before you make similar changes, perhaps you'd like to revisit your edits to save others from doing so. Leave me a message if you need any help. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the correction in Badger Baiting. --Mboverload 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user Lest We Forget

Sorry for the removal of the userbox from the Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs list. When I reviewed it, the template did not exist. I guess you were in the process of creating it at that point. Bad timing on my part. Perhaps in future, you might consider creating the template before adding it to any lists. Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 04:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before Christ

In order to break the stalemate you seem to be in with most regular editors on that article, I've added this article to AfD. You will probably want to add your reasons for keeping the article there. — squell 18:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accountant

No, I'm not an accountant. What's up? Kurieeto 12:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Bulldog.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Bulldog.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 13:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invoice

Just wondering why Invoice doesnt belong in the accounting category? It's the primary way account departments communicate! (well, in the retail business atleast) ---J.Smith 20:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source document? By all indications that article has nothing to do with one business billing another business. And while it may fall under the technical header of source document, that doesnt exclude it from the accounting topic as well. I work in an accounting department and we spend about 90% of our effort working with invoices. I'd like to re-add the Accounting-stub template since invoices are "accounting-related" as the stub describes it. Please explain further why it shouldn't be there. ---J.Smith 18:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my suggestion would be to create a subcategory called Category:Source documents (accounting) and then add the primary +cat Category:Accounting to that sub +cat. If we do not do that we will have hundreds of source documents going to the main +cat and it will overflow. Let me know what your think. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that there are 100's of source documents in accounting. Are there? If it's really like 5-10 then being under accounting is no problem at all. If it really is 100+ then we can think of merging... but I'm doubting there's actually 100 different types of source documents that deserve there own article. (for example. Credit Memo is a type of Invoice, and is covered there). ---J.Smith 18:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A source document is any input document used to create a journal entry, it is more like 1000s than 100s. I believe that a sub +cat would be the way to go, it is just determining the best name. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still doubting that there are 1000 different TYPES of source documents that are worthy of there own articles, but feel free to create the sub-cat. However I will be replacing the stub template you removed since there is no other stub that is as specific for this article. ---J.Smith 19:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning messages

Hi SirIsaacBrock. I just wanted to let you know that if you think an edior should receive a warning for vandalism, you don't need to list them on WP:AIAV. Any editor can issue vandalism warnings, and they should only be listed on AIAV if they have vandalised after receiving a final warning (usually a {{test4}}) and the most recent vandalism occured in the last two hours. Please let me know if you need any further clarification or help. Cheers TigerShark 00:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fair use

Do not replace images that are removed as 'fair use' violations, or you will be blocked. See WP:FUC --Doc ^ask? 21:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Poppy.gif

"Fair use" images are only allowed in the article namespace.Geni 21:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an article it is a template. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is why the image was removed. The template was deleted by User:Kelly Martin probably under T1.Geni 22:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#Templates Geni 22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I deal with fair use vios quite a bit and there just happen to be a whole load on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/Canada.Geni 23:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Report of Kelly Martin

I saw your posting of Kelly Martin at WP:AIV; it belongs at WP:UBD, and so I've moved it there, as Kelly Martin is not a vandal. Please let me know if you have any questions about this. JDoorj a m Talk 01:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason I've removed the report from WP:RFI, however I don't think JDoorjam has posted it to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates yet, so you might want to do that. Petros471 10:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featherston Drive Public School

Why did you revert the infobox change to this article? Please come discuss at Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Canada before you get rid of Canadian school infoboxes. As for the image, I still don't understand how an image on the school board's web site can be free to use. I'm new to image copyright issues, so I definitely could use some help understand why Image:Featherston.jpg is ok to use. (Can I use any image I find on any school boards while I'm working on these school articles?) Thanks! --Stephane Charette 17:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: when you revert changes that obviously are not vandalism but large blocks of text within an article, it would be nice if you could also go to the user's talk page to leave them a note letting them know what has happened and why. --Stephane Charette 18:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Hello, the edits you made to the info box did not work, therefore, they were reverted."

Please, kindly explain what it is about the infobox that doesn't work. --Stephane Charette 18:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The center command and the full http link etc, basically all of the edits you have made. The info box is appropriate as it is now. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)"

This infobox is at last count being used by 49 Canadian school articles. We're slowly going though and updating all of the existing Canadian school articles to use this template. Please see this. Unless you can think of some special reason why your old high school should be exempted from Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Canada, I certainly don't agree with your statement that somehow this infobox template "doesn't work". --Stephane Charette 18:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please continue discussion at the article discussion page. SirIsaacBrock 18:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your continuous reverts with edit summaries of "improper edits" is unfair and inacurate. You should not prevent other Wikipedia contributors from participating and adding perfectly valid content to articles. I don't know what makes this school article so special to you, but I am not willing to get into my first ever edit war with someone else. If you have decided that this article cannot or should not have the template, please add a comment next to the school on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education in Canada. --Stephane Charette 18:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi SirIsaacBrock, thank you for your comments.

Sincerely,

Kevin

A vote taken on Talk:Martin Luther

Please come to cast your vote as an editor. Drboisclair 00:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link Deletion

SirIsaacBrock - I'm the owner of the link in question, and I'm effectively trying to delete myself from this Wiki. Surely, you can tell that? My intention is not to "vandalize" anything. But, if you do not let me delete this link, I will take measures to make sure the link goes nowhere. Which would you prefer?

A personal blog is not a library. I've tolerated the multitude of hits to this blog entry these past months but frankly, enough is enough.

- babayaga

Monkey-baiting

I don't see how my omission of two (IMO unwiki) sentences struck you as vandalism. I have left a message on talk:Monkey-baiting responding to the assertion. It might be presumptious to say this to someone with far greater Wikipedia presence, but remember that no single editor owns any single article on Wikipedia. - JustSomeKid 22:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unethical accounting practices

Thanks for your message.

Perhaps by way of explanation, I have been trying to draw together articles in the vague area of business ethics into a more coherent category structure. Someone (not you) was in there in January and created a whole bunch of dubiously redundant "anti-corporate" categories with very few items in them, in what was probably a case of trying to stuff Wikipedia with anti-corporate keywords. Your contribution got rather mixed up with my enthusiasm over sorting out the mess of the others. There are already a lot of established categories with titles like "anti-corporate activism", "scandals", "corruption", "fraud", etc., and there is a real problem with the categories in this area having got so out of control that you can't find the articles via the categories. On consideration, I'm sure you were trying to do a good thing with your new category.

I'll try and make some constructive suggestions:

I don't think categories with very few contents are justified, especially when their parent categories are still a bit thin anyway. I think we need to think what parent(s) your category has and then think why those specific articles shouldn't belong to the parent.
Category names need to be chosen so that someone researching a topic might actually find them. For example, one difficulty I have is with your chosen title, which isn't the name of any known academic field or widely recognized topic. It's a description, not a title - if you follow? For example, accounting ethics might be a more suitable title for your category. And that would bring the advantage that one could widen the scope somewhat and include more things in it that someone researching the topic might actually want to know. Someone researching "unethical accounting practices" would probably want to know about ethical ones as well, plus recommended standards, history of the field, etc.
I'd appreciate it if you have some concept of the big picture in this area and an alternative idea for category reform. Any chance of discussion?

Caravaca 18:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeal of Orders in Council

Hello Sir Isaac Brock I am not sure what you are asking of me, do you what me to find the date of when the British declared Orders in Council or something else. Sorry.

-Ty Holzschuh

P.S. I am only a 13 year old boy that noticed an difference of information between World Book Encyclopedia and Wikipedia wile doing a report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ty Holzschuh (talk • contribs)

Orders in Council

This might interest you if you havent already seen it http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/government/british/decrees/c_britdecrees1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ty Holzschuh (talk • contribs)

'Vandal'

This user may be editing in good faith, please try to work it out with him/her. Prodego ^talk 02:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was not aware of that, (s)he did, however ask for a source, can you provide one? It may help stop this user. Prodego ^talk 02:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reference stating the he is anti-sematic (let me know if I missed one), and the category was added by a school IP used by a here without citeing a source, so I am removing the category. Prodego ^talk 03:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I just found this source, sorry about that. Prodego ^talk 03:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You found nothing that indicates the president of Iran is an anti-semite. Being anti-Israel is not anti-semitic. The charge of anti-semitism is just an opinion, not a fact. --68.214.58.161 03:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go take a look, and see if i can't work it out. Prodego ^talk 20:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzeel doesn't seem to be a sockpuppet (his/her first edit was in June 2005) I think consensus is to remove the tag, although I would prefer if more users weighed in. Prodego ^talk 20:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeal of Orders in Council (Again)

This is purely speculation, but it appears that the repeal was thought up and wrote down on the 16 but ratified on the 23

Also I noticed that the article does not have any reasons why The War ended.

Ty Holzschuh 00:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your wrong

from thewolfstar

Hey, Thanks for giving me a smile with some of your links. For instance Wikipedia:WikiProject Baiting Maggiethewolfstar 18:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featherston Drive Public School

Hello, may I ask why you replaced the infobox being used with an inferior looking template ? Cordially SirIsaacBrock 22:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no significant difference in the output of the two boxes. However, using the infobox template removes the long detailed table markup code from the article in favor of a shorter template call with simple 'item = value' format that is more understandable to most users. --CBDunkerson 23:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the data in the infobox, and added padding to the template. I think it now looks a lot more like your original table. Let me know how you like it now, and what you would change. — Usgnus 18:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFD

I don't think I suggested merely renaming it: it's far too small. See here. Alai 02:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Trigger (mechanism) articles.

That seemed like a no-brainer. Looks like you disagree, so I've gone back and put the tag. You could have done it yourself in less time than it took you to post here.--Asams10 21:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you know what you said, but have you actually read the Trigger (mechanism) article? In what ways is it lacking?--Asams10 23:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet pests.

Hi Sir Isaac Brock,

I was wondering if you can help me. I am watching a page on Wikipedia titled "Siamese Fighting Fish" and am having problems with an internet pest. This user is using a ghost ip and keeps editing the page to edit any sites that are in competition with him. I have tried to protect the page, but to no avail. Is there anyone I can contact at Wiki regarding this problem?

I have looked through the site and found out about protecting pages, but I do not fully understand how it works to stop this type of vandalism. If the page could be protected and somehow to try and stop this type of vandalism on the site, any advice would be appreciated.

Thanking you for your time, Goldenblue 06:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Warning

I'm sorry, I don't understand why I am accused of vandalism when the only edit I have made is to replace two links that are both viable and working. My apologies if this was the wrong thing to do

Lisa LikkleMouse 12:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)LikkleMouseLikkleMouse 12:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Warning pt2

Further apologies the Betta Australis site (previously listed under Betta Organizations)is indeed down tonight.

LikkleMouse 12:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)LikkleMouseLikkleMouse 12:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Anti-Semitic people

I am not threatening you or anyone else with legal action (after all, I'm not on the list!) I apologize for any misunderstanding. However, I stand by my statement that wikipedia is putting itself in extremely risky legal territory by, in effect, calling people anti-Semites. It was a friendly word of advice, that's all, with no intended threatening subtext whatsoever. Again, I apologize for not making that clear. Treybien, 20:55 May 6, 2006 (UTC)