User talk:Ian Dalziel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Ian Dalziel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Gflores Talk 22:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Ian Dalziel! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Computerjoe's talk 18:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Clark vandalism

Ian, maybe it's time to request that the Jim Clark page be locked/restricted/whatever to prevent that twat from continually arsing around with the first couple of paragraphs? I was going to add some info about the Jim Clark Memorial Rally but will probably wait until this guy can be stopped. T-r-davies 00:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea - I'll try requesting it (if I can work out how!). You should be safe enough with updates, so long as you make sure you're not applying them to Pflanzgarten's version! -- Ian Dalziel 14:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Think you have to request it from an Administrator, looking at the number of reverts you've done I can't imagine they'll object. Will go ahead with the rally info, may end up creating a new article and linking, depends how much I write! T-r-davies 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slesinger representation of the Milne character "Winnie the Pooh"

You seem to have deleted this without merging the content back into Winnie-the-Pooh or removing the redlink. Is this normal? Seems a bit unhelpful. (Genuine question - I haven't been involved in a deletion before) -- Ian Dalziel 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

When you send a message to someone about a discussion, it is best to include a link to that discussion in the title of the message in order to assist the reader, as above. The majority decision was to delete the article with no consensus about where the information should go. If you would like to contest the decision, please state your case at Wikipedia:deletion review, preferably with a strategy for restructuring the Winnie the Pooh-related articles that it affects. (aeropagitica) 21:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fangio

I'm not sure how politically correct is my request, but if you see it fit, please revert the valdal revert of User:Ernham, currently as top version: I've already changed the page 3 times today... Mariano(t/c) 13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thx. Mariano(t/c) 15:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] N.B.

The 20th century seems a bit late. N.B., in Medieval abbreviations "common phrases may be severely abbreviated: "N.B." (or just a hand with a pointing finger) frequently can be found in the margin of a page". Q.E.D. (Baruch Spinoza, in 1655)......dave souza, talk 20:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James I of England

Thanks for restoring the image! Addhoc 12:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pflanzgarten socks

Hello. I saw that you tagged all the socks. Do you potentially want to consider removing the notice from User:193.25.183.52 and/or User:89.50.227.123? The edit history for them may indicate that they have been used by other users as well. --After Midnight 0001 14:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grands Prix

has there been a consensus on using Grands Prix? i agree that Grand Prix events does sound better. also Grand Prixes is an accepted plural of the word Grand Prix[1]. cheers --Dan027 08:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not accepted by me, I'm afraid. Dictionary.com is just plain wrong on that - it happens!. Try a Google on "Grands Prix" as opposed to "Grand Prixes" and count the hits. "Grands Prix" is the plural used on Forix, grandprix.com and formula1.com, as well as being the correct French plural for a French phrase used in English. -- Ian Dalziel 20:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old French avoir de pois

Re avoirdupois. The etymology referenced gives (as, too, does Longman): "O.Fr. avoir de pois". The misspelling mentioned in the reference is the substitution of "du" for "de". Of course the words avoir and pois were earlier aveir and peis, but both avoir and pois are Old French within the usual definition of French before ca. 1300. Just to take a few examples of avoir from Old French texts:

  • Autrui avoir par larrecin ou tolu par force an chemin (1180)
  • Ainc de nule arme ne pot avoir garant (12th C)
  • De la pitié q'au cor li prist, qu'il ne plorast ne s'en tenist por nul avoir (12th C)
  • S'auchuns velt oïr ou savoir la vie Mahommet, avoir en porra ichi connissanche (1258)
  • Pour avoir chascun qui la vient, faites vo serjant estre au Pire (13th C)

The two forms/spellings even overlap in time. See:

  • Qant grant furent vostre dui frere, au los et au consoil lor pere alerent a .ii. corz reax por avoir armes et chevax (Le conte du Graal, ca. 1085)
  • Jo ne lerreie, por l'or que Deus fist ne por tut l'aveir (La chanson de Roland, 1090)

I have restored, because it is not wrong, "Old French avoir de pois", and the spelling of the term in Middle English also suggests that it was borrowed from Old French in this form. -- Picapica 19:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Granted, but is it useful to refer to a form which is virtually identical to the English word? Also, the quoted source suggests it came into English as peis, which seems highly dubious. -- Ian Dalziel 23:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is. The usefulness of the note about the origin of the word lies, I would have thought, in how well it explains the sense of the words avoir de pois from which "avoirdupois" derives – rather more than in going into variant Old French and Anglo-French spellings (though, for those who are interested, there is already a footnoted reference that deals with that to some extent). Would it, for example, be "not useful", in mentioning the original "hand-work" meaning of the word "manoeuvre", to refer to the O.Fr. maneuvre because its spelling closely resembles that of the modern English word?

Fair enough. I preferred the older form, but I don't feel strongly about it. I admit I didn't look it up and thought the shift to "ois" was later than OF. -- Ian Dalziel 08:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, just for the record, here is some of the history of English spellings of the form form the OED (sorry that the pron. symbols don't come out!) -- Picapica 11:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • avoirdupois (ˌævəRdəˈpɔɪz). Forms: 4 auoirdepeise, auer de peis, 4–7 avoir de pois, 5 haberdepase, 6 auerdepaise, auer de poiz, haberdepoys, -poise, 6–7 hauer de pois, haberde-pois, 7 averdepois, aver-, haberdupois(e, haverdupois(e, 8 hauer-du-pois, 7– avoirdupois. [A recent corrupt spelling of avoir-de-pois, in early OF. and AF. aveir de peis `goods of weight,' f. OF. avoir, aveir, property, goods, aver, de of, pois, peis (= Pr. pes, pens, It. peso):—L. *pēsum, pensum, weight. The first word had the variant forms of the simple aver, and the pronunciation remains ˈaver; the Norman peis was from 1300 varied with, and c 1500 superseded by, the Parisian pois.]
My objection to the Online Etymology reference is that it suggests the term entered English as "peis" then underwent a parallel shift in English to "pois". That seems just silly to me - clearly what has happened is a succession of borrowings from French as the word evolved there.
Now, what do you think about the names of the units? -- Ian Dalziel 08:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team orders

Why isn't that reference good? It is about the fact that team orders were banned after the two incidents with the ferraris in 2002, in Austria and USA. If you read the reference well, you'll see "The rule forbidding teams from determining the finish of their drivers resulted from Ferrari instructing Barrichello to let five-time champion chumacher pass him to win the Austrian Grand Prix earlier this year, and Barrichello winning the U.S. Grand Prix when Schumacher slowed down in a bid for a dead-heat finish.". This proves what is stated in the article. I think if something has to change, is the wikipedia article to match the reference, not the opposite. Cheers--Serte 13:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Clark

I left a message about full protection on User talk:Zsinj. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stripping Michael Shumacher of 2nd place

I think the reasonn why Schumacher was not stripped of wins or points would be that it would arguably suggest that drivers who finished behind him in races should be promoted, and thus it might affect the championship points of other drivers.Lucifer 13:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Clark

Have you read the recent history of the Jim Clark article? There isn't going to be any "talk activity". The whole problem with Pflanzgarten is that he refuses to discuss changes - just reverts back to the version he updated in June. It has to be at least semi-protected, so that he loses one of his sockpuppet accounts each time, if nothing else! -- Ian Dalziel 17:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well there's been only one edit in the last 12 hours - I think we can handle that. Pflanzgarten has been indefblocked too. So, if the reverting gets out of control, it should be only be semi-protected, not fully protected. Let me know if it gets too crazy. Since I know that's the behavior now, I'll start blocking IPs on sight when that happens. This is a preferable alternative to leaving it on full protect forever. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] canis lupus

Thanks for the link, Ian. It seems that taxonomic terms change a bit more than I had expected (and are different from what I learned in biology -- of course, that was thirty years ago ;) I'd imagine that as man begins to understand down genomes in more depth, the classifications will change even more. Hope I didn't mess anything up, or if I did that you fixed it. •Jim62sch• 22:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/a/n/User_talk%7EIan_Dalziel_af47.html"