User talk:AlistairMcMillan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Previous Talk involving Rex071404 archived here: User talk:AlistairMcMillan/Archive1
- April 2004 - February 2005 Talk archived here: User talk:AlistairMcMillan/Archive2
- February 2005 - August 2005 Talk archived here: User talk:AlistairMcMillan/Archive3
- August 2005 - January 2006 Talk archived here: User talk:AlistairMcMillan/Archive4
- January 2006 - June 2006 Talk archived here: User talk:AlistairMcMillan/Archive5
- July 2006 - October 2006 Talk archived here: User talk:AlistairMcMillan/Archive6
[edit] iPhone Revocation
Okay, while I'll conceed that "Ms. Warrior"'s comments many not be substantial as a reference, I don't see what is wrong with the "Copycat Issues" section, as the references for that are a well-established newspaper making its own opinion, not just re-stating a comment. Surely under Wikipedia policy it is acceptable as long as you cite it with a reference from an established and respectable source? 217.44.169.174 18:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestion
Hello. May I suggest you take a look at this page? I realize you are involved in sort of a tough situation over at the article on Gracenote, and that page has some tips that might help you avoid personal attacks which only make the situation worse. It also has tips for working towards a compromise version of a disputed page. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 19:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Personal attacks on Gracenote
Hi, the answer to your question ("are you saying I was making personal attacks because of the Gracenote page") is no, and yes. That talk page was getting pretty heated, and some of the things that were said, I felt, were bordering on personal attacks so I left identical messages on the talk pages of everyone that seemed to be involved in the dispute reminding them to avoid personal attacks and to stay calm. I was not saying you personally made personal attacks, but simply reminding you and everyone involved to stay calm and avoid them. If you take a look at the talk page I had an idea for a way to reach a compromise, but no one seems to have paid it any attention. At any rate, no I was not saying you made personal attacks, and yes, I left that message because of the Gracenote page. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 14:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] .dmg disk image format links
Hello, I noticed that you managed to remove all links to third party applications that are able to handle dmg files. I really want to know why. Advertising, you claim, and maybe that is true, but it can be very valuable advertising/information to people wanting to access contents of dmg files from other operating systems than OS X. There's a lot of similar links all over wikipedia and I can't understand why you felt these specific ones were not appropriate. I write partly because I'm the author of one of these tools, DMGExtractor (which is open source and GPL'd, so there's no profit in it for me). The wiki entry has led a lot of people to my page, and I've had a lot of positive response because of it. It's a win-win situation, so why remove the link? Looking forward to an explanation... --Unsound 07:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I just skimmed through the page you linked to, and you're probably right according to rules, as I added the link to my page myself. It kinda troubles me that the current trend in wikipedia seems to be removing as much information as possible, because it doesn't have "encyclopedic" value. The high amount of information is what made it useful for me, and probably lots of other people as well. My GPL'd app, DMGExtractor, would never have existed if it wasn't for the link I saw on the dmg page in wikipedia to the GPL program dmg2iso. I'm trying not to whine here, but I just think you're going in the wrong direction, trying to tame wikipedia too much with extensive rules... --Unsound 03:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- It was some time since we communicated, but I just wanted you to know that I've redone the page with DMGExtractor, thus eliminating the annoying ad that you complained about when you felt like testing my app... :) I'm lazy, so it took me some time to deal with the issue. Just in case you wanted to have a look at it. DMGExtractor --Unsound 14:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] File Allocation Table
Come on, Alistair. I know from the past 2+ years that you are trying to keep the FAT (and other MS-related) article clean, and maybe make it a "good article" ("featured" would require some drawings at least), but please have a little patience with new significant additions - I spent maybe an hour trying to write things clearly, and to ultimately eliminate the rather vague and misplaced mention of fragmentation from the intro (not to speak about lack of cites). The discussion I added was mostly based on the already cited Ray Duncan's article about HPFS. Adam Mirowski 01:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Adam, the problem with your contribution is that you've provided no verifiable sources. Wikipedia has a long history of taking contributions without asking where the information comes from, and editors like AM work really hard to ensure that this trend doesn't continue. Remember, Wikipedia isn't here to publish personal opinions & observations, or any kind of original research. Please look at WP:VERIFY and note what it says right at the top: Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. Please help us build a better encyclopedia by citing sources. Thanks. -/- Warren 01:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Of course. But the Ray Duncan article is already ref #1 and Chen article about FAT32 limit is the last external link already. Don't people ever read the references, in order to recognize that newly added information was already present in them? Adam Mirowski 01:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Picture with Alan Cox
Yes mate, you are entirely correct that it is my picture and that is me in the pink shirt. If you would like the picture is on my website with other pictures of me if you'd like verification. Go ahead and make any changes you feel are necessary. Cokehabit 01:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "DVD ripping"
Hey, I did some looking around to see if I could find a source for this. I'm pretty sure I was the one who put it into the article almost a year ago, based on information that Thurrott had published about the original list of editions. The information for Home Premium did indeed list DVD ripping... but there doesn't appear to have been any coverage of it anywhere else. Unless the feature is buried away in Media Center somewhere (which is the only place would make sense, i.e. if DRM was applied and it could be accessed on the local network), it doesn't appear to be present in the final code. Good catch. -/- Warren 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Sd31415/Thumb
[edit] Did you know?
With about 380 edits to the article, you are the biggest contributor to iPod! s d 3 1 4 1 5 talk • contribs 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Troublesome FAR
Hi,
I notice that you contributed to the Systemic functional grammar article a while ago. Split infinitive is up for review as a FA, and I wonder whether you are critical of the content. I am.
Tony 00:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: SystemStarter
No, I just moved it because footnote markers generally go at the end of a sentence, rather than in the middle. An interested reader can easily read the citation and see what specific part is being referenced. – Mipadi 18:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- The Chicago Manual of Style notes that "the superior numerals used for note reference numbers in the text should follow any punctuation marks except the dash, which they precede," as noted here. This style is also specified in the examples shown on Wikipedia:Footnotes. Furthermore, this seems to be the general standard in most other publications, including print publications. – Mipadi 18:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] re diff
Can you please explain your logic behind removing this NPOV content in Adobe Flash Player ? Your edit summary troubles me. I believe this content was added in good faith, as you should too, and that it is useful. Please explain to me why you did this, or I will re-add the content -- Jmax- 18:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RealNetwork employees?
Note to self:
- Special:Contributions/ColetteF
- Special:Contributions/24.17.208.165
- Special:Contributions/207.188.29.244
AlistairMcMillan 10:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] About comments on my page
Hi Alastair, thanks for you comments. When I deleted the comments on my talk page, I wasn't doing so to hide things, it just seemed a bit strange to me to leave previous comments for me on a public page, apart from the initial one which I thought I might want to use later for help with editing. I haven't used user talk pages much, and after looking at others, I've decided it does seem to be the best action to leave the comments up.
I have taken into account your comment about my additions to articles, and I should probably have replied to tell you so. While I don't think my additions of references to proprietary software were particularly biased, the way I did so, by putting the reference in the first sentence, probably was a bit inappropriate and slightly biased. After your comment, I've decided to stop doing this, and if I do refer to a programme being proprietary, I'll do it in a less prominent and more appropriate place. I've noticed from a comment above that the user Jmax- agrees with my addition on that particular page. With free (as freedom) software, it is often appropriate to mention its freeness at the very beginning, because for many of these programmes, its sole reason for existing is to be free software, especially anything which is part of the GNU project, and this is a major reason for it being notable.
Cheers, Guyjohnston 16:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cairo
Regarding this, for some reason I've always been under the impression that it was canned by the time Windows 95 came out, but clearly you've found some indications that it was still a going concern in 1996. Huh. Yeah, by all means, update it to 1996! -/- Warren 17:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] OS X
This kind of research is easily considered original research, which is not allowed at Wikipedia. Again, let's see the resources. Roguegeek (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
These are assumptions made by yourself and a select few other editors. Editor speculation is definitely not encyclopedic in any form. Roguegeek (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You're arguing on a technicality. How many times over the years has Mac OS X been called OS X? It's the same difference. Roguegeek (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
I made the basic structure of what I think it should look like. Feel free to tear it apart and stuff. {Slash-|-Talk} 03:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] looking for wikipedia and macintosh support
I'm a Mac user and contributor to wikipedia and wondered if there were any software-assist programs out there - I've looked around Macupdate.com and generals searches of the internet and all I see are ways to add wikipedia searches to other situations, but nothing to help contributors who use Macs.... I see you are a big contributor to Macintosh oriented sites and thought you and a few others might be good people to ask. Thanks.--Smkolins 13:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Robert Wolfe
He seems notable enough -- why not take an ax to the copied material instead of marking the whole article for deletion? I'll do it myself later today if you don't have time. Thanks, NawlinWiki 19:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] iphone
Since when has correcting punctuation been an "unconstructive edit"?
[edit] iTablet
Not to be a nuisance, but I found it very offensive when you wrote in the talk page "If only there was a way to speedy delete this article." Culd you not do that in the future? Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redguard101 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Hannibal Rising
Removing contradictions and making up excuses as to how they would fit counts as original research. As it stands right now, one event is made specific in one novel, and its changed in the next. Thats all that needs to be said.--CyberGhostface 12:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Original research is defined as "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". There is nothing to indicate that Hannibal's dream, when it occured, was false. Unless Harris himself stated that it was false in Hannibal it should count as a contradiction. What I wrote was the simple facts of what occured without any additional commentary, which is how it should stay.--CyberGhostface 18:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is what happened. In Hannibal, Hannibal recalls seeing his sister's teeth in a stool pit. NOTHING indicates that this is false. In Rising, Hannibal notes this is to be false. As this is DIFFERENT INFORMATION than was previously established, it is a CONTRADICTION. In the current continuity, Harris retconned it to be a figment of Hannibal's dream. I can agree with that. But NOTHING indicates that this was the case in Hannibal. The same goes to Hannibal's animal abuse. Yes, Hannibal has been nice and cruel to humans, but you can't use that to argue "Oh, well that means he was mean to animals too". Nothing indicated that in Rising he was EVER abusive to animals at any point in his life. Neither before or after Mischa's death was Hannibal shown to be cruel to animals, and if he was, Harris would have mentioned.--CyberGhostface 21:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Look. I'm not doubting the whole idea of it being a dream. Thats beside the point. What I'm trying to say is, it WASN'T FALSE in Hannibal. It was treated as fact in that particular book. By stating that its false, Harris is changing continuity.--CyberGhostface 00:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is what happened. In Hannibal, Hannibal recalls seeing his sister's teeth in a stool pit. NOTHING indicates that this is false. In Rising, Hannibal notes this is to be false. As this is DIFFERENT INFORMATION than was previously established, it is a CONTRADICTION. In the current continuity, Harris retconned it to be a figment of Hannibal's dream. I can agree with that. But NOTHING indicates that this was the case in Hannibal. The same goes to Hannibal's animal abuse. Yes, Hannibal has been nice and cruel to humans, but you can't use that to argue "Oh, well that means he was mean to animals too". Nothing indicated that in Rising he was EVER abusive to animals at any point in his life. Neither before or after Mischa's death was Hannibal shown to be cruel to animals, and if he was, Harris would have mentioned.--CyberGhostface 21:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Template spam
You recently complained about "Template spam" ... and I've stumbled across the solution for you. Have a look at {{ArticleHistory}} and {{WikiProjectBanners}}. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Idris
It's simple. I find an operating system named Idris. I know that there are several concepts named "Idris". I think that people may want to know what the system name means or references, but I don't know the exact origin, so I link to the only page that explains the possible meanings of the name. After your effort, people reading the article have no idea about what the name may mean. Not good. --84.20.17.84 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read the comments that provoked my comment and see that my comments were provokedOxyman42 02:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Trek USS Livingston article 2/22/2007
Alistair, I wanted to let you know that I have merged the material from the article you proposed for deletion - USS Livingston (Star Trek) into the Excelsior class starship (Star Trek) article as every source I could find IDs the Livingston as an Excelsior class ship, even the Excelsior articles on a couple of the foreign language Wikipedias (German for one) Cheers and have a good day! Wikidenizen 15:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New idea for the Main Page
Hey Alistair, I have a new idea for the Main Page, to put in a featured question. I would like to debate the issue with other wikipedians but don't know where is best to address the issue. I've placed a message on the main page discussion page, any other pointers as to what i should do next? Ahadland 05:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationales
About Image:GKsu screenshot.png - I did not use a generic template such as {{fairuse}} or {{fairusein|article name}} for this image. It is currently tagged with {{linux-software-screenshot}}. I don't think fair use rationales are strictly neccessary because I used a specific license tag instead of a generic one. —Remember the dot (t) 04:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason I want a fair use rationale for Image:Am wmp for mac.png and Image:Wmp104mobile.jpg is because these images contain copyrighted content from both Microsoft and a TV program. Thus, whether or not it is appropriate to use them in the article Windows Media Player is murky without additional clarification. —Remember the dot (t) 04:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I will add a fair use rationale, but please note that it is inappropriate to tag images with a specific license tag with {{subst:frn}}. {{subst:frn}} is only for images tagged with a generic fair use template such as fairuse or fairusein. —Remember the dot (t) 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
(replying to message on my talk page) - Template:No rationale itself says that it is only for generic fair use templates. I'm guessing that images tagged with more specific license tags should be put though Wikipedia:IFD if they lack a fair use rationale. —Remember the dot (t) 19:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
(replying to message on my talk page) - Template:No rationale clearly states that it applies only to generic fair use tags. —Remember the dot (t) 22:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re:
Sigh. Kinclaith was given to the bishop, who became the owner of the land. You ought to read more carefully before making silly sarcastic comments. Anyways, Barrow knows more about high medieval Glasgow than anyone else (save, perhaps, Norman Shead), and failure by your sources to mention this reveals only flaws in them. The source I'm using is as impeccable as it gets, so you'll do well to get round it. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Simply repeating your false belief hardly makes it true. Maybe you should take a breather, give it more thought, and tell me exactly what I'm missing. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Would have to look. Kenneth H. Jackson, "The Sources for the Life of St. Kentigern", says this I think. But I'll go double-check. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Remote administration software
Why did you change the | in to a <br> in {{Remote administration software}}. This doesn't group the pieces of software into any groups. If you did it for looks, I want you to note, that people use their browser with different widths and in most cases this just makes it worse. Try stretching your browser window back and forth. This being the case I hope you'll revert your edit. --Easyas12c 12:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit for now. Feel free to speak out, if there was another reason for having the break in the article. --Easyas12c 02:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- It does not look better. It may look better on your computer. You have to realize that web browsing environments are very different. Some people use a cellular phone and some other use a plasma television. You can not decide a break point that would make sense for anyone else, but you. Please don't edit Wikipedia to make it look better on your computer. Please revert the edit. --Easyas12c 22:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- The average reader is browsing at either 1024x768 or 1280x1024. That is what we aim for. And we make choices all the time that style our content for those resolutions. Oh, and neither of the computers I use to edit Wikipedia run at those resolutions. AlistairMcMillan 22:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rick Sternbach Interview Link
I don't really think you made a good judgment call deleting the link to an interview conducted today with Rick Sternbach. Your reason of "not covering anything new" is not sufficiant and I think you should put the link back. It is current, addresses Star Trek XI and certainly not hurting anyone. Someone looking for information about Sternbach would probably like to read an interview with him. You writing the bios for TNG Production staff should know fans like interviews....-S- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.142.11.26 (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Technorati
Before you attempt to revert, please contact Technorati and verify the facts. Their ranking of myspace blogs is not accurate for the reasons stated in the discussion section. They will probably explain why it's not accurate in the same terms I've already done.
I appreciate your zeal, but in this case it's misplaced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.91.124.186 (talk • contribs) 04:02, March 6, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Making links direct
I like to avoid a redirect as much as the next guy, but please remember that it takes more WP resources to go in and edit the link than it does for the system to redirect users. --EEMeltonIV 13:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] iTunes
iTunes 7.1.0.59
- Notice that you took out my addition about problems with the latest update. If you doubt that there are problems please take a look at Apple Support discussion to see the large number of users having this particular problem. The previous version worked fine - the new one doesn't. So not a problem due to me but one due to the software team at Apple. Anyone wishing to avoid this problem shouldn't download the update. I haven't invested in an iPod to be unable to listen to music on my PC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.71.0.158 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
- It seems that you are in the habit of editing -ve reports on iTunes and may well even be an Apple employee? 220.240.58.190 16:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NTFS
Alistair, yes, it's Native Transactional, not New Technology: It's a common mistake; and the name is derived from the transactional log used to self-repair (via unwinding) disk errors.
I think you're confusing the meaning of the "NT" in "Windows NT" which indeed is "New Technology" with the "NT" portion of "NTFS" Dan Schwartz, Expresso@Snip.Net Discpad 23:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, here is the citation:
Sean Daily in Windows IT Pro: Windows NT 101 chapter in Optimizing Windows NT:
Installable file systems
Another portability feature of NT is its ability to support many different file systems. Currently, NT supports the FAT (File Allocation Table used in DOS, Windows 95, and OS/2 systems), NTFS (Native Transactional File System introduced with Windows NT), and CDFS (CD-ROM File System). However, because of NT’s modular nature, support for additional file systems can be easily added in the future by simply creating new file system drivers and adding them to NT. This makes it relatively easy for NT to incorporate new technologies.
[edit] DRM intro
I made some modifications to try to clean up cruft in the opening section of DRM but they were reverted by another user. I've put the proposed changes in the "cleanup" section on the DRM talk page. You seem to follow DRM - please review & provide comments on the talk page if you have time. thanks. 71.232.58.195 01:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New RED iPod nano image
Now, I don't mean to be accusative about this, but what was wrong with the old image? The product is depicted head on, which is best for encyclopedia purposes. It is depicted on a neutral background, is not tilted, and the shadow of the new image is cut off at the bottom-left, at least enough to prohibit a tilt and crop procedure. The only good thing is that it's on (although since the old one is off, there can be no doubt it did not come from Apple). Should I change it back?--HereToHelp 00:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 109.00a
Good catch. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] will you get a life!!!
and stop picking on me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.24.175.199 (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Download 2007
why take the table away it was good took me ages and it was nice to see what band s are planying quick i was even gonna add the dates they were confirmed when i got a chance it was much easier than reading few paragraphs of text and it
its never to early for a table as it wouldnt make any differents except help people view the bands quicker and easier pleas e can u put it back or make a better one many thanks download veterian :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.195.199.55 (talk • contribs) 11:57, March 22, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alistair
I'm probably not the only person to point this out, but you are a good example of what makes Wikipedia so frustrating. You have misused your admin privileges. I'll take it up with others if it continues.
This is just a friendly note to stop it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.91.124.186 (talk • contribs) 22:00, March 26, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signing
Thank you for the compliment and reminder. While I'm still learning proper Wikipedia form, I've already done my first sign. And here's my second! :-) Zachlutz 12:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bring Me the Horizon
Please do not remove cited information from their page. I understand removing some of the "trivia". However, there is further uncited information on their page, and instead of deleting it all add the "citation needed" tag or just leave them there as the page already has a notice saying it doesn't cite its sources. Thanks, Asics talk Editor review! 16:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's alright, just one part that was removed was cited. I guess you just missed that bit! I understand what you mean, people do somewhat abuse wikipedia's free editing policy (on occasions) Asics talk Editor review! 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have not read it. However, I have contacted the user who added it originally asking for some proof. I hope this will be alright. Thanks, Asics talk Editor review! 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mark Burnett
The link to the deposition, which is a pdf, isn't working. Can you fix that? Thanks.
[edit] Regarding your claim
Why are you claiming that I'm spamming wikipedia? Every external link I've places is highly relevant. If I'm doing something wrong I would be interested in knowing what it is.Please advise. Yaniv.bl 08:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am not Fixya's CEO but I am related to the company. Let me understand if I get you correctly. The proper way to add fixya related information would be to write a request in the Talk page of each topic? If this is the case I have no objection but I would like to know if this is the process that each edit goes through and if not why should Fixya be an exception. Let me remind you again that every page I've edited was relevant and would benefit wiki's users. Also, please note that other than very limited amount of advertisement fixya is a free source of information. Thanks Yaniv.bl 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:POINT
I would suggest that the editor unilaterally mistagging the page (i.e. you) desist from doing so. Chris cheese whine 18:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)