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)

[edit] Flagicons

Because I hate flagicons, they make the articles look a bit silly and add no extra information. In this case I was removing several that a user had added to dozens of articles. In some cases the flagicon was there but not the country of birth which is even worse. Restore the icon if you wish. I never remove the icon more than once per day and I don't go out of my way to look for them. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to talk

Thanks for the info Ian, have just got back from 48 hour trip to London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portlius (talk • contribs)

[edit] Jack Brabham, Maserati etc.

As of right this minute, I'm thinking yes they should. But there was a discussion on this, started by DH, I think, and I can't remember what the conclusion was, if there was one. Hang on a minute, I'll see if I can find it. 4u1e 07:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the conversation I was thinking of, which suggests that 'constructor' should be used (so I'm wrong on that basis!). Although it wasn't entirely conclusive about what happens with drivers results, where 'constructor' wouldn't necessarily have priority over 'entrant', which it does for race results. I'll change Jack back for now though. 4u1e 08:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I've put both entrant and constructor in now. Probably a bit redundant.... Cheers. 4u1e 08:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weber carbs / Type C

Fixeder indeed. That's some seriously ugly code now - I'm just relieved we all spell camshaft consistently. (Come to think of it, the redirect for DOHC vs Dohc is rather lacking.) --AndrewHowse 16:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ernham is back

Hi. I notice you've been involved in blocking User:Ernham before. He's just come back from his ban, and is already at it again, removing sourced references etc. he doesn't like with no attempt to discuss. I'm immensely frustrated at wasting time reverting him, and hope not to get sucked into another edit war. I'd appreciate your help in keeping an eye on him, especially his 'contribution' to Lothar von Trotha and Herero and Namaqua genocide. Thank you :) Greenman 12:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reported him at [2] and commented on a report of his against another user at [3]. It would be much appreciated if you could add your comments if you get a chance. Thank you :) Greenman 12:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] desist from personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Do not accuse other editors of "vandalism" in edit summaries. Edit summary personal attacks are considered to be the lowest of the low. --Mais oui! 09:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeated reversion of a consensus position while refusing to discuss changes IS considered vandalism. That is NOT a personal attack. If you are prepared to discuss this, why are you not prepared to discuss your one-sided multiple reverts? -- Ian Dalziel 10:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis Hamilton's WDC position

I was about to revert yet another misguided edit of Lewis Hamilton's WDC position, but you beat me to it! I've made a new topic in the article's talk page outlining the tiebreaking procedure in F1. If you have to make another reversion in the next 12 days, you can point the editor to the talk page for a further explanation. Majin Izlude talk 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect of X-Sample

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on X-Sample, by CultureDrone (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because X-Sample is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting X-Sample, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate X-Sample itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most profuse apologies on the Dog image

While looking the revision history of the "Dog" image, I erroneously clicked on the wrong button and reverted to the inappropriate version. I want to profusely apologize for this error, hoping you can repair the damage without too much trouble. Sorry!--Ramdrake 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I figured out how to undo my own boo. The correct image is showing again. Thanks for understanding!--Ramdrake 19:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DFV

Ian - sorry for multiple edits on the DFV page. Being a Newbie to Wikipedia I couldn't understand why comments weren't 'sticking', and didn't see your comments until too late. However you inspired me to continue looking & both me and the DFV page are better for it! :0) 198.28.69.5 16:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC) PS. is the correct place for comments like this?

[edit] Indent on Kimi Raikkonen page

Hi, I reverted your extra indent to my comment, as I wasn't replying to the comment above, but the original root-level comment. By indenting it, it implied I was replying to the comment directly above mine. John Hayestalk 10:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Eliot vandalism

Perhaps our anonymous friend is familiar with minimalist poet D. N. Eva's famous quip:

"I knew a man called T. S. Eliot
"Who wanted to write the 'Waist Land' but couldn't spelliot."

Or, perhaps more appropriate, considering the calibre of his edits, W. H. Auden's near-palindrome:

"T. Eliot, top bard, notes putrid tang emanating: I'd assign it a name, gnat dirt upset on drab pot toilet."

Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banana

Hi,

You're wasting your time until Bob is blocked by an admin. I've already posted at WP:AIV, let him fuck around all he wants then revert when he's blocked. WLU (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Now blocked. WLU (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] That one particular serial comma!

You just beat me to it! I think between us we must have zapped that particular serial comma dozens of times. Personally, I have nothing against the serial comma in general, but that particular one certainly annoys me! And you, by the look of it... Snalwibma (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M of UK

Hi, I've responded to you at my talk page. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding T. S. Eliot and East Coker.

My apologies for the error. I thought that I was reverting vandalism by an anonymous user, when, in fact, I was repeating an error. Well, it was sorted out in the end. I will take a more careful look next time. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not so fast, my Padawan apprentice....

According to the McLaren article it was in 1997 that the device was noticed (the wording used in the F1 article). It wasn't until 1998 that it was banned. Does that sound right (it doesn't have an online reference). (Arguably this is too trivial to mention in the main F1 article, by the way!) 4u1e (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I think of it, I've got the 97 and 98 Autocourses, so I can look it up this evening sometime (D'oh!). I'm in the middle of doing something else at the minute though, and the books are lurking behind the Swiss cheese plant, so it'll be later on. 4u1e (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you got it anyway. Good work. 4u1e (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Triple crown

What do you mean, "there is no real triple crown for drivers"? Should the whole article be scrapped? And why is it unnecessary to note that there has only been one constructor who has won all these competitions? John Anderson (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul McCartney

Doh! I read the diff wrong. Thanks for rereverting. TJRC (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pflanzgarten

?! Talk about sheer persistence. Surely there must be something more interesting s/he can spend time doing? 4u1e (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

I noticed that you reverted my edits on cask ale, citing a concern about use of a single term. I think that this was abrupt, given that the terms cited were a small part of the totality of my edits, which included a number of wikifying links. ENeville (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I clearly didn't read the rest of your edits properly - I have no objection to them. Sorry. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ian: Re. Ayrton Senna KARPOUZI For someone who apparently thinks of himself as a Wikipedia policy expert, you have never logged in to identify yourself. I agree with you that the entire Senna profile is a mess. For example, the insertion about Senna and the NSX is too trivial a fact to close the article. It seems logical to end the article with the Legacy section. Unfortunately, editing by committee inevitably results in such an article. Lastly, the use of British English spelling is inappropriate for the reason a British Empire no longer exists. Most foreign language dictionaries translate words back to American English spelling. American English is the world standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinsuper7 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Wikipedia Standard English". See WP:MoS. The consensus at WP:F1 is that F1-related articles should use UK English, since F1 is primarily centred in Europe. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UK English for Formula 1

Ian: Thank you for clarifying this matter. No offense intended. I would like to see UK English usage applied consistently which I believe is not always the case. Best regardsColinsuper7 (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)ColinSuper7

[edit] Capitulation of Irvine

When you have a moment, can you take a look at this article and let me know what you think? I have very grave doubts about it, but would like some other opinions. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not an expert, either. The article does not look right to me, though. He altered the First War of Scottish Independence article, and I changed it back, because his edits looked very POV to me. I am hoping someone with more expertise, perhaps Celtus, will weigh in. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 13:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis Hamilton

I am contacting you for your thoughts as you are one of the principal contributors to this article. As you may or may not know, it has been nominated by PheonixRMB as a featured article candidate. The FAC is not going too well, with the current consensus being that the nomination is premature and that much work needs to done to get it up to the requisite standard. I would be grateful if you would express an opinion on the article's FAC candidacy page. As FAC is currently desperately short of reviewers, withdrawing the article – and thus saving reviewer time and effort – would be one option. Thanks for your time, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No action now needed as PheonixRMB has withdrawn the nomination. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motorized carrige

You said you have never heard of 'motor carrige', I was wrong, I have corrected it to 'motorized carrige' - as in "Daimler Motorized Carriage". I have just quickly searched and can not find any sources to say this is true, but does the fact that the Daimler Motorized Carriage has the words "Motorized Carriage" in it kind of prove that 'Motorized Carriage' was at some point used. From there you could just use logic to workout that this is where 'motor car' comes from.

Is this enough proof for "(citation needed)" to be removed?

DineshAdv (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have certainly seen "horseless carriage" for the earliest self-propelled vehicles. While "car" clearly comes from "carriage", I suspect it did that in other contexts, without specific reference to motors - I am unconvinced that a term "motor carriage" was shortened to "motor car". I don't *know*, though - if you think you have a reference, by all means add it and remove the tag. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)