User talk:AlistairMcMillan/Archive9

Cover Flow 'Bug'
Yeah I do have it all set to compilation "yes". The artist, album artist and album art are all the same. The bug has appeared since 7.1

So it is a bug. Chrisjustinparr (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well not all of the artists are the same. But even when they are the same it shows up as different albums... I didn't have this problem after 7.1 Chrisjustinparr (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you want a screenshot?Chrisjustinparr (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you get it yet? See, it genuinely doesn't work, even when the album artist is null, the artists are different, compilation is checked and album art is all the same. Chrisjustinparr (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Am microsoft media player.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Am microsoft media player.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jens Alfke
Another editor has added the " " template to the article Jens Alfke, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Relax!
Dude, relax. There's no fanboy whitewash conspiracy going on here, just some moving around of content into the right article. &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 03:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User PowerBook G4
A tag has been placed on Template:User PowerBook G4 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (&lt;noinclude>&#123;{transclusionless}}&lt;/noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree
I just want to say I agree with out about the spam problems in Comparison of DNS server software. I have, before basically being barred from editing the article because of WP:COI, removed what I felt were spammy things from the article.

Speaking of Comparison of DNS server software, I have made a single edit to this article today, clarifying that DjbDNS doesn't have IPv6 support without an external patch (the clarification is done by giving a link to the patch in question). I also added a link to converting a human-readable LOC record to DjbDNS' somewhat quirky "binary DNS record" format, but that link was removed by someone, and I see no reason to put it back.

If you feel making this link is against WP:COI, I'll agree with you; feel free to revert the change.

Speaking of WP:COI, the Micronations part of the Wiki is a bloody mess. Thankfully, the only people interested in Micronations are the owners of the micronations themselves; the articles are not as visible as the DNS-related articles.

As an aside, MaraDNS is getting a bit of success; there will soon be a book published with a chapter on MaraDNS; in addition, someone is willing to pay me a little to do some MaraDNS development. Once the book gets published, someone may even be motivated to improve the MaraDNS article so it's not a copy of the MaraDNS webpage. I'm happy. :)

Also, since DjbDNS became public domain late last year, I'm a lot more happy about the program. Open Source has won. Indeed, it's been a lot harder to motivate myself to develop MaraDNS now that DjbDNS is open source software; I would never have started MaraDNS if DjbDNS was open source in 2001. Samboy (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

re: ipod notes - "blatant" spam
i was not trying to spam wikipedia, as you can see i am quite old user sometime adding and editing content.

i think the ipod notes part should be included in software, link that helps ipod users to convert texts is just a bonus. since the service is free and built by myself, i don't see any problem with that as it does not serve to any commercial purpose.

ipod ebook creator is renowned service mentioned many times over the web + in newspapers such as UK guardian, US NY Times and many more.

in no case I can agree with you calling my actions "blatant spam". your actions however could be considered harmful to free flow of information contained in wikipedia in certain way. --dusoft (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

true blind follower of rules
you have demonstrated yourself as a true blind follower of rules. in the meantime we will use common sense. thanks.

--dusoft (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

HFS Plus
I saw you reverted my edit to the HFS Plus article where I added that it was proprietary. How come you reverted the edit? Was I wrong? Isn't the system a proprietary closed file system? -- Frap (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the case of HFS+, he was correct, as it isn't proprietary. I'm pretty sure that the source code to the OS X HFS+ driver is in the open-source (APSL) XNU kernel, and there's an implementation in the Linux kernel. Furthermore, the specification is freely available.


 * Removing the word "proprietary" from other articles isn't appropriate, though. While it may not be the perfect term to describe non-open-source software, it's currently the best we've got. If you can suggest a more neutral alternative, shoot. But simply removing it wherever it appears is losing information. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 01:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Incorrect information and biased information, sure. But simply removing information which happens to use a biased term is destructive. With all the effort you're going to in order to get rid of it, surely you can spend a little bit of extra effort and come up with a better alternative? Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

EM Client
First email I received from User:Jazzz the drummer aka John Goldfinch:

I have undone your changes because my update wasn't deserving that. waht is self-promo? do you to think that other e-mail clients update this page to not-promote themselfs? we are developing an email client with 5000 curent users and it's still a beta that allready exceeds lots of other email client in some features (caldav, imap handling).

the product is going to be rebranded befor final release which caused that it hasn't its own wiki page

i'm going to correct that right now;)

Second email I received from John Goldfinch:

"what the hell are you trying? you call for deletion of everything i do. i guess you are involved in some other client and are afraid of competition. then go to hell and stop this."

Third email from John Goldfinch:

I'm not interested in talk with you. I'm busy developing FREE software and some wanker keeps deleting our wiki page, so less people can find alternative to their mail client.

stop deleting that page. go buy yourself some icecream and have a nice day

Fourth email from John Goldfinch:

i got no idea that it is prohibited to comment my own FREE software. i'll send mail to some of our beta-users to comment for us. hope it'll make you happy.

and one advice. get a real life. you shouldn't waste your life in front of computer running wiki, wanking and enjoying the illusion of being important.

i'm not the one who lost ;)

Stop Trolling
Troll. --Wildwobby (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If AM is a troll, then I'm the Queen of England. -/- Warren 23:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

XYplorer AfD comments
Please look at comments that I left about this at Articles_for_deletion/XYplorer_%282nd_nomination%29, and the article as it now exists, as there was some recent unfortunate modifications of the article which I have attempted to undo, while leaving the needed updates based on current status. As stated there, the previous nomination and delete occurred before XYplorer got two notable major media mentions which another moderator felt were sufficient to restore it. I am a novice at this site and thus worked thru him, as I trusted his judgement and experience. Also, the original recreated article was likely misleading and was awaiting updates but I or others had not yet had opportunity to correct it due to workloads before it was marked AFD again. Thanks! Whr76 (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Clickwrap Licenses
Problem is, a lot of GPL and BSD software presents itself as clickwrap software. That would not be a problem since they are already known to have their more specific licenses. The general type of license is not inaccurate, but you're of course free to replace each with a reference link directly to the text of the specific non GPL/BSD license for each product at your leisure. That would be more informative, replacing with blank is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.115.231 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

External links vs references
In this edit, you moved articles that had appeared in reliable sources from the References secton to External links. Please undo this. The patent application belongs in external links, but the magazine articles are references. --Eastmain (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dannik Jerriko
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dannik Jerriko, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Dannik Jerriko. Terraxos (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

FAR notification
Windows 2000 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Collectonian (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Carbon applications
Hello. Since you have contributed to this article in the past, could you spare a minute to discuss the fate of this article? xpclient (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

iTunes release date
Hi Can you take a look at Talk:ITunes and comment? Thanks. -- Tcncv (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:AM MacOSX Panther.png
Thanks for uploading Image:AM MacOSX Panther.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --20:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OSx86
Hi - I thought I'd bring your attention to an ongoing persistent attempt to add a set of external links to the OSx86. This is because not long ago you cleaned this situation up. If this is not the appropriate way to ask for an opinion on this, please let me know. Elsendero (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Interview
I am trying to find a wikipedia administrator who would readily do an interview for a research project I am conducting from the perspective of a wikipedia insider. If you'd like to do this, please email me at goat77 (AT) gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goat77 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Knowhands enjoykeep/Fdgdf3
I think it's more than a little suspicious that Fdgdf3 was created very soon after Knowhands enjoykeep's last round of edit warring and that his/her only edits have been reverting to Knowhands enjoykeep's version of Mac OS X. I suspect that Fdgdf3 is a sockpuppet, created so that Knowhands enjoykeep won't breach 3RR again. I've requested a checkuser at Requests for checkuser/Case/Knowhands enjoykeep and since Fdgdf3 has now breached 3RR I've also reported that at WP:AN3RR. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Some people just like to make trouble for themseleves, don't they? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alistair, I opened an SSP report on this case: Suspected sock puppets/Knowhands enjoykeep. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about the other editors that you mentioned. Knowhands enjoykeep only came to my attention because of edits that he was trying to force into Windows XP. That lead me to List of sexual slurs and then to Mac OS X. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you check out User:Kjngjkn as well. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

With Knowhands enjoykeep now blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Primetime who has also been banned indefinitely, what happens to List of sexual slurs which was created by Knowhands enjoykeep (after the puppetmaster was banned) and to which he was the most significant contributer other than you? Does it get deleted? Based on what I've read in the various policies, particulary at Banning policy it appears that it should be. I'm just wondering what the policy is here. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What you've mentioned on my talk page is the part where I got confused about how policy should be enforced. This comment on Talk:List of sexual slurs is probably worth noting. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job
A list of sexual slurs. I'm glad somebody got to that long-term mess over there. DGG (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Am ifolder.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Am ifolder.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Am microsoft media player xp.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Am microsoft media player xp.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Am watson.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Am watson.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mac OS X
In this edit you added a reference to an article by Bruce Tognazzini to support your claim that he thinks all versions of Mac OS X represent a step backwards in usability from OS 9.

Have you actually read this article? Let me give you a few quotes from it:
 * Mac is indeed back! For the first time, with a few simple add-ons, you can turn your Mac into a monster machine, capable of outperforming not only an OS 9 Mac, but Windows XP
 * OS X is a fully-usable powerhouse once more, with a free and open future.

Am I missing something? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊  22:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that an article titled "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" doesn't contain any criticism? Since you are accusing me of not having read the article, then I'll assume you have. Including the numerous parts where he compares OS X features to the corresponding ones in OS 9. Also the two links that point to an article called "Top 9 Reasons Why the Dock Still Sucks". Seems like exactly what we are saying in the article, he is comparing the usability of OS X to the usability of OS 9 and claims that it is a step backwards. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so he doesn't like the dock. Or at least he didn't like it back in 2004 when he wrote that article. (You do realize it's changed a lot since then, don't you?) I don't want to sound like a stuck record here, so I'll just say this once more: you added this reference to support a claim that he thinks all versions of Mac OS X represent a step backwards in usability from OS 9. Can you see what the problem is here? You're extrapolating from his complaints about the dock and trying to make them apply to the whole operating system. They don't apply to the whole operating system. Clear now?

BTW, I'd appreciate it if we could keep this discussion in one place. Please reply here. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊  09:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is why I didn't link the "Top 9 Reasons" article. I linked the article where he criticises the Dock, the Finder, Save dialogs, applications that use proprietary formats, etc, etc, etc. The article isn't just about the Dock. And the dock hasn't changed a lot since 2004. It might have a new theme and the Stacks feature in Leopard but aside from that the core functionality is unchanged from the original release of Mac OS X. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Help me out here. As far as I can tell, these two statements are incompatible. Am I missing something? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊  14:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article you linked to — i.e., the one called "Panther: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" — says that Mac OS X is capable of outperforming not only an OS 9 Mac, but Windows XP.
 * You provided this link as a reference to support a statement made by Bruce Tognazzini in 2000 where he said that Mac OS X represents a step backwards in usability from OS 9.


 * You had over a week to respond to this, so I'll take your silence as an indication that you don't give a crap any more. If you really think my changes to this article are wrong, I would appreciate a proper explanation first. Not just a flimsy non-sequitur in an edit summary. OK? Thanks. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊  15:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are still confused. The article, as indicated by the title, is divided into three parts. The "Bad" part is overwhelmingly the largest part of the article. It doesn't matter if his conclusion is that Mac OS X is better than anything else out there, the article still largely contains a list of things that Tog thinks should be fixed in Panther. Things that he thinks were better in Mac OS. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it does matter. Will it help if I put this in large type?


 * 1. In 2000, Bruce Tognazzini expressed the opinion that Mac OS X was a step backwards from Mac OS 9.
 * 2. In 2004, he expressed the opinion that Mac OS X was better than Max OS 9.
 * 3. You are trying to tell me that his opinion in 2000 applies to all versions of Mac OS X.
 * 4. It does not apply to all versions of OS X. See #2 above.


 * I really can't make this any clearer. Before answering, please take a bit of time out to read your earlier comments and edit summaries. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊  18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please point me to the part where he says that OS X is better than OS 9. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Mac is indeed back! For the first time, with a few simple add-ons, you can turn your Mac into a monster machine, capable of outperforming not only an OS 9 Mac, but Windows XP.

HERE Can you see it now? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊  19:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MacOS81_screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MacOS81_screenshot.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 19:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)