User talk:Ian13/Archive12

Line and Strength

Hi, not only was this an article on a book, and thus not eligible for A7, it was also a notable book that I was in the process of fixing the article up for. Request that you restore it so that I can continue expanding the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC).

My bad. Obviously working away too vigorously here. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 10:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, we all make mistakes. Plus, your speedy clearing of the speedy backlog means I can do some article building instead of janitorial work =). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC).

A4232 road

Hello again Ian13

I would like to point you again, in the direction of 217.36.107.9 who seems to be engaging in another edit war concerning the article A4232 road. I know this may seem like telling tales but I think these editorial confrontations are getting to be a bit more than coincidences.  stavros1 ♣  16:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for breach of 3RR. Thanks, Ian¹³/t 16:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ian13,

217.36.107.9 appears to be at it again. I feel like we are in the same situation as before this user was blocked. I have not reverted the users edit as I have better things to do than keep reverting this users vandalism all the time. The user has put no summary to the edit or replied to on Talk:A4232 road. I'll just leave it to you. Seth Whales (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Warned again. Ian¹³/t 18:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not insert redundant and duplicated information into this article. I have asked the same of the other users involved. Thanks, 217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

Hi Ian13,

I am prepared to compromise for a second and last time, on this article. I am prepared to change the junction names from say "Culverhouse Cross Interchange" to just "Culverhouse Cross" and "St Fagans slip road" to "St Fagans" etc.throughout the infoboxes. I am doing this on the condition that 217.36.107.9 does not revert the above edit and never edits any part of A4232 road again (sorry I have to put this in, but this user has shown to be disruptive already by having a 24 hour block). I have now changed the article accordingly and hope this puts to bed this utterly futile edit war. Regards Seth Whales (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, "If you allow me to circumvent content policies, I'll not do it quite so blatantly in future" does not amount to a compromise. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Seth Whales (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Compromises rarely include banning editors from making further edits to the page. The user was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR, and has been repeatedly warned for disruption, but regardless, a ban won't stick. However, 217.36.107.9, a compromise is going to have to be reached. How about following (the first bit) of the proposal above? Ian¹³/t 18:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed it all a bit, trying to merge both page versions. Comments? [1] Ian¹³/t 19:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ian13,

Fine by me...thanks very much for your help. Seth Whales (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ian13, I would urge you not to take the bait, and read this before involving yourself further. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah thanks. I have replied at length on that page. Ian¹³/t 15:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

• Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
• Your contributions are also welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Alabama Great Southern Railroad

Is there any way to speed up the process and move Talk:Alabama Great Southern Railroad/Temp, or do I need to wait a week? --NE2 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The page was created (almost 3 years ago!) as a copyvio, and has gone largely unchanged, so was valid for immediate deletion under CSD G12. However, I held off, and instead posted a full copyvio notice to encourage its recreation. Given this has happened, I am more than happy to go ahead and move it. I must say, excellent work. You have made a useful article from nothing in a very short time.

While I'm talking to you, your User:NE2/valuations/Alabama Great Southern Railroad page concerns me. It appears to be public domain, which is fine, however sometimes, copyright can be claimed from the transcription. I'm no expert in this field, but if you didn't type it up from the book, or a faithful image of the page, I think it may need to be deleted.

Cheers, Ian¹³/t 18:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a direct copy-paste from the transcription; where possible I used the page images, and otherwise I corrected OCR errors. The text is as it was published by the ICC. --NE2 18:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. Just wanted to make sure. Good work :) Ian¹³/t 22:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nek

Thank you for In Due cover.
Oleg N (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Ian¹³/t 10:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre's talk page

What was the reason to move the past three days of comments on Sceptre's talk page to that archive page? Now that the talk page is blanked there's no hint at that archive and the edits are not in the history of the talk page either. Was there any particular reason to hide those last 3 days of comments like that? user:Everyme 08:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved the comments to the archive per user request [2], courtesy blanked the archive link (with a direct link to the previous revision [3]), and posted a notice at the bottom of the main talk page linking both to the new archive page and to a direct diff for the 3 month block notice [4] (yes, that IP was me sorry). However, I did not blank the main talk page (that was done by Tznkai [5]. I hope that helps. Ian¹³/t 17:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Hadn't seen Sceptre's posting. (Still seems a bit unusual, seeing as the entire main user talk history is kept in place except for those last few days. Oh well, none of my business.) user:Everyme 17:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Help required !!!

Hello, I urgently require some help from you. Actually, a user uploaded an Image Image:MangaloreanCatholicsRules.gif on the Mangalorean Catholics article, and released it under the Public domain. But however, when I checked the Individual articles on them, no free Images were present. I checked the entire Wikimedia Commons but those images were not found. That means these are copyrighted images copied from other websites, and then merged into a bigger Image. Is it allowed as per WIKIpolicies. I have contacted you since you are an administrator. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's likely you are correct and it is a copy-vio as a derivative work of copyrighted material. I have tagged the image as needing sources, and evidence of permission from those sources. They have one week to respond and fully tag the images, else it will be deleted. You can actually do this yourself using {{di-no source}} and {{di-no permission}}. I hope this helps. Ian¹³/t 11:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your reply..One more copyright violation - Image:Goan Special.jpg on Goan Catholics article. (3 out of 6 images are not free) (IMG 3,5,6). Kensplanet (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All tagged up. Ian¹³/t 11:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please delete Image:St, Paul's church, Mangalore.jpg immediately. This was uploaded by me when I didn't have enough knowledge of free Images. It is a 100% copyrighted image. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Vanished. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 11:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a question regarding an Image. Hope you don't mind!!! Kensplanet (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, ask away. Ian¹³/t 11:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you check Image:C202 (www.kamat.com).jpg, the website has declared the Image free in their blog (http://www.kamat.com/vikas/blog.php?BlogID=783). Is a Non-free use media rationale required for the Image then? Is there any alternate Creative Commons licensing tag. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, well, permission alone is not sufficient. This is because images from Wikipedia are used elsewhere. We require that images are either licenced under a free licence (GFDL, cc-by-sa etc., and it must allow commercial use), or meet US fair-use criteria. Because of this, yes, a rationale is probably needed as we are using the image under a claim of fair-use due to the absence of a free licence. Ian¹³/t 12:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't I use Image:C202 (www.kamat.com).jpg for the Mangalorean Catholics article? A Non-free image can be used for a limited no of articles. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly not. On each of the articles that a non-free image is used, for the fair-use claim to be valid it must not be replaceable with a free image. In the case of Mangalorean Catholics, the image was being used to represent a typical or well-known follower, however there are alternative persons, some of whom are alive. Any person who is alive is automatically seen to have replaceable images on the basis that you can just go and take one yourself (despite how infeasible this may be), invalidating any claim that you can use another's copyrighted work. So, in this instance, it is likely that the image is replaceable with a free alternative, and therefore fails NFCC #1. Ian¹³/t 20:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mumbai 20080212.jpg

Hello, may I know why was the image deleted? The copyright issues were discussed earlier and were approved by User:Elcobbola, an experienced image reviewer at WP:FAC. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the nomination said "the picture does nothing to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" (NFCC #8), and this is something I agreed with. Where it was used in the article (here), I saw no specific commentary about the image, and failed to see that a readers understanding of the topic could be increased by looking at that image. If you can link me to the relevent WP:FAC discussion, I'll be happy to take a look. Ian¹³/t 15:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

why

did you delete the page about charae carter? she was a contestant for a national pageant that is well known (miss america) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gqprince (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted Charae Carter as there was little indication of notability, and has few/no potential secondary sources. With regards to her being well known, Google doesn't think so, with only 17 results, all passing references, and it seems like they aren't all even about the article's subject. Cheers, (editconflict) Ian¹³/t 20:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There are articles up about dionte johnson and ernie wheelwright, also from columbus ohio, and those aren't people that you would find in an encyclopedia? what is this rule, articles can't be about real people, then who are the articles about? Gqprince (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC).

The people you cited seem more well known, amongst other things. Please take a look at WP:N to discover our notability criteria, and see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for information why we need lots of reliable sources about living persons in particular. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 20:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Barank.JPG

thanks for your mention I did it.check it out and say your idea please. If persian wiki admin warned about that image to you I must say that image is completly legal and also i have MS baran kosari (image owner) premission too. thanks alot for your attention--Hassanmirabi (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Permission to use it on wikipedia is not sufficient. You must add an appropriate copyright tag to the image. Additionally, the copyright holder should follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT so that it is formerly recorded that the image is licensed under the licence you add. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 17:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

in the bottom of that page has wrotten in persian "using information and pictures with mentioned to source haven't any problem" you can ask about it's legitimacy by other persian languege's users --Hassanmirabi (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC) forget it I changed that picture with one of picture that I took it myself last year.then it's copyright is for me isn't?--Hassanmirabi (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you took an image, you hold the copyright/ Ian¹³/t 15:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Kirk.plaque.Riverside.jpg"

According to the deletion log for the file, you speedy deleted the image, as per CS 17. If I may ask, what was the patently irrelevant fair use template used? Can it be fixed and replaced? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It was immediately marked for deletion after 48 hours when uploaded (it should have told you this in big letters) because no non-free use rationale was provided (see Template:Non-free_use_rationale). Users are given 48 hours to fix the problem, otherwise CSD I7 (invalid fair use claim) is implemented. This is because to provide an image under a claim of fair-use, but without a rationale, is a copyright violation. You are welcome to re-upload (or I can undelete if necessary) if a valid rationale is present. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 16:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I didn't upload the image, but I am pretty sure I can create a fair use rationale if given the opportunity. Could I trouble you to undelete the image and notify me? I will supply the rationale shortly thereafter and notify you, so you can take a look and make sure we are green-good-go. Again, thanks for getting back to me, Ian. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this, but looking at the image, any rationale given would fail. If the plaque still exists, fair-use cannot be claimed because a free alternative could be sought (you could (well, in the eyes of the law at least) go there and take an image of the object yourself). This obviously doesn't apply of the plaque doesn't exist any more, or an historical version of it is significant, but this doesn't seem to be the case here. Please correct me if I am wrong. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 10:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't intimating you were wrong. As I am not inclined to venture out to the Dead of Iowa to visit a town seeking income revivification, until someone snaps a picture while roadtripping, the article is out of luck. I am somewhat concerned if that leaves the article in the lurch a bit. What is your impression? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As luck would have it, a little creative commons hunting turned up a picture of the plaque freely licensed. I have uploaded it to Image:Future Birthplace of Captain James T Kirk.jpg, so please feel free to add this to the article. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 22:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The image you mentioned has a banner that says "This image, which was originally posted to Flickr, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or trusted user to confirm that the above license is valid." The picture was on the Riverside article page before I did some copy editing. It wasn't there when I looked last, I didn't remove it.--Sultec (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it hasn't been reviewed yet, but I see no reason it will fail given it is listed as CC-by-sa-2.0 on the flickr page. This is a different image (of the same subject) to the one I deleted if you are confusing it with this? Additionally, it seems you did inadvertently remove it last night. Ian¹³/t 15:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Good thing there are other editors to fix up things. I would never intentionally screw up a page as badly as I did. I will have to study the diff again and try to figure out how I managed to do all that damage when all I was intending to do is remove the square brackets around redlinked items and put italics around some book titles. --Sultec (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem, we all have to learn. :-) Ian¹³/t 22:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User Oguzhantr

Hello Ian13,

you probably remember User:Oguzhantr. Last month you deleted all his uploaded pics, as they were all copyright violations, than you blocked him for a week, as he had vandalized articles about military stuff. Well, he returned, and immediately uploaded half a dozen pics that are all copyvios or useless stuff (I think he uses Wikipedia as his private webspace to host pics). As I am very busy right now and don't have much time, I'll just drop this message to you and wont mark each of them with a speedy deletion request. I'm sorry for that. But I'll now leave him to your administratorial guidance :) (Oguzhantr's logs)

--DavidDCM (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

All images have either been deleted as copy-vio or posted at IfD now. Additionally, I have blocked the user for 3 weeks (obviously 1 week wasn't enough). False copyright claims are a very severe issue, and if it continues afterwards it will probably be best to launch a discussion at the administrators noticeboard about a significant ban. Thanks, Ian¹³/t 17:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your fast response to this issue. :) --DavidDCM (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

B Roads in Norfolk, Again?

Hello Ian13,

Can you have another look at Talk:B1149 road, B1156 road, B1436 road and B1149 road again, as these article seem to be under threat again from another editor. Once again it is the Notability question which has arisen. I thought that the reason for these roads to be notable had already been established but once again this is being questioned and I think there is likelihood that this editor may redirect these pages once more.  stavros1  ♣  22:35 28 September 2008 (UTC).

The previous editing dispute which removed page content without discussion did indeed trouble me, but my actions were to prevent disruption rather than endorse a particular revision. I quote from the statement itself "The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or deletion". If consensus and lack of citations favours redirection, on matters which cannot be addressed, then such action would appear valid. I hope this helps, Ian¹³/t 22:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Image permissions

• hi sorry for bother you.I want upload an image for make a template.(this photo).this image took by someone in www.millaj.com and he is my friend.if i ask him send an email for wikipedia and in it allow to me use that image is it enough?

which email address i have to ask my friend send permission to it? can i use that image for farsi wikipedia with that permission?-thanks alot--Hassanmirabi (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:CONSENT for how to provide consent. It's best to upload it to commons if you want it to be usable on more than wiki, (see http://commons.wikimedia.org), but the permissions procedure is the same anyway. Hope this helps, and sorry for the belated response. Ian¹³/t 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Ieuan Gwyllt.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Ieuan Gwyllt.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Ieuan Gwyllt.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't tag images using {{non-free standard test image}} unless they really are standard test images. There's a list of available tags at WP:ICT. Most of the National Library of Wales images are public domain anyway because the copyright has expired — any that were published before 1923 should be tagged {{PD-US}}; if the photographer is more than 70 years dead, {{PD-old-70}} will do it. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where I indicated it was a standard test image, and neither does another editor by the looks of it. Could you please clarify if you are still concerned? Cheers, Ian¹³/t 17:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Welsh Highland Railway files

Please explain your interpretation of the GFDL violation. I have explained as original creator of both, and cannot understand you refer back to something, without quoting what you mean. i.e. I could refer to the Bible, but its a pretty big book and has many points ..... see what I mean?? --Keith 11:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said in my reply, my apologies, there isn't a GFDL problem with the infobox, and I have reversed my removal (as you said, you are the sole contributor to the infobox). However, if you plan to manually copy the article from one name to another over time, rather than creating one sole article and doing a history-preserving move of that page to the new name, there will be a GFDL problem, as all the contributors to the article at WHR(P) whose work has been moved will not have been credited in the history of WHHR. I hope this clarifies my concerns. Ian¹³/t 11:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Ian. What you say proves a conundrum only Wikioedia can create!! I dont really see any problem with the transfer. The main content of article on the WHR(P) file will be slightly altered to reflect the new name. The history of both files will remain, as the old file will become a redirect. The changes done by others are minimal............

HANG ON - "LIGHT GOES ON IN BRAIN" The other answer would be, come change date, to have WHHR file deleted (I could ask you to do that), and have WHR(P) file "moved" to new name WHHR, and re-edited to reflect new name. Therefore history would be preserved and a redirect created - how's this grab yer?

HANG ON - "second LIGHT GOES ON IN BRAIN" Do the WHHR delete now and within a short space of time it will be updated --Keith 11:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So are you suggesting going with the proposed merge, whereby WHHR will become a redirect, or are you planning to do something else with it? Ian¹³/t 14:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No No - wrong way round. Try this - (to be done in a matter of minutes) 1) Delete WHHR page 2) Move WHR(P) page to WHHR (Talk $ history move automatically) - also creates a redirect at WHR(P) to the WHHR file 3) I then bring WHHR file upto date by changing the text as required.

Your point on maintaining history is satisfied, and the need to keep the main info under the new name, rather than historic name, which becomes a redirect. (Oh and no need to keep mod'ing my talk - I check my watchlist first and note any changes on your talk page) --Keith 15:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly fine to me. Ian¹³/t 15:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I ask now can you delete the Welsh Highland Heritage Railway file - I have moved the old page to my user area (just safety) and blanked it - when you have done so I will move the WHR(P) page --Keith 15:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Because of how the admin move function works, its best to have the old page in place, and then preform the move on top, which I have done. If you need one of the deleted versions from WHHR, I will happily restore it on your user area. Ian¹³/t 15:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

quick edit conflict there - as you were typing in above, I was asking for /4 to be reinstated - albeit temporarily - 5 minutes later you can delete --Keith 15:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

All yours. Ian¹³/t 16:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Doctor Incarnate6

Hey -- so this user is saying that you are a teacher that created a group account for a class with your permission. Is this true? If so, was this discussed somewhere? Role accounts are widely forbidden; one reason is that the GFDL requires that individuals be credited with their contributions; another is so that an account can be held responsible for the actions of a user. Mangojuice^talk 15:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

They certainly are not me or anyone I know of. I see they've already been blocked indefinitely. Ian¹³/t 16:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WhiteCrane

Can you please read WP:N to understand notability and how articles need reliable sources for inclusion. You say other stuff exists which makes whitecrane notable, I disagree with your failed logic. 16x9 (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi. I don't know how indent my Userboxes to the right on my user page. Can you help? Also, I recently came across a userbox on someone's user page that stated that they support mandatory registration for editing. I'd like to add it, but I can't remember whose page I found it on, and can't seem to find it. Is there any directory or list where I can find it? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How to align a group of boxes is outlined here, and a gallery is available here. I hope this helps, but feel free to message me with any specific problems. Ian¹³/t 20:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Bradley Stoke

Hi Ian. I give up with the Bradley Stoke page. Could you have a look please? Bunch more problems today. Regshaw (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a tiny bit out of hand then. Done, Ian¹³/t 10:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ian - yes, very much got out of hand. Thanks for stepping in - much appreciated! Thanks for pointing me to the right place to report abuse etc - wasn't sure where to send it. I know now :) Regshaw (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Email - The Joker

While changing my username at WP:CUN from William Saturn to William S. Saturn to honor the late Hunter S. Thompson, a vandal user stole the name before it could be changed and sent emails to other users, I am not aware of the contents of the emails, but I was notified of this at my request at CUN. The username was then usurped. I have no connection to the emails.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I was rather puzzled since you seem to be an editor in good standing. I'll send you a copy if you like! Cheers, Ian¹³/t 16:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure but I don't have the e-mail option turned on. Could you post it on my talk page?--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing "the joker" failed in his attempt. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I can only assume so :) Ian¹³/t 17:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You around again?

I've just started being active again. Spotted you editing a watched page I have. You back? Computerjoe's talk 19:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Exams for the year finish next week, but yea I'm trying to be more involved again! You're still here, which represents quite a long time. I think a reread of all the policies will be in order soon. Ian¹³/t 12:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wise move. I guess the five pillars are the same. Anyway, have fun Wikipediaing. Computerjoe's talk 12:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

You added the "reportedly dead" stuff to the article which I think is good. However I don't think you should have changed the banner or added the "died" bit in the infobox as they seem to suggest it isn't actually "reportedly". Alan16 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add the infobox or the banner bit. However, as with all events, we are an encyclopedia and report whatever has the most evidence. We can't verify anything other than through reliable news sources (else, everyone is only reportedly dead), and I felt the LA Times to be suitable reliable. Yours, Ian¹³/t 22:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC, CNN, Sky, AP - these are a hell of a lot more reliable than the LA Times or TMZ and they are not confirming it. The majority of evidence says unconfirmed. I just think that adding the info to the infobox and the banner changing are a bit pre-emptive and suggest it is confirmed. Could you perhaps remove it from the infobox or add some sort of note? Alan16 (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to add {{current event}} to the top, but the BBC News 24 confirmed it at 22.44 UTC, and therefore I have left it as is. Ian¹³/t 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Fair enough - I was fairly certain that he is dead, but until it was confirmed I thought it went against the "reportedly". Regards, Alan16 (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC).