User talk:Maveric149/archive 9

Hi Mav, after the long discussion that went on over weeks about naming conventions for royalty, I distilled the various observations and ideas together and (finally) got a chance to put them into the naming convention page. I'd be very interested in hearing your observations. Do you see any problems with the final suggestions? (I also included one or two other points that didn't so much come from that discussion as from others on related topics that seemed to produce a consensus there to. JTD 05:55 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

PS: I seem to be alone in not getting an 'apology' like that above from Vera Cruz. I'm beginning to feel left out. *smile* If I wasn't so niaive, I'd call it an all out lobbying offensive. Vera, the Colin Powell of Wikipedia. (With DW as Saddam???) JTD 05:55 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --mav

Hmm, I didn't get one :( But Mav, I owe you one for biting your head off on Talk:Main page the other day. I've been cranky (OK, crankier) lately -- sorry -- Tarquin 17:53 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

It's alright. I get cranky too - often sometimes. ;) --mav

have you done taht new image of the periodic table for the map? -fonzy

Not yet. I had planned to work on it first thing this morning (several hours ago) but have been distracted by current events. --mav

ok, i wasted your time by answering that and wasteing more time by making you read this :-). I would do it for you but not quite shore what you want. -fonzy

No time wasted. It was a perfectly valid question and did in fact remind me about the promise I made to you. I will get to work on the image soon - I need to get my mind off the space shuttle right now anyway. --mav

ok but what do you think about putting ununennium and unbinilium in it? As we know wher etehy will fit and there are articles on them in wikipedia. -fonzy

Since a main part of the images' job is to facilitate navigation and act as a locator map, I see no reason why we shouldn't also have images for undiscovered elements. We could not have crystal structures or the number of protons since this information is not known but we should be able to display the predicted shell and Lewis dot structures of the elements along with the number of protons. --mav

mav, go ahead and work on February 2. I wasn't planning on doing anything with it till tomorrow. -- Zoe

Sure thing. --mav

Hello!Yes,l like the place very much and l've started spending more&more of my time here;l have a question though-l uploaded an image,but it seems impossible for me to place it where l want, pls help. Braniac

Mav, was Vera banned or not? No-one seems to know. As our 'Master of the Universe', I presume that you should know the answer. Thanks, BTW, for your comments on the famine talk page. They were much appreciated. JTD 03:14 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

Yep Vera was banned but he apologized on the main mailing list and two people asked that Vera be allowed to get another chance. Jimbo, of course, will have the final say but I'm pretty sure he will allow Lir/Vera back on a probational basis. All I know is that Adam Rinkleff (Lir/Vera's real name) has noticeably improved his attitude since he first joined Wikipedia (he was a monster before being banned the first time, then a very annoying pest before the second banning). IMO he still is a pain in the ass that needs to improve more but when I at least see improvement and what looks like a desire to try to change I am a bit of a softy. Adam is young too so there is an inherent maturity factor that needs to be considered.

Not a problem about the famine comments - like I said I tell it as I see it (of course according to Two16 that means I shoot from the hip - but so be it). I was glad to see 172 speak in your defense too (another user whose NPOV and interpersonal skills have greatly improved since he first joined). --mav

Aha, success! Thanks for sorting out that STS-107 page. It was going crazy on my computer screen... -- Oliver P. 04:04 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

No problemo. --mav

I noticed you removed the entry I inserted for January 22 regarding Wikipedia being slashdotted. The article for Slashdot effect has a reference to two dates, July 26 and January 22, and July 26 notes being slashdotted. For the purpose of symmetry, both dates should either reference the event or not. Goatasaur 07:43 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

Hm. I didn't know about the July 26 ref. The reason why I deleted the ref on the Jan 22 article is that Wikipedia getting Slashdotted is not an event notable enough to history to warrent a reference. I'll fix the July 26 article. --mav

I thought you agreed to adding 119 and 120. Past that is only predictions where elements go. - fonzy

No I don't recall that at all. --mav

Qoute:

ok but what do you think about putting ununennium and unbinilium in it? As we know wher etehy will fit and there are articles on them in wikipedia. -fonzy

End Qoute:

My bad - all those un* names confuse the hell out of me. I thought you were talking making images for undiscovered elements already on the standard perio table. This makes sense for navigation of the table and doesn't add anything non-standard or ugly to the images. In short; it doesn't hurt to go to 118 but anything more than that doesn't make sense from a design perspective and combined with a science perspective you might as well at that point go all the way to 200. --mav

No, as we dont know how, it goes odd past 120 as G-block filling and there are hundreads of predictions of how the tabel will look like. - fonzy

Hm. I wasn't really aware of that. But the fact still remains that 1) the elements are not known to science so people are not expecting anything to be there and 2) they don't make obvious holes in the table that can any good designer would want to fill. The pre-118 undiscovered elements simply ride along with the rest of the table because they already fit in it nicely. --mav

Hi, What is the Wikikarma stuff you add at the end of your messages to the mailing lists? --User:AstroNomer

In response to a huge flood of emails sent to the mailing list a while back Axel Boldt proposed that every message posted should be "paid for" by a non-minor contribution to Wikipedia. Of course this is just a 'rule to consider' and is not binding but I for one was very frustrated that I was spending nearly all my Wikipedia time on the mailing list instead of actually doing what I really wanted to do -- help build the encyclopedia itself. So now I self-limit my posts to wikien-l and wikipedia-l by making sure each post is 'paid for' by a corresponding non-minor contribution - thus balance is maintained and I earn positive Karma. --mav

Hi Mav, would you please do me a huge favour - take a lot at my last and penultimate edits to Meteora and tell me what you think about the photo size. I have read the guidelines but I just can't translate them into what I think is a sensible size, in terms of large enough to see but not to overpower. Helpppp!!!! Thanks, Nevilley 22:53 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

The photo is a very nice size. Great work! --mav 22:57 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks - so that smallish size is usually OK, yes? And you've aligned it nicely, thanks very much! Nevilley 23:02 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

Erkkk! Except I've just realised I don't know how to get the caption in now - would you terribly mind extending the tutorial to the point of sticking a caption in - anything will do - so I can see how you have got it into the "div" markup thingy?? Sorry to be a nuisance but it would save me hours of wiki-damaging experimentation! :) Nevilley 23:05 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Nevilley 23:41 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

hmph! Have a look now, it is a right old Horlicks (or dog's breakfast if you prefer) since I tried to get a 2nd image in. I have gone to bed in a rage! If you'd like to show me what needs doing, then great. Otherwise I will try again tomorrow. Gah! :) Nevilley 23:46 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

People have different preferences regarding image sizes. The best thing to do in the current setup is to upload both a small and a large version. You can link to the large version using the [[Media:Pompeii_Fresco_01.jpg|larger version]] format. Pretty soon we plan to have support for [[Image:Pompeii_Fresco_01.jpg width=400]], where the displayed image will be automatically scaled down to the specified width, and a click on it leads to the full size version. --Eloquence 23:52 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

Re Meteora photos - Hi Mav and Eloquence both, I've had another go at it. It's newbie fumblings really but hey - what do you think? The layout is still weird but you do get to click through and see a clearer version - how am I doing so far???? Thanks v much both of you. Nevilley 20:20 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks v much for all your help with this. :) Nevilley

Thanks for the kind words, mav. I'd start thanking you for all the things you do around here, but we only have so much storage space... -- Stephen Gilbert 20:24 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

I call things as I see them. Thanks for tour words of encouragement too. :-) --mav

Thanks for the pointer to the state template and the kind words -- User:sfmontyo

No problemo. :) --mav

Would it be too much to ask that when you modify a date article, correct the spanish link to the one being actually used in the spanish wikipedia? It is inserting a "de" and lowercasing the month. I've been doing it to, but intermitently.--AN

Oh sure. I'm glad you reminded me. I am planning on adding events to each day of the year but I'm doing this on a day-by-day basis. --mav

Hi, I am a litle confused by what is going on in the sandbox (including what was, as best I can tell, your latest edit). Can you help unconfuse me? Slrubenstein

It's the sandbox - I was just messing around with restoring an older version that had more examples of formatting in it. I have no idea what the white text box is for. --mav

Thanks... Slrubenstein

Hi Mav, just back after a few days break! When you get a chance, could you look at Humbert II of Italy. There is a bit of a dispute on over whether to mention Humbert's bisexuality. I believe it is important because it swayed the Vatican into becoming relatively neutral in the referendum on the Italian monarchy's future; had it supported the Crown, the odds are that the monarchy that lost by a hair's breath, would have won in 1946. However Gianfranco is absolutely opposed to any mention of the King's orientation, even though it is well documented, preferring to leave it at how Humbert and his wife separated after the defeat in the referendum, which as I keep having to tell him is missing the whole point. I'd certainly welcome your views, and also whether the article needs to be NPOVed. I've explained my justification on the talk page. Slán. (gaelic for goodbye!) JT (opps, nearly signed my own name. Now that would be letting the cat out of the proverbial bag!)

Oh, almost forgot. The abortion page is too big for me to enter now (bold, bold browser!) but some days ago I entered a clarifying footnote explaining how abortion though now legal throughout most of the UK, as it is still restricted in Northern Ireland. I don't if it was me or someone else, but that footnote talks of how anti-abortion people in N-Irl have frustrated attempts of pro-choice campaigners in Britain from changing the law in N-Irl. Frustrated in retrospect seems too POV a word, as it implies one side is right. Could you change that to 'halted', a more NPOV word? If the article is too big to be accessed by my browser, it may mean it is too big even to be read by some people, so it may need a reduction in size, or 'daughtering' (creating daughter articles containing some of the info.) You see, I've now created a whole new Wiki word - lets 'daughter' an article!!! Thanks in anticipation. JTD 02:24 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC) PS: your page now may need 'daughtering' now. Me and my long messages!

Sure I'll take a look at the article. But I'm at work right now so it'll have to be later. --mav

Hey mav, what's the story with special:specialpages. It seems no matter what time I've tried to view the other links from that page, I get function disabled. Also what happened to the article counter at the bottom? I miss it. I hate to bug you with questions like those, but I have not been able to find the answers easily anywhere else. B

No bother at all. Answer is on your talk page. --mav

Thx. "Dumb" counters not as useful?..ok, I appreciate that. I understand that the specialpages are only temporarily disabled at certain times, but as I implied, I can't ever seem to access them. The message says they are on between 2 and 14 UTC (which would be 10pm CST to 10am CST for me if I read that right). But I've tried at 9am CST, 3pm CST, 11pm CST, 2am CST...etc. It always seems to be disabled... B

OIC... I'll try to reproduce the bug then. --mav

Hey, mav, how was your week? Any ups and down? (And I don't just mean sea level ;-)

BTW, your talk page is getting long: time for a wiki-haircut, eh? Ah, with friends like me who needs enemies, right? Well, have a good weekend!! --Uncle Ed

My week has been good. Have a good weekend. Point taken about the 'haircut'. :-) --mav

Oh no! Two16 has just 'slapped' me with a white glove! (his words!) Now I know who he is. He's Michael Jackson!! I'll never be able to watch Thriller again without imagining Two16 crawling out of one of the graves, no doubt spouting bad poetry and talking about SV lockout rule!!! Aaaaaagh! :-) JTD 06:31 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

ROFL. -Stevert

Mav, I have a feeling it might be very useful if you took a look at Woman and determined if a page-lock/user block/kind diplomatic words for which you as Wikiambassador are so famed, would help the situation? --_Someone else 08:23 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

On it. --mav

troubles Mav or are you managing ? ant

What I need is a developer to block the vandal's IP. Thanks for asking though - I'll manage. --mav

ok, if needed, I'm around

I think I'm getting in the way with redundant rollbacks, and it's bedtime anyway, so I'm going to quit for the night. Good luck keeping this idiot busy until he quits too. Bryan

Heh. This is addictive. :) Bryan

Hopefully his mum will send him to bed soon anyway... quercus robur 11:37 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

LOL. --mav

Thanks for the rv, dude. Couldn't sysops be taught how to block IP addresses? Is it a difficult process? olivier 12:01 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

I know how to block IP address. I do not have developer access so I can't find out the IP of a logged-in user though. Wiki will heal. --mav

OK OK thanks for the clarification and for the healing! olivier 12:08 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Maveric, thanks for vadalism reverts. I´m afraid your script is sometimes restoring the vandalism instead of the article (concurrent reverts by someone else?). This person is really annoying. Again, thanks. Kosebamse 12:22 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Yes I know about the double revert problem. :( See User talk:Ducker.

Is everything settled down now with this Annetit creep? This is the first time we've had a pure simple vandal use login. *Sigh*. All bad things have to happen eventually, I guess.

I can try to figure out the ip number if you like, but I'm not the most clueful person to do it. --Jimbo Wales

I stopped counting at 20 different user names. Each time I start reverting like mad using the rollback feature he jumps to a new account. He is still very active but the rank and file are now reverting the guy faster than I an using the rollback feature. WikiImmunity at its best. :-)--mav

I'm going for the ip number now, then. Jimbo Wales

Thanks for fixing the Mount Washington article. I guess vandals are just weird. Somehow, replacing an article with "Sam Smith is a fat pig" or something like that makes more sense than removing two innocuous paras from the middle of an innocuous article about a mountain. I'm impressed that you caught it, too. I'm so bogged down with my watchlist that I hardly ever see Recent Changes any more, and here you are, fighting it out on 40 fronts at once. Thanks again. Ortolan88 15:02 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

El placer es mio :) I'm tired - I was helping fight that vandal for 4 hours. --mav

Seems like you had a busy time this morning. You should go grab a beer or something! Well done. Mintguy

Thanx. I thought I saw you revert a few too... Ah hell I need to grab a pillow. --mav

No I just got here. Looks like I missed all the "excitement" Mintguy

Frankly mav you should go take a close look at my words that means READING THEM. LoL @ you. User:Two16

User:Two16

I have better things to do other than read the rantings of lunatics. --mav

Mav: you live in a glass house stop throwing ad hominuim attacks.Still laughing outloud @ you. I've cut and pasted from the wikipedia FAQs all the relevant breeches of Wikipedian Ethos committed in Irish Potato Famine on my userpage. When I wanted to know what you were about I read every post your user history. I won't simply call you names, moron: I'll bring every piece of writing and contextualize them so that no one who can actually think (as opposed to use words) will giggle at the height of your hubris. You look like a fool to any one who thinks! Miserable prat! Even now, I'm still LOL. User:Two16

Whatever. Laugh maniacally. You are among the very small group of people who think ill of me. You were talking to a brick wall before on the vandal's page. That person never had any intention of ever using that page for a valid purpose. All I did was *humorously* point this out - I did not intend to hurt your fragile ego by pointing out the stupidly obvious. Who is the moron now? --mav

Well at least Two16 has learned to spell 'moron' which means there is hope yet for our strange strange friend! (He used to write 'maroon'!) Keep up the good work. As one of the 99% who appreciate your work - and one of the 99.9% who hope that the medical profession can find something to 'cure' our Two16 'friend'! If you get a chance, could you look at the name conventions talk page. There is a minor problem in our current policy of not using 'lord' and 'lady' titles when it comes to someone (eg, Lord John Russell) who is known exclusively by that version and is completely unrecognisable as merely John Russell. I've proposed a possble solution. I also replaced the points by numbers on the naming convention page; it is easier to say 'look at point 3' when dealing with a controversy, rather than saying 'somewhere on the page is the relevant rule'. Do you approve of the change? JTD 03:15 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it in a bit. --mav

Hi, mav, Just wanted to drop you a note of gratitude for your efforts last night and of apology for getting you mixed up in it all. Whatever accountant is charge of Wikikarma will have to sharpen a few pencils to keep track of your positive balance. -- Someone else 03:51 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. You did exactly the right thing though - it was just unfortunate that the software doesn't yet allow Admins to ban logged-in vandals. BTW, after a while the non-admin users were reverting the vandal so fast that I didn't have too much to do. --mav

Hey - it's like finding a dead wildebeast in the veldt: you Lions of Administration are obliged to leave a few scraps of karma for us Jackals of the Rank and File to feed on. Tannin (PS. Care to take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) when you get a chance? It needs work.)

LOL Yep you guys fought me off off of that carcass once I got my fill. :-) I have some daily WikiChores to do but as soon as I'm done I'll take a look at the naming convention pages. --mav

Hey Mav whats up? Dude Im happy today, I took a trip on a Double Decker , they brought one specially from London to Phoenix, and I didnt know they had. Anyways, I went to the fair and I was able to take a ride on it..LOL

Just needed to share that piece of happiness.

Now, down to business as they say..LOL

I was thinking a long time ago that maybe Wikipedia should establish a Hall of Fame page, in recognition of the ones who have worked hard to make this page what it is. I told Engels, but he never answered. I think it would be nice to have like a Hall of Fame sort of thing for people who have surpassed...10,000 articles, for example.

Just wondering what you thought about that

Hope to talk to you soon!

Sincerely yours, AntonioMartin

Thank you for sharing you happiness. :) There is already a most active users page at Wikipedia:Most active Wikipedians. You are number 49 BTW. --mav

I replied to your question on my talk page Sebastian again Sebastian 21:23 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Mav, thanks for the welcome! I'm enjoying myself immensely. User:Chrishorrocks 21:40 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that! --mav

Mav, I've put the issue of courtesy titles on the Wiki list. More people are coming forward all the time with other examples of problems caused by dropping 'Lord' or 'Lady'., eg Lady Jane Grey, Lady Caroline Lamb. (I've just thought of another - Lord Henry Mountcharles) JTD 02:03 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

Have you been getting the mailing list messages I sent in the last 20 minutes or so? Mintguy

I get the digest but I just read your messages in the archives. I'll continue to moniter the situation. --mav

Hi Mav, I left a response for Zoe on my talk page. BTW, should I be responding to you guys on your individual talk pages or mine ? - sfmontyo

Your page works good. --mav

Mav, could you look at February 11? I deleted a lot of unimportant people, but there are still tons of nonexistant links to people who are probably unimportant. Any chance you can prune more? -- Zoe

I'll take a look at it after I'm done with the 10th. --mav

Hey mav. TWFKAKQ

Hi Mav, there is a problem with 211.28.96.8 (who also seems to call himself Daemon.) Last night he insisted on amending the page on Australia to claim that Aussie is a republic. It took seven revisions by myself, Mintguy and Tannin to stop this farce. Now he has started doing the same with the page on Constitutional monarchy. I have just had to revert a version in which he added in pretty inaccurate claims about the constitutional monarchy and Australia, and indeed a factually inaccurate claim as to what constitutional monarchy is. Sorry for bothering you with this, but apart from constantly having to revert his changes on these pages over and over and over again (which Tannin also plans to do), I don't know what else to do. He has made a lot of changes on other pages as 211.28.96.8. I don't know enough about the topics to know if what he did is accurate and inaccurate. However heads of state and their powers & functions is my area of expertise and believe me, his contributions on this area are monumentally incorrect, but he seems determined to add in blatently dodgy information in two articles so far. What do you suggest? JTD 21:14 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Explain why you think 211's version is incorrect on the talk page. --mav

I take it the Gulf War problem is resolved? I don't see anything out of the ordinary. --Brion 21:44 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Nope, we've still lost some formatting, especially external links. If it's possible to retrieve the old formatting, that would be really great. Otherwise, we'll manage somehow. :) MAV: these things happen; we should file a bug report or feature request and don't feel too bad about it. DanKeshet 21:49 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Any reason a plaintext copy was pasted in instead of this revision (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gulf_War&oldid=660797)? --Brion 21:53 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

D'oh! I noticed it right after I posted the comment. I assumed that the revision history had been lost in the whole moving thing. I've restored the old version. DanKeshet 21:54 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

OK - I see now that my browser was caching the old revision history page. All is well except IE 6 is caching everything - I had to reload my talk page to see your messages! --mav

Hi, Mav. I have a question. If I remember correct, you sometimes find cut-and-pasted article from some copyrighted sources, and do something (like deleting, reverting, etc.) How do you make decisions when it's not clear if the text is pasted from the copyright holder or not? Tomos

I replace the suspected copyright violation with the boilerplate at Wikipedia:Boilerplates and list the page title on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. --mav

Thanks a lot! Tomos

Not detained as an American Taliban, no, though the current bogus alert made LAX a hellish place. The list of itmes which have supposedly set off the metal detector includes my shoes, the zipper on my shorts, a Clif Bar, a foil-wrapped tea bag, and a box of Cinnamon TicTacs. The list does not include either my current or my previous pair of glasses, both of which have metal frames. Koyaanis Qatsi 16:14 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Boy that sounds fun. That's why I either travel by car, train, or ship. --mav 18:03 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry about the film/movie thing; I forget that constantly. being away for 2 weeks didn't help. back to editing, Koyaanis Qatsi 18:46 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

Welcome back! Nothing to apologize for - you did the hard work on creating a great new entry I just made a minor improvement in the page title. --mav

Magnificent frigatebird is incorrect as a name for a species. Both words should be capitalised. Did you read my suggestions for English and scientific naming conventions before making these changes? I hope we can resolve this before a capitaisation war starts on all my species' ccounts. jimfbleak

Since when does a bird, a plant, an animal of any kind have a capitalized name? -- Zoe

Interesting. It looks like Magnificent Frigatebird is, for some odd reason, almost always capitalized. Is "Frigatebird" based on some proper noun? This is an exception and should not serve as a an example. For example "Killer Whale" is very wrong. --mav

encyclopedia.com (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/m1/manowarb.asp) has it as lower case - The purplish black magnificent frigate-bird, Fregata magnificens, 40 in. (100 cm) long, is found from the Bahamas and Baja California S to Brazil and Ecuador -- Zoe

Hm. I guess I should have excluded titles from my Google search. But looking for the hyphenated term turned-up a whole bunch of lowercase examples. So per our capitalization convention we should have it at the lowercase title. --mav

Aw, gee, thanks mav {blush} -- Zoe

Yep - I also really do enjoy working with you (esp on the day pages). --mav

Every one of my 150 bird books uses capitals for species. How else can you distinguish "that's a Great Frigatebird (F. magnificens)" from "that's a great frigatebird (any species)"?. Similarly Brown Rat/brown rat etc.jimfbleak 08:04 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Books don't have the linking issues that wikis do. Unless a term is always capitalized we tend to place that term at a lowercased title Because Capitalizing Terms Unnecessarily Breaks-up The Flow Of Sentences. All of this has been discussed a great deal in the past and the consenus that was reached is documented at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). --mav

Plus, "that's a great frigatebird" (with the lowercase) clearly is referring to one specific frigatebird, not the whole group of species. Unless this particular frigatebird is otherwise famous, there is no need to differentiate. A friend of mine has a very cute brown rat, but I wouldn't expect an article on him at Brown rat (or Brown Rat), I would expect an article on brown rats in general, of which my friend's pet is a particularly marvelous example. Tokerboy

Mav, can you suggest an on-line taxonomy of birds that we can designate as the one to use on a pro-tem basis? There will be no such thing as a completely authoritive source because they are switching things around on us as fast as they can heat up the DNA in a test tube, but it would make life easy if there was a single source that is no worse than any other and that we could agree to use unless or until there seems to be a good reason not to. If it's on-line, that would be great because then we can all refer to the same one. Thanks. Tannin 10:59 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Have you tried:

http://www.itis.usda.gov (often incomplete, occasional misspellings, birds are idiosyncratic)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy

--mav

How about using lower case for article titles, but using the correct form in the text with an adjusted link. For example [[Magnificent Frigatebird|magnificent frigatebird]. (have I done this right?) jimfbleak 11:12 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me (esp since I won't be the one writing many of these articles). It would be [[magnificent frigatebird|Magnificent Frigatebird]] --mav

Thanks re the naming conventions. I note this page still has "It's pretty stupid to think you Americans have the right to change every name in the world to some American version. " very near the top - how sinful would it be if I move or delete it - I think it rather slews the atmosphere of the whole debate below. Nevilley 12:17 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

NP - The older talk should be archived on a / page anyway. That will get rid of the ugly statement. --mav

Thanks. I hope some grown-up weill sort it out soon, I would hat eto have to try to do it myself! :) Nevilley

On a different topic, I noticed you'd had a go at Byblos and this led me to look at Tyre (I have a vague interest in Lebanon). Unfortunately it seems to be quite closely related to this page (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/tyre.html), where I cannot see an indication of whether the material is copyright or not. Worse, people have been working on it for a year and a half (on and off) so if we remove it their efforts are wasted. But, it's a pretty odd article as it stands and has some archaic language (Paul, on his return from his third missionary journey spent a week in intercourse with the disciples there ) (though I guess this might be a sign it is 75+ years old?) and could do with a bit of a sort out. Would you very much mind having a quick look at both and suggesting a way forward? All opinions gratefully received. Thanks -- Nev 17/02/2003

Copyright isn't an issue since the initial text was adapted from the 1897 edition of the Easton's Bible Dictionary. So all the text needs is some copyediting TLC. --mav

OK and thanks - Nevilley

This argument is distracting me from actually writing the history of football. Can we have a timeout? (no timeout's in 'soccer', note I defer to your usage on your page) Mintguy

Which football are you writing the history for? "Football" is too ambiguous. I will stop when you finally recognize that the usage of hundreds of millions of English speakers which differs from your usage causes a major ambiguity problem. --mav

Mav, I accept that my scans and digital pics are being uploaded too large. Over the next few days I'll pull them back to lower sizes (more compression and lower dpi as appropriate). I have Broadband so I tend to forget about the 56K users.
I don't intend to downsize the big pics that appear when the link is clicked because that's the readers choice if they want to wait for the pic to load.
Arpingstone 11:22 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

OK. That's cool. I'm on broadband too and also sometimes forget the bad old days of dial-up. --mav

Hey Mav: Just wanted to discuss a couple things with you. I always discuss things with you before deciding on doing them or not..lol ok, in my mind the idea of making a page about famous (admitted or discovered) drug addicts has been lingering for a few days. But I havent done it because this could prove controversial, many people could argue that people who are addicted to this or that are also drug addicts and this and that. What do you think?

The second topic I wanted to discuss, do you think it would be ok if I moved my user page's name so that I could include myself in the biographical list? The reason I ask is if you look at my user page, it is more or less a biographical page, and besides it would definitely be cool to be listed next to all those celebrities.

Well, I just wanted your opinion on those subjects.

Thanks and God bless!!

Sincerely yours, Antonio The Cool Guy Martin

Point #1: So long as the person is famous (or infamous) I see no reason to exclude them. Point #2: You are already famous around here - you don't need an encyclopedia article to prove it. :) I don't have one about me - I'm simply not famous outside of Wikipedia or among my friends and family. --mav

HELP I'm trying to sort out Zinc and some similar tables where, on my browser at least, the text overlies the table and is effectively unreadable. the simplest way to do this would be to force the text to follow the table, but I don't know how to do this. Any ideas? jimfbleak 13:22 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Mav, Zoe has changed the name of the 'UN security Council and the War on Iraq' to 'UN security Council and the War with Iraq' , believing the first was POV. I don't think changing the word 'with' to 'on' solves the problem. on and with are both used, the former by anti-war people, the latter by pro-war people. So we have just moved one POV and replaced it for another. I've another suggestion: instead call it ' The UN Security Council and the proposed Iraq war'. That way you avoid any hint of bias, by dropping all words that could be seen as in any way expressing a POV and instead calling it a term that all sides would be able to use: the Proposed Iraq War. What do you think? I'd welcome your comments on the relevant talk page. I've put this note on the talk page and on the pages of those who debated the issue. What do you think of the idea? - User:JTDrl

"is trying to say that the Qibya massacre is a clear case of terrorism and I disagree - esp since that would make Ariel Sharon a terrorist by implication."

I think your logic here is flawed, Mav. You disagree with X because it implies S = T? (Humorosely: You're assuming that S might be somehow surprised by the idea that he might be a T and called such...) Im sure you dont want the T word to be limited to the definition that is favored by any one party - A massacre by a state is "a tragedy" as Clinton called the Qana massacre of over a hundred. By your definition, only those without a state can be called T's. Consider the world courts condemnation of the US in its actions in Nicaragua. Assymetric warfare, low intensity warfare - covert sabotage operations, and B-1 bomber are all, more or less, different names for the thing we call T. An NPOV policy must not be Americentric either. -'Vert

If the definition of the word terrorism is too broad then it looses all meaning whatsoever - that was my point. As Ed Poor mentions on that page if we are too liberal with the definition then all the Allies of WWII are terrorists since we all deliberately bombed civilians in order to break their morale and gain a military and political victory. --mav

By your answer your saying its a political definition. As such, should we even be using it? What is too broad? I dont think its too broad to call Sharon a terrorist, because Israel isnt at war with Palestine. Its "not a state", after all. Who are the Palestinians, then, and what word would describe a person who exacts terror upon defenseless civilians? The best answer to this Ive seen is essentially: "all Palestinians are terrorists." Broad definitions indeed. -'Vert

Of course it is political. Per the definition it is violence intentionally done to non-combatants (key word) in order to instill fear in that population for political gain. That is what most everybody agrees with but if you do not go on and say: "This is a tactic used in asymmetric warefare by militarily inferior non-governmental groups against the population of a stronger foe" then you open the floodgates and just about every nation on the planet has engaged in terrorism and every war-time leader is a terrorist. This is not to say that nations are not capable of performing terrorist-like acts just like they are cabable of engaging in guerilla-like warefare.

But due to the fact that it is a nation doing it there still is a conventional element to the acts because nations have to ultimately worry about things such as economic sanctions and world opinion (nations are also targetable with military action and make for hard targets to hit and destroy if needed). Violence perpetrated by the state, therefore, has a built-in accountability mechanism that violence perpetrated by stateless-entities does not. True terrorism is a very difficult thing to fight because no one nation can be fully blamed or punished for actions done by stateless organizations. This is the same reason why snippers are so hated and feared - they strike without warning, are very difficult to catch, can be anywhere at any time, and are very hard to catch.

That is not to say that countries cannot commit war crimes, atrocities, humanitarian abuses and even genocide (BTW, IMO Israel has and continues to commit many war crimes - yes there is a state of war - and atrocities against the Palestinians). Also, in this particular case I do not see anything by way of proof that the actions of Sheron are anything but badly misinterpreting orders that were already badly misinterpreted by his superiors. This discussion is not very interesting so I'm going to stop it now. I have better things to do. --mav

From your response to my plea, I assume the problem is in the browser and I'm stuck with it? jimfbleak 07:15 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Mav, Apols if this is the wrong place/time/person to ask, but is there some problem with edit histories? (I didn't want to ask in some more public forum because I didn't know which one to use!) The reason I ask is this: have a look at Byblos. It doesn't seem to make sense - I see you taking out copyright stuff, which reduces it to just a few lines, then suddenly tufkat is editing a whole load of text which has appeared from nowhere. In addition, he appears to have done daft things eg changing dates FROM linkable TO nonlinkable (BC to B.C.) which strikes me as highly unlikely since he knows what he is doing. Am I going bonkers (a definite possibility) or is there something starnge here? Thanks -- Nevilley 18:03 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know - his edit do seem odd since our BC dates are not supposed to have periods in them. You should ask him. Also, if you are using IE 5.5 or higher you should hit [Ctrl][F5] to force IE to clear its cache of the page you are viewing. --mav

I was barking up the wrong tree about the edit history, sorry - absolute garbage. As for the dates, I've fixed them. I was conflating the two problems into something bigger - you know, 2+2=5 kind of thing. Sorry to waste your time, and thanks. Nevilley 00:31 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Nah - no need to apologize. :-) --mav

I don't want to start the mother of all battles above names again, but I just noticed that you moved The Labour Party (UK) to Labour Party (UK) and The Conservative Party (UK) to Conservative Party (UK) a while ago. We had a discussion some time back on Talk:Labour Party (UK) about the correct names for the UK political parties and someone looked up the names at the Electorial Commision [1] (http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm) and the official names of these parties use 'the definite article' whereas some others do not. It was agreed to use those names. I don't know what the Wikipedia policy is about using 'the definite article' but there is at least one other precedent i.e. The Football Association and maybe the Times, the Guardian (but they are publications rather than institutions) what do you reckon? Mintguy

Generally we avoid them but common usage often dicates we use them. Move the articles back if you think the "The" is part of the most commonly used terms. --mav

Well you would normally say something like "members of the Labour Party" rather than "members of Labour Party" but then you might also say "Labour Party members". The Pears Cyclopaedia I have open before me lists it as "Labour Party, The" which makes it clear to me that it is part of the name, but I'll think about it some more. Mintguy

Hey Mav. Take a look at the Sugarducky and Katie McKaskie pages. Zoe and I think it should be deleted quickly, so that this doesnt become an advertising forum. Danny

Yep - done. --mav

I was thinking of doing a similar thing with the 300 px map, but I don't think it came out too well. Perhaps if the original vector map was used and scaled to 300 px before being saved as a bitmap? - Montréalais

Yes it is always best to resize from the original - otherwise compression artifacts from the first downsized image magnify themselves in the second. --mav

Woo hoo! You are my official hero of the evening!. Now if I can get me one of them GIMPs, and learn a few pictureplacement commands, I'll really be dangerous! Thanks. (thanks from Hanno too <G>. -- Someone else 08:24 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

It's free software so you can download it here for X11 (http://www.gimp.org/download.html) or here for Win32 (http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32/). --mav

Dear Mav: Hi, thanks for checking out about my concern about the Hezbollah page. We have to keep Wikipedia clear of those copyrighted articles, but it is true, government information that they publish is public domain and stuff. I just didn't think about it...lol!

Once again, thnks for checking it out, and God bless you. If I see anything else that I suspect might be from somewhere else online, I'll let you guys know.

Sincerely yours, Antonio Papparatzi's Target Martin..hehe

You are welcome and thank you for keeping your eyes open for these things. --mav

I tried looking up "cavity" and "root canal" to see what the difference is, but there's nothing in wikipedia on them.

not yet. --mav

Go ahead, mav, I'm not planning on doing anything with February 24 until tomorrow. -- Zoe

Cool. I'll get to work then. --mav

Glad you're back online, mav. Activity on the wiki would drop precipitously without you. :) --Brion 01:34 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

LOL. --mav

As would the civility. -- Zoe

Does the exchange above imply that there is a special politeness about doing the day pages. I would really like to add the Baha'i Holy Days in the Holiday and observances sections if it's ok.... Rick Boatright 02:36 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)~

We try to be polite around here. But go ahead and update any page you think needs it. :) --mav

Hello Mav, do you plan to continue your project of updating the anniversary pages? I just realized there were many language links missing in the English wikipedia. The German has entries on every day of the year, the polish, the dutch and the french, too. Esperanto has almost for every day an entry, the italian seem to have entries but no overview table. It would be nice if you continue this project if you could think of the missing language links, too ;-) --Elian

Well all I really have time for is fixing the links that are already there. French, Spanish and Netherlands are all wrongly capitalized. This is something that a bot wouldbe much better at. --mav

OK. -'Vert

Mav, with a little luck we'll be done with transition metals by the end of this week :> Dwmyers 14:41 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

That't great! --mav

Hi mav, I was correcting some mistakes re-ireland on the 1922 page (the Irish Free Sstate wasn't born until December 6, 1922, not 5th January as the page said. In Jan '22 two rival Irish parliaments, made up of the same membership bar four elected two rival governments, one under Arthur Griffith & one under Michael Collins, who was Griffith's minister for finance in his government (no! I'm not making this up. It was to do with the Anglo-Irish Treaty, a 'republican' parliament that had no legal legitimacy but popular support, and the other which had legal legitimacy but no popular support, and both had to ratify the Dáil, then each form a govt that became de facto one and the same. Anyway, this weird state of affairs only came to an end on 6th December when the Provisional Government and its House of Commons of Southern Ireland, and the Dáil government and its Dáil Éireann, were both replaced by a new Dáil Éireann and a new constitution. Sound any clearer? Don't worry. Most Irish can't make head or tail of it either!)

Anyway, while changing the page to reflect this bizarre state of affairs, I noticed how you have Pope Benedict XV dying on Jan 22, which is fine; he may well have done. But you have Pope Pius XI then taking over on Jan 22, which means either the shortest known conclave in history (held while Benedict was still warm: I suddenly have this image of cardinals around the late pope's body, and someone saying 'I think Ratti should be pope. All those who agree say aye! All those against say nay. Ok, Ratti, you are pope. What do ya wanna be named? Pius XI it is. Now lets get something to eat!') Being serious for a mo, I suspect that one or other either died or was elected on that date, but there probably was an interregnum period of at least one week, possibly two.JTD 07:38 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Those were from my daily updates. Thanks for fixing the IFS thing - it was driving me nuts and I thought I fixed it... The pope thing is odd, isn't it... Hm. The pope thing. I'm beginning to suspect that my source for many of these dates was drunk when he wrote this stuff down - I'm finding mistakes nearly every day and much of this stuff is damn hard to confirm. When in doubt, throw it out. I'll remove the specific dates. --mav

I suddenyl notice you coloured that image map of teh p-tabel wrongly for 117, that should be pale yellow not plae grey, as for 1 we are not shore if it will be a metal of mettaloid :-s -fonzy

Hm. I'll fix that this weekend. --mav

mav, could you please clarify the story of 142.177 on the mailing list? I'd like to know what exactly happened. --Elian

I just did. In the future could you do a bit more research before making implied accusations? --mav

Maveric, I don't see why you have to produce such a testy reply. Elian didn't know why 142.177 was banned, so he asked. What's wrong with that? We have open decision-making around here. When Elian can't figure out what you were doing (for a perfectly good reason--he didn't know the comment described was in a deleted page), why not just answer him honestly and leave the side comments out? DanKeshet

The logs state that the user was blocked for making threats; I can't find those threats anywhere.

14:09 Feb 8, 2003, Maveric149 blocked 142.177.93.104 (contribs) (yet another IP of already banned IP)

14:25 Feb 8, 2003, Maveric149 blocked 142.177.104.91 (contribs) (another IP of already blocked user)

14:26 Feb 8, 2003, Maveric149 blocked 142.177.75.53 (contribs) (another IP of already blocked user (reason: threats)

23:26 Feb 8, 2003, Maveric149 blocked 142.177.82.40 (contribs) (Yet another IP address of user who has already been banned for making threats)

The first ban (already unblocked) was for a violation of Wikipetiquette. That ban became permanent after the person made the threat on my meta talk page (check for yourself). Elian also mentioned that there was no mention of the ban on the mailing list.

"First question: I seem to have missed this debate (the user has written

under IPs starting with 142.177.) Could someone direct me to some links in the archive?"

Elian obviously didn't even look. See [2] (http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-January/subject.html#start)

Thanks for the link. At that time I was doing my Masters's exam and I skipped a lot of stuff in the mailing list. there was so much traffic about "172" I misread 142 for 172 and draw no connection to the person writing articles about Islamic topics and other stuff I found rather strange but not in the least offensive.

Notice the all the subject headings starting with "142.177.xxx.xxx...". So pardon me if I might be a bit terse - esp since it was me that got the death threat. It just angers me a bit when people think that getting a death threat isn't an important reason to ban somebody. --mav

It may be due to my insufficient skills in English but I wouldn't have seen it as a personal death threat to me. I still don't get the whole story, especially where 24 is involved. When and for which reason was 142.177. the first time banned? For suspected of being identical with 24.x or for a rascist joke on Columbia or for both at the same time? --Elian (for the next days away at a conference)

Several of us have suspected that 142.177 was 24 for some time before the first ban (see [3] (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maveric149/archive_8) and do a find on "142"). That first ban was for the racist insult on the Columbia talk page (before the most recent disaster but on the anniversary of the Challenger disaster) - it was only supposed to be temporary. But as I've stated before shortly after that the threat was given (which scared Jimbo more than it did me at first). --mav

Having examined the text of this 'threat', I believe it is hypothetical. The person takes a position from the perspective of a technologically underprivileged person, and does not necessarily belong to a group of people who has no control of such technology as the wikipedia. On the topic of racist remarks, further research into this IP number shows that it belongs to a network of public libraries somewhere in Nova Scotia, Canada. There is no way to prove the connection between the racist remark and the 'death threat'.

It was a straw man = thinly veiled threat. He said that somebody who had my exact views should be murdered. He then goes on to say that if somebody else were to kill me then he thinks that I would deserve it. I dare say you wouldn't think it was very hypothetical if it was directed at you. The racial slur IP has been unbanned BTW. The only permanence came from the threat. Since when do we have to prove anything? Beyond a reasonable doubt is the best we can do and hope to be able to function. Check the racial slur IP's contributions [4] (http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special%253AContributions&target=142.177.97.215) - notice the attacks against Axel Boldt (also a violation of Wikipetiquette). So when a string of IPs all with in the range of 142.177.xxx.xxx edit the same type of articles, when those edits have very similar prose/idiosyncratic POV, when these IPs all have a tendency to attack others for similar reasons, and when these IPs do a great deal of editing on meta (several different 142's on the same article), it doesn't take much supposition to conclude that most, if not all, 142.177 IPs are from the same person. Common sense must be used here esp since this person has also stated that the reason why they are anonymous is it make it difficult to track them. See also: User:142.177.106.217 --mav

mav, I don't see why you feel the need to justify your reaction toa death threat. If people don't like what you did, that's too bad. They don't have to "live" with what you did. -- Zoe

Thanks Zoe - I needed that. :-) --mav

&#30064 &#36066 "Unusual Clever" -&#35918&#30505

Eh? You're an odd one Steve - that's why I like you. :) --mav

Hi Mav, Thanks for the kind comments on the multiple-place names page. What do you think of the idea of making each ABC etc page into a list. The cross-screen format saves space, but it is very difficult to read. ALSO, I just had another look at the "Links to disambiguating pages". I could be convinced to give it the same treatment, but if I do I'll want to do lists there too. Gaz

Hi Mav, just got your message. I'm 99.9% certain UK law has not been changed;

As 'heads of state' is my area of expertise, I would have remembered a change in the rules of succession if only happened in the UK, and I don't remember that change.
In the last few minutes I have been on to the Press Office in Buckingham Palace (the Queen's desk). The person there has some memory of a change being proposed, but doesn't remember it becoming definitive. Unfortunately it is just 7pm here so the Press Office had closed so she had no way of checking. I have tried the Downing Street Press Office too and they have a hazy recollection of 'something' about it. If a change definitively had been made they would I expect know the details because it would be a big big change.
As the change would affect the thrones in Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc they too simultaneously would have to introduce an identical law. No such law is mentioned in any of their jurisdictions.
In 2001 Lord Frederick Windsor lost his position on the Order of Succession when he became a catholic. The ban on catholics in the Succession (or marrying a catholic) is more controversial. Given that any change in the rules of succession require Commonwealth-wide legislation, the odds are that all the issues (males ahead of females, ban on catholics, etc) will be dealt with together.
The Princess Royal is still listed as No.8 in the Order of Succession. If it was changed, I presume she, as the Queen's second child, would jump the list to number 4, directly behind Charles and his kids and ahead of Andrew, his kids and Edward.

From what I can gather, Lord Wilson of Mostyn, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Home Office told the House of Lords that Blair's government is in favour of a change on both issues of the daughter's status and the catholic bar. The Queen also gave permission for parliament to change the law if it wishes. But from all the circumstantial evidence I can find, the fact I can't remember the change, and that neither Buckingham Palace or Downing Street can remember a change, strongly suggests that the change has not occured yet. With Australia still in the aftermath of its own referendum on the monarchy, nobody wanting to marry a Catholic right now, and no daughter question right now, I suspect this is one issue which, while people may support it in principle, won't be tackled any time soon, but will be left on the long finger. So I think you better take out that reference on the page; it may be a few years too premature. JTD 19:31 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks for checking on that - that factoid was new to me to. --mav

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Maveric149/archive_9"

User talk:Maveric149/archive 9

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools