User talk:Hephaestos/Archive20040619

About SI prefixes
Are you SURE you got the histories of &quot;tera&quot;, &quot;zetta&quot;, and &quot;yotta&quot; that you wrote at terabyte, zettabyte, and yottabyte right?? Check various Internet sites to see if you are correct. 66.32.123.29 15:33, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I also put the reference exernal link at the bottom of each page. - Hephaestos|&#167; 18:41, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Satrom.jpg
I've tried my best to justify the use of this image. I guess I'm not used to the fair use rules must yet --Alexwcovington 06:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I thought at first it was must a misunderstanding... but the more I read about this I'm convinced that this is clearly a fair use. I don't know how the totem pole breaks down here at Wikipedia, and I'm afraid to stick my neck out here in fear of getting it chopped off... but I can't find any better pictures of the guy, and since he's a gubernatorial nominee, I think he's important enough to merit the picture. Have we actually had problems with the AP in the past, or is this just paranoia? --Alexwcovington 20:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

St. Louis Blues
You seem to be most active at deletion log. Would you please take time to temporarily delete St. Louis Blues or merge history with St. Louis Blues (hockey)? Thank You! -- 24.217.211.99 17:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Blocking T of N
-> User talk:The Trolls of Navarone

hey
Hey, i checked out your live journal great work! im going to add you to me friends list on mine (my username is: Crown_Royal_200) bye Comrade Nick


 * Hey thanks Plato. I don't know whether I'll be able to reciprocate as I barely have time to read the friendslist I've got lately, but who knows. - Hephaestos|&#167; 04:58, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RK
I'm not sure what's going on, but I know one thing: I'm not going to engage in an edit war, over whether the quickpoll on RK for edit warring is valid. The irony would cause my head to explode, possible voiding the warranty! ;-) --Uncle Ed 19:35, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Johnny H.
Hello Hephaestos. I believe Johnny H. was the famous banned user Michael. He has been accused by a regular on en.wikipedia (WhisperToMe). Tim Starling has checked his IPs and concluded that he was indeed Michael. But don't worry, I don't think ppl on es.wikipedia asociate your nick with him. Saludos, Moriel

Thanks for letting me know about es:Usuario:Hephaestos. How hard-headed he is! I think he will be blocked again soon. ManuelGR 19:08, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kyiv
I've have given my suggestion to work thinks out about Kyiv/Kiev with similar cases and add paragraph to Wikipedia Names Convention. Waiting for your response and action (unlocking Kyiv). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kiev --Inhvar 00:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I've actually wearied of the issue, but will unlock Kyiv and let matters take their course. - Hephaestos|&#167; 00:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

&quot;Foetus&quot; spelling
Hi there, Hephaestos. I noticed that you reverted my edit to the fetus page. With all due respect, &quot;foetus&quot; is an incorrect spelling of &quot;fetus&quot;, despite your comment that &quot;it's only incorrect in American usage.&quot; I made my original edit with two things in mind:


 * 1) There's a decent amount of discussion on Talk:Fetus that seems to conclude that &quot;foetus&quot; is etymologically incorrect.
 * 2) More importantly, the IUPAC, who makes decisions related to nomenclature standardization, notes that the word is often spelled incorrectly as &quot;foetus&quot; . (Just FYI, the Union does not favor American over British English per se; in fact, they endorse the British spelling of &quot;aluminium&quot; rather than the American &quot;aluminum&quot;.)

If you've still got strong objections, please leave a message for me on my talk page in the next day or two. Otherwise, I'll add back my original comment (that &quot;foetus&quot; is a common misspelling of &quot;fetus&quot;). Cheers! --Diberri | Talk 01:48, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Oil rig
Ta. Much obliged. --Tagishsimon


 * No problem. :) - Hephaestos|&#167;

Bush and Cocaine
The line in cocaine may be factual, insofar as it was cited in a book, but that doesn't qualify it for the heading which is &quot;People noted for cocaine use.&quot; Perhaps if the heading were &quot;Noted people alleged to have used cocaine&quot; it would be different. Cecropia 07:55, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, whether or not someone is noted for cocaine use doesn't actually state they use cocaine. It seems like an       unneccessary change. --Mr. Snow 08:05, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a margin call; as I told Cecropia I think &quot;alleged&quot; works well, since there are others in the list whose activities are hard to verify. - Hephaestos|&#167; 08:09, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The former head is poorly worded. Few of the people on the list are noted because they used cocaine (with the mamor exception of the cases where cocaine figured in their deaths. They tended to be artists, entertainers, presidents ... cocaine generally does not make one famous. Cecropia 08:10, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. Thanks for making the change. - Hephaestos|&#167; 08:13, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my nomination as an admin...
...I appreciate it. Dpbsmith 10:15, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maori
Hello, busy man! If you're the Hephaestos registered for the Maori Wikipedia, please give us a sentence or two of personal info or at least a confirmation. (Then you could add a &quot;Robin Patterson 10:49, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply on my talk page. I've copied it to your Maori page (with link back to English) as full explanation of why your name is there, and I won't bother you about anything Maori! I'm giving your user page a link so's you can keep an eye on your name. You can edit any of what I've done without perturbing me at all. (The Maori users should be pleased to see someone other than me in the Recent Changes list!) Robin Patterson 06:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Keep an eye peeled
User:Pooya seems to be intent on causing trouble. RickK 23:28, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Welcome back. Haven't seen you in a while. Danny 00:54, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Flint-Worcester Tornado
Since Flint, MI and Worcester, MA are over 600 miles apart, the proper title should be &quot;Flint-Worcester Tornadoes&quot;. I planned on making the change &quot;real soon now&quot;, but you got yours in before I did. Do you mind if I move it to &quot;Flint-Worcester Tornadoes&quot;? If not, should I wait a few days or weeks to avoid confusion? Or should I be bold? Thanks, --Brian Rock 00:45, May 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * RE your comment: &quot;By all means, &quot;be bold&quot;. I'm still trying to decide if &quot;tornado&quot; ought to be capitalized in those or not. :)&quot;


 * Actually, I think it should be lower case, but maybe we'll save all those changes for another day (since you put a smiley on it). I'm off to change the world ... or at least one article. Thanks. --Brian Rock 01:26, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Interested
Just out of interest Hephaestos, did you know Paul Wellstone (I being a poltical science major and you are from minn.)?--Comrade Nick 07:35, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh ok, He's was one my favorite politicans (Also if you don't mind i sort copyied you with my lj)--Comrade Nick 07:18, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

hi Hepaestos, could you tell me how to revert a page that has a lot photos? Thanks. Xah P0lyglut 09:13, 2004 May 7 (UTC)

thanks
For the comment on my talk page/page layout. Thanks particualrly for the offer to help! Agree a poll is a good idea. The problem is some poor bloke has copied most of the year in TV pages into the topic pages and I don't want to upset them. Anyway lets wait a month as promised and them fix pre 1950s which will make sorting the later pages look less personal. --BozMo 14:10, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

card game articles
I would appreciate your help if you could review these contributions to some of the card game articles. Thanks. UninvitedCompany 22:00, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

He is the inventor of a card game called Ambition, and I believe still a student at Carleton. I think he's for real. It's just that his style of interaction is a little different than what we usually try to encourage. I've been trying to talk to him and you see what I get. User:Isomorphic has also tried to reason with him. UninvitedCompany 22:19, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

vandalisim by 24.7.96.169
24.7.96.169 vandalized Bayard Rustin at 01:56 on May 16. He/she added the phrase Hey Guys and then removed it in the next edit. It's not serious vandalism but it's still vandalisim and I thought a sysop experienced at dealing with vandals should know.

-JCarriker 19:53, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Featured Article
Thanks for nominating Marshall to be a featured article. --JCarriker 19:32, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Why did you...
delete At12 immediately rather than voting for deletion on Vfd, which is what I did?? 66.32.251.152 00:55, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Ads generally don't go on VfD. They are candidates for Speedy deletion.  UninvitedCompany 03:09, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Temple Bar
Thanks for fixing the history at Temple Bar London! But -- not to look a gift horse in the proverbial mouth -- you brought two extra snippets of history which don't really belong; see talk:Temple Bar London for details. Can this be fixed? Thanks again. Doops 20:58, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Please see talk:Temple Bar London for my latest thoughts on the affair, not that they really matter at all. :) Doops 21:43, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity . ..
What was the minor change you made to Sara Moulton? Dissonancetheory 23:39, 20 May 2004 (UTC)&lt;br/&gt; Silly me. Thanks. Dissonancetheory 23:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Why don't delete??
What is the advantage of that seeming silly article I put on Speedy deletions that you reverted?? Why is it useful?? 66.32.110.184 23:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Wiki cabal
I was going to give it about half an hour then delete it. RickK 03:36, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comment/172
I'm really surprised that you would endorse a summary that says Censuring someone who actually knows the material because some ignorant fuck who has never read a book in his life doesnt approve of it and wants to post his own ill-informed opinion will be the death of Wikipedia. Abusive language is always inappropriate. RickK 02:16, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I've edited my comment on the Requests for comment/172 page. Since you are a signatory, I thought you should know that what you are signed to has changed. I will understand if you remove your signature. Danny 23:18, 24 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The language has many different ways of expressing the same ideas. Nice rewrite. - Hephaestos|&#167; 23:23, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

EntmootsOfTrolls
Hello. You just protected User Talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/ban, saying that the case was &quot;settled&quot; in November, and that there was no need to edit it. I'm sure you thought you were doing the right thing, but there are several users (not just me) who suspect that the ongoing ban on EoT may be an ongoing injustice, because we have seen nothing that would justify it. Of course, the ban may have been totally justified. If so, the evidence should be presented for all to see on the relevant page. Justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done. UninvitedCompany made some remarks and allegations about EoT on my talk page. If true, they could shed some light on this ongoing issue, and they should be on User Talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/ban, not on my talk page, where they were decidedly &quot;off-topic&quot;. Please unprotect the page. (Incidentally, what are the rules about protecting talk pages? Come to that, what are the rules about deleting other people's comments from talk pages, as UninvitedCompany was doing?)  Best regards   GrahamN 19:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You need to talk to a different admin to get that page unprotected. - Hephaestos|&#167; 06:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Why? GrahamN 17:12, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos, fastest gun in the Wiki. Fuzheado | Talk 02:14, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * heh :) -Hephaestos|&#167;

Stairway
Hi there - can you say more about Robert Plant? Why did his forgetting the words put an end to speculation? Thanks! Mark Richards 04:13, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Do you want to put some more of this in the article? It seems a little unclear to those not very familiar with all this! Mark Richards 04:23, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure - anyway, thanks for the clarification, see you around, Mark Richards 04:32, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Vandalisme of your French user page ?
Hello. I am not sure, if it is vandalism. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Hephaestos --Youssef 21:07, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

In need of community support
I'm in need of community support.

Right now, I am on the verge of being driven away from Wikipedia through the relentless efforts of a single problem user on Requests for comment/172, Requests for arbitration, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/172 vs VeryVerily.

The same user who refuses to accept the results of the Augusto Pinochet poll (see also ) goes through my user history every time he logs on and then starts reverting things that I've written arbitrary. He manages to divert attention away from the articles onto ad hominem attacks, thus poisoning the well against me. 

He has been doing nothing else for the past couple of months, other than making some minor changes to pages that he finds through the random page feature. Meanwhile, I've been working on articles such as Empire of Brazil, Dollar Diplomacy, and Franco-U.S. relations. I'm tired of letting a problem user define my contributions to the encyclopedia, as opposed to my work.

I may have said some regrettable things in the past, but my editing practices are scholarly and methodical. When I make an edit, my choice is based on a consideration of the quality of the encyclopedia. Unlike the user who avowedly admits to trying to escalate a personal feud (see, e.g., ), I do not decide which pages to edit and what changes to make on the basis of personality feuds, emotional POV whims, or a desire to get attention.

Although this user shows little evidence that he understands the content of the articles, I have shown considerable restraint, given my professional expertise. . Only through community support (i.e. lobbying the arbitration committee)will this user be stopped. Otherwise, Wikipedia will die unless we stop vandals and clueless POV-pushers from running rampant and driving away valued contributors.

Please feel free to direct questions and comments to my talk page or e-mail at sokolov47@yahoo.com.

Sincerely,

172 01:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Washington Post .jpg
Thanks for the .jpg conversion on the Washington Post sheet music. I dunno what happened, I started with a .jpg and I must have misunderstood what GraphicConverter was telling me because I thought it was telling me that the .png conversion was actually smaller than the .jpg. Yes, 160K is way too big. Dpbsmith 00:54, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I see you wrote a note that the AC should be able to resolve the JRR matter in 30 days. I admire your confidence.... Well, Plautus and Vogel took 18 and 20 days respectively, according to my notes, so there's hope. UninvitedCompany 18:45, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bans and blocks
Hi there - I couldn't find what you were pointing to in terms of having followed the procedure for two recent blocks - could you point me to it? Thanks, Mark Richards 22:00, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The policy was directly quoted in the block. Banning_policy. I am curious why you apparently did not consult it before unblocking. - Hephaestos|&#167; 23:45, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I couldn't see that in the block quote - how did you ask LT about this? I did not consult because I think there is a burden of proof on the acuser. Thanks, Mark Richards 23:54, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The LT account was created during a hiatus in the Trollkien account's edits. Same material in the same articles, same user. There is also one other account that hasn't edited lately and that I can't remember the name of offhand, which is why I haven't blocked it as well. - Hephaestos|&#167; 00:18, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That is not enough 'evidence', and you have not asked, or allowed consideration by the community. Please stop this. Mark Richards 03:13, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * There is plenty of evidence on Requests for arbitration to block JRR Trollkien under this rule. And since you unblock LT at the same time you do JRR, I can only assume you agree they are the same person. You are the one who needs to stop this. - Hephaestos|&#167; 03:46, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am not assuming that they are the same person, indeed, I see no evidence that they are. I see no evidence that you have tried to ascertain whether they are. I also see no evidence that the committee has rules on JRRT. Please stop this witchhunt. Mark Richards 04:03, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is not a &quot;witchhunt&quot;, as you so originally put it, this is simple enforcement of policy already in place, which I would thank you to read before acting unilaterally. Three other admins besides me have expressed approval for these blocks. I don't know where you get the idea that you speak for the community, but you don't, so please stop acting like it. - Hephaestos|&#167; 04:08, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Heph, I am not claiming to speak for the community, but three admins deciding that they don't want to follow policy does not make it right. Please follow the policy if you suspect these users to be reincarnations. Mark Richards 04:13, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I have to reiterate that I am following policy. Evidently quite a few. I am frankly surprised that you were made an admin if you are that unfamiliar with the way Wikipedia operates. - Hephaestos|&#167; 04:23, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry - which policy allows you to block a user for being a reincarnation without asking, or presenting any evidence. I admit, I have never seen this one. Mark Richards 04:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * He has unblocked them again. If I'm not mistaken, the three revert guideline applies to deletion, protection, and blocks, as well as article reverts. He has unblocked them four times in the past 24 hours.


 * &lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;04:27, 12 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked &quot;JRR Trollkien&quot;&lt;/li&gt;
 * &lt;li&gt;04:25, 12 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked &quot;Leo Trollstoy&quot;&lt;/li&gt;
 * &lt;li&gt;04:12, 12 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked &quot;JRR Trollkien&quot;&lt;/li&gt;
 * &lt;li&gt;04:12, 12 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked &quot;Leo Trollstoy&quot;&lt;/li&gt;
 * &lt;li&gt;04:04, 12 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked &quot;JRR Trollkien&quot; &lt;em&gt;(No evidence of claim, proceduren not followed by H.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 * &lt;li&gt;04:04, 12 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked &quot;Leo Trollstoy&quot; &lt;em&gt;(Procedure not followed by H.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 * &lt;li&gt;03:15, 12 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked &quot;JRR Trollkien&quot; &lt;em&gt;(Procedure not followed, insubstantial &#39;evidence&#39;.)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 * &lt;li&gt;03:15, 12 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked &quot;Leo Trollstoy&quot; &lt;em&gt;(No evidence presented, procedure not followed)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;


 * He appears to have a serious problem with reading Wikipedia's policies. Guanaco 04:34, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually that is five:


 * &lt;li&gt;18:37, 11 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked &quot;JRR Trollkien&quot; &lt;em&gt;(Policy not followed in blocking this user)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 * &lt;li&gt;18:37, 11 Jun 2004 Mark Richards unblocked &quot;Leo Trollstoy&quot; &lt;em&gt;(No attempt made to contact this user, therefore block not following policy)&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/li&gt;


 * Guanaco 04:37, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of the three revert rule which does not, in my opinion, apply to bans, especially when those banning also revert an unblock at least three times and refuse to explain on what grounds they are banning a user, this is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in a while. You have obviously not followed policy in the case of LT, and I don't think in the case of JRRT either. While I do not like the name of either user any more than you, the AC has not yet ruled on that, and there do not seem to be any other ground for banning. It does not lend credibility to admins to ban people simply because they annoy you. Mark Richards 04:41, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hey Heph - Please back off of the Trollstoy/Trollkien issue for a little bit - just ignore it. Anthere is going to try to discuss the situation with Mark. &rarr;Raul654 05:28, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Leo Trollstoy
I suppose it would be too much to expect you to discuss this. Please provide some evidence or justification for banning this user at Requests for review of administrative actions - I cannot see any. Mark Richards 23:09, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Trollkien
This case is not under review by the AC, it is settled in light of his legitimate block under policy. Do you click on the links I provide? Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Votes_and_discussion_by_arbitrators. - Hephaestos|§ 02:20, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure, I read them, but they seldom support your argument. I've copied what you linked to below, in case you made a mistake. So far as I can see there is a 50% vote to support. Is that concensus? Or is 50% enough?

By the way - what is the status on Leo T? Mark Richards 02:27, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Votes and discussion by arbitrators


 * 1. Accept Fred Bauder. There is strong evidence based on his earliest posts that this user was not a new user when he entered Wikipedia, See [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&offset=1000&hideminor=0&target=JRR_Trollkien) 12:57, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2. Recuse - Comments by 142.177 to me were the main reason why that user was banned.[2] (http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Daniel_Mayer&diff=19973&oldid=19972) [3] (http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Daniel_Mayer&diff=4935&oldid=4934) --mav 09:13, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 3. Accept; if he is, indeed, shown to be a reincarnation, this will be a short case. James F. (talk) 09:56, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) This looks like it will be unnecessary, as JRR is currently deemed by popular acclaim to be a reincarnation, as said; however, also accept for purposes of reviewing sysop behaviour in relation to this account &c. James F. (talk) 01:02, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC).
 * 4. As of now, remect. Now that JRR has been blocked as an obvious reincarnation, we only need to consider this case if Mark, Heph, and the community in general are unable to resolve any difference of opinion regards whether the reincarnation is sufficiently &quot;obvious&quot; (in which case, accept). Martin 02:57, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Foreign language spelling and usage
There's nothing about this, so I wrote the beginnings of a section. Why did you delete it all? Where should have I posted it? Are you planning to put it where it should have been posted? --Samuel Wantman 06:45, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't want a user page
That was a nice sentiment you put on my user page, Hephaestos, but it does not belong there at all. I have told other people who have brought up the subject of my userpage that I want my user name to remain red. Please don't try to create a user page for me, as I don't want one. I hope you understand. &lt;font color=#ba0000&gt;Denelson83&lt;/font&gt; 07:46, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The 1990's thing
On what do you base your universal objection to &quot;1990s&quot; and the like? I agree that this form is correct: as it is a possessive form, but I would argue the following: is correct in this context, as it is a plural form. (I would make similar arguments for '90's and '90s, respectively, although I'd always recommend but not insist on using the possessive 1990's instead of its abbreviation.) Like its and it's, it's not that hard to keep it straight if you think of its usage. -- Jeff Q 07:58, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 1990's &quot;Back to the Future Part III&quot;
 * Back in the 1990s&hellip;


 * Concerning your response on my talk page: &quot;Yes, 1990s is the correct way to refer to the decade.&quot;&hellip;


 * I jumped to an erroneous conclusion. Your User page statement doesn't say which form (or forms) you think is correct. Of course, it's just a short statement, so one wouldn't expect a description like mine above, but it means that one must follow each of the two links to see what you think is correct. I took exception to the New York Times entry, but inexplicably thought you supported the error, despite your clear mocking of their literary prowess. So the Times isn't the only party embarrassed over this! &#9786; -- Jeff Q 17:51, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Won't I block it thorough auto-blocking because they share an IP? --&quot;D&lt;small&gt;ICK&lt;/small&gt;&quot; C&lt;small&gt;HENEY&lt;/small&gt; 23:45, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Trolls of Navarone
Hi Heph - Don't want to get into a revert war over this one, but there looks to be fairly conclusive IP evidence that this is not EMOT - do you know something I don't? Mark Richards 05:15, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks from Quill
Just thanking you for retrieving the DOG article. I was must reaching for the brandy...

I have to add the info again? Not a problem!!

Just out of curiosity, how did you find out about it so fast? Quill 01:45, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just saw your response to me on my talk page. Okay, that's all good to know. Thanks again.Quill 01:55, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adminship
I'd like your opinion about my chances for adminship. I was planning on waiting until I was nominated by someone else, but if it is becoming necessary to rollback registered user privileges like page moves, then I will probably nominate myself now rather than loose privileges. I would also like to be able to revert vandalism when I see it rather than having to flag down a sysop or copy the text of the last good edit, paste it over the current vandalism and save. I've been here for a year, a wikiholkic since Dec. 03', and it would really disappoint me to have privileges taken away when more aggressive and less senior wikipedians, will be unaffected.

Please respond as soon as convenient. -JCarriker 01:51, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * The page is protect but I accept. Please add the following to the appropriate location.

I graciously accept the nomination. -JCarriker 02:07, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

zyxwvutsrqponmlbjihgfedcba

Hi, I think your nomination of JCarriker has gone missing. It's not in the history so I couldn't replace it. It looks instead like you blanked half the page! Angela. 02:43, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please stop moving Canada's electoral districts
Please stop moving Canada's electoral districts. This has been discussed before. It is very important to keep the m-dashes because they indicate different cities in riding names. N-dashes are used in Quebec for all cities with multi barreled names. For instance Pierre—Lac-Jean would be the towns of Pierre and Lac-Jean while Pierre-Lac-Jean would indicated could either mean the town of Pierre-Lac-Jean or three towns, Pierre, Lac, and Jean. - SimonP 21:59, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * In general I hate m-dashes and think that adding extra complications for a minor typographical concern is misguided. However, in this case the m-dash contains important semantic information and should not be ignored.  I think it would be best to move them back. - SimonP 22:03, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Not terribly usefully the discussions have taken place on User_talk:Earl_Andrew, User talk:The Anome, User_talk:RickK and Talk:List of Canadian federal electoral districts none of which contain the full conversation. - SimonP 22:10, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

My problem with both the hyphen with spaces and the double hyphen solutions are that they replace a system that is correct for some viewers and incorrect for others with one that is incorrect for everyone. - SimonP 22:29, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)