User talk:Mav/archive 18

Scientific Skepticism
Help needed on Scientific_skepticism! Reddi, someone absolutely clueless on science and scientific skepticism, needs to be told off or corrected, or whatever, I can't think of the right word at the moment. Right now, though, skepticism is locked. Your input? :( - Lord Kenneth 01:23, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can take a look at it later. For now I've listed it on Requests for comment, which in turn is linked from RC and bolded. --mav

You're right
They're not trolls, they're serious users who are fair, unbiased, and by no means do things to start trouble. Nope, nosiree. Oh, by the way, your user page appears to have a professional photograph, which might not be allowed as fair use-- the professional photographer retains the copyright. I don't know if that has been discussed or not... - Lord Kenneth 14:42, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I paid for it so it is mine. --mav

Sorry, buddy, that's not how copyright law works. You only paid for copies, not for full rights to it. That's why it is illegal to upload MP3s over p2p-- it doesn't matter that it's your face in the picture. If you don't remove it, I will take this to the possible copyright infringment page. - Lord Kenneth 23:19, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to pick a fight? Leave my photo alone. --mav

I'm not trying to pick a fight. Got that? Copyright violation is copyright violation, and it's against wikipedia's image policy. - Lord Kenneth 23:28, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * You are wrong on this issue. Got that? Leave my image alone. --mav

Oh ho ho, but I'm not. Your image is a copyright violation. I have reported it as possible copyright infringement. Unless the photographer gave up the rights to it (extremely unlikely) you're in the wrong. Got that? - Lord Kenneth 23:35, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * You just made another enemy. I had nothing against you before, but now I do. --mav

Wow, talk about not assuming good faith and unnecessary hostilities! Are you really qualified to be an admin when you can't follow the policies and break copyright rules? It seems that you make this a personal issue when I'm simply following the guidelines- to notify the person that they are breaking copyright. Looks like it's you who doesn't know wikipedia policy very well. - Lord Kenneth 23:40, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * You will be made very familiar with our policy in the comming days. Rest assured. --mav

Are you threating me? You are the one in violation, not me, and your hostile actions either indicate that you've had a bad day or aren't fit for your position. Here's a guide, perhaps it'll help you: http://www.alex-tomlinson.supanet.com/guide/copyright.htm

- Lord Kenneth 23:49, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ever heard of fair use? All I have on my user page is a very low resolution version of the original. --mav

Duck Dodgers?
Are you sure you've identified those "Duck Dodgers" screenshots correctly? They look an awful lot like shots from Dripalong Daffy to me. The Duck Dodgers I remember looked much more like this. &mdash;Paul A 02:18, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yep - that is what it said when I was watching it and what was in the TV guide. Porky Pig was a robot in that episode. --mav


 * (effect of light bulb) These are from the TV series I'd never previously heard of, then? Fair enough. (But I still think they don't look like they're from Duck Dodgers.) &mdash;Paul A 02:32, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I never saw the show before, or the movie. The screenshot may therefore not be representative of a regular episode. --mav

Ed's rights
Why do you think that message deserves to be on talk:DNA? I told you why I think it doesn't.168... 05:31, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I told you why. Ed has the right to say what he wants when it is relevant. Your abuse of sysop user rights at DNA is a valid thing to note at talk:DNA. Your removal of that note looks as if you are trying to hide that fact. Your use of the auto revert feature on me is another abuse of your admin status. I suggest you stop. --mav

Actually all you said originally was that he had a right. In your summary you offered no reason why you thought his comment relevant. I suggest you try to look at what I do with an open mind instead of assuming the worst of me, which you seem to be doing consistently. While you say Ed's post is valid because I abused sysop rights, actually that is a POV--yours. It has not been decided that what I did counts as abuse. Ed in expressing his own POV admitted that it's not well founded, because he had only skimmed the history and/or record. So it's one guy naming me and expressing a negative opinion about what I did and advice specifically for me in front of lots of people, and it makes no difference to anybody else how to proceed with the DNA article or discussion. I thought of replying to it, but it seemed obvious to me that it would not be appropriate for me to debate the matter with him there, not to mention redundant with the defense of my action I've been asked to give at the "Possible abuse" page. Given that, it seems obvious to me in turn that Ed's opinion and advice to me and Lir (who unlike me he doesn't "out" by naming him) belongs on my talk page and Lir's talk page and/or on the "Possible abuse" page. BTW I didn't know I couldn't use the autorevert whenever I revert. Seems like a silly rule, if it exists. I propose to ignore it until pointed to a sensible reason for it.168... 16:08, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Then you should have moved it to your talk page or the page tracking your sysop abuse. Yet you silenced it. You are also not supposed to use your sysop user rights in an edit war. Yet you did that. --mav

Should should yet yet. Baloney.168... 23:12, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You owe me several apologies now.168... 23:12, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I owe you nothing. I do owe the community additional scrutiny of you and your actions. --mav

Please! I'm begging for scrutiny. It's your summary rushes to judgment that offend me. I owe it to the community to lend an opposing voice to your views and actions, many of which I consider reactionary and conservative. 168... 00:21, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Then why did you delete Ed's scrutiny of you? My judgment is sound, your actions were uncalled for. --mav

I don't know which action you mean when you say your judgment is sound. Protecting agains Lir was called for according to both Cyan and you yourself. It's the appearance of the action you don't like. With regard to Ed and "scrutiny," in his post he specifically disclaimed close scrutiny. His post was a snap judgment and an opinion which served no reasonable purpose on the page he posted it. 168... 00:35, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Then you should have moved it instead of censoring it. That's another thing that looks bad and thus makes all admins look like they are part of a cabal. Looks are very important around here. --mav

Moved it where? Part of it was addressed to me, part was to Lir, and it was a message Ed evidently meant as a timely announcement for a moment in time that passed now long ago, and which preceded the movement to formally debate the appropriateness of my protection on a separate page. Ed pays some attention to Talk:DNA. If he wants his message preserved on an active page somewhere, he can get off his rash behind and think about a good place to put it, in one two or three pieces. It's not my problem. BTW, that was really annoying that you moved the accusations against me to a separate page without moving the lengthy defenses I have offered for my action. You might want to think how the obviousness of your own bias affects the reputation of all admins. 168... 00:54, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Extro
Maverick,

Thank you for the welcome.

-Extro


 * You are welcome! --mav

Pictures
I noticed on my watchlist that you added pictures to Sesame Street related articles, thanks; only thing, they don't seem to work. Could you maybe re-upload them with underscore instead of spaces? That might work. -- user:zanimum


 * See your talk page. --mav

Terms of use and Submission standards
I am just wondering what you opinion regarding the submissions standards is. Jamesday told me that there were grumblings on IRC about it, since there is no record of IRC that I can find I find it a very low authoritative source for knowing what people think in this community. Do you know anything about this? we were going to go live with this all on Jan. 21 but it never happened, I've been quite busy in court the last two weeks so I haven't been following everything as closely as possible, can you fill me in? I've added my suggested to change to the MediaWiki:copyrightwarning talk page. Thanks. [[User:Alex756|&#8212; Alex756 talk]] 00:44, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

rocks and minerals project
Since you commented on the original, wanted to let you know that I created a WikiProject Rocks and Minerals if you'd like to join. I'm hoping you will, since you did so much on related categories. Elf 19:38, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Joined. Neat idea. --mav

Resolve what?
You said both you and cyan tried to resolve "this" with me. What's this? 168... 01:00, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. On this talk page and Cyan's talk page. We could not resolve the conflict that way. Besides, this all started on another page with a diferent set of rules and was only moved after the talk got too long. --mav


 * You have avoided answering my question. I'll ask it another way: What's to resolve with me and when did you and cyan try to resolve it with me? 168... 01:34, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * You protected a page in an edit war. We don't want you to do that again. You refuse to admit what you did was wrong and therefore indicate that you will continue this behavior. --mav

Continued at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

Please could you leave the dispute pages alone for a while until things have cooled down. Angela. 01:44, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * When will that be? --mav


 * Hopefully soon. I expect it'll happen a lot sooner if you and 168 just ignore those pages for a while. Stop wasting your time. Whatever do you hope to gain from it? You know no one is ever banned or desysopped, so the whole system of setting up dozens of complaints pages is completely worthless anyway. Angela. 02:17, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * It is not worthless - we are trying to work this out without having to go to mediation or arbitration. The RfC pages allow people to vent and for the issue to be defined. --mav

Re:Protection of the rfc/mav
You're welcome. I sensed an edit war afoot, and I call'em like I see'em. &rarr;Raul654 08:59, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)

We meant the full name as in (e.g.) Aquila audax (Latham, 1801) Tannin


 * Oh, OK. I'm not too opposed to that. --mav

Please vote
At Talk:DNA Peak 06:15, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Did you delete my pledge poll? I click the link and all I see is whiteness.168... 06:26, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * No. Reload the page. --mav

Wikistats
Yeah, I knew the stats were out of date, but I figured a working link was still better than a 404. =] You wouldn't happen to know if any updated stats are in the works, would you? --Delirium 09:59, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Haven't heard anything. But the developers have been very busy optimizing MediaWiki and getting it ready for a squid cache config for the server farm (and eventually for mirrors all over the planet). --mav

New pic code
Answer on my talk page -- hike395 06:17, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks to the wonders of MediaWiki, no permanent harm done. -- hike395


 * No big deal. :) I was considering doing the same thing myself but decided to just wait for a better solution. --mav

User name violation?
User:Philatio. Whaddya think? --Dante Alighieri 06:51, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * They don't know how to spell but might be a fun date. :) --mav


 * Well, I'm guessing that's an attempt to avoid the OBVIOUS ban that User:Fellatio would get. --Dante Alighieri 21:32, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Could be a stamp collector? His/her edit to 755 is correct and non-obvious. -- hike395

Copyright violation
hi Mav,

you uploaded an image for the battle of Lutzen, but this was marked as available for fair use, not for public domain, so I have listed it for deletion. TeunSpaans

I moved this image to Possible_copyright_infringements and commented on it over there. Jamesday 14:49, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * See that page for my comment. --mav

Thanks
Thanks for the support at Wikisource (not Wikibooks where I don't go very often). I wasn't too sure how my recent confrontations with Angela would affect things. Hopefully I can help to set a more co-operative tone in that project without importing the edit war mentality that can be a big drain on people's energy on Wikipedia. &#9774; Eclecticology 18:02, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)


 * No problem. :) --mav

Elements taking too much volume
It seems that a number of the element pages are showing the molar volume a factor 1000 too high. See for example Rubidium, Gold. This should be 10-6 rather than 10-3. Andre Engels 12:36, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Opps! I looks like you are right. I'll see what I can do. --mav

I found the source for the Osiris image
I responded to you on Talk:Osiris (planet). Sorry for taking so long. I didn't notice that you had edited the talk page until I looked at it today. Sennheiser! 16:44, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yep - the image is OK now. Thanks! :) --mav

Subst
Hi, please use subst, not msg for VfD. I've explained why at Wikipedia talk:Boilerplate text. Thanks. Angela. 00:17, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * OIC - noted. --mav

Jim
Thanks, I'm looking forward to Sri Lanka, Jim. Incidentally, this page is displaying a 94k warning.


 * Wow! Will you have time to do any birding? I would love see see some photos of birds from Sri Lanka. I just made an archive. --mav

Poll notification
Jack (now known as Sam Spade) created a poll at Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god poll on the capital G issue in atheism, so I figured I should drop a note about it to all the major participants in the editing on that article since Jan 11. I just went through the edit history clicking names that looked prominent, so if you aren't interested in the issue feel free to ignore it. Bryan 05:27, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

RFC:168
Just letting you know that 168.. has removed the material you added to Requests for comment/168. I'm not in a mood for an argument with him/her atm, so I'm not reverting. - snoyes 19:35, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Reverted. Then 168 reverted my revert then others tried and failed as well. --mav

No content was lost. The name's just been changed. As you can see from the 1985-1991 article, you have an article on the Gorbachev years (and a very brief, superficial one at that), not an article on the collapse. If you want, I could draft a new article with a day-by-day timeline of events from the August coup to the dissolution of the USSR on 12/26/91, which can go in a newly recreated article on the collapse. Until then, the content on the Gorbachev years fits better at the end of the Soviet history series. 172 01:02, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * OK - just wanted to know why. --mav

Mav, has anybody actually asked you to intervene at DNA (i.e. besides Lir?). You don't seem to understand what is going on there. You also ignored my request long ago to tell me how far back into the discussion history you had read. If nobody is inviting you and you don't have the patience to study the matter, I suggest you stay out of it.168...|...Talk 03:25, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Nobody has to ask me - I'm already involved in the discussion over that page. You seem to be ignoring the consensus and the RfC process. --mav

Sure, mediation welcome. But we have to agree on the mediator, this being such a partisan operation.168...|...Talk 05:51, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * OK. See Requests_for_mediation --mav

Would you like to express any preferences regarding who should mediate your dispute with mav? The members of Mediation Committee are the recommended choice, but you may ask anyone if you like. You may tell me any mediators that are acceptable to you, or ones that you would refuse to accept. You may also e-mail me if you do not want your concerns publically posted (Tucci528 AT yahoo.com). Tuf-Kat


 * Done. --mav

List of volcanoes
I notice that from your contributions, you have written or assembled a number of articles on volcanoes. I've been expanding the list of active and dormant volcanoes a great deal over the past few days. It's been based on the lists maintained at the Smithsonian Institute's volcano site. I hope you find the expanded lists useful.David Newton 16:10, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Wow! Neat list - lots of red links to work on. I will add the list to each of the volcano articles I've been working on. --mav

bombing of dresden
I am an 'ultra-newbie' to Wikipedia. My first article wa on the fire bombing of dresden in WW2 (http://en.wihistory.searchbeat.com/ww2battles.htm#bombingofdresden) turns out to be strikingly similar. In fact about 90% is the same word for word. The searchbeat article is copyrighted. I read the procedure to follow for copyright question but because i'm so new, i'm hesitant tokipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II). I think it's a great article and Wikipedia is a great reference. Just my luck that another source on dresden (http:// take what seems like an extreme step. Also the procedure looked a little complicated for someone as green as me. Can you help me?


 * The link you gave does not work. However many different websites copy Wikipedia content - not all of them give credit. See Sites that use Wikipedia for content and Possible copyright infringements. --mav

VW Kerry Quote
Vietnam War - its not POV to use an important and iconic quote form that time - in fact I shortened it - originally it was:


 * "...many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia &#8212;not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command..." "They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages..." "...and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..."
 * - John Kerry, in Testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Commitee, 1971.

It sounds like that particular POV was rather well informed, dont you? Look at the Linguistics article - using a quote in context is not inapproprate BASOTI. -&#25140;&#30505sv 00:25, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * It has no place in the lead section of an aricle. No quote does. --mav

--- Actually, Hector is right about the VC (I'm sorry - the NLF). What do you think of this compromise? You can keep a brief article on the origins of the pejorative "VC" at the VC entry. It can contain a link to an article on the NLF. Would this be better than Hector's idea of simply redirecting the VC page to the NLF page? 172 00:59, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it is so pejorative as to warrant going against common usage. Most people have no idea what NLF means and the "Liberation" part also has its own POV issues. --mav
 * Hector may see this as an NPOV issue (I could care less about the connotations). However, I see this as an issue of encyclopedic standards. The word "liberation" in the title does not have "its own POV issues," as you seem to be suggesting. We are dealing with what is merely the name of an organization. By your logic, we cannot have an article on, e.g., the People's Republic of China or the PRC People's Liberation Army (PLA). Yes, VC is more recognizable. But that's why I'm suggesting a stub on the use of the name "Vietcong" at the VC entry. The article can then direct readers to the main article on the subject at the NLF page. 172 02:27, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * the common usage page says  "Also, some terms are in common usage but are commonly regarded as offensive to large groups of people (Eskimo, Black American and Mormon Church, for example). In those cases use widely known alternatives (Inuit, African-American, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for example)."  Being as the NLF never called themselves VC, a name they found offensive, and much of the world press called them NLF, I would say they should be called what they called themselves - if you strip the power from people to even tell you what their name is, and order that they must be referred to as some derogatory name, then that is probably the final nail on the coffin of trying to get any kind of NPOV.  The same goes for every other derogatory term used in the American corporate media (NLF -> VC, PCP -> Shining Path, CPK -> Khmer Rouge).  Hell, the Viet Cong page says that Viet Cong is a derogatory term which the page you pointed to said should be avoided HectorRodriguez 01:07, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I wrote the part of the common usage page you quoted. I simply do not think that the name is so offensive as to warrant going against common usage. You removed all refs to VC which is uncalled for. At the very least the name VC should be mentioned at least once per article that deals with the subject so that people know what NLF is - otherwise they may not get the connection. However, I do concede that this may be similar to the Eskimo / Inuit situation and may require two separate articles. But let's continue this on the correct talk page. --mav


 * I am interested in this debate, because this issue came up w.r.t. Shining Path recently. Lancemurdoch renamed every reference to the group to "Peruvian Communist Party" which may be historically correct, but no one refers to them as such, in Peru or elswhere. -- Viajero 21:00, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zviad Gamsakhurdia reversion ping-pong
Mav, I should let you know that I've suggested to Tannin (talk) that I've asked if the Zviad Gamsakhurdia article can be permanently protected. This ridiculous reversion war has been going on since December (!) but Levzur will not discuss it other than to constantly assert that he's right, which is hardly a basis for reaching a compromise. I hate the idea of locking the article (not least because I'll be locked out too) but I can't see any other way of protecting it from Levzur's evident wish to turn it into a hagiography. Is there any alternative that you can suggest? -- ChrisO 01:51, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, we don't permanently protect articles around here. Way before that we will be banning people who cannot control their behavior. There seems to be one person editing that article that fits the bill. --mav


 * I thought that might be the case. The thing is, Levzur has made some good contributions, despite his behaviour on this article. His material on Georgian culture and historical figures has been genuinely useful (and we have few enough contributors from that part of the world). It's a pity that he seems to be so blinkered on this particular subject. I see you've read my response to Tannin's comments on protecting pages - I think you can work out what prompted me to suggest narrowly focused bans. -- ChrisO 02:16, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Then the arbitration committee (which I happen to be a member of) could issue a ruling that he cannot edit certain articles. --mav


 * Have we got to a point where it should be referred to the AC? This has been going on for 3 months now, the page has already been protected (by you, as I recall) and unprotected, and I see no prospect of a resolution any time soon. -- ChrisO 02:29, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * See Dispute resolution. It sounds like you have tried and failed Step 1. If at least one other person has tried and failed Step 1 then you can open an RfC page. --mav 02:31, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'll do that. Thanks for the advice. -- ChrisO 02:48, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mediation
Hi, 168... has accepted Anthere as the mediator between you and him. The problem is Anthere is currently on holiday. She went away on the 6th and I don't know when she is expected back. Are you willing to postpone mediation until she is back, or would you like 168 to choose an alternative mediator? Angela. 19:15, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * 168 can choose any mediator he wants but I will only accept one I've already mentioned (which happens to be most of the mediators). --mav

Plautus satire
Hi, what exactly did User:Plautus satire explain to you via email? I may block him/her soon and want to know what happened last time. silsor 03:26, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hm. Already deleted that email exchange... Basically I blocked PS for what looked like the removal of another user's talk comments. It turned out that PS did in fact do this at least once but after somebody reverted the change he removed some text PS wrote. PS was reverted by another admin, I gave a warning, PS did not respond and instead removed the text again. So I blocked the account. PS then emailed me explaining what happened and after investigating it did look like the text removed after I gave the warning was written by PS. But I'm still not 100% sure about that - just reasonably sure. So I unblocked the account. --mav


 * Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I've blocked him again, see block log for details. silsor 03:37, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Some people just can't work with others. I hope PS learns. --mav

Watch what , mav ? It couldn't be spelling. That's what I was concerned with. Maybe you just want to behave aggressively against your fellow Wiki editors. In that case please write to me, and I will report your aggressivity properly and systematically. I am only afraid of the lack of rule of law : )

Sincerely, irismeister 13:01, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)


 * Watch what you do. If you continue to violate policy then you will be banned. --mav

Banning Plautus satire
Hey Mav: On Plautus satire's talk page I threw down the gauntlet. I told him that I was willing to wipe the slate clean and treat him like a new user, provided he straighten up and follow the rules. (no more inflammatory POV edits presented as facts; no more reverting talk pages).

I told him if he didn't, I would ban him shortly. He has rejected the offer outright. When he (inevitably) vandalizes another page, I am going to ban him, and I am going to make sure it's permanent. Just wanted to OK this with you first. &rarr;Raul654 21:48, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm just another admin - nobody special. Do what you think is best, but please don't think that my blessing means anything special. --mav


 * Thanks mav. I just didn't want to be accused of acting unilaterially or abusing my powers - Plautus had made a few (4?) good edits, and I don't think we're supposed to ban people who have made any. However, a quick look at the "thank you's" I'm getting on my talk page show me that my fears were unfounded. &rarr;Raul654


 * On a purely unofficial level I am very glad to see PS gone (at least for a while). --mav

195.92.168.177
[Peak:] One has to go digging in the Talk:Race archives to see that 195.92.168.177 has already been given a chance. His previous intransigence and bullying tactics resulted in the page being protected before, so I think, in context, that P0M's remarks were completely justified. Peak 23:39, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps - but they still serve as bad examples to others who do not know the context of the situation. --mav

I'm wondering if you can act quickly to prevent a farcical version of the Alexandros/personal information controversy. The author dug up a pseudonym (so there's no real infringement of privacy), ran a search, and found comments from what appear to be joke/vanity pages. I had already seen troubling signs of passive aggression from the author before, but hardly anything so nakedly malicious. Initially, I asked Eloquence about this problem. He stated, "It seems pretty clearly in violation of Wikiquette..., which is a bannable offense." But he's not responsible for enforcing these policies. Since I don't want to be associated with that garbage (just to reassure you - it's a totally false distortion!), quietly deleting it before it becomes a big issue and dropping a brief note on the author's user talk page would be great. I came to you since you are on the arbitrators' committee, maintain a spotless reputation among all users, and can handle things discretely. The latter is really important in this case, explaining my reservations about going directly to the conflicts resolution page and making this a more public matter. After all, the page doesn't bother me as much as the idea of all the ruckus that this matter could cause. 172 11:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm at work now and will be going to night class right after. I will not have time to review this until Friday. --mav


 * I truly and sincerely apologize for including material on a reference page that was the work of a troll, and not 172. I have removed the offending material, and all that remains is Wikipedia texts that are properly related. As I mentioned in that private, un-linked page, "It is best to understand those that you have conflict and disagreement with so you can empathize with their viewpoint and achieve consenus." I look forward to putting this matter behind us so we can productively work together on Wikipedia. --Hcheney 01:02, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I want to be reinstated with full status and a very big formal apology from you ASAP. I wouldn't mind if you felt obliged to resign from the arbitration committee as well. 168...|...Talk 00:45, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * That's not going to happen and I have nothing to apologize for. --mav

TH align"center"
... is redundant. TH already centers the text (as well as bolding it). - UtherSRG 03:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Not for Internet Explorer 6.0 and not for Konqueror 3.1.3. --mav

Sorry but.... From HTML's def:
 * align = left|center|right|justify|char [CI]
 * This attribute specifies the alignment of data and the justification of text in a cell. Possible values:
 * left: Left-flush data/Left-justify text. This is the default value for table data.
 * center: Center data/Center-justify text. This is the default value for table headers.
 * right: Right-flush data/Right-justify text.
 * justify: Double-justify text.
 * char: Align text around a specific character. If a user agent doesn't support character alignment, behavior in the presence of this value is unspecified.

It works fine in the MSIE 5.5 I'm using from work, so I find it hard to believe it is now broke in 6.0. I'll check to see what version I have at home, but I'm pretty sure it's 6.0. - UtherSRG 15:53, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is what it looks like at work (IE 6.0), school (IE 6.0) and home (Konqueror 3.1.3). Having the align="center" doesn't hurt a thing and yet makes it so that the alignment is correct. --mav 00:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)



I have MSIE 6.0 at home. There is something wrong on your end, because th centers properly. Removing the align="center" makes the HTML more streamlined and legible. Let's try to figure out what settings we have different? - UtherSRG 00:40, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * It works with the align="center". So that is all that matters. --mav

No, that's not all that matters. Do't be stubborn, INTJ. *grins* Do you have an IM? - UtherSRG 00:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * We are talking about 14 characters (counting the quotes). That is all that is needed to make the table work right. I'm not the one being stubborn. --mav


 * I've got to go to class right now. Don't assume my silence means that I agree with you. --mav

It's 14 characters on top of the existing characters for the line. For taxoboxes, this can often mean the line wraps in the editor making the table less readable. Let's take this to IM or someplace where we can discuss this more efficiently -err.... when you are not in class. - UtherSRG 00:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Plautus satire
Your comments are requested on Requests for comment/Plautus satire. &rarr;Raul654 05:17, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

screenshots
Do you plan to restore the deleted screenshots you made? PMA 06:27, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you plan to read the top of Village pump. ;) --mav
 * Sarcasm does not suit you Mav :) --PMA 01:15, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

New tufa pic for Mono Lake
Hey, mav! Check out tufa for a new pic I uploaded. This is a clearer shot of tufa than is currently at Mono Lake. Would you mind if I replaced the current pic? -- hike395 07:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes - please do! I took the ugly tufa photo from the visitor's center with a 3x camera. --mav

Zviad Gamsakhurdia - what next?
Unfortunately the RfC that I posted regarding this article doesn't seem to have provoked much interest - no comments yet, anyway - and the reversion war is continuing between Wik and Levzur (who I see is still marking deletions as "minor"). How long should I wait before moving on to the next stage, which I assume would be mediation? -- ChrisO 08:49, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I left a comment. --mav


 * Thanks for that. I'd already provided references earlier in the thread, but I've added a summary of my position to make things clearer for all concerned (hopefully!). -- ChrisO 13:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

press release
Hi Mav

Youssef told me we were very near the 500k line.

When should non english send the press releases ?

Thanks Anthère0

(great that I can send a couple of ones :-))


 * Holy Cr*p! 495 K as of the 20th. Monday! --mav

Regional press contact
What's the point of the regional press contact in the press release? I understand the purpose, but why have it here on en: where Jimbo is the only relevant contact? Shouldn't other languages use the version on meta as a template? I fear that leaving this in may lead to careless copy and pasting of the template stuff.&mdash;Eloquence 10:50, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * People volunteered for it - I'm just notifying them. Their argument (which I happen to agree with) is that reporters from different nations will want to interview somebody from the same region. This also helps to reduce the media load on poor Jimbo. Plenty of people will still be contacting him. Those that only contact the regional press contact can still use Jimbo's quotes in the press release. --mav

We will must likely send the press release on the danish wikipedia at roughly the same time as the english BrianHansen 10:53, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Cool - thanks for the update. :) --mav

evidence
Please add your evidence to Matter of Wik evidence. Specifically please track down specific diffs and add them to that page and explain what the problems are. You may want to work together with other users in order to create a summary of the evidence. The arbitration committee cannot decide an issue based on statements (statements are only a starting point) - we need evidence. --mav 04:30, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Wik has admitted reverting edits of mine solely because I made them. What more evidence could I possibly need?  Anthony DiPierro 13:51, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Show the diffs of him actually reverting you. --mav

Mav, thanks for the note, I've added my name to the press release as Asia region contact. Feel free to edit for formatting if necessary. Fuzheado 17:09, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Np. --mav

You may be interested in Template:cc-by-sa, as I've noticed that you twin-license your images. I marked one of your images as such, just for kicks, let me know if that's OK. Martin 17:21, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah - I need to reformat all my images too... Thanks for the note. --mav

Thanks for supporting the crapflooder position on Talk:List of numbers/Deletion. I really thought you had more sense than that.&mdash;Eloquence


 * I honesty think articles like 101 (number) are interesting - kinda like a disambiguation page but also an article. So I voted accordingly. --mav


 * Actually, the disambiguation policy has already been revamped to prevent disambig pages from turning into search indices. Now the only remaining vector of entry for these loose lists are the number pages.&mdash;Eloquence

re: Main Page
Well, I updated the Fatos Nano article, I am not sure what to put in the Albania article itself. I don't think the news should go in the articles of countries anyway (unless they're a major historical event that goes in the history blurb). Wik has also created and has been maintaining Timeline of Albanian history from 1994 which does include some of that info. Should the link in the main page have been something other than Albania, perhaps Fatos Nano? I don't know. Dori | Talk 03:52, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Either the timeline or the Fatos Nano article will do nicely. As it is, readers visiting Albania will likely have no clue as to why it was listed. --mav

events in history
You have done a commendable job with the "events in history" page! Perl 15:06, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you! It is going to take some time to fill up the list though. I'll try to stay ahead of the current day by at least week or so. --mav


 * Mav, thank you for doing so much great work and for the support--I just get easily obsessed. :) jengod 07:19, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) I've been told that I get a bit obsessed sometimes as well. ;) --mav

-- Mispelled word; Dear Mav: Hi1 Take a look at Main Page, under Rod Paige information, it says appologised instead of apologized. I tried to correct this but when I saw that at the edit page all it had was msg:message under news, I dared not touch it. Maybe you can fix the misspelling, I dont know how to fix it now that we have this ultra-cool new main page.

Thanks and God bless you! Sincerely yours, Antonio Lost Mind Martin


 * Hey Antonio! :) Just edit Template:Itn, or visit the top of Talk:Main Page and click on the link. --mav

Thanks for offending me...
Mav, I fail to see why you had to do a wholesale revert of legitimate global news that I posted to the news section of the main page. I was in the process of doing the things that you chastized me for. Next time, please show some paitience and don't hurt people's feelings by removing their work. Instead, try to work with them and make Wikipedia better. That's what a *community* is all about...

Feeling extremely hurt. -- Seth Ilys 14:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel hurt - that was not my intention. But in the future please update Current events and the subject first. --mav


 * Apology accepted. Yes, I think the other order makes sense. I'm a news junkie, so I sometimes jump to the headline first. I'll try to follow the guidlines order in future, now that I know such guidelines exist. Thanks. :) -- Seth Ilys 15:00, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Things are in flux right now. We did have a very longstanding policy about adding links to the old Main Page at Selected Articles on the Main Page. We need revamp that page for the new layout though. --mav

Events in history
I really don't like that idea. I was in fact thinking about having many items for every day and just establish the policy that only 4 can be displayed at any one time on the Main Page. They can be commented out and rotated (just like the images). But dividing this between many different pages is not something that I favor at all (if anything we would divide it up based on month - but only for space considerations).
 * Totally agree with everything you are saying. The reason I put those there, I guess I didn't mean archiving--I was just thinking that people should always be working on EiH, for March, for October, for January--but the main page is going to get ginormous, in no time flat, if everybody is adding an unlimited number of items to the "prototype" for the day--I just wanted to have a place where people could work without getting in endless "Edit Conflict" situations. Am I making sense? jengod 14:41, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah - I was thinking along those lines as well. One subpage for each month. Events in history/January for example. --mav

News on the main page
Thanks for pointing out the note to me. I had in fact added the item to the current events log before updating MediaWiki. However, I disagree with the policy. It's not necessarily appropriate for an encyclopedia to add every news item involving a subject to the article about that subject. Furthermore, the policy is not always being followed. For example, Earthquake is currently bolded, but the article does not have anything about the Moroccan earthquake, nor should it. --Michael Snow 17:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * We are only supposed to link to items we update - if the news item is not significant enough to merit updating the article then, that article should not be featured on the Main Page. Wikipedia is not a news report. I will remove the earthquake entry - thanks for pointing it out. --mav


 * Yes, Wikipedia is not a news report. That's exactly my point. We want to provide in-depth information about subjects that happen to be in the news, not just regurgitate news events in all of our articles. We should link to appropriate articles that people will be interested in, whether or not the article needs to be updated. Adding list of earthquakes and bolding it is worse than bolding an un-updated earthquake (I see Jengod beat me to removing it). Also, for aesthetic reasons George W. Bush should be in bold because his picture is there, whether or not it's appropriate to update his article. --Michael Snow 17:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * One of the main purposes of the 'in the news' section is to drive people to update the articles. If we list items without updating them then that removes the incentive. Jendgod sublinked the list. --mav


 * Well, there's some tension between the purpose of providing information for readers, and that of motivating contributions. I think readers are more likely to want to read about earthquakes than just see a list of them. Maybe some news items shouldn't have anything bolded. --Michael Snow 17:58, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * That is what current events is for. --mav

Question for you on Talk:Main Page -- Tim Starling 01:00, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Problems with Template:wikipediasister, do you see them too?
Moved Talk to MediaWiki talk:wikipediasister. --Lexor|Talk 08:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the note
I like the solution we've reached with selected anniversaries well enough, I think, so I won't advocate otherwise. :-) Thanks for letting me know about the discussion, though! Jwrosenzweig 17:39, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea! - mav


 * No problem; good luck with all the work that you've just started on ;-)
 * James F. (talk) 07:30, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Luftwaffe
Hi Mav, you're probably the wrong person for this in which case I apologize, but you're the name in the page history I recognized first!

In the new front page (which by the way is VERY fine) there's a bit in the "day in history" which reads horrendously - something about Hitler ordering the recreation of the Luftwaffe. I don't know if this works in US English but in the UK it sounds like he wanted them to have days off, swimming pools, golf courses, maybe some nice walks in the park etc. (I mean maybe he did but, you know ...) To make it read even half-well it needs to split the sense away from "leisure" by making it re-creation, but that is clunky and ugly so surely "rebuilding" or similar would be much, much better?

Sorry to trouble you with this - I know you're busy! 138.37.188.109 09:20, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. LOL :) I'll fix it. --mav


 * Thanks, that's great. 138.37.188.109 12:36, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Putting up a picture of the current German Chancellor Gerhard Shroeder and calling him Herman Goering, next to an article about Hitler. Guaranteed to cause offence!.


 * Opps! The image is so small that the current Chancellor looked like Goering. Sorry 'bout that. --mav

Browse by topic - Main page
I noticed that when you edited the Main page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page&oldid=2523076 you reverted to an earlier version of the list of topics. Was that intentional? mydogategodshat 04:47, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * No it wasn't. --mav

An obsevation
You said that, as a member of the arbitration committee, you wanted to see diffs to document claims. It looks like you are going to get your wish. &rarr;Raul654 05:56, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries
Based on a re-reading of guidelines for Selected Anniversaries, it appears that I need to bold some of the links, and also cut out topics which have already appeared in the queue this year. True? Also, I figured that images of the selected anniversary topics are secondary to the selection, and that images can be added later, with March topics needing the images sooner. Or else is it that all of the above needs to be done before adding the Selected Anniversary item? 169.207.89.21 11:40, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes on the first part, no on the second. I will be making sure entries are OK before the particular day arrives, so there is no need to worry much about things being perfect. Thanks again for you help! --mav

Alex
Hi mav, I'm back from my vacation, keeping a low profile. Just wanted to tell you that I am sorry I got a little crazy and left Wikipedia because of your comments; I shouldn't have reacted so much, I was just stressed out by life in general. I needed a break anyway and I'm just going to do a few things here and there, still very busy with work so I don't have much time to volunteer anyway. Just wanted to let you know that there are no hard feelings. I hope we can both continue to help Wikipedia in the future. Alex


 * Yay! You made my day Alex. I was rather down thinking that I harmed Wikimedia by driving you away. I hope your workload is lessoned a bit soon so that you can edit more. But I'm very glad that there are no hard feelings between us now. :) --mav

holy sheesh :)
Mav, I have to say, of all the new changes to the new Main page system...your work on anniversaries is truly a work of genius. Quite stellar!!!!!!! Kingturtle 05:13, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :) --mav

MediaWiki
Hi Mav! Always busy with dates, i see. I have a question about the MediaWiki pages for anniversaries. Do they substitute the normal day pages? Shall i add dates to it, when i find something to go? Or can you direct me to a explanation page? Anyway, i add my name to the compliment above and comend you for your hard work. Sorry but i was away for sometime, cheers, Muriel 11:17, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :) The selected anniversaries pages are a 'best of', not a substitute of the normal day pages. See Selected anniversaries. --mav


 * Ok, i'll add my dates, mostly BC, if they follow the criteria. thanks, Muriel

Formatting
I was intrigued by the slightly strange formatting on some Mediawiki pages (particularly September 4): the left margin break. I take it this is some trick to make it look good on the Main Page? It looks extremely strange on the Mediawiki page itself, I wonder if you need to include a comment stopping anyone from removing it? ... On second thoughts, having taken a look at today (March 1) I wonder if this might be a mistake on September 4? Yours in confusion --Phil 08:54, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * It should be fixed now. Thanks for seeing that. --mav