User talk:Mets501/Archive 8

UnProtection Request

I would like for you to consider me rewriting the Orgonite page- I can write what needs to be said in a neutral manner. Thanks for consideration; Kasdaye

Replacement of PNG with SVG on {{guideline}}, et al.

Please don't replace the PNG image with an SVG on these templates; it renders badly in IE and is larger when converted to PNG (as MediaWiki does). æ² ✆ 2006-09-24t22:39z

See Template talk:Guideline#Replacement image. æ² ✆ 2006-09-24t22:47z

UnProtectionRequest- pt. 2

I have finished orgonite/temp; It's simple, cohernet, to-the-point, and non-biased... Kasdaye 15:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 25th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 39	25 September 2006	About the Signpost

Erik Möller declared winner in Board of Trustees election	Wikimania 2007 to be held in Taipei
Arbitration clerk Tony Sidaway resigns	Report from the Dutch Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Plugin done

...and links are on my page. It doesn't do any more than what you asked for (other than add a couple of user interface items so you can turn the plugin on/off and track what it's doing). Please test and tweak it, I knocked this out in less than a hour and hereby disclaim all responsibility for bugs and other errors :) --kingboyk 12:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection Request, pt. 3

I've added a reference to [Orgonite/Temp], but I can't say that it's appears very reliable, although all sites refering to the subject of karl welz and the discovery of orgonite say the same thing; However, I cannot find anything purely editorial on the subject. Kasdaye 16:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

need some help

hi um do you have information on denm,and cotton

This was the version me and Lmz00 created an edit war on

This was the version I worked on September 21, 2006. No vandalism, no weasel words, sourcing, and no copyright violations. This edit war with Lmz00 has gotten to a point where I refuse to answer to the user. The user cannont resolve this dispute without using inactive comments toward myself and others. It's just simplified just to compromise a fair look at the article without using too many links and notable likeness. And for the user to use 50 instead of 50 Cent, that just another way of saying a number said this instead of a rapper. Just look at the current version. The last time I edit this article was about at least a week ago. I asked for a protection to inactive users who choose not to compromise, and refuse to work as a community. I hope this version (I left above in the link) is used on this article.

This is the current version that User Lmz00 left after I ceased the edit war. And yes, this is what is on the article (and you can decide)!

Multiple use of name of Sean Combs. Here the list of words, Diddy, Puffy, P. Diddy, Combs, Sean "Puffy" Combs is located throughout the whole article. All I suggested was to used was mogul or rapper, to cease the constant use of the person's name. (Inproper use of proper names)!

Mase still claimed the status of a pastor. The album contained no curse words and was not derogatory in any way towards females. (Weasel words)!

'50 was in talks with Diddy to buy Mase from Bad Boy in order to sign him to G-Unit. However, those talks fell through, prompting 50 to make a diss record towards Diddy titled "The Bomb" (which accuses him of stalling said negotiations). In addition, 50 also mentions no longer wanting to make a deal. (Inproper wording of proper names, weasel words, and not neutral in explaining feud with rappers)!

Mase's desire to leave Bad Boy is primarily due to his third album not selling so well. (This is an example of weasel words)!

This has been discredited however, by the wider hip-hop community. Mase has also been called a hypocrite by former G-Unit member, The Game, who called out the pastor (as well as other G-Unit members) on his anti-G-Unit DVD, Stop Snitchin', Stop Lyin'. (Another example of weasel words)!

Ok that it. Thanks. LILVOKA 15:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Note about wiki.png change

Hi, I was just taking a look at wiki.png and I noted that yours was the last edit of the file. I understand that you made some type of graphical change to it, but at the same time, the filesize just about doubled. It's still a relatively small file, and I'm sure that the picture itself is cached all over the internet, but it is on every page so it's bound to be downloaded an insane number of times. I've no clue as how to weigh aesthetics vs economics, especially given I don't know what the bandwidth issues are, but I thought I'd just bring this to your attention. Thanks! El benito 22:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Add the unsigned visual style of Windows XP

Hello,

You may upload of my screenshot by clicking here.

And upload here in Wikipedia.

I will not register here because i'm too young.

210.14.27.178 05:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Pontian Greek Genocide

Thanks. Feel free to express your opinion on the issue, when the disputing side decides to present their sources.•NikoSilver• 14:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please tell me for what possible reason you would remove those tags while the article is both blocked and under dispute? I dont know if you read the talk page in its entirety, but issues such as factual accuracy (the use of sources which are irrelevant or off topic) and the notability of its title (editors are yet to present evidence that this title is the favoured view among third party academics) are still unresolved. Other than misleading readers to the credibility of the article, what possible reason is there for removing those tags? I really would appreaciate a reply. Thanks, --A.Garnet 14:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I support the tag removal (it's about time - those tags have been hanging there for weeks and none of the disputing parties have tried to fix the article to make it neutral other than moan about the title). However, do you think you could add an interwiki to the German Wikipedia:de:Völkermord an den Pontosgriechen, and remove the deleted image. Thanks. --Tzekai 15:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm responding here because I can't respond on everyone's talk pages. I removed the tags as it doesn't seem like anyone thinks the title is POV, and that is what the tag implies. There are also tons of references, which I don't know how they could have been accumulated if the article wasn't verifiable. —Mets501 (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You saw the straw poll going on right? You will notice there are four editors who object to the title, and that doesnt include those who have not voted. So clearly there are some of us who still believe the title POV. As for the references, i would ask you take more than a superficial look at them, and instead look at each one, the sources confuse different events, different people and different times to the ones being alleged, meaning the factual accuracy is still highly questionable. --A.Garnet 15:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the article is wholly inaccurate and unsourced, almost every sentence is linked to a footnote and as a miracle, there are no {{fact}} templates in the article. As for people disputing the article's title, the article Armenian Genocide has been proposed for deletion twice, so I'm hardly surprised. --Tzekai 15:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That was sarchasm, right? (about it being wholly inaccurate and unsourced) —Mets501 (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes... --Tzekai 15:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, A.Garnet, you're right. The article does contain one inaccuracy which I just noticed: The article currently says: the number of lost lives is uncertain the maximum number of deaths forwarded is 353,000. This is inaccurate, Merrill D. Peterson (in this book), a non-Greek, says that 360,000 "Greeks from the Pontus" were killed. The former figure is just common, for example, when the State Senate of Illinois recognized the events as a genocide, they say 353,000 people died. --Tzekai 15:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There's one more, intro says:

The term Pontian Greek Genocide (...) refers to the alleged genocide by the Young Turk administration of the Ottoman Empire of Pontian Greek populations in the historical region of Pontus, the Black Sea provinces of the Ottoman Empire.

"alleged" is WP:WEASEL, I always thought 'reported' would suffice to claim allegation...•NikoSilver• 15:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The "alleged" is something I don't mind, really. It's just listed at WP:WTA. --Tzekai 15:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

From your response, am to to understand your going to ignore those of us who dispute the title and its accuracy Mets501? Tell me, in article which claims the events ended in 1919, why, in the only section which deals with the event, does it use souces from the 1920's, concerning Jews and Aegean Greeks in labour camps which were used for an entirely different war? Doesnt this make the article factually innacurate? Doesnt the fact that one country (Greece) recognise this evetn as genocide raise some POV issues? Or the fact there are no third party texts outside of Greece dedicated to this event using this name? How you can remove the tags when these issues are still in question is beyond me. --A.Garnet 15:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No country at all recognizes the Assyrian genocide, yet the Pontus events have gained recognition outside of Greece (the State Senate of Pennsylvania for example). Anyway, Mets501 all this has been answered time and time again, and this guy (A.Garnet) just closes his ears and then asks the same old questions again. Just read the article's talkpage and you'll get to fully appreciate what's going on here. --Tzekai 16:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this becoming an admin edit war? I'm reporting the incident in WP:AN. •NikoSilver• 20:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments below are copied from article talk, please proceed there, and stop copying your comments everywhere. Mets501, on behalf of my fellow editors, sorry for flooding your talk. •NikoSilver• 21:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean, I have to say this again, is there really no dispute? Or have I been thinking about another article? There are such little sources that prove that this was a genocide.. The others, recognitions et al, prove that it was recognized as a genocide.. In that case, I can go to Iran article and add terrorist in the intro - Iran is a terrorist country that is located in.. depending on US recognition to that effect.. That's what I am saying, three web-sites that don't include practically any research and a paragraph in a book doesn't support this article's grave title.. There are huge factual inaccuracies and there is a huge lack of academic research, even the supporters of this title accept the fact that, outside of greece, there are NO books that refer to this as genocide, and none of the sources listed already have any serious academic research.. Some of the sources cited would never be included in any other article in Wikipedia, there are those that call Turks baby-killers and are written by Greeks.. Is that serious reference to support this article's grave title?? Baristarim 21:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

*Yes there is*, it has been repeated time and time again. R. J. Rummel was one of the first sources cited (right at the beginning of Archive 1) and has been repeatedly ignored by everyone disputing the title. Side A has cited sources - when is side B (the anti-genocide faction) going to cite it's sources, because thus far, nothing has been cited. Where is the proof that the genocide thesis is disputed by third parties. We have third parties endorsing it, third parties not mentioning it, but no third parties dismissing the genocide thesis. As Hectorian said: "without sources, this article ain't gonna be renamed". --Tzekai 21:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Page Protection

May you protect this page: Template:Pokepisode, there is a edit war going on. Thank you (Yugigx60 16:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

You protected it on his version; an administrator created this template in the first place, and now it's on the version that has been edit warred with to allow for images within the pages it is transcluded. Now it's just a double of {{digimon episode}}. Ryūlóng 20:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think images are good for the articles, and as long as images are conveying and adapting on central themes of the plot, they pass fair use. Can we have a discussion on this? Highway ^Daytrippers 18:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Screenshots help identify episodes visually and identify key moments. Identifiying episodes and distingushing between them are key reasons for having List of episodes type articles.
• Screenshots of television shows which are released for promotional purposes are more likely to be fair use, especially low-resolution screenshots.
• Many lists, including featured lists, currently use fair use images.
• Most if not all images comply with the current fair use criteria, are tagged with relevant templates (such as {{DVDcover}} or {{tv-screenshot}}) and provide a rationale on their description page.

Note, I will also go to every single Pokemon episode images and add the Fair use rationale, so they can be allowed on the episode list pages. (Bobabobabo 16:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Except it fails Fair Use #3, which has hundred of images on each page, and nice signing your name Yugigx60 (talk · contribs) with Bobabobabo (talk · contribs). Ryūlóng 20:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of "list of episodes" pages have screenshots. (See The Simpsons (season 3) for example).

Also Ryulong, you blatantly violated the 3RR. Be careful. —Mets501 (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes alot of episode pages has images!

I really like the images, and so many articles have it, I think it's accepted. —Mets501 (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that I've probably broken something along the way, but this above user had to go to an outside person to win his argument. A Man In Black originally created the template with a malformed image parameter (so it wouldn't show up on the page), but then anons and these users just made it so the other template was to be used. Now this guy had changed the template to be a duplicate of that one just so that the images which all may not pass Fair Use Criteria #3 (too many fair use pictures on one page) could be used. This is why I am a bit angry at all of this. Ryūlóng 20:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, check out Template talk:Pokepisode where AMIB spoke with one of the reverters. Ryūlóng 20:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Some history, an explanation, and an apology.

This template was created after discussion on the Pokémon Wikiproject's talk page led to a community desire to clean up the massively unencyclopedic and scattered Pokémon episode articles. A number of points were agreed upon, including combining the episode articles into season lists, splitting up the already-groaning Japanese season lists by English-language season, and retiring the massive violation of Wikipedia's image fair-use rules by transclusion of hundreds of fair-use images, most of them unsourced and unrationalized to boot.

This is a pressing fair-use issue; it borders on copyright violation and this issue, while controversial, has been commented upon by both Brad Patrick and Jimbo Wales as a pressing issue that must err on the side of exclusion of fair-use material. While there may be a need for futher discussion, there is a pressing need to exclude questionable fair-use content until after it is justified, and not before.

As such, I've edited the currently-protected {{Pokepisode}} to err on the side of exclusion of the infringing issues until Bobabobabo/Yugigx60/72.232.215.* can better justify their inclusion. I apologize for overriding your page protection, but this is an issue that, in the past, has needfully trumped what people would like for what's necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use is an acceptable rationale when the image is used to illustrate an article that is commenting on the episode. I believe simply having a list of episodes does not meet this hurdle as the images on the list article are largely decorative. Note that this is a repeat of the debate of a month ago on whether NCAA team logos could be used only on the team page or also on lists of conference members where the use is largely decorative. Just because many other TV show articles have lists with images doesn't mean its right. Image thumbnails were recently removed from List of Lost episodes for example. You might also want to consider load times for dialup users. List of Lost episodes took over one minute to load when I tested it on dialup. If you want yet another opinion as User:Durin who is a copyright expert. Thatcher131 15:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I really have no strong opinion on this. The whole thing that started this was me protecting the template due to a request, and it's true: there was an edit war. I really was not endorsing the fact that there should be an image. You're perfectly welcome to do what ever you want with the template: I'm not copyright expert either. I'm cool with whatever you guys decide to do (although you should probably continue this discussion on the template's talk page, so that others can contribute). —Mets501 (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for move

Thankyou ever so much for moving the page in my userspace. Being ever so slightly obsessive anyway, as much as it sounds odd that was getting to me a bit, and all over my own silly mistake. It was really really appreciated.

		The Worker's Barnstar
		For tirelessly working through the laborious Requested moves backlog, including of course, my own 7 day old listing. Crimsone 17:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blockedtext changes

Hey Mets501, if you can get {{ipvandal}} to work inside {{unblock}} without clobbering the entire unblock reason, it'd be great. That's why I had to keep the two separate. --  Netsnipe  ►  21:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Help

When I heard someone on the radio from Wikipedia it sounded such a good idea. That you had a community working with each other to refine articles and gain a consensus rather than just one person's opinion. From what I have seen that was a lie. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the article on House of Lords reform that can't be corrected with a bit of work. Instead of supporting new people like me, people like you who press delete without seemingly thinking about it ... I won't go on, I'll just say I'm livid with the hypocracy. Why don't you prove to me what that bloke said on the radio was true and give us a hand? Mike 22:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

HELP me

User: Ryulong is bothering me. Didn't you say that the articles needs images? (Bobabobabo 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

There is a whole discussion above this about that. A Man In Black and Mets501 will now discuss this. Ryūlóng 22:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to put protection templates on

Such as on Masse, which you protectd due to edit warring, but didn't put the template on. Just a heads up. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Dredging up episode list image issue again

Yugigx60 (talk · contribs) is being persistent on this issue of images on episode list articles. It's my understanding that such usage is not allowed. Some people say no fair use images should be allowed anywhere and some say it should be a free-for-all but I think at least not allowing 150 of them on an episode list article is a good compromise. I think this pretty easily fails #8 of the WP:FUC policy as well as #3. The images are already being used in the articles for the specific episode - using them again in the episode list goes beyond the policy. A few people - User:Ta bu shi da yu for one if I recall - have gone through sports-related articles removing team logos from standings tables, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ma$e Cat piping

It would appear you either failed to examine each of the edits that you reverted, or have incomplete understanding of the alph'n of Cats, which in the case of that article i had corrected. Please examine that edit & summary, and get back to me if you don't get it, or disagree.
--Jerzy•t 17:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, whoops! I didn't note the rename (on which i don't have a position). But i'd suggest that the piping be kept, bcz protection won't last forever, and someone may move it back, recreating the same cryptic problem! Thanks, and sorry.
--Jerzy•t 17:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 2nd.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 40	2 October 2006	About the Signpost

New speedy deletion criteria added	News and notes
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit

You can revert any of my edits you like, but "rvv" for an edit summary is pushing it!

• (The relevance of the radians-vs-degrees point was that natural sciences and physical applications tend to use radians because they are rationally based, whereas practical sciences are more likely to adapt arbitrary conventions. I accept that that is peripheral to this article, though.) Newyorkbrad 01:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you need your eyes checked, sir: my edit summary was "I don't really see the need for that change. Certainly true, but I don't see its relevance" :-) —Mets501 (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It did say that, but in parens before that, it did say "rvv." It's weird, because I was sure you didn't type it. Do you have something configured to type that automatically? Newyorkbrad 01:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I typed the rvv :-) My full edit summary was just "rvv) (I don't really see the need for that change. Certainly true, but I don't see its relevance", and the MediaWiki software adds parenthesis on either side of the whole thing, making it look like two parts. And it was actually a typo, I meant to leave off the last "v" :-) —Mets501 (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha - the crucial admission! No further questions, your Honor. Newyorkbrad 01:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Alpha Kappa Alpha

Thanks. I'm glad it was protected in its pre-vandal state. I've tried to reason with User:Mykungfu on his talk page, but I'm holding firm that there will be no discussion until the vandalism stops. Incidentally, are you a Met fan? | Mr. Darcy talk 01:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the full protection of the page. Unlike MrDarcy who has can be seen reverting over 3 times today alone, semi protection isn't beneficial but full protection allows for talks. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=MrDarcy Can you please make a note to have it protected for at least 10 days to go over things. thank you 64.12.117.10 02:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I figured. Concerned about El Duque? Anyway, our vandal has moved along to Sigma Pi Phi - semi-protection on that page as well would help. (And FWIW, one of the vandal's favorite tricks is to accuse his accusers. I've reverted his deletions on AKA only twice today.) | Mr. Darcy talk 02:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving for Full protection on Sigma Pi Phi 64.12.117.10 02:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I had User:RaccoonFox listed twice...one was supposed to be User:Raccoon_Fox...could that be protected as well? thank you. :) RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 02:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate this. Even if it was declined, i would have still appreciate the administrators taking the time to read my request. I would ouly leave wikipedia if the vandalism got too much for me and made it not worth visiting (which has not happened yet). Cheerio! RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 02:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Decline Vic Grimes + others

You declined my sprotect request on that "the vandal has been blocked" but the vandal is using AOL IPs that change depending on the pages, and those definately were not blocked as they returned a few hours later. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify the sprotect requests were for the talk pages, which have not been locked and he continues to spam templates on them. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Image discussion

You have been asked to participate in a mediation relating to the use images in articles detailing episodes of the Pokémon anime. If you wish to input into discussion, you can do so here, all help is welcomed towards a positive resolution. Cheers, Highway ^Daytrippers 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Plains Indians

Thank you for sprotecting Plains Indians but I thought that I should mention that the article doesn't carry the relevant tag. TerriersFan 01:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Veps

Thanks for moving Vepses to Veps. How can one fix the same word on the map? I have no experience with WP images. --Espoo 10:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

false berry

Thanks for the Veps map help! How can one find a botanist among WP editors? We need an expert to sort out the unresolved mess discussed on Talk:Cranberry, Talk:Vaccinium_vitis-idaea, Talk:False_berry, and in several related articles. --Espoo 11:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sautéed Reindeer

Sorry to bother you again. I goofed and moved a page to Sautéed Reindeer instead of Sautéed reindeer, and now i can't figure out how to change it. --Espoo 12:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Noncontroversial moves

Awesomes. I hope it works out well. ENeville 23:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the name on Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Your act is important to get our next peer review, to go up for FAC and hopefully even FA on its 50th anniversary. Thanks for your help! Istvan 15:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

AIV

Kind sir, please clear WP:AIV. Thank you! :) --CableModem 01:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Wonderful! Come chill with me on irc.freenode.net #wikipedia sometime! --CableModem 01:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

re:WP:RM

Thanks for telling me, and for moving the article. *scratches head* Has WP:RM always formatted for noncontroversial and controversial moves? Hmm.. I've been away for too long :) — Moe 02:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Guess thats why I don't remember it :) Regards — Moe 02:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Typhoon Xangsane

FYI you forgot to undelete the prior versions of the article and corresponding talk page after the move. – Chacor 14:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't simply a redirect (one single edit); rather there was a prior version that was merged into the main article for the season. Not sure, but I'll defer to you, but personally I would restore it. – Chacor 14:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Bold correction

I was bold and changed "would" to "wouldn't" which I believe was your original intention (as interpreted from the edit summary). I hope you don't start throwing cookies!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  15:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Template.

Thnaks for letting me know that, but I can't get it to work. Could you check my css thingy and see what I'm doing wrong? Dev920 (Tory?) 16:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Brixen

Hi, you closed the move discussion at Talk:Brixen, Italy. Your votes count was probably different from mine, because I do see a consensus. We have a majority for "Brixen" (Olessi, Gryffindor, Ajaxsmack and myself) versus "Bressanone-Brixen" (Taalo, Panarjedde), and no votes for "Brixen, Italy". Could you move it? Markussep 17:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Trentino-South Tyrol/etc/etc.

Hi, I saw your messages about wanting to wait until everything can be settled. I definitely agree, and actually like the idea of the user Lar who has offered to mediate/decide. There are so many discussions going on in so many pages now, it can almost drive one crazy. Also, basically you just see people vote -- again and again -- along nationalistic thinking. I assume this is really not how we want Wikipedia to keep on going. take care. Taalo 18:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

AIV

Thanks, but I allready tried to report it there, I think I did it wrong? Hmm if i didn't I dont think they did anything. Can you check? Or how can I?Qrc2006 01:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Nunez

With all due respect, Mets501. Your comment when closing the WP:RM was strictly unnecessary ("It really doesn't matter: it's just a squigly line"[1]). An administrator is not expected to take sides in that sense and/or using demeaning language towards one of the opinions expressed. I apology in advance if I misinterpreted your words. The proper use of diacritics in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia is important indeed (systemic bias springs to mind). Aside a couple of border-line comments from Gene Nygaard addressed to the nominator User:DrBat, there were no incidences of uncivility either. If anything, editors should be commended for taking the steps to discuss the matter instead engaging on pointless edit wars (e.g. see Priština). Regards, Asterion^talk 10:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Mets501. I appreciate your work. Best wishes, Asterion^talk 11:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 41	9 October 2006	About the Signpost

Interview with Board member Erik Möller	Wall Street Journal associates Wikipedia with Grupthink
Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down	Report from the Portuguese Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert redirects

Hi. I see that you have reverted all of the misleading reverts made by User: sam.yates. I tried to do this, but couldn't find out how. Could you please explain how to do this, or point me to the relevant help page? Thanks. RolandR 19:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Spanish accent marks

Knowing of your vital work on the topic of Spanish-language diacritical marks, I thought that you might be interested in this (the second article). Please make sure to bring this to Metsbot's attention as well, before it does something everyone would regret. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert

Curious as to why this reversion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_in_The_Grim_Adventures_of_Billy_and_Mandy&diff=71593572&oldid=71593440) was made? Not a follower of the 1RR I take it? - 81.179.148.71 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible bot work

Nice work on the leading zero's. I wondered if your bot would be able to clean up some more common airport errors. The first type can be seen at Barnstable Municipal Airport. The runway should be in the style XX/XX and not XX-XX. The second I don't have an example for right at hand, but runways should be listed as 10/28 and not 28/10. The lower number should be first. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted there. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess

You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

anti vandal bot/ tawkerbot2

when i noticed it was warning you last night i shut it off. It *should* ignore admin users no matter what actions there taking. Ive now set the list to update admins and made sure your on it, im not quite sure what was hapening but if it happens again drop me a bell and i can shut it off again (have passed this onwards to tawker) Benon 13:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Time Has Come

I think i'm in the clear now. I'm requesting permission to bring my userpages down from Full Protection to Semi Protection. RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 00:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! :) RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 01:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

layout problems

Could you please tell me where to find info about how to correct the layout errors on United_States_Capitol#Flags and Egyptomania#Race_and_national_identity? The latter is BTW only evident in Firefox, not IE. In FF, the first two lines don't stay to the left of the picture and the second line is truncated after "or Asia, or within the". Maybe the fastest way for me to start to learn about layout would be to see how someone corrects these errors. Thanks! --Espoo 06:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Satmar (Hasidic dynasty) is better than Satmar

Hi Mets: Why did you move the Satmar article as it is part of a series, see Category:Hasidic dynasties? You are re-creating a problem here. The original problem was that originally with "Satmar" alone you run into disambiguation questions as you can see for yourself from the following: The Szatmár article (Szatmar redirects to Szatmár) and the Satu Mare article (see Satu Mare (disambiguation); (and Szatmárnémeti, Szatmarnemeti, Satu-Mare redirect to Satu Mare) (are similar sounding to Satmar as used by Jews) all are spellings used by Eastern Europeans but not used by Jews, and therefore on Wikipedia we long ago found a way to avoid conflicts between non-Jewish editors and Jewish ones by adding "Hasidic dynasties" to make it clear that the article/s were reflecting Jewish (Hasidic) usage. Kindly revert your move back to Satmar (Hasidic dynasty) as soon as possible. Thank you. IZAK 07:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hi again Mets: Thanks for your understanding. 06:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

DAB pages

I notice that there seem to be a few da pages in the non-contraversial moves today. I was wondering if there was a policy or guideline on the convention for naming DABs. In almost every case, it seems best to have thedisambig on the base article name? Just curious really.--Crimsone 22:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just moving a disambig page when I got your message :-). In general, if there's a clear main use of a word, the article word should be the main use of the word with a disambig notice at the top pointing to word (disambiguation). If there's no clear main use of the word, then the disambiguation page should simply be at word. —Mets501 (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. Thankyou :) --Crimsone 23:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)