User talk:The Anome/archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Anome

I dont appreciate your 'Politically-Correct-tion' or the artical on Rwandan History which i researched well before writing (writinh virtually all of it). Eliminating "racially congoid" is trying to project your (and my) mentality concerning race onto historical groups people who didn't share in that mentality. Is your descendant going to go through all the wikipedia articles 400 years from now and remove not of the fact that some poeple were "black" or "caucasion" or whatever? The fact is the genetically carried physical differences between many Hutus and Tutsis are NOT reducable to a common difference in height. Your whitewashing of the article commits ends up in removing part of the reason the two groups have often held each other in contempt. "Taller"? give me a break. You and I both know that "racially congoid" is in fact a pseudo scientific term in many senses, but in the sense meant, it is necessary and irreplaceable. Why didnt you get rid of "Pygmy" too?

tridesch

Please do a Google search and see who is currently using the term "congoid", and in what context, and whether they are representative of scientific or even general popular thought. As you say, "You and I both know that "racially congoid" is in fact a pseudo scientific term in many senses". I agree with you. So out it goes.
"Taller", on the other hand is exactly correct: the Tutsis are on average, significantly taller than the Hutu. -- The Anome 16:22, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Anome-

I have been working to mediate the disputes of all on Slashdot, Slashdot trolling phenomena, Slashdot subculture, Trolltalk, and GNAA (Slashdot). It has been a continuing challenge to balance useful information with that which is admittedly trollish and vanity-driven. Through a campaign of agressive editing while conceding certain troll subculture points, we've been able to strike a pretty good balance to make informative articles. It seems that you find much of the content pejorative and offensive. I find them offensive myself, however I recognize the need to know. I can certainly see a situation where someone would read at -1 on Slashdot and then come to Wikipedia to find out what the meaning and history is about some of the posts that are most often seen.

Originally, there was a single page for all of it, Slashdot trolling phenomena, which had as you can imagine quite a bit of trollishness in it. I evetunally separated the genuine subculture items this page and created Slashdot subculture. Unfortunately, this created quite a bit of vanity-troll content on the trolling phenomena page, so I later created Trolltalk as a way to move it off. Even later I found that there was some usefull content to the Trolltalk article, so I moved all the remaining vanity-troll content to GNAA (Slashdot). Then, I put the page up for deletion, so the community could decide on the merits of it. Granted, this page is a troll magnet, but I'd rather police one page where all the trolls are contained than have to clean up troll material from all the other Slashdot articles.

Bearing this history in mind, I invite you to join with me in debate any content in these articles, and participate in discussion on them. Although I read Slashdot frequently, I'm not involved with any of these trolls, and there are a substantial number of people that are not trolls either that edit and discuss these pages on a sporadic but ongoing basis, and I think we've come up with some pretty good stuff, especially on the trolling phenomena and subculture pages. I would appreciate that major changes be discussed on the talk pages of the articles in question, so we can together come up with content that is both comprehensive and objective.

Thanks,

Brian

--ZeLonewolf 14:01, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Brian. My primary point is that Wikipedia is not a vanity webhosting site. The overwhelming majority of content related to the alleged GNAA consists of vanity postings from "members" of this "organization"; as far as I can see, eligibility for "membership" seems to consist only of repeating their slogan. A bit of digging finds that there seem to be only a few people involved, and none of them appear, contrary to their own claims, to be of African descent. They seem to have an insignificant effect on Slashdot; I was unaware of their existence prior to reading about them on Wikipedia although I have read Slashdot for years. But then I read Slashdot at the default threshold.

So, in summary, this material is:

  • infantile
  • not of encylopedic importance
  • false content: claims made in their own articles are false; members are not African-American gays as claimed
  • vanity content
  • idiosyncratic -- the first six hits in a Google search for "GNAA slashdot" are the Wikipedia pages created by these morons, or their own websites: Wikipedia is not a web directory, or we'd have 50,000,000 entries, one for every site.

You'll notice that I have not deleted all reference to them: a sentence in Slashdot trolling phenomena and a couple of other references remain, but there is no longer a trellis of interlinked articles. However, I think this is being generous. If they start to write themselves back in, I will strongly advocate deletion of all mention of them from Wikipedia. After all, we delete other posts from children saying "scott is a fag"; this is on the same level.

-- The Anome 14:27, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

You make many valid points. Particularly that much of the trollspew is infantile or is vanity content, which I've been trying to eliminate as much as possible. The false conent point is very interesting, although I always assumed that that wasn't the case, but in any case, it should be mentioned in the context of something like "although they that to be a member...in actuality, ...".
What I do disagree with is that I think there is some (though not a whole lot) of encyclopedic content. There's a valid debate as to whether it merits a paragraph in Slashdot trolling phenomena or it's own article. Admittedly, a group such as this one by itself is not worthy of mention on Wikipedia, however, the degree to which it pollutes the water at Slashdot warrants it SOME mention. Let me see if I can come up with a compromise STP paragraph. --ZeLonewolf 14:59, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Ok, here's what I have:
One of the more persistent homosexual- and racism-oriented trolls is the "GAY NIGGER" troll. This troll is perpetrated by a group calling themselves the "GNAA", which encourages people to join by first watching the 1992 Danish low-budget movie Gayniggers From Outer Space. The name GNAA itself is a parody of industry associations such as the MPAA and RIAA. The group distributes pre-formatted troll postings which users can paste into Slashdot. Although the group claims that membership requirements include, in their own words, that one be a "GAY NIGGER", it is understood that its members are neither homosexual nor of African-American descent. It is not known how large the group is, though it is widely belived to be small.
We can replace the paragraph about it in STP with the paragraph above. This gets all the useful information from GNAA (Slashdot) into one place. Perhaps then a VfD would be appropriate, seeing as the GNAA article wouldn't add anything to what's in the paragraph. I'm somewhat against redirecting it to Slashdot trolling phenomena on as it tends to attract the trolls too much and would vastly prefer outright deletion.
--ZeLonewolf 16:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Putting that para into STP would be fine. -- The Anome 21:25, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping in on the User:Bird situation. This is my first big dispute as a sysop, so I would appreciate knowing if you think I went about things correctly and with the correct level of forcefulness. David Newton 21:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Dude -- thanks for the IP lookups. BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:46, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- The Anome 23:51, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank You![edit]

I want to thank you DEEPLY for your support in the vote to promote me to a sysop. I promise to do my best to be as helpful, sensible, and neutral as possible. Your friend, Ryan.



Yes, he seems to be systematically -- and cleverly -- removing all Billy Bragg songs from the Song Lists. And a moment ago he just stepped on another -- this time a Midnight Oil song.

Earl Manchester 01:14, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


(Moved comment from user page.)

What's a "second-wave Wikipedian"? —Noldoaran (Talk) 04:03, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)


New articles on books deletions[edit]

Thanks for deleting IBM Webshere Application Server Complete Reference. Can you please also delete ISBM Webshere Application server Complete Reference? Can you please also reveiw all the new book articles created by User:Fruti. Samw 17:16, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Developer[edit]

Hello there, Anome.

Without the benefit of your invitation to do so, I nominated you for "developer access" at meta:Developer access. I did this in an effort to broaden the "developer" role beyond the present group of people who are highly active in Wikipolitics. Besides, given your lengthy edit history and, AFAK, lack of involvement (or at least culpability) in controversy, I thought it appropriate.

I am puzzled by the reaction of others. Can you offer any explanation?

UninvitedCompany 20:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in Wikipolitics per se; except for occasional anti-vandalism activities, I'm more interested in editing. But thank you for the nomination! -- The Anome 22:24, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stop deleting my Divine Truth. Ioannis G. Tsatsaris is the only living true prophet. I will defend his divine teachings to the best of my ability. He will save the world. Do not delete the article. Jt3 15:18, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Unfortunately Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that is, a record of well-known human knowledge. Please can you wait until your prophet becomes famous or well known? 44 Google hits, mostly his own website, or to sites promoting his book, does not indicate that he is well known. -- The Anome 15:22, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Richard/Hanpuk/etc.[edit]

Thanks for contributing to the discussion on Richardchilton and his incarnations, including the newest Hanpuk; I laid out a similar case as you on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Richardchilton, where mav moved your comments to. I of course have a stake in this now because 172 has begun a vicious campaign against me, primarily based on disingenuously calling my vigilance vis-a-vis these accounts "ideological edit wars" (when of course 172's own support of R/H/etc. is transparently ideological). I have been bothered by the hitherto relative silence and seeming lack of support by the community about what I've had to deal with and who "Hanpuk" really is and what his motives are. As of this writing, Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot are protected because of this user, and 172 and Hanpuk are piling up accusations against me, and now even targetting Adam Carr. -- VV 21:34, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)


As annoying as GNAA are, they are a crucial part of the history of Slashdot over the last year. I ask you to reconsider your deletion. I agree the current form was self-advertising, but there is a lot of information that could be put on there to explain GNAA's role within Slashdot culture. Over 500,000 people a day have some contact with GNAA whilst browsing Slashdot, I think something with exposure that large deserves an article explaining it. Crculver 20:43, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fine. A subsection in Slashdot trolling phenomena should do it nicely. In fact, there's one already. -- The Anome 21:13, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid that GNAA subculture is simply too large to fit within the Slashdot trolling phenomena article. Besides, GNAA has grown beyond Slashdot and is now active at many other sites. It needs its own article. Crculver 13:55, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing the way to Gaucher's. Of course, if I weren't so easily distracted by Recent Changes, I'd get less edit conflicts<G>. - Nunh-huh 14:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Hello,

I made a change to the BNP article last night which you have reverted, (although another user has "re-added" the link to the BNP website article). I did introduce myself on the talk page and asked for any comments. As you didn't respond there, could you please tell me here (or back on the talk page :-) what was wrong with my edit. Obviously if I make a change and it simply gets reverted without comment, I have no idea what the problem is. As I said on the talk page, I'm new in wikipedia land, so your comments would be appreciated.

James

LEO I[edit]

Why did you move/rename the article LEO I? // Liftarn

There were several different models of LEO: this was a prelude to expanding the article to cover them. -- The Anome 10:16, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Frame dragging[edit]

The article on Frame-dragging that you wrote (almost entirely) recieved a full-force slashdotting tonight. Congrats. →Raul654 02:42, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Down Syndrome[edit]

Thanks for the Down move. Hope it sticks. And keep that "i" out of your name! jaknouse 16:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that Viking vandal. I blocked him in a couple of other places already. Danny 01:41, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Name conventions[edit]

Thanks for the response and the voting link. -- Alcarillo 18:35 26 Apr 2004, UTC

Alcarillo again: any indication when a decision will be made on this? -- Alcarillo 23:05 26 Apr 2004, UTC

Cryptology v Cryptography[edit]

Anome,

I've finally tumbled to some understanding of what 'anomebot' is. If I'd been as with it as little green apples it wouldn't have taken so long. Sigh.

Anyway, this is a note to inform you that the cryptology article has been subsumed in cryptography, and tagging should be done to crypography, not cryptology. See the Wikipedia Project on Cryptography for some information on the current status of work in the 'crypto corner'.

ww 15:49, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)



Denni, you have added some material which seems to be from the Canadian Mental Health Association into clinical depression: has this material been licenced to Wikipedia under the GFDL by the Canadian Mental Health Association? If not, we can't use it: we cannot, for example, use material given to Wikipedia for Wikipedia use alone; only full GFDL grant from the copyright owner or public domain are acceptable. See Wikipedia:Copyright for the full details on this. Regards, The Anome 22:49, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • I used an old CMHA publication with no copyright info as a guide for this article; I called them when the article was complete to ask permission to use some of their material specifically, as some has been incorporated into the article. They said they would get back to me after discussing it. I asked them if they wanted me to pull the article; they said no, but at the same time, did not want CMHA specifically noted, as I did, at the top of the text. I can pull it and archive it if you wish; I can also rewrite it without the CMHA material, though I would much rather be able to leave it, so that I could give them credit. Your call. Denni 00:25, 2004 Apr 29 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hello, The Anome, i'm very interested why do trace people's IP pins, is because you don't beleave people have a right to privacy? also do like to sit there and see who the person is?--131.216.163.43 04:13, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IP tracing can be useful for administrative purposes. -- The Anome 09:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Moved message from 195.188.152.16 from my user page:

Message for The Anome (I hpe this is where I should paste it)

User Chris 73 has alleged 195.188.152.16 Made a number of edits to musician sites, mainly adding a link to [5] and subpages, and removing some probably valid information from the pages.

This is a serious allegation of removing some probably valid information. He should substantiate it.

I do admit (stupidly and I regret) replacing modemacs page after he reversed all the edits that I had taken a long while (and carefully) to add, which are informative and useful, and which are not in violation of any wiki-pedia guidelines that I can discover.

My contributions also cover several topics (as anyone can check).

He is unsuitable for admission until he substantiates his words, and until he stops taking a God-like approach to other caring contributors.

He caught no vandal !

I stand by my opinion that the profanity of user:195.188.152.16 (now user:olive) on the User:modemac page were vandalism. However, this does not mean that this user will be a vandal in the future, and his latest actions look good to me (apoligizing to User:modemac, getting a login). A detailed answer can be found on User talk:Olive, or a copy thereof on User talk:chris 73. -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 15:25, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

MedlinePlus[edit]

You're absolutely right, those MedlinePlus images I've been uploaded are indeed copyrighted. I had originally read the "Government information at NLM Web sites is in the public domain" message on their copyright page [1] and hastily uploaded a few images. In my haste, I failed to read a subsequent message that Adam.com holds the copyright to text and images on the MedlinePlus encyclopedia. I'm now in the process of removing those images I used, and am also simultaneously seeking permission from Adam.com in hopes that the 'pedia can still benefit from use of a few of their images. Thanks for the heads-up! --Diberri | Talk 21:32, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Protoself[edit]

Hi, just wondering why you put the VFD message at the top of Protoself. I couldn't find any discussion of it on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Thanks! Wmahan. 21:43, 2004 May 4 (UTC)

Cambodia[edit]

If you are still about, I could use some help from someone familiar with the Cambodia articles mess; "Hanpuk" is at it again. (Articles being Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge, Cambodia, and History of Cambodia. - VV 21:40, 6 May 2004 (UTC)) -- VV 21:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


Smart quotes[edit]

Please notice more carefully that my browser replaces someone's else's "smartquotes" by some other brand. So it is not me who is the initial troublemaker IMO. Mikkalai 22:35, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

My apologies. You are right, you are not to blame for this. The smartquotes were already there: your browser was only converting them to (perfectly valid) HTML numeric entities. At least now we can see the wretched things more easily in the source. -- The Anome 22:46, 7 May 2004 (UTC)


CPA[edit]

Howdy, thanks for assisting with Chronology Protection Agency - I wasn't quite sure if enough material existed for a replacement article. There was I about to submit a meagre attempt at a stub when lo - you'd beaten me to it ;) I've merged mine with yours, hope this suits. - TB 09:56, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Diamond[edit]

Thanks for the good link to the letter by Milton Diamond added to the article introducing him. P0M 13:45, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Warning in Prison[edit]

Hi there! Did you mean to take out the warning about the pictures on the Iraqi prison page? If so, can you explain why? I thought it was reasonable to mention that they are there. Thanks, Mark Richards 22:07, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry: I'm refactoring the page into three, and the warning is kept on the appropriate page. -- The Anome 22:08, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Cheers! I was being too hasty! Thanks! Mark Richards 22:09, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Prison Breakout[edit]

Thanks for the fabulous job on refactoring Abu Ghraib. The article on the prison scandal is now as good and as balanced as anything I've seen on the subject. +sj+ 22:47, 2004 May 12 (UTC)

Blank County Maps for US States[edit]

Hi, Anome. I've been talking with Seth Ilys about his Dot Project. I thought it might be helpful if I would generate blank county maps (no county highlighted) for each US state. Seth and others have created a few blank maps by taking some county map for each state, and unhighlighting the county. That's what I plan on doing for each state, but it occurred to me that perhaps the blank maps are already available from you or someone else. If so, can we create a place, perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Counties/blankmaps, or something like it, to store them? If the blank maps aren't available, I can create them as described above, but would still need a storage place. Is the above place acceptable, or might there be a better place? I'd like to know your thoughts.

Of course, this is all academic if they're out there somewhere already. Thanks. --Brian Rock 02:23, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi. In the absence of another way to contact you, it was suggested by someone at Wikipedia that i leave you a note here... Your accusation that i have created multiple logins for Wikipedia is in error. I have only one ID, this one, and have posted ONLY using that ID. There have been at least 3 members of our project team who have tried to update the tmxxine page, and i assure you we are separate people, in separate countries. More info at the talk section for my ID. Thank you... Best regards, joyce--Knowmystery 14:56, 11 May 2004 (UTC)


To The Anome:

You reverted everything I spent quite a bit of time looking at and carefully writing...on more than one subject in the Hitler article...just as if it all was nothing but vandalism. A blanket revert, and no reason given on the talk page.

I made a short factual statement on the Hitler page, citing it carefully and factually to the work of a German Professor of History, and in no way implying that work was the truth, but simply stating it was his view, relevant as he is an expert in the field. Complete adherance to NPOV, unlike a lot of the article which is in violation. I also put a message on the talk page explaining this edit.

And you revert it. Just as if it was vandalism. Not a word of explanation.

Not only that, but in the process, you reverted the changes I made elsewhere in the article. Which I also made only after carefull thought. But it is all trash to you.

I went to the policy pages. They state that it is not the Wikipedia policy to revert edits wholesale like that, and without comment. If nothing else, for the simple reason that it doesn't give the other person the slightest clue why the material has been deleted. For all I know you didn't even read it. Or what was in your mind when you edited it. Perhaps you didn't like the way I spelled "Geli" for all I know.

I gather from the material on the talk page that you, or the people that use this account, are quite high in the Wikipidia scheme of things, you are at least an admin, and possibly a sysop or whatever the advanced terms are. Well, I have to say to you, that you are driving away a person who has been a productive contributor.

When I came to the Wikipedia, the article on Paul Morphy was short and looked like it had been written by eighth-graders. I worked on it, using reference works not availible to most people, as they are out of print. I turned that article into a featured page.

But, it seems you feel my work is on the level of vandalism. So be it. I had plans to do the Geli page the same as the Paul Morphy page. But, I do have better things to do than spend hours on something that you feel is trash, and that you can make simply go away, without following any of the policies about reverting things.

So, you win. I won't contribute, and you need not revert my work ever again. But I will say, the Wikipedia loses, and you are doing it no service at all. ChessPlayer 13:41, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

My apologies for reverting a whole series of your edits; I had only intended to revert a single edit (which removed a sentence that I felt should stay in the article), but I didn't check the edit history to see if it was part of a series. As a result, the reversion software rolled back all of your series of edits in one hit, which was not my intention. This was entirely my fault. I would like to offer my sincere apologies for this, and I hope that you are not put off from editing Wikipedia because of it. -- The Anome 14:14, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
I had no idea as to how it could have been done by mistake. Thank you for your explanation of what happened, and your apology. I accept your apology, and feel much better about contributing again. I am still miffed though on another issue, but only a little by comparison. I am miffed over your reverting my last edit without saying why. When you just revert without comment, what am I to do? You arn't replying to my stated objection, so, in effect, you are saying, "Tough, its going to stay like it was, I don't care about your stated objection, I'm not discussing it, and there is nothing you can do about it." Whereas, if you had given me something to reply to, anything at all, such as, "Doesn't seem POV to me" or something, then I know what our disagreement is, and I can either agree with you, decide to let it go, or research material to persuade you to change your mind. But I can only do that if you give a reply of some kind. Am I wrong here? ChessPlayer 16:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
The reason for the lack of an edit comment is this: admins have access to a special "one-click revert" feature in the software. This automatically reverts the most recent set of edits on a given article, all the way back to the last edit by a user other than the user who made the most recent edit. It also generates an automatic comment which just states what it did. Given that I intended only to restore the sentence you deleted with your last edit, and anything else, I thought the edit would be self-explanatory (implicitly: "I think this sentence belongs in the article"; I might have written "rv" or "stet" if I was adding a comment), and used the one-click revert feature. -- The Anome 16:46, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the further education about the admin software. Since you are being helpful and explaining things, could you tell me the customary way to conduct this sort of dialog on user talk pages? Do we keep it all on one page, or do I post my replies on yours, and you on mine? How does it work? I'll post this reply on both so I know you will see it. As for the issue about the deletion, obviously you are saying you want it there, by reverting. The question is, but what about the objection I made, the reason I gave when I deleted it? By not replying, you are telling me there is no dialog, you are just insisting the material remain. I don't think you really want to send that message, given your fairness and willingness to discuss things as evidenced by our chat. ChessPlayer 17:34, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Usually, you carry out the conversation on the talk page where the first comment was made. You can add that page to your watchlist using the "Watch this page" feature, and it will appear when you click on "my watchlist". I originally replied to both your talk page and mine because I was concerned that you should be as likely as possible to see my original reply.
Regarding your point on content, I think the ironic "twelve-year Reich" point makes a good endpoint to that section: it makes clear the hubris of Hitler's ambitions. As with most content discussions, we should discuss this on the page's own talk page. -- The Anome 17:50, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
Ok, transfering the discussion to the Hitler page now. ChessPlayer 17:59, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Canadian electoral district names[edit]

Re: your note on User_talk:Earl_Andrew, it's important to note that Canadian electoral district names contain both hyphens and mdashes, and it's important to maintain a distinction between the two. If the hex 97 in the names has to be converted, it should be changed to "--", not just "-".

You mentioned you had already renamed some pages... is there a log of renamed pages that we could check to see how this was done.

By the way, the hex 97 does work for both Internet Explorer and Linux Mozilla, so this might not really be an issue.

-- P.T. Aufrette 18:50, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, hex 97 works for both browsers as a character in articles. However, it will give erratic/incosistent results as a character in article titles, as the English-language Wiki code only supports the ISO 8859-1 character set, in which hex 97 is not a printing character. The fact that it might work most of the time (thanks to the browsers being friendly to the Windows-1252 character set, where hex 97 is a printing character) makes these bugs even more difficult to track down. All these issues may go away soon when the English Wikipedia goes to UTF-8 encoding, but then we'll want to have Unicode-encoded emdashes (which won't work either at the moment) -- The Anome 19:32, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

UTF-8 page titles would be good. Any timetable for this? If this is happening "soon" as you say, we should put off changing the hex 97 to double-hyphen, in favor of going directly to mdash, since the hex 97 "more or less" works for the time being.
Note the Canadian parliament website [2] uses double-hyphen, but printed material such as Hansard debate transcipts uses the mdash. And the Elections Canada website uses mdash [3]. So mdash is definitely the standard. If double-hyphen versions are needed, they could redirect to the mdash versions.
In any case, for the pages you said you moved, do you recall if you converted hex 97 to single-hyphen or double-hyphen? It would be good to go and fix this if necessary, but I couldn't find anything in your last 500 user contributions.
To clarify the original point by the way, there are electoral districts such as Rivière-du-Loup?Montmagny that contain both hyphens and mdashes, due to the French-language standard of using hyphens in place names (for instance, "St. Louis" in English is "St-Louis" in French). So in French, if you wanted to combine the equivalent of, say, "Dallas-Fort Worth", it would need to be "Dallas--Fort-Worth" to preserve the fact that "Fort Worth" is one entity.
-- P.T. Aufrette 20:56, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Possible Massive Copyvio[edit]

Please see my note on User talk:Ahoerstemeier about this. Burgundavia 09:45, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Andy and I chatted at the above talk page. I am in the middle of compiling the list of copy vios(most of his plc stuff as I had thought). However, the matter remains of 3 pages, now rewritten as to not be copyvio's but still have the copy vio in their history. How is this dealt with? The are Allied_Domecq_plc, BAA_plc, and Carnival plc. Burgundavia 10:18, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for checking my work. It is 4 am here and I am headed to bed. Burgundavia

Calexico (Talk) 10:59, 18 May 2004 (UTC) - Is there anything I can do to help, concerning the enormous amount of cleaning-up work I seem to have caused?

Sorry if this sounds rude, see above comment about time in the morning. I just spent 1 and 1/2 hours cleaning up your mess. A couple of things. 1.DONT DO IT AGAIN!! (Please!)(Check your sources, and ask permission, some websites/organizations will give it) 2.Please check to make sure all my posted urls are correct for the copy vio. 3. Rewrite the articles at the rewrite pages with some good info. Night all. Burgundavia 11:03, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, kind of important too. If I missed any please fix by added the copy vio notice. Burgundavia 11:04, May 18, 2004 (UTC)