User talk:Stemonitis/Archive02

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Oct 07 2005 and Feb 17 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.

Great picture resource

I've found a great website: http://www.geograph.co.uk they aim to have a photo from every 1km grid square in Britain, and all the images are licensed as Creative Commons Attribution, so tey are suitable for use on wikipedia. I have addded some to some hill pages, just thought I;'d let you know. Grinner 09:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:English hill parentage

Interesting idea that, I'd never thought of it that way before. Still, the other parentage definition is the one used and generally accepted by the RHB (relative hills of britain) community. It's simply the nearest summit (connected by a ridge) to the first summit that has a higher prominence than the first summit. Thus, Great Gable would be the parent of High Stile.

The only trouble with your method is thst it breaks down for hills with very low cols. For example, The Verne (highest point on the Isle of Portland has its col at 7 metres above c level. According to your method its parent would be Ben Nevis, since the 7m contour touching the col surrounds Ben Nevis. You could probably have seaside bumps in Siberia that had Everest as their parent.

I got my information from the file 'Marilyn's parents' at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rhb/files/ - the relative height group site. If you're not a member I advise you to join, since you seem to be so interested in RH. It's the definition of parentage they use there, anyway. --Mark J 10:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, Mark, there's a lot of good data there. I'm aware of the apparent problems with my definition of parent (and it does seem to be only me that uses it!), but I do think it makes more sense that having the child older than the parent (=more rel. ht. in this case), and I'm too old and stubborn to change. I'm currently working on displaying dendrograms of mountain groups, which requires my definition. Hopefully you'll see something from me on the yahoo group before too long. --Stemonitis 07:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some ß-related votes

Hi, Stemonitis!

I noticed your vote on Talk:Großglockner and thought I'd try to interest you in those:

I'm guessing, however, that you're more interested in mountains than ß's and I have a lot of respect for that :)

Regards,

Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No no, I'll happily join in with those, too. It seems to me like there's a choice here between spelling things right and spelling things wrong, and lots of people (mostly Americans, I think) are opting for "wrong". It also seems strange to me for them to allow, e.g., "Großglockner" in the text, but not in the title. I'll give them my two ha'p'orth. --Stemonitis 07:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating! Now that the votes have ended with the ß-names in place I think there's an excellent opportunity to implement your compromise suggestion. Creating a template is actually surprisingly easy - let me know if you go for it :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your horses

I'm actually in the process of responding, so if you can wait a bit longer. Mark 15:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No probs. --Stemonitis 15:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's being a bit hypocritical by saying "rv: please discuss potential changes before making them unilaterally", when you reverted my necessary changes unilaterally. Mark 15:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

But I'm happy for you to suggest them, and then we can discuss them, and then they might be adopted, depending on the will of the community. As the original author, I found the changes to be unhelpful, but others may see it otherwise. And please, assume good faith and try to avoid personal attacks. --Stemonitis 15:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean any personal attack at all, but when I feel I've made a good change, then someone reverts, it doesn't make me feel all that good and a bit annoyed. I should mention that even though you did start that article, it doesn't mean you own it. Mark 15:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, and I will give way if outnumbered. Your three changes seemed like such a large alteration to the meaning of the template message that they should be discussed, or at least proposed, first. That's not to say that they won't be adopted later. I'm sure we can work out something agreeable to all sides. --Stemonitis 15:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main problem in the article for me was the word 'sometimes', it just didn't sound or feel right. Well got to go for now, bed time, gotta get up early. Mark 15:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Mountain infobox details

Hi Stemonitis - I've started a few articles on hills in the Clwydian Range, however, I don't have a source for some of the infobox details. I'd be grateful if you could drop me a note on my talk page with a pointer to getting this info, for the future - Thanks -- Serenome 20:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User Talk:Serenome.

Hi Ste - just to say a quick thanks for the reply and the detailed information in it - thanks again --Serenome 20:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza

hey, maybe if you are interested you would like to drop by and take a look at Esperanza and maybe join in if you want? with kind regards... Gryffindor 00:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weißenburg in Bayern

hello there, terribly sorry to disturb you with this topic, but there is a new vote Talk:Weissenburg in Bayern on finally renaming it to Weißenburg in Bayern and since you have shown previous interested, I just thought I'd let you know what is going on... with kind regards. Gryffindor 22:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Squat lobster

Could you, as someone knowledgeable about decapods, take a look at Talk:Squat lobster and maybe even answer the question there? Thank you! Lupo 07:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Friendly advice

With reference to "Uca mjoebergi" I presume? Normally I would, butthis page had very few edits so I didn't bother. Donama 08:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Hill

We're a bit touchy, yes? The paragraph says "Famous Grahams". Maybe you could come up with a more properly worded heading that would automatically exclude entries such as Graham Hill, Billy Graham, Graham Crackers, etc. Or maybe you could come up with a sense of humour. There's a way to accomplish the former, with one keystroke. I'm not counting on the latter anytime soon. Wahkeenah 08:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Mr. "Inflamation of the Stemon", I did it for you. Wahkeenah 09:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I answered this, it could easily turn into a trading of insults, so I won't. --Stemonitis 11:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Wahkeenah 11:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buachaille Etive Mor

Well, basically I was up there last weekend, and noticed that the name actually had accents in from the map (never noticed that before). I was using a 1:50000, but as far I can see the 1:25000 is the same: it's Buachaille Etive Mór and Stob na Bròige on both isn't it? Grinner 12:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using getamap (I have no idea about the printed maps), at 1:50000 it's Buachaille Etive Mòr, and at 1:25000 it's Buachaille Etive Mór. Naturally, we'll have redirects from whichever names aren't used in the title, especially since the OS is using both names. I think Stob na Bròige is constant. --Stemonitis 12:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

eeek you're right, and in fact the printed map is the same as the web one (funny that!). I'd probably go with the 1:50000, they are "definitive" for my point of view. And in fact I think Mòr is more likely to be correct from my incredidbly tiny knowledge of Gaelic. Grinner 13:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the acute accent is only proper in Irish, and that Scottish Gaelic always uses the grave. Angr would know for sure.

Lapsed Pacifist 18:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sub Hewitt

Hi Ste, I've just created an article on Craigysgafn. Couple of issues - it's over 2000ft but under 30m prominence, so technically it's not a Hewitt. Therefor, I've left the listing as a "Sub Hewitt" at present (not sure whether there's any precedent here). Secondly, is it appropriate to use Mtnbox for a ridge. It's definately worth an article - just not sure whether or not we're using Mtnbox for ridges. (If not, I'll remove the Mtnbox for this article). Any thoughts on either of those? - thanks -- Serenome 04:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Tricky. I suspect in this case that we shouldn't really use the Mtnbox, since Craigysgafn is not espcecially significant as a summit, although it may be significant as an interesting connecting ridge. (Having said that, it would be good to see a little more information as to why it's significant, more than just its location). The question then is what to do with the information held in the Mtnbox; I suppose it would be best if it were all incoroporated in the article (not the listing, perhaps, but certainly the grid ref [linked], the elevation, location, and eventually the language information). Having thought about it, I've changed my mind. The Mtnbox is a very good way of presenting that information, but one should be careful what information is included. I would recommend removing the prominence line, and blanking the listing; a summit has relative height (=prominence), but a ridge does not, although the summit of a ridge might. In this case, it's the ridge we're interested in (I think), and not its characteristics as a summit. "Sub-Hewitt" to me means a pathetic little blip that happens to be relatively high up, and so might just as well be ignored. --Stemonitis 07:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, agreed, that sounds like a good assesment - I've made the changes. --Serenome 07:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Foreignchar

hi, it seems you are interested in this template, so I just want to let you know that somebody is deleting this template and other notes about foreign characters in location names. That somebody created at least 4 different user names. The most active one user:Diacrit is now temporarily blocked. So please keep an eye on the articles that use the template or otherwise mention foreign characters. Thanks. Renata3 21:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd spotted that something was going on, but about a dozen admins were there ahead of me. Hopefully the blockings will be effective. --Stemonitis 10:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Rùm

i assume/presume there is a guideline written somewhere that this is the way to go. eg. Ballajura. Eigg i think is an isle rather than a town. major cities like Melbourne can be left as it is. -- Zondor 09:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parent stuff

Just to let you know in case you're interested, the definitions of parentage that we were arguing about before - there's a section on them now in the Topographic prominence article. I think your method is 'Encirclement parentage' and mine is 'Prominence parentage'.

I have also added another column to list of Alpine peaks by prominence. Hope you're happy. --Mark J 21:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Thanks for reformatting the tables of prominence like that, it's much better than having two separate columns. I'm sorry you guys have to keep clearing up after me. --Mark J 22:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I'm just glad you like the new format; I was worried that you might be a bit offended after all the effort you put in. --Stemonitis 08:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate display

Thanks for updating and adding prominence to some of the mountain pages. It all helps to promote the concept.

Do you think there is there any chance of getting the guys at Wiki to improve the coordinate displays?

56°20' (spaces) N 3°15' (spaces) W looks silly. They should appear like this, surely 56°20'N 3°15'W. What do you think? (sorry about the edits, hope it's OK now) Viewfinder 12:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I see only one space each before the W and the N on the pages I've looked at, both using {{Mtnbox coor dms}} and {{Mtnbox coor dm}}. I think one space is probably better than none, but two would certainly be too many. It would be easy enough just to take out the non-breaking spaces in the template, but it looks fine to me at the moment. --Stemonitis 12:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concede I had misread the number of spaces, the minute and second symbols widen the spaces in front of them, giving the impression of two spaces. But if there are no spaces between the degree symbol and first minute digit, why have a space between the minute symbol and the first digit of seconds? And why have a space between the second symbol and the hemisphere character? As it stands now it is hard not to focus on N 3°15'. So I propose to take these non-breaking spaces out of the template. At least let's give this a try, it can be easily reverted. But I don't want an edit war over this so if you object to this then please respond. Viewfinder 16:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a war if you fight back! I say try it, see how it looks, and see how many people complain. As you say, it's easily reverted. My personal preference would be for the version with more spaces ("56° 20' N, 3° 15' W" or the like), but your option wouldn't offend me. I don't know if there's some agreed standard (as there is for SI units) that covers spaces between DMS co-ordinates. If there is, you may well be reverted. In my brief look at the template's history, though, it seems that the alternative has never been considered. --Stemonitis 16:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peak District peaks

You might like to checkout on the discussion at Category_talk:Mountains_and_hills_of_the_Peak_District, concerning "minor peaks". Grinner 10:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have reinstated my 'Peak District Minor Tops' with Axe Edge now moved. I consider it a useful tie-in for many small named tops not yet included - for instance I would expect in due course to have a reference out to Chrome and Parkhouse Hills, and probably Alport Height. Bob aka Linuxlad 09:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC) I've put the reply to you and Grinner on my talk area Linuxlad[reply]

RfA for Halibutt

Hello Stemonitis! In case you are unaware, Halibutt is going through the administrator vote process. I believe that any input you could provide would be valued. Olessi 08:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Murdock-Portal Elementary School

Actually, the village's name is Galapagos (no accents), possibly unlike the name of the penguin. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 19:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, worth a guess. Since the link is still to Galápagos Penguin, that's alright. Thanks for putting it right. Perhaps someone should suggest to the school that they start spelling it with the acute accent… --Stemonitis 08:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Thought you might be interested in this - especially considering the provenance of the photo !

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Bangor Cathedral, which you recently updated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Velela 09:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Crab-icon.png

This image has no information on its source. Unless adequate information on its source and copyright status is provided soon, it may be deleted without further notice, because it was tagged as having those problems more than a week ago. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; I have now added the information. --Stemonitis 08:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moreton Bay bug

Thanks for your help on Moreton Bay bug, including fixing double redirections after having moved its name to the accurate one. I know it is a dreary work. --BorgQueen 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

non-essential links

I don't think adding links for cm, m ,kg, years etc. adds value to an article where the size of an animal is mentioned. - lycaon 16:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But it does allow the text to be kept abbreviated. Instead of having to write 100 per square kilometre, we can put 100 per km² and keep the text shorter. That's the main advantage. It also means that people unfamiliar with the units (e.g. most Americans will be more comfortable with square miles than km², and will prefer pounds to kg) have an easy means of finding out. So there is some use, and it takes no extra space on the page. --Stemonitis 16:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me then — lycaon 18:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crab confusion

Hi Stemonitis. I think I've fixed the mess I made vis-a-vis Halloween crabs and Halloween hermit crabs, but I'd appreciate it if you could check it over, as I am by no means an expert (I just started a stub because it was a long-requested article). Thanks! Proto t c 13:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed - good work. I've added categories and taxoboxes, but nothing more. --Stemonitis 17:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cut n' Paste moves

Please do not perform a move using cutting and pasting - there is a more correct way of doing that. Doing it using cutting and pasting requires admins to spend a bit of time fixing it up :). See WP:MOVE for more information on moving a page. Have a good day! WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 21:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I knew all about that, but there was a huge backlog of requested moves, and neither of the two real contributors (myself and User:Linuxlad) was bothered about a cut and paste move being made, so I thought I'd save the admins trouble by taking a short-cut through the procedures. I'm sorry that you felt compelled to spend the time and effort to correct it all - my intention was exactly the opposite. --Stemonitis 22:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear - sorry to get you in trouble with the Management, Stem! Bob aka Linuxlad 00:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

quick and dirty merge

Looks good. I made some minor adjustments. Please remember to use the "what links here" function (left hand panel of links) to clean up redirects after a merge. Pay special attention to the ones that are two indents in, since those are double redirects, which won't get a user to their destination page. TheLimbicOne 23:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it this time; I already took care of it. TheLimbicOne 23:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. I forgot that: drat! Thanks for taking care of it for me.

I told you it was quick and dirty! --Stemonitis 09:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primula auricula, Primula lutea

Hi Stemonitis - I've split the Primula auricula page up so these each have their own page; could you check over to see I've not made any mistakes, please! Judging by the cited ranges, all the wiki pics (the one that was on the page, and two on commons Image:PrimulaAuricula.jpg and Image:PrimulaAuricula02.jpg; all Austrian Alps) are P. lutea, unfortunate given their file names. Do you have any info on identification of the two that could be added? - Thanks, MPF 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked in Zhang & Kadereit (2004), in which there is a key, part of which I reproduce here:

5. Leaves efarinose or almost efarinose, grey green when dry, thick, shining,
narrowly obovate or lanceolate, entire or crenate, covered with sparse and short 
(<0.2 mm) glandular hairs on surface and margin; flowers light yellow
..................................... 1. P. auricula
5'. Leaves often farinose, green when dry, thin, not shining, broadly obovate, often 
toothed, densely covered with long (up to 0.3–0.4 mm) glandular hairs on surface and 
margin; flowers dark yellow
..................................... 2. P. balbisii

Note that the names were changed in their later (2005) paper, so that P. auricula here is now P. lutea and P. balbisii here is now P. auricula, so the species with the longer hairs and farinose leaves is P. auricula, and the one with the shorter hairs and efarinose leaves is P. lutea. All this confusion over names was one reason I decided to keep the two species together in the first place. Both P. auricula and P. lutea will be seen as "auriculas", albeit different kinds, so I wasn't sure that splitting the article into two very similar articles was really justified. The easiest criterion for identification would seem to be the geographical ranges, and I suspect that the two current species may well be reduced to subspecies (of P. auricula) in later publications. However, if they are to be split then you're right - all the current pictures are of the one taxon, and I myself have only got pictures from eastern Austria (note that western Austria is included in the range of P. auricula sensu Zhang & Kadereit, 2005) and the Apennines, which are all P. lutea (sensu Zhang & Kadereit, 2005). --Stemonitis 10:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Looks like they had trouble deciding where the type specimen of P. auricula came from. If they are lumped again as subspecies in the future, we can always merge the pages again. Interesting that Flora Europaea doesn't even mention P. lutea in synonymy, despite its being an early name (if published by Domínique Villars 1745-1814 [Vill.], or have I misinterpreted the author? Might it be August Vill 1851-1930 [Vill]?). - MPF 18:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, from the same publication, the synonymy includes:

Primula lutea Vill., Prosp. Hist. Pl. Dauph. 2: 469. 1787.

so Villars would seem to be right. --Stemonitis 08:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad; now deleted. -Splash^talk 12:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking "Foreign"

Hello! Glad to have seen your edits to the liverwort pages I had done, because I was trying to remember your username. Why? I was inspired by the humor in your "fo-3" userbox to create a whole set of them for others to use, but then couldn't remember your username to tell you. The "official" boxes use fgn rather than fo, because fo is the code for Faroese. You can see the whole set of fgn Userboxes on the Non-ISO Userboxes page. Again, I creidt the whole idea behind these to you. --EncycloPetey 20:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, fantastic! It started, incidentally, from reading old linguistics texts in which you hear statements like "Around 400 different dialects are spoken in India". The arrogance that European tongues must be languages, but Indian ones, probably from different language families, are mere "dialects" was just irresistible. Since then, I have tended to view "Foreign" as a single language with quote a lot of (mutually incomprehensible) dialects (in jest, I assure you). I have now switched to the "official" foreign template - thanks for your effort. --Stemonitis 08:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murray crayfish

Sorry I wasn't trying to backdoor you with the Murray crayfish move. I was hoping that you were going to take part in the debate too. --Zig c 11:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I'm not displeased with the result; it just came as a bit of a surprise. Since I know nothing about common usage in Australia (living several thousand miles away), I have to rely on cursory web searches. You seem to have looked in greater depth, so your preferred is very likely to be the better one. --Stemonitis 12:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revisions

Thanks for your revisions to the very preliminary page on Thysanoessa raschii. I wasn't aware of how to do the taxonomy boxes until today, and appreciate the re-organizing of the previous taxonomic names as well. All help is certainly appreciated. -Ian Rose 1 February 2006

No problem. Glad to help. --Stemonitis 08:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snake eel

stub sort - vertebrate!

D'oh! That's what I get for editing a random page and then rushing off to class. I probably should've seen the following info from this article's infobox:

Phylum: Chordata

I don't know much about eels but I thought they were invertebrates. Oh well—?thanks for the correction! At least now it's been tagged as the correct stub, whereas previously it wasn't tagged at all.

Faya 19:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Wikipedians' noticeboard

Hello Stemonitis! I would like to inform you that a noticeboard has been established to better aid discussion of articles concerning German-related topics. Feel free to participate with the project if you are interested! Olessi 03:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks !

Thank you for completing the work on Dioon edule ! --Esculapio 14:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Velela

I recently noticed your comments at User:Velela's talk page about alleged sockpuppetry, including the link to an alleged and now-deleted email on a sub-page of your user page. I thought that was a bit off, but didn't find time to mention it. Now you restore material that Velela removed from his (own!) talk page. It really is starting to look a bit like persecution of Velela. So, now I feel compelled to make a little complaint.

In your (now-deleted, purported) email, you list a number of reasons why you suspected Velela of sock-puppetry, and which accounts you believed to be sock puppets, and they included me. I know for certain that I am not a sock puppet, and you will notice that David Gerard also did not block me as such (my IP is completely different: the same continent, but otherwise different). If your arguments lead you to believe that User:Stemonitis is a sock puppet of User:Velela, then your arguments must be flawed. I don't know whether the other alleged sock puppets are truly so, or whether Velela's rebuttal is true; I haven't discussed it with him. I also don't care. The point is that just because people edit similar articles, it doesn't mean they're sock puppets. I know Velela from outside Wikipedia (in fact, he introduced me to it), so I keep an eye on what he edits, just out of interest. Thus, we end up editing similar articles, including Geoffrey Bolton.

Velela's other point is also true. Sock-puppetry, while discouraged, is not actually banned. No violation of the three revert rule occured, no sock puppets took part in votes. In short, nothing illegal happened (unless I've overlooked something). It would probably have been best to assume good faith rather than seeking a ban so soon: perhaps a comment on the talk page - a warning of some decsription, rather than immediate punitive action. I think an apology to Velela would probably now be in order.

And can't he remove comments from his talk page? They're still in the edit history, so they'll never be invisible, unlike your email, which has now vanished. "The truth is out there" - not any more! --Stemonitis 09:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My removal of the email was simply a matter of cleaning up my user space. I did not realise that my deletion of it would result in User:Velela immediately attempting to expunge all records of the affair. Velela's talk page is not just his; it functions as the community's record of his conversations. It is a recognised principle on Wikipedia that users do not have the right to remove warnings etc from their talk pages. You suggest that my deletion of the email is inappropriate, yet defend User:Velela's removal of the affair from his talk page. This is inconsistent. Nonetheless I have restored the email, since the affair has apparently not yet reached a conclusion.

As for you being a sock-puppet, follow-up emails from David never mentioned you, and I got the distinct impression that David had misread my initial email and not actually checked your account against Velela's. The fact that you have now decided to pursue this in Velela's name has increased my discomfort. I will ask David to confirm that you are not a sock-puppet of Velela. Snottygobble 11:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the email was not my major concern, but rather the way you have gone about the whole affair. You have not assumed good faith, and continue not to do so. I honestly don't care if you think I'm a sock puppet of Velela; you may think what you like, and I could understand that suspicion. Your assumption, however, that, just because more than one person has a different opinion to you, there must be a conspiracy going on is simply unjustified. More than one person thought the list format to be OK at Geoffrey Bolton; more than one person thinks you have acted less than perfectly in that regard. When you get your reply from David Gerard (and may I apologise to him herewith for wasting his time - that was never my intention), you will surely realise that. Please, I was asking for a degree of good faith, and you respond with a further accusation of sock-puppetry. Everyone makes mistakes; this would be a good time for you to admit that that includes you. I apologise if I've worded any messages poorly or otherwise misled, but all I wanted was for you to accept that your chosen course of action was not the best one. Let us leave it at that and move on. --Stemonitis 12:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Velela was a sockpuppeteer. My suspicions were correct. Your assertion that I haven't assumed good faith won't stick because subsequent events have clearly shown that I was dealing with a bad faith editor. I was the victim of a bad faith editor who used four sock-puppet accounts against me. If in dealing with this difficult situation I am found to have falsely accused one good faith editor, I will most certainly apologise, and the community will forgive me for it, because the community will understand that I have acted in good faith and integrity throughout. Snottygobble 12:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De-stub inquiry.

Good day,

You recently removed the stub tag from the Ryan G. Anderson article; could you please explain why you took that action? Folajimi^(talk)

Certainly. The page looked reasonably long already, and by my estimation seemed to be longer than a stub would be. Admittedly, the criteria are somewhat vague, and I was acting partly out of laziness: I didn't want to have to go to the effort of finding an appropriate stub category. If you think it really is only a fraction of what could be said, then by all means find a stub category for it (the complete list can be found here), or, even better, expand the article. --Stemonitis 13:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 02:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]