User talk:Hephaestos/Archive20040402

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is to withdraw a poorly phrased notice of tort, and to clarify that harm can result from cavalier use of arbitrary power. Though the circumstances might not rise to actionable tort, phrases, characterizations and group dynamics employed here comport with documented means of communicating arbitrary, prejudicial group power. Harm resulting from abusive group authority has been well documented in world history. This is not to suggest further harm, but rather to encourage the writer of this page to consider harm-reduction when wielding administrative or editorial power.

Hate has been studied in far more interesting venues. Typical dehumanizing behaviors might be of little interest here except they seem as much a part of the documents' statement as is the actual content. The editorial process seems to have been lifted straight from the numerous on-line chat environments where for a decade people have made a game of inventing and arbitrarily enforcing behavioral expectations in an otherwise open environment. Bodies of laws are developed to correct fundamental human attribution errors typical of these group processes that begin to identify criminals, or socially unapproved persons, based primarily on their character or untoward motivation, rather than identifying specific offenses against described, published and accepted norms. The interest here is that vigilantism by people who use administrative access to reinforce a constructed ego in an on-line community interferes with a stated task, that of writing an educational document.

Writers do best to maintain privacy to protect their contributions from malicious procedural attacks by other group members for reasons related to group process rather than to content. But contributions to group process discussions that are not specifically identified in relation to substantial contributions are arbitrarily prohibited. You might prefer that arrangement, but it is not the only arrangement by which group discussion may proceed, nor is it the arrangement stated by this electronic publication which invites unsigned contributions as well as it allows creation of easy, unique and multiple handles. At best, I would cast a dour eye toward anything I contributed on which this handle appeared, expecting of this handle the kind of editor that looks over ones shoulder waiting for an error to attack rather than an editor who can be expected to contribute meaningful knowledge about the subject or the medium.

Name-calling and selective derision by vocal in-group members has little impact on content except to discourage contributions, and to discourage good-faith efforts to improve content. It doesn't protect the content. Fights over content go on, providing an arena for people who want to be part of an on-line militia that attempts to identify the motives of contributors, all the while attempting to prohibit contributors from making original comments about motivation. Therein lies the harm. The harm to persons, or to ego constructs, is expectable. But the damage to content resulting from falsely published motives of contributors (troll, sub-vandal, sock-puppet) leaves a false account of how the content was developed. Such poor behavior can be expected from individuals, but when individuals with disturbed authority needs prepare a social venue that invites participants to contribute anonymously then demean efforts to protect privacy, it is a matter that might warrant attention. It certainly can inform judgments on the veracity of content.

Thank you for the withdrawal, and for the well-written account of your concerns. I believe however that most of them do not strictly pertain to the actualities of this website:
  1. Wikipedia, while open content, open source and editable by all, is not an "open environment" or free-speech zone. Its purpose is to construct an encyclopedia, to convey factual information. Deviations from that purpose happen all the time, of course, If, for example, one were to add "FUCK THE FREE WORLD" to the top of the article on Samuel Adams (as has happened in the past), one should expect to have that bit removed in short order. Such incidents are the price paid for the openness of the site, and are quickly and even cheerfully rectified, because most of the editors here realize that Wikipedia owes much of its good content to the efforts of those editing through an anonymous IP. And such incidents happen all the time here, usually due to new users, with anonymous IP numbers, who are not yet familiar with what the site is all about. Generally people are very lenient with newcomers; if however this sort of behavior continues at length, it is detrimental to the functioning of the site, creating a hostile environment. Such behavior will not be tolerated.
  2. If, as I think is the case, your concerns are raised by the incident earlier today where a "new user" appeared and, without having verifiably contributed anything at all to the project, immediately mounts a tirade claiming the right to fling any sort of vitriol he or she wants, making such outrageous claims as "only outright libel is off-limits." This is not a new user. No new user is familiar enough with the system to have made that post. This is rather, as they are so aptly-named on Slashdot, an "anonymous coward" who by all evidence has no goal whatsoever than to disrupt the site from achieving its stated goal. As I mentioned earlier, such behavior will not be tolerated.
  3. One of the things that makes Wikipedia a viable resource is the fact that editors strive to present information in a clear manner. This means using the conventions of spelling, grammar and punctuation which are standard in the English language, and which are often overlooked on a first draft. This will not happen unless people go through the articles and edit copy (and there are many who do so). If you take offense at having minor errors corrected, I'm afraid my best advice is to either get used to it or find another site, because it is going to happen. Likewise if you find an error in fact in one of the articles, it is much more efficient to simply fix it than it is to complain about it. And if you think "looking over ones shoulder waiting for an error to attack" is all I personally do here, you haven't been following my activity very long, although lately it's been my main activity, as it is less time-consuming than article-writing and lately I have been too distracted by disruptive users to do much else.
If you believe my actions are merely " to reinforce a constructed ego in an on-line community," for all I know you may be right; I'm certainly in no position to judge. If you're sincere in this belief, I would encourage you to post these concerns in a more widely-read venue. My guess is that if they are phrased as calmly and politely as your remarks above, they will be well-received and discussed, regardless of whether you are known by the community or not. - Hephaestos 20:37, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I would guess not. An environment where one party arbritrates terms of dialogue is scarcely one where ideas can be expected to be well recieved. An environment where a power group routinely declares the motives of others is not one in which communication can be described as discussion. A supposedy professional educational effort that bases its administrative language on such childish constructs as "troll" and "sub-vandal" most informs readers as to the credibility of participants.
Tolerance of administrative statements such as "be polite not crass or we'll ban your ass" suggests a sophomoric cadre that takes pride in arbitrary misuse of language to affect personal authority. Tolerance of statements such as "ban him, block him or tie him up and throw him over the Niagra Falls" by when posted by a popular group member suggests the group has little more maturity than adolescent cliques that develop around high-schools and which routinely defy social standards regarding assault, battery and respect for persons.
Mut beruht oft auf Unbesonnenheit, Feigheit hingegen auf guten Informationen

Contents

[edit] Request for Comment

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Homegrown images - UtherSRG 16:45, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Take the Sysop Protection Pledge Poll? 168... 00:33, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] You're confused?

Hey, I confuse myself. My vote is correct, the summary is wrong. Sigh. RickK 01:46, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Hi Heph, I am reverting your change to the image formatting at Vlorë because the caption has not been fixed yet in the new format. I think it's important to cite the photographer for these pictures on the article page itself. thanks, Dori | Talk 06:45, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

Greetings, the T-37 picture came from http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=T-37/v=2/l=IVS/*-http://www.quadcityairshow.com/static_displays/t-37.jpg I didnt notice a copyright there. ThaGrind 19:27, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's cool, thanks. I'll go with one there. - Hephaestos 03:51, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Clips

Hey, no problem on shortening "Brick House" (though I assume you are in the process of uploading the new version now, since I don't see any hint of it on your contributions list). I may have a tendency to go for longer clips, since I have a cable connection, feel free to shorten them as needed. It's not easy to pick out a short clip that contains all the most characteristic elements of the band/song/album/genre... The Library of Congress recordings are the entire song because we can (they're in the public domain) and they tend to be short anyway, shorter than most popular songs. I've tended to aim for about twenty to forty seconds for a three to four minute song, with appropriate variations for different lengths. I have a Funkadelic clip, not yet uploaded, which is from a song over forty minutes in length, and so the clip is comparatively long -- might be best in this case to upload both a long and short version, or maybe several short versions (since the song completely changes tone and style multiple times).

The current clips I'm uploading are for the Samples of music from the United States article (still in beta i.e. userspace). The goal is to make a top-level entry in the Music of the United States series for samples. I am, unfortunately, limited by what recordings I have access to -- I am especially short on jazz, so if you have any of that, please do upload some. Let me know if you have any suggestions on anything! Tuf-Kat 05:41, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize you meant quite that short. "Brick House" doesn't really matter too much, since it's a pretty monotonous song, but less than ten seconds seems a bit overboard -- maybe a long and a short clip is the way to go. I think readers would be better served by having access to a clip that shows the variation among different parts of a song, and all the different elements of it. Tuf-Kat 05:47, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
I made Wikipedia:Sound and Wikipedia, for your amusement and pleasure. Tuf-Kat 06:00, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Heph, regarding the clips, I don't think it reinforces our claims to fair use if you upload samples at over 300Kbps (not to mention that it dramatically increases the file size). I think something like 64Kbps will be just fine. Dori | Talk 02:44, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Juicy Fruit

Oy.  :-) RickK 06:04, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Do you think its best to remove clarifiers that certain things are in the US or not? I don't think the issue that there's only one Alabama, but to say that Alabama is in the US... I hope you can understand my ramblings :) Dysprosia 04:28, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Exactly. The Internet is used by people all over the world. The point is not to disambiguate Alabama from any other Alabamas, but to provide further description of the town's location. Would you remove the word "France" from the entry on Paris, France or the "Russia" from the entry on Saratov, Russia? There is no reason not to include the fact that this town is in the United States. This is a global English-language project, and identifying the country in which a US town exists is not superfluous, unless you think it prudent to remove the country identification information from all Wikipedia articles on towns and cities around the world? Moncrief 04:37, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for being short earlier Moncrief, it's just a bit frustrating to see what is probably an impossible task scrolling Recent Changes night after night. This change should be made by a bot.
For what it's worth, yes I would think it overly pedantic to disambiguate Moscow as being in Russia, or Paris as being in France. It strikes me as being condescending to our readership. As for Alabama, the further description I think is in the explicit link to Alabama. If the reader doesn't know where or what it is, they can click that and find out. I've done this many times with articles about towns in the Far East I've never heard of. I've learned something from it. - Hephæstos|§ 04:47, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
If you want to set up a bot to remove all counry references from Wikipedia entries on cities and towns, let us know how it goes. Moncrief 04:52, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for properly moving filename extension (was file extension). I guess I'd ran out of patience to do it The Right Way (getting late at night and all that)... —Mulad 07:39, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No problem.  :)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

  • From the Wikien mailing list, "O.k., I officially refer this to the arbitration committee, the matters of User:Wik, User:Hephaestos, and User:Anthony DiPierro"

[edit] US Election Maps

Hi, I was wondering about the maps for U.S. presidential election, 2000 and earlier (compiled at U.S. presidential election maps). Is there any particular reason that the Democratic states are colored red? I'd like to change it so that the Democratic states are blue, as is the conventional coloring, and I'd be interested in knowing: 1. Is there any reason not to do so? 2. How would I go about this?

Thanks very much, Meelar 22:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know they switched on occasion. You learn something every day. Have fun in your travel. Yours, Meelar 22:45, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 168

Hi, you voted on the issue of whether 168... should be desysoped. Following this, he was temporarily desysopped. Please participate in the new vote as to whether that temporary desysopping should now be reversed until the committees can deal with it properly. Thank you. Angela. 00:45, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Usuario:Johnny H.

Please check es:Usuario:Johnny_H. Are you this person? Or is anyone trying to supplant you? A user said in Spanish Wikipedia that he is User:Michael. Johnny H. is writing in very very bad Spanish in es.wikipedia.org. Any clarification you could provide will be very appreciated. Thank you. ManuelGR 23:49, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ok, don't worry, his account in es.wikipedia has already been blocked. ManuelGR 19:34, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Transliteration issues

Hi Hephaestos,

I want to invite you to weigh in at the new discussion of related matters that have come up in the last few days at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(places)#Transliteration_of_Russian_place_names. Please see the intro paragraph of Boris Yeltsin to see an example of what's been going on with articles on Russians and places in Russia....

Also, if you haven't already do so, you might want to take a look through Cantus's contributions.

Right now, the main participants in the discussion are the two people who've been changing the formats of intro paragraphs of articles -- both of whom have been here for less than a month and seem rather uninterested in other people's points of view. Many thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 13:49, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] William Kelly

Hi. Why did you revert my edit. Anthony DiPierro 18:36, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. - Hephaestos|§ 18:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OK, that has nothing to do with why you reverted my edit, nothing to do with why you reprotected the page, and certainly nothing to do with why you protected a page while editing it. Anthony DiPierro 18:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
And none of those have to do with your apparent refusal to abide by consensus decision as to what should be included in the encyclopedia. Anyway, put it back if you like. Five days won't hurt anything I guess. - Hephaestos|§ 18:51, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There is no consensus decision as to whether this should be in the encyclopedia. And you still haven't responded regarding your actions on the disambig page. Anthony DiPierro 18:54, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There is a months old (if not years old) consensus not to list victims of the September 11 attacks in the encyclopedia unless they were notable in some other way. There is an entire wiki set up at Wikimedia's expense to cover this subject and that is where it belongs. Period. And I am not going to respond regarding "my actions" on the disambig page; if you have a problem with it, take it up with Jimbo or the arbitration committee or requests for de-adminship or wherever. - Hephaestos|§ 18:57, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The consensus was not to include personal experiences and tributes in the encyclopedia. As for your actions on the disambig page, they were improper, but I'm not going to take it any further, as this will all be resolved in 5 days anyway. Anthony DiPierro 19:00, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] FM/AM/TV

Hephaestos:

I'm unclear as to why you think radio and television stations shouldn't be listed with the FM/AM/TV suffix? Is there a style guide somewhere I'm missing, 'cause it makes much more sense to me personally to include the suffix (most notably because it reduces the need to have disambiguation pages or to include multiple articles on the same page). -- Seth Ilys 19:24, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I couldn't make much sense out of your reply. Could you make your answer a little more clear, please? -- Seth Ilys 19:29, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ah! Thanks for the clarified reply. Well, I'm afraid I disagree, personally. (Don't worry, I won't revert or anything). I'm of the line of thought that eschews multiple topics on the same page, even if they do share the same name (for the sake of visual appeal, and because it artificially inflates article size statistics). Of course, that's not really an issue yet, as you point out, because they're all single-topic stubs. I feel that, in the long run, they'll probably all get clarified back to -FM, -AM, and -TV. We'll see what happens eventually. :) -- Seth Ilys 19:37, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, of course. That's a good point, too. (I'll go and do that for the station articles I've created, now that you mention it). - Seth Ilys 19:43, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree - I'm still working on this - give it a few minutes and all should be well.:) Also have some please come back requests to restore - Optim initially deleted unilaterally and my undelete/delete sequence removed those, whch shouldn't really be removed. Jamesday 20:21, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Franklin as First Postmaster General

Is it not customary to give a reason when deleting someone's legitimate contribution? ChessPlayer 03:02, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re Franklin, yes it is, sorry. The deleted part was a link to a deliberate hoax article on a page that's been used for similar vandalism for the past two days. David Borst is made-up in the context written in the article. - Hephaestos|§ 03:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for cluing me in. I didn't know that, and simply was curious about the history of Franklin. ChessPlayer 04:44, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] That's a really good idea

I just noticed how you handled the request from Tanya_Brunsell715 for info on Brian Littrell. You created a talk page for an article that does not exist so that if created someone can choose to email her. I'll have to think on that. - Texture 17:16, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the list of Enochian angels. I am using it to clean out the long files of wanted articles that Magnus posted. Seems as if he as every Enochian angel on that list. Danny 00:39, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah McLachlan

Damn you, damn you, damn you! Only 2 minutes! I hoped for a little bit more. :( --Maio 04:12, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] DUI quotes

It's not worth reverting your revert. I put in the quotes because it's an awkward head. DUI, for people who know what it is, stands on its own. Cecropia 08:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] LiveJournal

Damn you, H, why do you have to be so right all the time? Xoder 22:40, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Hephaestos- I'm still on my 'wikiholiday' but just happened to nose at my talk page and saw your bit about micheal (apparently) posting stuff up in my name- I followed the link provided, is there any way I can delete this stuff from Live Journal? I'm not looking in at wiki too often at the moment, so feel free to email me privately, many thanks, quercus robur 23:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Simple English

Hi Hephaestos. I've just blocked simple:User:Hephaestos. I'm guessing you haven't suddenly developed a liking for creating articles on Day of the Death etc. :) If you want an account on Simple, you might want to get Tim to change the name of that account. Angela. 12:41, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia articles for radio stations

Radiojon says it is better for articles for Atlanta FM radio stations to have "FM" in their article to avoid being a disambiguation page. In fact, WSB is now a disambiguation page for WSB-FM and WSB-TV, which are now on separate articles.

He and I evidently disagree; it might be worthy of a vote, actually. - Hephaestos|§ 01:03, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Now I put a poll at the bottom of the talk page where visitors who see this vote for what they think makes more sense.

[edit] Re: Year/Decade Links

Oh, okay. I'll do that in the future. Thanks, Djinn112 20:39, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Aberration diagrams

Thanks for cleaning up that scan for Aberration in optical systems; I know they're bad (aberrations themselves, you might say), but I confess to not caring much about how they look at the moment, because the article is just as dense and poor. One day I'll re-write and re-draw the lot. Cheers -- DrBob 21:42, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration committee ruling

(cross-posted to affected admins) As a result of the decision in the matter of Wik, the arbitration committee formally reminds you that temporary blocks are intended to be used in cases of repeat pure vandalism, or following clear community consensus. While the community is discussing extending the use of temporary blocks to cover other cases, individual sysops should not attempt to short-circuit that discussion.

Thank you for your co-operation,
Martin 23:39, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nickel

Hephaestos: Could you move Nickel (coin) to United States nickel or United States five cent coin, because the Canadian 5c piece is also called a nickel... thanks! -- Seth Ilys 03:04, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You!

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.

[edit] b. vs. born

I'm genuinely curious. Where is this convention written? Am I missing something obvious? RadicalBender 02:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aha! Appreciate it. :) RadicalBender 02:13, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates

I think I have your picture formatted properly, take a look. Sam Spade 21:33, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Realigning election

"state's rights, which they recognized as..."--thank you for your edits. That phrase was POV, in retrospect--this is a really good example of wikis working well. Appreciate it. "Did I really write that?" Just believe that it wasn't intentional. Yours, Meelar 03:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh np- I had just stopped working on it just then! Hope to get more masts on there in future of course though- Greyengine5 01:56, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Hephaestos, I want to apologize to you for the rash and ill-tempered comments that I made last night on IRC. I was upset and what I said was clearly out of line. Although I vehemently disagree with your opinion and with your actions, and I think that you're unnecessarily hasty and unilateral in some of your actions on Wikipedia, I want you to know that I bear you no inherent hostiltity, nor do I hold a grudge. I hope that we can put this animosity behind us, and that our future disagreements can be civil discussions concerning the relevant issues, rather than personal attacks. - Seth Ilys 13:07, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Having checked the page history, I can understand why you protected starmen.net. Unfortunately you have also reverted some major improvements made, as far as I can see, in perfectly good faith by the last contributor. These have changed the article from being one worth deleting to being one worth keeping. Unfortunately people won't realise that unless they check the page history. This is rather unfair given that the page has been added to VfD. It as if you decided to make the article look as bad as possible and then protect it so that it can't be fixed and we both know that you didn't intend to do that. Perhaps you would consider moving back to the last revision by 24.158.233.251 which appears to be the best one so that people can judge the article on the best form it's likely to take. -- Derek Ross 16:11, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think you're right, and will put the biggest version back so it can be seen during the vote. When I did the revert the only edit I saw was the wholesale removal of "current staff" which I assumed to be simple vandalism. - Hephaestos|§ 16:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Air Force Ranks, etc.

Is it possible to use the higher-quality, higher-resolution ranks found on the USAF's web site instead of the smaller, hand-created ones? See this for example. RADICALBENDER★ 18:14, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive user name

Your user name is offensive: It is the name of a pagan god. You have to change it, otherwise I will EXCOMMUNICATE you! Troll2 01:45, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos! Welcome to the offensive usernames havers club! It's gonna be the funnest club ever! I'm President! Or possibly Recording Secretary! jengod 01:48, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Can i ask what was so bad about the PNG image in Gough Whitlam? PMA 08:11, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

I can't answer, of course, for Hephaestos, but the fact it was 350% larger in file size than the JPEG would be my guess... —Tkinias 09:20, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Page move help

Hephaestos,
Thanks for fixing the NeonTetra redirect. Is there any chance you can help me with moving Neon Tetra to Neon tetra? As best I understand the policy for article names, they should be capitalized (except for the first letter) sentence-style, not title-style. Since, in English, common names for animals are not capitalized (we don't write "This is a Brown Bear", but "This is a brown bear"), I'm not sure why a fish should be any different. I can't make this fix, though, since I'm not an admin. —Tkinias 09:07, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. The new guidelines say to use 'Neon Tetra', not 'Neon tetra'. - UtherSRG 18:28, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Aha. Cetaceans. I'm off to dinner right now but I'll swap it back in the evening and let Tkinias know. - Hephaestos|§ 00:03, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)


G'day Heph,

I'm very confused as to where (if anywhere) the entry I was trying to put into VfD has gone and/or should go. I wasn't nominating them as candidates for speedy deletion, but that's where Wikipedia:Personal subpages to be deleted redirects to.

Your advice please. Andrewa 17:23, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Dear Heph,

I am new and trying to get an idea how this works. I deleted the sentence from Little Egypt because Little Egypt and Fatima are too different dancers. --Mike McClure 02:16, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] DejaNews

hi,

thanks for moving the page, I would try to request that :) --Tellarin 13:45, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

[edit] Lake St. Clair

Hi, Regarding the Lake St. Clair article, I feel that if you have a lake that crosses an international border, it's significant enough to have its own namespace. Besides, the other Lake St. Clairs don't even have their own articles at this point. This is why I moved the Lake St. Clair, North America article to Lake Saint Clair, and created the Lake Saint Clair (disambiguation) page. If you don't agree with me, fine, but you should at least fix all the dual-redirects that have occurred as a result of your moving the articles back. Darkcore 20:48, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No dual redirects that I could see, but there were eight articles to disambiguate. Taken care of. - Hephaestos|§ 22:51, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We have 2 seperate subjects in the Foo Fighters article. It would be best to make them seperate. The current page could become a disambiguation page, with both subjects moved to there own articles. -- LGagnon

[edit] Crushing by Elephant

Uh, Heph - what are you doing? →Raul654 07:09, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth International

Hi Hephaestos

I can see the idea about creating consistency, but in fact I think the original was much more accurate. Raptis was known to everyone as Pablo, while Mandel was only really called Germain during the 40s and 50s. Would you object to me changing it back? Warofdreams 12:01, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)