Mav

User Talk for maveric149

>Just so you know, there is no need to have underscores in-between linked >words here. Solar system works just fine. The underscores are ugly too - esp. >for people, like me, who have their user settings set not to underline >links. --mav

Allright, will try to keep it in mind --Golthar

If you've been frequenting the RecentChanges page, you might already expect that I am a Wikipediholic -- yep, I admit it (score = 82).
Problem now is, sleeping has switched from a full (i.e. normal) to part time occupation.... oh well - you only live once, there's plenty of time to rest later...

Older messages are in talk archive 1, talk archive 2 and talk archive 3, talk archive 4, talk archive 5, talk archive 6, talk archive 7, talk archive 8, talk archive 9

I take it the Gulf War problem is resolved? I don't see anything out of the ordinary. --Brion 21:44 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Nope, we've still lost some formatting, especially external links. If it's possible to retrieve the old formatting, that would be really great. Otherwise, we'll manage somehow. :) MAV: these things happen; we should file a bug report or feature request and don't feel too bad about it. DanKeshet 21:49 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Any reason a plaintext copy was pasted in instead of this revision? --Brion 21:53 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

D'oh! I noticed it right after I posted the comment. I assumed that the revision history had been lost in the whole moving thing. I've restored the old version. DanKeshet 21:54 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

OK - I see now that my browser was caching the old revision history page. All is well except IE 6 is caching everything - I had to reload my talk page to see your messages! --mav

Hi, Mav. I have a question. If I remember correct, you sometimes find cut-and-pasted article from some copyrighted sources, and do something (like deleting, reverting, etc.) How do you make decisions when it's not clear if the text is pasted from the copyright holder or not? Tomos

I replace the suspected copyright violation with the boilerplate at Wikipedia:Boilerplates and list the page title on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. --mav

Thanks a lot! Tomos

Not detained as an American Taliban, no, though the current bogus alert made LAX a hellish place. The list of itmes which have supposedly set off the metal detector includes my shoes, the zipper on my shorts, a Clif Bar, a foil-wrapped tea bag, and a box of Cinnamon TicTacs. The list does not include either my current or my previous pair of glasses, both of which have metal frames. Koyaanis Qatsi 16:14 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Boy that sounds fun. That's why I either travel by car, train, or ship. --mav 18:03 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry about the film/movie thing; I forget that constantly. being away for 2 weeks didn't help. back to editing, Koyaanis Qatsi 18:46 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

Welcome back! Nothing to apologize for - you did the hard work on creating a great new entry I just made a minor improvement in the page title. --mav

Magnificent frigatebird is incorrect as a name for a species. Both words should be capitalised. Did you read my suggestions for English and scientific naming conventions before making these changes? I hope we can resolve this before a capitaisation war starts on all my species' ccounts. jimfbleak

Since when does a bird, a plant, an animal of any kind have a capitalized name? -- Zoe

Interesting. It looks like Magnificent Frigatebird is, for some odd reason, almost always capitalized. Is "Frigatebird" based on some proper noun? This is an exception and should not serve as a an example. For example "Killer Whale" is very wrong. --mav

encyclopedia.com has it as lower case - The purplish black magnificent frigate-bird, Fregata magnificens, 40 in. (100 cm) long, is found from the Bahamas and Baja California S to Brazil and Ecuador -- Zoe

Hm. I guess I should have excluded titles from my Google search. But looking for the hyphenated term turned-up a whole bunch of lowercase examples. So per our capitalization convention we should have it at the lowercase title. --mav

Aw, gee, thanks mav {blush} -- Zoe

Yep - I also really do enjoy working with you (esp on the day pages). --mav

Every one of my 150 bird books uses capitals for species. How else can you distinguish "that's a Great Frigatebird (F. magnificens)" from "that's a great frigatebird (any species)"?. Similarly Brown Rat/brown rat etc.jimfbleak 08:04 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Books don't have the linking issues that wikis do. Unless a term is always capitalized we tend to place that term at a lowercased title Because Capitalizing Terms Unnecessarily Breaks-up The Flow Of Sentences. All of this has been discussed a great deal in the past and the consenus that was reached is documented at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). --mav

Plus, "that's a great frigatebird" (with the lowercase) clearly is referring to one specific frigatebird, not the whole group of species. Unless this particular frigatebird is otherwise famous, there is no need to differentiate. A friend of mine has a very cute brown rat, but I wouldn't expect an article on him at Brown rat (or Brown Rat), I would expect an article on brown rats in general, of which my friend's pet is a particularly marvelous example. Tokerboy

Mav, can you suggest an on-line taxonomy of birds that we can designate as the one to use on a pro-tem basis? There will be no such thing as a completely authoritive source because they are switching things around on us as fast as they can heat up the DNA in a test tube, but it would make life easy if there was a single source that is no worse than any other and that we could agree to use unless or until there seems to be a good reason not to. If it's on-line, that would be great because then we can all refer to the same one. Thanks. Tannin 10:59 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Have you tried:

http://www.itis.usda.gov (often incomplete, occasional misspellings, birds are idiosyncratic)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy

--mav

How about using lower case for article titles, but using the correct form in the text with an adjusted link. For example [[Magnificent Frigatebird|magnificent frigatebird]. (have I done this right?) jimfbleak 11:12 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me (esp since I won't be the one writing many of these articles). It would be [[magnificent frigatebird|Magnificent Frigatebird]] --mav

Thanks re the naming conventions. I note this page still has "It's pretty stupid to think you Americans have the right to change every name in the world to some American version. " very near the top - how sinful would it be if I move or delete it - I think it rather slews the atmosphere of the whole debate below. Nevilley 12:17 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

NP - The older talk should be archived on a / page anyway. That will get rid of the ugly statement. --mav

Thanks. I hope some grown-up weill sort it out soon, I would hat eto have to try to do it myself! :) Nevilley

On a different topic, I noticed you'd had a go at Byblos and this led me to look at Tyre (I have a vague interest in Lebanon). Unfortunately it seems to be quite closely related to this page, where I cannot see an indication of whether the material is copyright or not. Worse, people have been working on it for a year and a half (on and off) so if we remove it their efforts are wasted. But, it's a pretty odd article as it stands and has some archaic language (Paul, on his return from his third missionary journey spent a week in intercourse with the disciples there ) (though I guess this might be a sign it is 75+ years old?) and could do with a bit of a sort out. Would you very much mind having a quick look at both and suggesting a way forward? All opinions gratefully received. Thanks -- Nev 17/02/2003

Copyright isn't an issue since the initial text was adapted from the 1897 edition of the Easton's Bible Dictionary. So all the text needs is some copyediting TLC. --mav

OK and thanks - Nevilley

This argument is distracting me from actually writing the history of football. Can we have a timeout? (no timeout's in 'soccer', note I defer to your usage on your page) Mintguy

Which football are you writing the history for? "Football" is too ambiguous. I will stop when you finally recognize that the usage of hundreds of millions of English speakers which differs from your usage causes a major ambiguity problem. --mav

Mav, I accept that my scans and digital pics are being uploaded too large. Over the next few days I'll pull them back to lower sizes (more compression and lower dpi as appropriate). I have Broadband so I tend to forget about the 56K users.
I don't intend to downsize the big pics that appear when the link is clicked because that's the readers choice if they want to wait for the pic to load.
Arpingstone 11:22 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

OK. That's cool. I'm on broadband too and also sometimes forget the bad old days of dial-up. --mav

Hey Mav: Just wanted to discuss a couple things with you. I always discuss things with you before deciding on doing them or not..lol ok, in my mind the idea of making a page about famous (admitted or discovered) drug addicts has been lingering for a few days. But I havent done it because this could prove controversial, many people could argue that people who are addicted to this or that are also drug addicts and this and that. What do you think?

The second topic I wanted to discuss, do you think it would be ok if I moved my user page's name so that I could include myself in the biographical list? The reason I ask is if you look at my user page, it is more or less a biographical page, and besides it would definitely be cool to be listed next to all those celebrities.

Well, I just wanted your opinion on those subjects.

Thanks and God bless!!

Sincerely yours, Antonio The Cool Guy Martin

Point #1: So long as the person is famous (or infamous) I see no reason to exclude them. Point #2: You are already famous around here - you don't need an encyclopedia article to prove it. :) I don't have one about me - I'm simply not famous outside of Wikipedia or among my friends and family. --mav

HELP I'm trying to sort out Zinc and some similar tables where, on my browser at least, the text overlies the table and is effectively unreadable. the simplest way to do this would be to force the text to follow the table, but I don't know how to do this. Any ideas? jimfbleak 13:22 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Mav, Zoe has changed the name of the 'UN security Council and the War on Iraq' to 'UN security Council and the War with Iraq' , believing the first was POV. I don't think changing the word 'with' to 'on' solves the problem. on and with are both used, the former by anti-war people, the latter by pro-war people. So we have just moved one POV and replaced it for another. I've another suggestion: instead call it ' The UN Security Council and the proposed Iraq war'. That way you avoid any hint of bias, by dropping all words that could be seen as in any way expressing a POV and instead calling it a term that all sides would be able to use: the Proposed Iraq War. What do you think? I'd welcome your comments on the relevant talk page. I've put this note on the talk page and on the pages of those who debated the issue. What do you think of the idea? - User:JTDrl

"is trying to say that the Qibya massacre is a clear case of terrorism and I disagree - esp since that would make Ariel Sharon a terrorist by implication."

I think your logic here is flawed, Mav. You disagree with X because it implies S = T? (Humorosely: You're assuming that S might be somehow surprised by the idea that he might be a T and called such...) Im sure you dont want the T word to be limited to the definition that is favored by any one party - A massacre by a state is "a tragedy" as Clinton called the Qana massacre of over a hundred. By your definition, only those without a state can be called T's. Consider the world courts condemnation of the US in its actions in Nicaragua. Assymetric warfare, low intensity warfare - covert sabotage operations, and B-1 bomber are all, more or less, different names for the thing we call T. An NPOV policy must not be Americentric either. -'Vert

If the definition of the word terrorism is too broad then it looses all meaning whatsoever - that was my point. As Ed Poor mentions on that page if we are too liberal with the definition then all the Allies of WWII are terrorists since we all deliberately bombed civilians in order to break their morale and gain a military and political victory. --mav

By your answer your saying its a political definition. As such, should we even be using it? What is too broad? I dont think its too broad to call Sharon a terrorist, because Israel isnt at war with Palestine. Its "not a state", after all. Who are the Palestinians, then, and what word would describe a person who exacts terror upon defenseless civilians? The best answer to this Ive seen is essentially: "all Palestinians are terrorists." Broad definitions indeed. -'Vert

Of course it is political. Per the definition it is violence intentionally done to non-combatants (key word) in order to instill fear in that population for political gain. That is what most everybody agrees with but if you do not go on and say: "This is a tactic used in asymmetric warefare by militarily inferior non-governmental groups against the population of a stronger foe" then you open the floodgates and just about every nation on the planet has engaged in terrorism and every war-time leader is a terrorist. This is not to say that nations are not capable of performing terrorist-like acts just like they are cabable of engaging in guerilla-like warefare.

But due to the fact that it is a nation doing it there still is a conventional element to the acts because nations have to ultimately worry about things such as economic sanctions and world opinion (nations are also targetable with military action and make for hard targets to hit and destroy if needed). Violence perpetrated by the state, therefore, has a built-in accountability mechanism that violence perpetrated by stateless-entities does not. True terrorism is a very difficult thing to fight because no one nation can be fully blamed or punished for actions done by stateless organizations. This is the same reason why snippers are so hated and feared - they strike without warning, are very difficult to catch, can be anywhere at any time, and are very hard to catch.

That is not to say that countries cannot commit war crimes, atrocities, humanitarian abuses and even genocide (BTW, IMO Israel has and continues to commit many war crimes - yes there is a state of war - and atrocities against the Palestinians). Also, in this particular case I do not see anything by way of proof that the actions of Sheron are anything but badly misinterpreting orders that were already badly misinterpreted by his superiors. This discussion is not very interesting so I'm going to stop it now. I have better things to do. --mav

From your response to my plea, I assume the problem is in the browser and I'm stuck with it? jimfbleak 07:15 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Mav, Apols if this is the wrong place/time/person to ask, but is there some problem with edit histories? (I didn't want to ask in some more public forum because I didn't know which one to use!) The reason I ask is this: have a look at Byblos. It doesn't seem to make sense - I see you taking out copyright stuff, which reduces it to just a few lines, then suddenly tufkat is editing a whole load of text which has appeared from nowhere. In addition, he appears to have done daft things eg changing dates FROM linkable TO nonlinkable (BC to B.C.) which strikes me as highly unlikely since he knows what he is doing. Am I going bonkers (a definite possibility) or is there something starnge here? Thanks -- Nevilley 18:03 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know - his edit do seem odd since our BC dates are not supposed to have periods in them. You should ask him. Also, if you are using IE 5.5 or higher you should hit [Ctrl][F5] to force IE to clear its cache of the page you are viewing. --mav

I was barking up the wrong tree about the edit history, sorry - absolute garbage. As for the dates, I've fixed them. I was conflating the two problems into something bigger - you know, 2+2=5 kind of thing. Sorry to waste your time, and thanks. Nevilley 00:31 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Nah - no need to apologize. :-) --mav

I don't want to start the mother of all battles above names again, but I just noticed that you moved The Labour Party (UK) to Labour Party (UK) and The Conservative Party (UK) to Conservative Party (UK) a while ago. We had a discussion some time back on Talk:Labour Party (UK) about the correct names for the UK political parties and someone looked up the names at the Electorial Commision [1] and the official names of these parties use 'the definite article' whereas some others do not. It was agreed to use those names. I don't know what the Wikipedia policy is about using 'the definite article' but there is at least one other precedent i.e. The Football Association and maybe the Times, the Guardian (but they are publications rather than institutions) what do you reckon? Mintguy

Generally we avoid them but common usage often dicates we use them. Move the articles back if you think the "The" is part of the most commonly used terms. --mav

Well you would normally say something like "members of the Labour Party" rather than "members of Labour Party" but then you might also say "Labour Party members". The Pears Cyclopaedia I have open before me lists it as "Labour Party, The" which makes it clear to me that it is part of the name, but I'll think about it some more. Mintguy

Hey Mav. Take a look at the Sugarducky and Katie McKaskie pages. Zoe and I think it should be deleted quickly, so that this doesnt become an advertising forum. Danny

Yep - done. --mav

I was thinking of doing a similar thing with the 300 px map, but I don't think it came out too well. Perhaps if the original vector map was used and scaled to 300 px before being saved as a bitmap? - Montréalais

Yes it is always best to resize from the original - otherwise compression artifacts from the first downsized image magnify themselves in the second. --mav

Woo hoo! You are my official hero of the evening!. Now if I can get me one of them GIMPs, and learn a few pictureplacement commands, I'll really be dangerous! Thanks. (thanks from Hanno too <G>. -- Someone else 08:24 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

It's free software so you can download it here for X11 or here for Win32. --mav

Dear Mav: Hi, thanks for checking out about my concern about the Hezbollah page. We have to keep Wikipedia clear of those copyrighted articles, but it is true, government information that they publish is public domain and stuff. I just didn't think about it...lol!

Once again, thnks for checking it out, and God bless you. If I see anything else that I suspect might be from somewhere else online, I'll let you guys know.

Sincerely yours, Antonio Papparatzi's Target Martin..hehe

You are welcome and thank you for keeping your eyes open for these things. --mav

I tried looking up "cavity" and "root canal" to see what the difference is, but there's nothing in wikipedia on them.

not yet. --mav

Go ahead, mav, I'm not planning on doing anything with February 24 until tomorrow. -- Zoe

Cool. I'll get to work then. --mav

Glad you're back online, mav. Activity on the wiki would drop precipitously without you. :) --Brion 01:34 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

LOL. --mav

As would the civility. -- Zoe

Does the exchange above imply that there is a special politeness about doing the day pages. I would really like to add the Baha'i Holy Days in the Holiday and observances sections if it's ok.... Rick Boatright 02:36 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)~

We try to be polite around here. But go ahead and update any page you think needs it. :) --mav

Hello Mav, do you plan to continue your project of updating the anniversary pages? I just realized there were many language links missing in the English wikipedia. The German has entries on every day of the year, the polish, the dutch and the french, too. Esperanto has almost for every day an entry, the italian seem to have entries but no overview table. It would be nice if you continue this project if you could think of the missing language links, too ;-) --Elian

Well all I really have time for is fixing the links that are already there. French, Spanish and Netherlands are all wrongly capitalized. This is something that a bot wouldbe much better at. --mav

OK. -'Vert

Mav, with a little luck we'll be done with transition metals by the end of this week :> Dwmyers 14:41 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

That't great! --mav

Hi mav, I was correcting some mistakes re-ireland on the 1922 page (the Irish Free Sstate wasn't born until December 6, 1922, not 5th January as the page said. In Jan '22 two rival Irish parliaments, made up of the same membership bar four elected two rival governments, one under Arthur Griffith & one under Michael Collins, who was Griffith's minister for finance in his government (no! I'm not making this up. It was to do with the Anglo-Irish Treaty, a 'republican' parliament that had no legal legitimacy but popular support, and the other which had legal legitimacy but no popular support, and both had to ratify the Dáil, then each form a govt that became de facto one and the same. Anyway, this weird state of affairs only came to an end on 6th December when the Provisional Government and its House of Commons of Southern Ireland, and the Dáil government and its Dáil Éireann, were both replaced by a new Dáil Éireann and a new constitution. Sound any clearer? Don't worry. Most Irish can't make head or tail of it either!)

Anyway, while changing the page to reflect this bizarre state of affairs, I noticed how you have Pope Benedict XV dying on Jan 22, which is fine; he may well have done. But you have Pope Pius XI then taking over on Jan 22, which means either the shortest known conclave in history (held while Benedict was still warm: I suddenly have this image of cardinals around the late pope's body, and someone saying 'I think Ratti should be pope. All those who agree say aye! All those against say nay. Ok, Ratti, you are pope. What do ya wanna be named? Pius XI it is. Now lets get something to eat!') Being serious for a mo, I suspect that one or other either died or was elected on that date, but there probably was an interregnum period of at least one week, possibly two.JTD 07:38 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Those were from my daily updates. Thanks for fixing the IFS thing - it was driving me nuts and I thought I fixed it... The pope thing is odd, isn't it... Hm. The pope thing. I'm beginning to suspect that my source for many of these dates was drunk when he wrote this stuff down - I'm finding mistakes nearly every day and much of this stuff is damn hard to confirm. When in doubt, throw it out. I'll remove the specific dates. --mav

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@MAV!@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@JUST WANTED TO SAY HELLO!!@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Well hi! :) --mav

I suddenyl notice you coloured that image map of teh p-tabel wrongly for 117, that should be pale yellow not plae grey, as for 1 we are not shore if it will be a metal of mettaloid :-s -fonzy

mav, could you please clarify the story of 142.177 on the mailing list? I'd like to know what exactly happened. --Elian