User talk:Snoyes

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Thank you very much! I'd be interested to hear how Wikipedia sustains itself financially. (I don't see a "donate" button/banner anywhere). And no, I'm not offended by a "RTFM" reply - just tell me which manual ;-). snoyes 06:49 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

You're Welcome! Right now all the bills are paid for by Jimbo Wales who owns the server and an ISP/search engine at http://bomis.com . But Jimbo is setting-up a non-profit to manage Wikipedia and states that he will give the non-profit the server plus bandwidth. --mav

That is very generous of Jimbo (even if he does stuff like give away his ferrari;-)). Anyway, I'll be happy to donate as soon as the facilities are up! snoyes 06:58 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Welcome! And thanks for correcting the mispeeling of "iss" in deprogramming. --Uncle Ed

Thank you very much! And my pleasure. Here's to the productive & fun collaboration among all wikipedians - cling. snoyes 22:54 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Snoyes, I don't think changing the word 'with' to 'on' on the [UN . . . Iraq] page 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 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? JTD 00:32 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Hi! My name is Adrian and I'm very active adding pics to articles. I've just noticed that my "peacock displaying" pic has lost the credit to me. If I click on it it just says something about "better picture than the previous uploader did" To me there's no change in quality but that's not what I'm concerned about.
It would have been friendly to let the world know that Adrian Pingstone took it and not to have eliminated all reference to me.

I know I put the pic into the public domain but it would be nice to see my name still there. I won't put my name back in to your pic description until I hear if you think I'm being reasonable.
Best Wishes, -- Arpingstone 11:40 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Further comment: I've just put your 250 pixel pic and my 250 pixel pic side by side in Photoshop and the difference is trivial, certainly not enough to have been worth your effort in deleting mine. That means the "my pic is much better " in your pic description is exaggerated. Your comments please -- Arpingstone 13:07 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Arp, your pic is still at Image:Peacock.displaying.800pix.jpg, Snoyes has uploaded Image:UberPeacock.displaying.250pix.jpg.

To thicken the plot, I may have a better picture I took of a peacock in my back garden, I'll have a look :-) -- Tarquin 13:46 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Arpingstone, sorry for not giving you credit on my resizing of your picture, I'm in the process of adding it. I do not mean to be antagonistic, but simply put - at least on my screen, the resizing I did was vastly superior. I actually undertook it because I happened upon the peacock page and was astonished at how fuzzy the peacock picture is. I'll put the pictures next to each other here, maybe some other impartial people could give a shout as to which one looks better. --snoyes 16:14 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

File:UberPeacock.displaying.250pix.jpg, File:Peacock.displaying.250pix.jpg

MyRedDice beat me to adding the appropriate credits, thanks! - and my apologies for not doing it. MyRedDice, You didn't have to add that I resized the pictures, but thanks. --snoyes 16:59 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

My point proven I think!! (that the two images are nearly identical). Have a look at the two 250-pixel pics above. My peacock is on the right and Snoyes resize from my 800 pixel version is on the left. My monitor is a good one (Iiyama Master Pro 410, 17 inch) so I would be able to see any important difference. Only the body of the peacock showes a minor extra sharpness. At any rate, I thank all involved for their assistance. I appreciate your kind reply, Snoyes.

I think we'll simply disagree on the improvement you say you've made. Any comments on the two pics, from anyone else, would still be of interest. -- Arpingstone 19:04 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Snoyes' version is certainly clearer. The feathers are clearer, the trees are clearer, and even the grass is clearer. --Zundark 19:31 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

I think the left one is marginally better defined, but I have a suggestion that I think could make it better: If you could crop the 800 pixels version to 750, by losing some of the trees, then it should be possible to shrink it fairly accurately to 250, since that's an exact 3:1 ratio... Martin

Snoyes' version is a far cleaner image, with only a modest increase in file size. Sorry, Arpingstone, but if your version is the one on the right, I would throw it away assuming it's a corrupted image. I'm wondering if it is actually a corrupted image, and that maybe there's a final layer of quality that only falls on in some particular application? What are you using to view the image? (I've tried Mozilla 1.2, IE 5.5, and Photoshop 6. Please check that the file size is the same on the uploaded version as the one on your hard drive?) --Brion 20:04 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Brion, the left version is of much higher quality (sharpness). Arpingstone, thanks for uploading the images, but please do not stand in the way of necessary improvements. --Eloquence

OK, guys, I'm defeated. ZUNDARK - thanks for your input.
MYREDDICE - I'm interested that you use the word "marginal", which does not agree with Eloquences "much higher quality" and Brions "far cleaner image".
BRION - I view the internet with IE5.5 and all my pic preparation is done from a 2048 pixel-width digital image in Photoshop 6.0 (including the jpeg compression). Yes, my hard drive and uploaded versions are identical at 25237 bytes.

ELOQUENCE - I don't stand in the way of improvements, I only wanted to understand why I can't see the big differences that you and Brion and Zundark can see. I can, of course, see minor differences.

My 19 year old son has just come in and agrees that there is a real difference. So I've wasted all you guys time. I'm sorry! It seems I just don't have proper vision for assessing small pics (I'm 62 years old and wear glasses) so I would be grateful if someone (Snoyes?) would prepare my thumbnails for me in future. I could let him(?) know a new pic exists on his talk page. I'll carry on uploading the big ones, and also an "awful" thumbnail to mark the place in the article. I have nearly run out of images to upload so the rate will slow down a lot now. Thanks for your understanding and I'm sorry I've wasted your time on this matter. -- --Arpingstone 21:08 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do the resizing of your pics for you, just leave me a note on my talk page whenever you have a new one. Also, do you want me to upload these resized images, (and obviously note the credits on the picture page, or would you like me to put them on my webpage so that you can upload them under your name? Either way is fine by me. --snoyes 21:37 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer to solve my eyesight problem, I really appreciate it. Don't worry, you won't be snowed under, I don't have much to upload at the moment. I think I would happiest if I go through the whole upload process myself, including making my own thumbnail as a placemarker in the article. Then you grab my big pic, re-size it and upload it as a replacement for my thumbnail. I would like the credit for the big one and you take the credit for the little one.

Maybe I can learn to do a decent thumbnail. Are you prepared to reveal the secret of how you do yours? Why couldn't I simply repeat what you do? I will understand if you would rather not reveal your secrets! In Photoshop 6.0 I re-size the 800 pixel image (it's a .jpg of course) to 250 pixels and do Save As. Then the program asks what Quality I want the Save to be, on a scale from 0 to 12. 12 is almost uncompressed and 0 is appalling! I choose whatever gives me a 20K file size. What can I do different? It's a puzzle!

On a personal note, I'd love to know the meaning of snoyes. My username is simply from my full name : Adrian Ralph Pingstone --Arpingstone 22:16 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

There's not much to reveal, I simply use the GIMP (which is free software). I assume you use microsoft windows (IIRC, photoshop is not cross-platform) - you can get a windows version of the GIMP here: ftp://ftp.arnes.si/software/gimp-win/gtk+-1.3.0-20030115-setup.zip & ftp://ftp.arnes.si/software/gimp-win/gimp-1.2.4-20030119-setup-1.zip (you apparently need to install gtk+ first, and then the gimp. Confusing instructions can be found here: http://www2.arnes.si/~sopjsimo/gimp/).

For resizing in the gimp, right click the image to open the menu and select Image>Scale Image. Insert the selected width, hit enter and click "ok". Unfortunately the gimp usually opens pictures with a 1:2 ratio - press "1" for a 1:1 ratio. Then select "File">"Save as" and save it under a new name. There will then appear a slider for the quality of the image. It is defaulted to .75, "1" being best quality. I usually use values in the range of .75 to .9, but the problem is that I look at the quality of the image to determine this. A good rule of thumb would be to use something like .8 all the time. Good luck, although you might want to stick to Photoshop, in which case you could do a resizing of slightly higher quality than you did with Image:Virgatl.a340-300.g-vfar.250pix.jpg or Image:Tillandsia.single.250pix.jpg -- these are the only resizings of yours that I did not redo (maybe you noticed).

I guess I'm also as inventive as you with my user name: My full name is Sascha Noyes (and I'm male although Sascha is often also used for females - yay for androgynism!) --snoyes 16:43 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Forgive my intrusion into your user talk page, Snoyes, but seeing the discussion is here already, I'll addd my 2c to it. (Feel free to move this stuff off to somewhere else if you like.)

Here are the two images again, Adrian's on the left, Snoyes' resize from the 800px version on the right:

File:Peacock.displaying.250pix.jpg: File:UberPeacock.displaying.250pix.jpg

File:Peacock-PMV250.jpg File:Peacock-PMV333.jpg

plus two more resizes from the 800px in the second row.

File sizes are (in order) 24.6k, 21.4k, 13.5k and 15.1k. For simplicity, let's call them

(1) (2)

(3) (4)

As all agree, image (1) is fuzzy. Images (2) and (3) are hard to tell apart, though I think that image (2) is maybe just a fraction clearer (albeit nearly double the file size). Image (4), at the cost of being very slightly larger than the 250px guideline, is easily the clearest of the lot, and still only 15.1k.

Image (3) I made from Adrian'r 800px original not by using the mega-expensive and horribly cumbersome Photoshop, but with a simple, cheap ($US30 or so) 30-day shareware image viewer called PMView. (Doubtless there are many others of merit, this happens to be the one I am most familiar with.) It took me about 4 seconds to start PMView, load the file, do 4 mouse clicks and type the number "250". (How long does it take in Photoshop?) No special skills or setup required, I just used the PMView defaults.

Image (4) was made the same way, but instead of specifying 250px, I told PMView to shrink it to 33.333% because (as Martin notes above) even fractions shrink the best. It could be cropped to exactly 250px or (better) just left as is - 267px is close enough IMO.

It's a fairly safe bet that Adrian's original is in a much higher resolution - 2048px or something - and working direct from that may give better results again.

My point here is that shrinking images is very easy if you have the right software. (Again, there are sure to be plenty of other good ones, PMV just happens to be the one I use.) Adrian, your not-so-young eyes and glasses need not prevent you doing it for yourself!

I hope this is of some help. Tannin 06:03 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Sascha, or Tannin, or anyone <G>! Can you tell me what I can do to get the and smaller? I thought I'd give it a shot but I think I'm denser than i thought. -- Someone else 08:06 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)~

Done. Hit reload in your browser. All resizing done with the GIMP. --mav

Likewise used GIMP to resize, also "levels" and "thresholding" to clean up the "dirtiness" of the background. If you like it better cleaner I've got Hanno2 also done (I just need to upload). --Ducker 08:29 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Upped Hanno2.png, you can keep it or not to your liking. --Ducker 08:37 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

I do hope that the very interesting discussion about image resizing can be preserved and made available generally, even if snoyes ends up not wanting it here for all time! Nevilley 09:57 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Image use policy would be a good place. --mav

Wikipedia:Image use policy now contains a brief precis of this discussion. Martin

Snoyes when you resize or otherwise edit an image in order to replace it in a Wikipedia article, please keep the same name so that the person who originally uploaded it still gets credit for it and any text they place in the image's page is still there. --mav

Thanks, mav. I had just finished pasting all my credits back where they should be when I read the note above. They are now seen when the article pic is clicked, which is what I had expected to happen. Anyhow, I remain grateful to snoyes for hugely improving the little pics so thanks to him once again. Now I shall start experimenting with my graphics progs so that there are no more complaints in the future! -- Arpingstone 10:57 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

mav, I did not know that this was at all possible, but I have now realized that it is! My apologies again (you can see I'm new at this). This would have saved me _so_ much trouble in not having to change every page that contained the pictures and not having to list all of the old resizings for deletion. Oh well - you learn. --snoyes 16:03 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Snoyes - I'm afraid my only secrets with regard to disambiguation are months of practice combined with lots and lots of coffee! Heavy metal was a relatively fast one to do, because almost all the links were about heavy metal music, so I could just copy that to the clipboard, do all the links for there in one pass, and then go back and do the couple that were about heavy metals separately. Also, most of the articles were quite short, so I didn't have to search for the link to be disambigged. I'm usually slower than that, honest! --Camembert

Don't believe him, he has signed a pact with the Devil! :) Nevilley 22:09 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Hi!! from Adrian (aka Arpingstone). I've put on another pic, see "Kaprun disaster". The big pic quality is not up to usual standard because it's a scan of my colour print (I didn't have a digital camera in 1998). I've used the idea (from someone during our resizing discussions) to use a multiple of 250 so that the downsizing is an exact ratio. Therefore the big one is 750 pixels. Can you do better? If not, then maybe this ratio thing is the solution. Adrian 19:10 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

&#38634 &#25033 (snow+yes) -&#35918&#30505

Huh, I don't get it !?!? --snoyes 04:58 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

OK, after looking at Ed Poor's talk page I get it ;-) --snoyes 05:01 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

That wasn't vandalism and I still disagree re: Wikipedia:Volunteer Fire Department.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to insinuate that with "rv", just stating the fact that I had reverted it. Well we can have a chat about it. My point is that the whole article is in humour, and can remain so because it is meant exclusively for those wikipedia users who are 'in the know' (ie. those that would sign up) and therefore likely to understand (and not be 'offended') by the humour. --snoyes 03:30 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

I think there's a terminological problem with "rv"! Some use it as "Reverting Vandalism" and others as "ReVert". Most confusing! :) Nevilley 11:33 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Nevilley. I hadn't thought of rv as possibly short for "Reverting Vandalism". --snoyes 15:02 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

You'all look like you got things well in hand. Thanks.. -&#35918&#30505

Snoyes, you wrote about me "128.193.88.55 has vandalised current events by deleting factual information that he/she has claimed is wrong but is claimed factual by outside news reports (CNN, BBC etc.) without any willingness to back up their claims."

Since when have wikipedia editors been expected to post their justification for correcting edits? Especially before any other editor came along and said "Uhm, I dispute that, can you back it up?"

You also wrote "The user has now finally commited themselves to backing up their claims, however she has also deleted the above report of their vandalism, so I restored it. In addition the user has replaced links to legitimate news articles with his own links. DO NOT DELETE THIS REPORT OF ANNOYING BEHAVIOUR!"

What do you mean "finally commited"? It wasn't like you had to make eight demands and I didn't respond for three weeks. I saw something that read incorrectly, so I corrected it. When you questioned my edit, I responded. This is NORMAL WIKIPEDIA BEHAVIOR. Hell yes I deleted your "annoy-o-gram", because I've done nothing which is outside the standards of wikipedia behavior.

Thanks for taking this to my talk page, I will respond in about a half hour from now. --snoyes 17:42 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

See wikipedia:editing policy and wikipedia:be bold in updating pages, for the wikipedia policies in this matter, if you'd like to look at this issue from a wider perspective. Martin

You're insinuating that I am not cognisant of the relevant policies. I am taking this to wikipedia-en because of anon's behaviour of thrice deleting my posts in Wikipedia:Annoying users even after warning him not to twice. --snoyes 17:57 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

I read Martin's comments as implying that maybe *I* wasn't aware of the editing guidelines.

Sorry, I was just trying to be helpful. I often find when I get into this kind of argument that it's worth rereading the relevant policy pages - these pages provide a kind of historical backdrop that I find useful. I didn't mean to be criticising either one of you, or commenting on the details of this incident... Martin

Ok Snoyes, here is one of the several points you are accusing me of editing in an "annoying" manner. Care to share what you were thinking?

Khendon: Two of Osama bin Laden's sons are arrested

This is where our story begins...

Me: Exciting news trickling out of Afghanistan suggests that two of Osama bin Laden's sons may have been arrested.

The news is still breaking and being disputed. I wanted to make sure it was seen as "may have", and I was having fun.

Me: Reports surface that two of Osama bin Laden's sons have been arrested in Afghanistan.

Three minutes later, the joke has lasted long enough. I NPOV my edit.

Snoyes: Two of Osama bin Laden's sons are arrested

(I can't speak for snoyes)

Snoyes: Two of Osama bin Laden's alleged sons are reported by Pakistani officials to have been arrested in southern Afghanistan. [1]

(I can't speak for snoyes)

Me: Two of Osama bin Laden's sons are reported by Pakistani officials to have been arrested in southern Afghanistan. [1]

I'm trying to clarify what part is alleged - they are the sons vs they have been arrested

Snoyes: Two of Osama bin Laden's alleged sons are reported by Pakistani officials to have been arrested in southern Afghanistan. [1]

(I can't speak for snoyes)

Me: Two of Osama bin Laden's sons are reported by Pakistani officials to have been arrested in southern Afghanistan. [1]

I correct again what part I see is debated AND I put an explanation in the talk page.

Why don't you put that text on the Wikipedia:Annoying users page? Maybe that would clear up the edit war. -- ヤギ

Because there was nothing out of the ordinary regarding my edits - This is a perfectly normal case of several editors working on the same page at the same time, and for some reason Snoyes decided that all my edits there were worthless and she reverted everything. I perceived we were going back and forth working on making the page better, and when it became clear she thought I had no sources I replied in talk. Something (and I don't know what) made her decide that I was a borderline vandal. I think she just acted on a prejudice against people who choose to edit without creating accounts, and there was just a misunderstanding between us.

let's clear this one up without any banning, hmm? happy thoughts. Don't make tarquin get his whisky bottle out. -- Tarquin 20:31 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC) (and hey, IP user -- it's considered rude here to remove signed comments. The nicer thing to do would have been to append something like: "I disagree. See User talk:Snoyes", and let Snoyes delete the vandalism alert later.)

Clearing it up sounds sensible to me. I'm happy with Current events as it stands. If snoyes wants to change it I'm happy to handle it in the traditional wikipedia manner. I resent being labeled an "annoying user" or a "vandal".

As Jimbo recently said, you're acutlaly more anonymous if you create an account here -- because we don't see your IP. (single malt islay whisky, no e.) -- Tarquin 20:36 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Tarquin. Please read the email attached below, unfortunately It is not on Wikipedia:Annoying users, as the user is constantly deleting my messages. I thought it was actually _policy_ not to allow user to manipulate others signed messages. I am calling for a ban at the moment because I am desperate at the anon user having violated this policy (if it IS a policy) about ten times now, and nobody doing _anything_ against it. --snoyes 20:37 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

This was/is on Wikipedia:Annoying users. The user is deleting it constantly: --snoyes 20:37 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

128.193.88.55 has "contributed" in an annoying fashion on current events by deleting factual information that he/she has claimed is wrong but is claimed factual by outside news reports (CNN, BBC etc.) without backing up their claims. --snoyes 16:37 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

The user has after a short edit war somewhat backed up their claims , however she has also deleted the above report of their vandalism, so I restored it. In addition the user has replaced links to legitimate news articles with his own links. DO NOT DELETE THIS REPORT OF ANNOYING BEHAVIOUR! --snoyes 17:20 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Changed the above again to make it neutral. If you wish to dispute any of the claims I have made here then take it to my talk page (as you have done - I will respond in about a half hour from now). Notice that I did not put the incident on the vandalism page, but rather on annoying users. If you delete this a third time, I will report it to vandalism and make the suggestion of banning you to a sysop. --snoyes 17:41 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Here is the email that I (snoyes) sent to the wikien-l mailing list:

Hi all

I hate to have to bring this here, but I've had major annoyances with user 128.193.88.55. (furter referred to as '55')

Here's what happened:

1) 55 deleted various factual information from current events news stories. These facts (whether they are right or wrong) were stated as fact in the news stories that were linked to. These included publications such as CNN and the washington post. (witness the changes made by 55: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Current_events&diff=728672&oldid=728668

and http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Current_events&diff=728706&oldid=728687)

2) 55 also made a few really bad quality POV edits of other peoples news stories (witness: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Current_events&diff=728646&oldid=72864 and http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Current_events&diff=728668&oldid=728664)

3) I hence reverted 55's changes saying that they should be backed up by credible sources. (the factual information that 55 deleted being backed up in such a manner).

4) I then added 55 to Wikipedia:annoying users, because i believe that it is important to be able to track users who make such qualitatively bad edits, and to tell others to keep an eye on them as well.

5) 55 deleted my comments about him/her from Wikipedia:annoying users, saying that he/she had justified their claims on the current events talk page. Infact, the user only restated his opinion and did not give any outside sources to back up his edits: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Current_events&diff=0&oldid=728788

6)I moderated my original post on Wikipedia:annoying users, and added another post asking 55 not to delete my posts.

7)55 deleted both my posts.

8) I moderated my posts again, adding a third one containing the bold sentence: "If you delete this a third time, I will report it to vandalism and make the suggestion of banning you to a sysop. --snoyes 17:41 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)"

Here I am.

In summary, it does not matter as to who is factually correct on current events, but rather that 55 deleted my legitimate messages on Wikipedia:annoying users about 6 times (and counting). Notice also that I did not put him/her on Vandalism in progress, even though 55's deleting my posts on Wikipedia:annoying users clearly is vandalism.

Please give me your thoughts, and excuse me for taking so much of your time with this issue.

Best, Sascha Noyes

--snoyes 20:02 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Well I'd rather give this anon IP the benefit of the doubt. Not eveyone knows the rules about not editing signed posts in talk. COuldn't you both symbolically shake hands and admit you were both working in good faith? and then that will be one less conflict & one step closer to a happy wikipedia -- Tarquin 20:39 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

I must insist that the user refrain from deleting my signed messages from Wikipedia:annoying users. As far as I'm concerned, and as I've stated in my email, the issues surrounding the actual content of Current events is resolved. The issue now is wether this anon user may legitimately stop me from putting my grievances about his conduct on the Wikipedia:annoying users page or not. Nobody has helped me in reverting his deletions of my comments so I must conclude that he may at will delete my signed messages without any threat of repercussions. I do not find this situation acceptable. --snoyes 20:45 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Look snoyes, you and I had a misundertanding while editing Current events, and we were handling it like any other edit conflict, and it was all nice and low key. Then, Bingo, you throw me into "Annoying Users". I took myself out of there and came here to your talk page to resolve it.

When you say In summary, it does not matter as to who is factually correct on current events, but rather that 55 deleted my legitimate messages on Wikipedia:annoying users you lose me. If my edits in current events were in good faith, and perceived correct by me, and we weren't in an edit war, then I didn't deserve to be labeled as an "annoying user" in the first place until we made an attempt to resolve it. Did you make even a single posting to the talk page before libeling me? Did you even consider that the edits I were making were an attempt to improve the article?

If there were a Wikipedia:list of neurotic bitches, and you put me there, I'd delete it as well. You are libeling me (and labelling) me, without even once stopping to understand my edits.

I have listed the reasons that I put you there in the email that you deleted from Wikipedia:Annoying users. I reject the claim that I am libeling you for listing you in Wikipedia:Annoying users. Points (1) and (2) is what I put you on the annoying users list for. Can you (a) refute the claims that I made in (1) and (2), and if not can you (b) state why, considering (1) and (2) you should not be listed on Wikipedia:Annoying users ? (Also please sign your comments as it is difficult to keep track of who is saying what if they don't sign) --snoyes 20:57 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Yes snoyes, I will attempt to address your claims (1) and (2).

In point (1), you say I deleted "factual information" and you give two examples, which I will call (1A) and (1B).

In example (1A), my intent was to improve the article by changing "alleged son" to "son". There isn't any great dispute that Saad bin Laden is Osama bin Ladens son.

In example (1B), I disputed that Fidel Castro is the world's longest ruling head of government. As the talk in Current events has since revealed, there is a distinction between head of government and head of state (which I have accepted) - furthermore, the original phrasing of the sentence could imply he was the longest ruling head *in history*.

In point (2), you say I made "really bad quality POV edits" to two articles. I'll call your examples (2A) and (2B).

In example (2A) I was having fun, getting my morning off to a good start, and meant my POV as a joke. You will notice that I NPOVed that edit a few minutes later, on my own, before any other user had touched it.

In example (2B) you are confusing me with some other user. I didn't insert those spurious bangs (exclamation points), and in fact was the first user to delete them in a subsequent edit.

So, have I addressed your charges? Was there ever really any mean-spirited edit war, or did we misunderstand each other? --the anonymous user in question

Thanks, yes I think this resolves the issue, although I must admit that I am left with a bad aftertaste and will be watching you edits closely in the future for NPOV violations. Have a nice day. --snoyes 21:23 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Ok snoyes. I hope the rest of your wikiday goes better than your wikimorning did. I'm sorry we had this squabble. My feelings were that you were unfairly putting me in the "annoying users" bin. I think we understand each other, although we still disagree on some things. --the anonymous user in question

Hurrah! Champagne for everyone! :) Martin