User talk:ElBenevolente/Archive1

DXM[edit]

Hi, just wondering if you would like to look at my edits to DXM and the talk page. Great work on that and other articles! Pakaran . 07:00, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I modified DXM to make it blatently clear that CCC is NOT to be recommended. The problem is that for some kids it's their only source that doesn't involve acetaminophen, so some folks in the community say taking CCC is better ... Pakaran . 02:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A rewrite sounds good to me. As regards coughgels - one concern that at least some folks have is that those are bulky (same issue with Dexalone) and hard to keep down in 3RD or 4TH quantities. The bottom line though is that, regardless of discomfort etc, ccc should not be used recreationally by anyone. White says it's ok for use up to 2ND quantities, which for some people would mean 15-20 pills. I think there wasn't as much of a history of major problems from CCC when he wrote though. People have been hospitalized for taking a dose of CCC that shouldn't have gotten them to second, I've heard of people passing out from taking 6. Pakaran . 03:58, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On another note, CCC is 30 mg, compared with 15 for Robo coughgels. For spiritual use, I suspect robo could get annoying (especially if the pills are large). However, I still agree that the whole not dying thing is a major benefit :) Pakaran . 04:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tu-22[edit]

I did a copyedit on the Tupolev Tu-22 article... Thanks. One letter "K" :-) Pibwl 14:23, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Clozapine[edit]

Heh. Sorry about that; I really should be more careful about such things. -Litefantastic 19:44, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Komen[edit]

Thanks for fixing my error in marking Daniel Komen for speedy deletion. The numerous superlatives and the fact that it was written by a non-user was an instant give-away that it was a vanity page, and didn't even warrant a Google test. Of course I was apparently wrong :-) I've now lowered my threshold for said Google test. Thanks for the eye-opener. --Diberri | Talk 00:58, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the metric conversion.[edit]

Just wanted to give you a heads up that 2,000mg = 2g.

Yeah thanks. My metrics not great so I thought 2g was alot more then it actually was. --Arm

Darn spielling[edit]

Thanks for the spelling fix in A Tale of a Tub. Since that's my best article, and since I like to really boast of it, I'm always happy to see it get better, and I have a lifelong devilment with "priviledge." Also, one supposes that you actually read the article to have caught that? I don't know which is better, the improvement or the fact that someone read so much. Geogre 23:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to second the previous poster for fixing the exact same speling mistake, this time in the Henk Sneevliet article. Thanks. --Martin Wisse 01:27, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hello. I am searching for people interested in computer technology and mathematics. I found you via the History of the AMD64 Wikipedia article and your userpage states that you like technology and mathematics and I examined some of your contributions and found them good. I am considering you as a candidate for receiving a special invitation to a new non-WP project. Please see: User:Npc/List. Thanks! Npc 20:56, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Comment on La La (song)[edit]

Please do not replace correct information with errors and misleading phrasing. It matters little that they are someone else's errors. By reverting to them, you take responsibility for them. Everyking 21:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mesothelioma links[edit]

Mesothelioma is a great page and has good information, but there are a few non-attorney sites out there that offer more information. Are all new external links to be removed as spam?

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision[edit]

Hey, you endorsed the RfC on Everyking, and you probably know it's gone to arbitration. Some of us feel that the proposed decision against Everyking is insufficient and too weak for a user who has abused Wikipedia so badly. I hope you can weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision having read the proposed decision and discussion and share your opinion with us, whether it's that the decision is too strong, just right, or too weak. Just because you weren't involved as deeply as some of us shouldn't prevent you from sharing your opinion. Johnleemk | Talk 06:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Universism Undeletion[edit]

ElBenevolente, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Universist_Movement Universist 03:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jonthan Pollard[edit]

I checked it once more. The quote is not unreasonable after all, so thank you for putting it back. No harm intended, definately not vandalism, however I must have reacted too sensitive to both the anonymous contributions (one was clearly vandalism, the other not). Will check better in the future. Thank you! gidonb 20:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the week[edit]

I'm dropping you a note to let you know that The Seventies, which you voted on, became a Collaboration of the Week! You are highly encouraged to contribute whatever you can to the topic! Mike H 01:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Linkspam[edit]

I see we are both fighting the same spammer. Do you know how can we block him from doing that?--AAAAA 29 June 2005 12:03 (UTC)