User talk:Hayford Peirce

All Previous Material Moved To Archive 6; Start New Headers Below This

 * I am honneured to begin this page by announcing: answers on my Talk page! Ro Thorpe 20:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Chandler
Hayford, a long time ago I started a stub on Raymond Chandler and I seem to remember that you promised to write a full article. What are you waiting for? ;-) --Paul Wormer 20:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And when you are at it: write a nice piece about Dashiel Hammet too. I will be forever grateful.--Paul Wormer 21:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If I suggested Perry Mason, would that be a Masonic conspiracy? (Where is Chiun when we really need him?)Howard C. Berkowitz 22:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll hit you with a brick if you persist in this sorta stuff. (And who is Chiun, anyway?) Hayford Peirce 22:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Master of Remo Williams and Kvetcher-in-Chief. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I don't know who Remo Williams is. Hayford Peirce 23:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Destroyer, who makes Matt Helm look wimpy, with a trainer that has worse lines than Mac. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh. Yeah, now I vaguely remember a long serious of pulps like that. He may make Matt look wimpy, but when the smoke has cleared in the last chapter I know which one of the two would be standing. Hamilton actually was a very accomplished writer, something that has generally been overlooked, at least after the first couple of books, when critics began to take him and his skill for granted. Donald Westlake once wrote a very long, very laudatory article called "The Four Donalds", which was about four very skilled postwar writers: John D. Mc, Ross Mc, Hamilton, and Westlake himself.... Hayford Peirce 23:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

ISBN
I wouldn't worry about it. Yes, I know it's important in publishing and cataloging, but, to be honest, I have never actually used an ISBN as the primary key to find anything.

Barbara Boxer would only be a cover. Barbara Mikulski is indistinguishable from a foghorn. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Approval of Relative volatility
Hayford, I added a null space to the draft and it didn't work. Then I added a null space to the metadata template and that didn't work either. For some reason, neither the approved article or the draft article is showing up in the Chemistry, Engineering or Chemical Engineering workgroup or subgroup listings. I think that help is needed from Chris Day. Milton Beychok 16:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yah, I saw that you had done that and that it still wasn't working. Since it really isn't a big deal to anyone except Constables who do the approving, let's wait 24 hours until tomorrow and see what happens. If the change hasn't been made by then, we'll holler at Chris. Hayford Peirce 16:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked to make sure that you made the metadata changes before everything else, because if you don't, we know that that will cause it, but it looks like you did, so that is not it. I did add some pieces of the metadata template that got deleted, so maybe if you jogged it again, that would work.  Otherwise, it must be the lag or something new. D. Matt Innis 17:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I jogged four different articles -- one of them must have worked, the article is now listed in both Chemistry and Engineering Workgroups as being an Approved article. Hayford Peirce 18:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, it's still showing in the Chemistry part of the Ready for Approval article. But not in the Engineering. Hayford Peirce 18:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * All is now well!! Relative volatility is displaying in the pertinent workgroups and subgroups as it should. What did the trick must have been those missing deleted pieces of the Metadata template that Matt replaced. Milton Beychok 18:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Not sure so. Joe Quick went in, I saw, and physically removed a couple of the Ready for Approval items that *should* have vanished by themselves but didn't.... Hayford Peirce 02:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look over this. I don't think the missing pieces from the metadata would have made a difference. Also the CZ:Live category cut by Joe was not part of the problem. Actually, that category never should have been on the original page in the first place. As for the edits Joe made at the CZ:Ready for approval‎ page those do need to be done manually, their presence is not controlled by the metadata.

The more likely problem was in the order of events leading to approval (although I have not confirmed this was the case). First event should be to change the metadata, then subsequent edits will 'jog' the new categories into place. If the metadata is changed late in the approval process some of the pages are not 'jogged' and so the categories do not register correctly. I have a potential fix for this (unfortunately a complete kludge, nothing elegant) but i need to get the bugs people to addjust some settings first. Chris Day 14:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked, but it looked like he did the metadata first from what I could tell. The only thing different was that instead of copying the cat1 - date section, he cut it.  I agree I can't figure how tht would do it, but all else appeared equal. D. Matt Innis 17:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulation, Hayford! Now that you have done two final approvals, you are eligible for membership in the Constable's union. And did Matt tell you that the dues are $500 a year and membership is mandatory? Milton Beychok 02:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait till I do the third one tomorrow, when the dues go up to $750 -- fortunately I'm waiting for an IRS refund, so I'll apply that.... Hayford Peirce 02:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Send the check to The Constables, 9929 Albemarle road, Charlotte, NC... I'll make sure it gets to the right person:) I also accept direct depeosit. D. Matt Innis 17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was talking earlier this morning to my banker about a number of transfers between accounts -- I'll tell her to add you to the list! Hayford Peirce 17:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Were you talking about your offshore AIG accounts? D. Matt Innis 17:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And Swiss bank accounts as USB.... Hayford Peirce 17:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

copy - don't cut
Remember, don't cut this section out. Just delete the information (not the stuff before the '=' sign).


 * Okie. But in your instructions of two nights ago, you wrote: "When you are finished then type the "A editor" name (Paul Wormer) in the template and remove it from the ToA editor section. Delete all the information from the ToApprove section." In Dealing With Dummies, the title of my next book, which I will ask you to collaborate on, you gotta remember to change those instructions to: "Delete all the information from the ToApprove section, but only the information itself, not any of the category names before the = sign, such as "cluster =" and "now =" -- leave all of those!!." At least that's how I, as a Practicing Dummy, would word it. Hayford Peirce 20:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I find that the more words that I use, the more chance for error... or maybe the less likely the person will read it all the way through.  But, in reality, I suppose it is more likely that men will just do it and then go back and read the instructions later, which is the way that I prefer to teach (it's the boy scout way), it's called learning by mistake.  It is so much easier to show you what you did wrong than try to explain how to do everything right.  Besides, you may find a better way!  I don't know ho wmany times I watched and waited for something to backfire on a scout, only to find out it worked better than doing it the right way... of course, that was not what happened here.  You seem to experience things the Murphy way... sorry :)), but it is kinda funny :) D. Matt Innis 21:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that the Learning by Doing, Including Mistakes, is certainly a very valid approach. On the other hand, I always want to codify things (ie, write them down) so that the *next* time I know exactly what to do. I'll read through, very carefully, the How to Approve instructions in the article (not your great emails walking me though things) and see if I think I ought to add things and/or edit. Any things that I add/edit that are wrong can always be changed back....Hayford Peirce 22:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Youjun Wang
Officer, do we want Youjun Wang%5Ctechnical information in main space?--Paul Wormer 19:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good eye! We don't want it anywhere -- using my vast powers of the Constabulary, akin to those of Superman, I deleted the whole schmeer. Veddy weird what it was doing there and that no one else has caught it before. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 19:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, after more thought, I then Restored it and Moved it to Youjun Wang/technical information (with the slash pointing the other way) but after even more thought, I decided *that* was wrong, so I moved it to User:Youjun Wang/technical information. Which is where it *should* be, regardless of where he originally meant to put it. He was an active contributor about a year ago but has since vanished. Hayford Peirce 21:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

small boats -- mebbe Small Boats
For my new article about John Brock I want to work in a reference to the "small boats" department that either the SIS or Special Ops or some such Brit organization ran during War the Deuce as the late Jack D. Hunter (died yesterday, RIP) refers to it in some of his books. A bunch of *really* tough guys, I gather. I can't find an exact reference to them however, either in Caps or lower case. Am I imagining things from having read too many novels? Any pointers will be appreciated! Hayford Peirce 03:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is, and was, a Special Boat Service of the Royal Marines. I'm not sure when it was created, presumably after Sterling created the Special Air Service in the Northern Desert. Britain, however, had lots of odds-and-ends of units in WWII. As I remember, the "cockleshell heroes" were simply Royal Marines. Today, SBS has a RM heritage but is under Special Forces, much like United States Navy SEALs are immediately under Naval Special Warfare Command, who are under United States Special Operations Command.


 * As far as British WWII, if they weren't under Combined Operations (Keyes, and then Mountbatten), they would have been under Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) or Special Operations Executive (SOE). I don't immediately remember either of them having a maritime capability, although U.S. OSS had Maritime Operations and Operational Swimmers; the latter eventually became part of Navy UDT.


 * When a country has such organizations as Popski's Private Army, anything is possible, but I think the most likely explanation would be that such a unit would be Marines detailed for a mission, eventually as SBS. Miniature submarine operations were Royal Navy, but I don't remember if they were under a Naval HQ or Combined Ops. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the info. I think that I've probably read a gazillion thrillers over the years in which various people (usually the good guys) worked for the SOE during the war, and were often said to have been in Small Boats. This may simply be a fictional thing that grew up and sounded good so that the next sedentary bloke sitting in Sussex and writing a thriller, said to to himself, "Oh, good, I'll just say that old Craig had been in Small Boats and everyone will know what I mean." At least I'm now pretty sure that there was never an official, or even a semi-official thingee called that.... Thanks~ Hayford Peirce 15:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * SOE and SIS did use boats in exfilrated people, and especially materials, from occupied Europe. I don't think, however, they had a permanently attached capability, because most of their infiltration and exfiltration was by air. Even there, I believe these were specialist RAF units rather than organizationally part of the intelligence and special operations agencies, who really didn't want to run boatyards. Even today in the U.S., the Naval special operations people are in secure areas of larger naval bases. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think these various thriller authors are simply referring to what you say in the first line. Thanks again. Hayford Peirce 16:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

.265 Magnum
Typo or myth. The diameter (caliber) of .265 inches is quite small. While there are smaller infantry rifles such as the .223 for the M-16, those have little penetrating power; they tumble and shatter. What I'd consider an elephant round would be a .475 or greater. Unsportingly, elephants are taken down with automatic weapons that are smaller, but probably .30 caliber and lots of rounds.

Now, mind you, I like elephants, so harmless elephant guns might be OK. Perhaps he travels with an elephant that he annoys with that bullet and the elephant does the damage? Howard C. Berkowitz 21:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hehe. The Brock books are quite quirky, being written by an advertising man, after all. As far as I can tell, there's no gun company called Kruger, nor a Hawkeye Special, nor, as you say, a .265 Magnum, which is sorta like a Giant Shrimp, a contradiction. I was pretty sure of this, but wanted an expert opinion. All of the Brock books are written firmly with tongue in cheek, but they're sure a lot of fun! Hayford Peirce 21:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is, however, a Pistol Shrimp, which has a claw that it can snap and stun its prey. Such shrimp, however, are most incompatible with glass aquaria. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good grief, man, lemme get back to work! How can I type with a straight face?Hayford Peirce 21:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Anymore....
....blocks like that and you'll destroy our reputation. :) Chris Day 00:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hehe! Whoever at WP wrote "a few very polite unassertive people" sure didn't have *me* in mind! Ain't you glad, when you see a page like that, that you have nothing to do with it?! Peace, it's wonderful! Hayford Peirce 01:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way the Kirkland vs De La Hoya claim that Rocky included in two articles is a complete fabrication. Who will be baby sitting him when he comes back? Or do we just pull the plug right now? Or will I have to eat my words when he actually references a legitimate source? Chris Day 01:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And if you think my last link was insane, see this one. Wales makes a lot of sense there but the lunatics have taken over the assylum. Chris Day 02:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How about a Giant Pistol Shrimp to babysit? There's something rather surrealistic with adults playing with blocks. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They're all flippin' crazy over there, if you ask me. As for whether we pull the plug on Rocky or not, I am bringing various matters to the attention of the other Constables and time will tell. The new fabrication will be noted, I'm sure. Thanks for pointing that out. Hayford Peirce 02:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wheat streak mosaic virus
Some weird goings-on for agent Peirce to investigate. Ro Thorpe 22:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hash (cooking)
Hayford, what happened to your appetizing photos in hash (cooking)? --Paul Wormer 00:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC) PS It is probably the problem that Milt signaled earlier today.--Paul Wormer 00:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Geez, I dunno! They were there a couple of weeks ago, I know. I haven't checked them since then. But I will, right now. Hayford Peirce 01:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just checked -- they're still there! Is a puzzlement! Hayford Peirce 01:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

HELP !!!! All LaTeX equations are not being parsed and many articles are a sea of red! Half of the imagas and photos are not displaying!
Hayford, all LaTeX equations are not being parsed and many technical articles are now a sea of red. Also about half of all the images and photos are not displaying. This is the second time this has happened today. I don't know how to report it to "bugs". Will you please notify them? Milton Beychok 03:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Milton, just so that you know in the future, over on the left-hand side of the screen is the pane with the various CZ links in it. Down towards the bottom, under the Header "about us" is a link to "Contact". If you click that, you'll see the Bugs link. In any case, I'll send your email to them. Also to Larry, since sometimes he can get things fixed faster than the Bugs people. Hayford Peirce 04:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg
Thank you for your help re. , Hayford! ( | current status) -- Tim Chambers 19:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)'

Gammon. What is it?
My experience of it was delicious, thick slices of bacony ham. Different dictionaries give a range of translations, so what to put in British and American English? Ro Thorpe 22:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * SA-5 GAMMON Howard C. Berkowitz 22:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I had it once at an inn in Scotland and asked the waitress what it was. She couldn't explain it so a kindly gentleman at the next table, quite tweedy, told me it was ham. It was an excellent slice. As you say, there are an *enormous* number of different definitions of it (apparently the word is is derived from jambe). A coverall definition might be, "various kinds of ham, usually smoked, but sometimes bacon". Wish I could be more definite. Hayford Peirce 23:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Got down Vol. 1 of the OED and a magnifying glass and it says "The ham or haunch of a swine." Also the hind part of a ham. Also "cured or smoked ham." So, once again, who knows? (It mentions a 19th-century reference to "a gammon of bacon" hanging the corner or some such.) Hayford Peirce 23:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, between 2308 & 2314 I selected some of your choice words. Thanks! Ro Thorpe 23:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)...You could add a footnote... Ro Thorpe 23:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * When I lived and worked in London for 6 years in the 1960s, gammon was a form of bacon ... thicker and very much less fatty than U.S. bacon. Also much tastier. Milton Beychok 16:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Stranger and stranger. And yet Brits say, "A rasher of bacon".... Hayford Peirce 16:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What I encountered as "bacon" in the U.K. was, to me, much like what is called "Canadian bacon" in the U.S., closer to slicces of ham. Now, in Canada, one gets a strange look when ordering Canadian bacon -- you can get it, but there's a different term -- slab bacon, side bacon, something like that? Howard C. Berkowitz 17:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Le Monde
Hayford, I believe that it was you who put the reference to Le Monde in the memory of water. I checked Le Monde and found an astonishing result: they call it La mémoire de la matière (not de l'eau). What do you make of it? --Paul Wormer 08:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * PS I purchased the article and hacked the html source a little so that I could send you a copy if you wish. If so, let me know your e-mail address and I forward it. --Paul Wormer 09:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Paul, that's strange, but I don't think it's worth pursuing. A simple rewrite of the article is all that's needed, I'll do it if you like. I just looked at the French WP article about "mémoire de l'eau" and they said that Le Monde ran the first story about it, on page 1, and that the Ven. people were the *only* workers to be working in the field. They don't say *who* originated the phrase. Here in the CZ article, I was the guy who *explained* that Le Monde was a leading newspaper -- someone before me had put in the info that it was Le Monde who originated the phrase "mémoire de l'eau", I just did a little rewriting. (I think that it was homeopathic believer, Pierre-Alain Gouanvic, who put in the Le Monde info). Hayford Peirce 15:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * PS I don't see why we can't put, in the first paragraph of the article, a clear statement such as exists in the WP English article about it: "While some studies, including Benveniste's, have claimed such an effect, double-blind repetitions of the experiments involved have failed to reproduce the results, and the concept is not accepted by the scientific community.[5] Recent results indicate that water loses memory of its structure within a small fraction of a nanosecond.[6]" Why do we have to be so wishy-washy? Hayford Peirce 15:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about blaming you. When you Google you find thousands of sites that give credit to Le Monde for the term.
 * Please go ahead rewrite the intro as you see fit. The only thing is: I believe that the fact that the motions in liquid water are on the picosecond time scale is already known for a long time (a few decades or maybe even longer). I would have to check how long. I referred to a fairly recent authoritive review article from UC Berkeley (the main author, Rich Saykally, is a well-known water researcher). The Berkeley authors confirm the time scale but don't claim to be the first to see it.--Paul Wormer 16:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hayford, as far as I see, the initial article in Le Monde does not contain mémoire de l'eau, but it contains ou encore que l'eau est capable de conserver le " souvenir " de molécules biologiquement actives ayant été à son contact. I don't know of course whether later articles in Le Monde used the phrase. --Paul Wormer 16:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the clarification. I think that my most recent rewrite is correct then. But feel free to edit it as you think best. Hayford Peirce 16:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

WP vandal
Zaxby is all those guys? How do you know? I noticed he is fond of putting 'mispelt word' (sic).

Thanks for the latest wild beast. What's the scenery like round there? Lone Ranger title sequence kind of thing? Ro Thorpe 17:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I took a look at his "contributions", such as they are. They are all articles that Rocky Zeckoski had here in CZ and that I eventually deleted. Plus one about Cibola High School in Yuma, which is what Ryan O'Hara attends and probably Steve Fontanes, if Steve is actually a real person. There may be three of these guys, two, or just one. And I think that the Chief Constable discovered that they all use the same IP number....


 * As for scenery, I can't remember the Lone Ranger sequence. Tucson is in a big, flat basin, surrounded by "sky islands" on all sides. My house is at 3,000 feet and I'm looking out my office window at the Catalina Mts., the base of which is about half a mile away, and they soar up another 5 or 6,000 feet. Very impressive and very beautiful! And, of course, Tucson is home of the iconic saguaro cacti.... Hayford Peirce 18:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * At the very least, Rocky and Ryan are the same person. See here. The comment you removed on WP about him being a conservative blogger must be a reference to this blog. --Joe Quick 19:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This site says that Rocky is/was a teacher, but that's the only reference to him as a teacher than I can find. So it's probably just more of Ryan's baloney. http://www.kidsvoteaz.org/School_page.cfm?PID=3046998 Matt Innes found a Ryan blog at http://www.blogger.com/profile/14919156447040898913 that, a couple of weeks ago, mentioned Steve Fontanes, who tried to apply to CZ but got turned down by me. Now, however, the Fontanes mention is apparently gone. Geez, we gotta watch those guys from Cibola High! Hayford Peirce 20:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Which came first, the Ebola or the Cibola? Howard C. Berkowitz 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Saguaro of the Sahara (?)
Well, I'll have a shot: the Spanish g is very soft in the back of the throat & sounds much like an h, so the widgeteers were going in for a spot of the old disambiguation. Nice new word, anyway, I always liked those cactuses - Ro Thorpe 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Welcome!
Thanks for the welcome Hayford (even though it isn't exactly a personal message, it's still nice). Citizendium is sure different from wikipedia so I'll be sure to read the links on your message. Thanks again for accepting me.--Sunny Lee 04:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Naw, that's just a boilerplate welcome that someone built into the system long before I became a Constable -- once I accept someone, it's automatically generated. I couldn't stop it even if I wanted to. Have fun! Hayford Peirce 04:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, well nevermind then... Hey, there's something I've been wondering. What's the procedure for when two people have the same name (assuming they both don't have a middle name)?--Sunny Lee 05:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A good question! I dunno. I *think* that when people apply for membership, their proposal (and acceptance) is actually linked to their email address, so that if we have Bobsmith@UCLA.edu and Bobsmith@stanford.alum.org asking to become members, we will eventually have two Bob Smiths here. When they sign their names with the four titles in places such as here, I assume that in each case we'd see "Bob Smith" as their signature.  Our internal Wiki system would know that there's a difference between the two people, but the general reader, seeing their signature only as "Bob Smith", wouldn't know who was who.  It isn't, however.  a problem that has yet arisen, I think.


 * I'll start a new topic about this in the Forums at http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2665.0.html and we'll see if someone gives the answer. Hayford Peirce 16:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Still looking for the CZ personnel list? It's in the 'About us' box on the side. (I would have put that in the Forum, but it's too complicated, passwords etc.) Ro Thorpe 17:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanx, O Noble Rheaux! I *thought* that I had looked there, but probably not. I know that I kept looking at Personnel but could only find Kops, Editorial Bigshots, etc. I'll make to link to it from the Constabulary page, where I put all the stuff that's available but that I can't find when I need it.... Hayford Peirce 17:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Eaux! What I did was overlook the fact that Authors are members! I was looking for the word "member" or "Citizen" or some such. Stoopid moi! Hayford Peirce 17:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * De rien, prazer, &c - Ro Thorpe 17:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a gentle reminder
Hayford, I just want to remind you that Gasoline is due for final approval today. Milton Beychok 17:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I had forgotten about that. I'll take a look at it in a momentito. Hayford Peirce 18:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There should be another one (randomized controlled trial) on Tuesday as well, but I think we're still waiting on a third editor. If we don't find one, we can still do a single editor approval but we'll have to tinker with it.  --Joe Quick 18:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okie, then remind me on Tuesday. Since you're the manager, I'll stay out of it completely except for the actual mechanics. Hayford Peirce 18:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, we're all set for Tuesday. --Joe Quick 03:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Righto. I've revised, and printed up, and put into the Constabulary page, all of the Approval instructions, at least as far as I can see it. Some things, I think, aren't used anymore. For instance, the four tildes for the Kop who's doing the Approval. And the Page Break at the end of the Talk page. Any thoughts on those? Hayford Peirce 04:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I really like the page break; I think it's a good way to indicate the state of any ongoing discussion at the time of approval. Adding the tildes is something we all should probably get in the habit of doing whenever we make a change to a metadata template but in practice it rarely happens and anyone can check the history, so it's not really all that important. --Joe Quick 04:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I myself like the page break -- it was when Matt was walking me through the process that it disappeared -- I only discovered it today. I'll be happy to use it in the future. As for the tildes, I don't see where I'm supposed to use them -- I spent 15 minutes today trying to find out where! Show me, and I'll do it! Hayford Peirce 04:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem with application as editor
Thanks for the help.

I tried to resubmit the application. However, I got the following error message:

Username is already in use in a pending account request.

It seems the deletion did not work. Sekhar Talluri 19:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Griskin
I'd never heard the word, and I'm afraid neither of your links worked, but Wiktionary is clear enough: ; Oxford confirms: Lean part of loin of bacon pig. Salt beef, though, remains a mystery. Ro Thorpe 18:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, my unabridged says "a pork loin, especially the lean part; also a steak or chop" -- pretty broad, but apparently confined to piggies.... (No mention among its 625,000 words of "salt beef") Hayford Peirce 18:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)