User talk:IanManka/Archive/7
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 15 May 2006 and 26 June 2006.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Subst:ing[edit]
Thanks[edit]
Thanks for mentioning this to me, because I wasn't aware of that. I'll make sure to remember it. -- Karl Meier 15:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
(cut'n'pasted from his talk page)
Whoops. I had forgotten about those! Thanks again for the heads up/advice! Tomb Ride My Talk 15:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice about the Big Game (disambiguation) page. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Neelix 18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it[edit]
I always subst, when didn't I?[edit]
I'm pretty sure I subst my warning templates. From what I can remember, I've been doing it consistently for months now. Which one did I miss? Thanks. --→Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!..
..
00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I am in the same boat here. I always subst:test on user talk page! Perhaps I missed one? Kntrabssi 01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- To follow up, I only knew how to use the talk page warnings by typing subst:testn, or finalwarning. I was unaware that subst:finalwarning would work as well. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Kntrabssi 16:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts in subst'ing templates, but I almost always do subst warning/message templates. If I forget once in a while it's by mistake, not ignorance. Feel free to correct any future such mistakes without notifying me. Thanks again --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Erm...I always subst: my templates. Can you let me know where I might've overlooked it? ^demon[yell at me] /03:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, heh. That happened so long ago that I had forgotten about it. Thanks. ^demon[yell at me] /03:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
For reminding me to subst. Can you tell me where I forgot to do so though? ILovePlankton (T—C—U—L) 17:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for note you left on my page, but I'm not quite sure what it is in reference to. I've not done any template work that I remember. Tomb Ride My Talk 04:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I have been substituting templates on talk pages. Can you provide a link to the one that I may have missed? ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 03:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
If CanadaGirl and tv316 don't move soon, we'll have to timeout them... Is a reminder to both now appropriate? Fetofs Hello! 23:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
FIFA featured article request[edit]
You requested FIFA world cup be the main page FA for June 9, the day it starts. Featured artilce is not supposed to conflict with other sections on the main page (the selected anniversaries or in the news). The FIFA world cup article will definitely be linked from the news section on June 9, so that's out. I am willing, however, to put it up on the 8th. Raul654 05:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Following Ian's comment on the FIFA World Cup talk page, I think we should go for either the 8th June or leave it till 9th July (day of the final; I understand that there's a good chance that this latter one would clash with news too). --Robdurbar 11:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hangman[edit]
My word is up. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey Ian[edit]
Was looking through your contribs... keep this up and I'll prolly nom you sometime next month for admin. NSLE (T+C) at 02:50 UTC (2006-05-28)
- Was thinking June 9, to mark the start of the FIFA World Cup which you've worked hard on. NSLE (T+C) at 07:41 UTC (2006-05-28)
Seeking an opinion[edit]
As an experienced Wikipedian with an interest in football pages and a record of work on a Featured Article, your opinion would be welcomed on a discussion at Talk:Swansea City A.F.C.. After various attempts to add a site with no original content, the site's owner has now recruited someone else to do the same. The question is this: am I correct to delete links to sites which themselves consist of others' copyrighted material and links to other sites? Given the paucity of real content, I have a strong suspicion that the site is operated on a "cash for clicks" basis.
I would like, ultimately, to see the Swansea City A.F.C. Wikipage reach Featured standard, so I am inviting opinions from Wikipedians with sustantial edit histories. Thank you for your time. - Stevecov 15:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to drop by and offer your thoughts. The user in question has now removed his link. - Stevecov 21:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
E-mail[edit]
You have new E-mail from me. Did you read it? Marcus2 20:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
world cup and mexico[edit]
hi got your msg about world cup and mexico don't know anything about that...this is a major public library with lots of users so maybe that's what happened i have edited a couple of wiki pages but nothing to do with world cup or mexico. so many users here, could have been anyone. hope it all works out. love your encylopdia!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.202.202.59 (talk • contribs) .
Editing[edit]
Hello. I received your warning about editing. I am using a communal computer at the library so I am not responsible for others' actions prior to my visit. I hope this reply is all right because I did not understand your warning about "Subst:ing" - which is jargon I do not know.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.202.202.59 (talk • contribs) .
Yamato[edit]
See Talk:Japanese battleship Yamato. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Your message[edit]
I am a regular Wikipedia reader but I do not understand your notice about the world cup. I am at the library here, perhaps you need to contact the administration? I haven't made changes to Wikipedia for soccer or anything like that.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.202.202.59 (talk • contribs) .
World Cup qualification pages[edit]
Hello there, you might recall some time ago I wrote a comment (in particular on the talk pages for 2006 World Cup qualification (UEFA)). I commented that the current layout is ugly - a comment I stand by. Not only is it ugly - but it is in violation of the guidelines on Internal Links ; the whole set of qualification documents are (in my view) hugely overlinked and near unreadable. My original layout was much clearer. --Zaphod Beeblebrox 08:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
RFA[edit]
Hey TKP. I'm now in school, I'll nom you for adminship when I get back home later today, as promised. NSLE(T+C) at 05:22 UTC (2006-06-09)
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/IanManka Accept or decline it, please. If you accept, please add it to the top of WP:RFA and correct the end time. NSLE (T+C) at 09:00 UTC (2006-06-09)
Happy Birthday![edit]
|
Just a happy Birthday message to you, IanManka/Archive/7, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!!! Have a great day! |
Many happy returns!!!
Thistheman 02:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
|
|
Just a happy Birthday message to you, IanManka/Archive/7, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!!! Have a great day! |
God, Thistheman is hot off the mark. Have a really good birthday! Sergeant Snopake 09:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
|
Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!!! Have a great day, IanManka/Archive/7! |
Mr. Turcottetalk 16:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
A Great Quote[edit]
Think until you are confused-only then can you truly think. Tigereye 53 13:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem![edit]
Hope you enjoyed your Birthday! Mr. Turcottetalk 00:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, me too! Sergeant Snopake 16:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I third that! Glad you liked it! Thistheman 03:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
FIFA World Cup 2006[edit]
What do you think about updating the tables at half time? Kingjeff 18:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
But who says the final score and information would be accurate? But it's still a good idea to reduce the number the of edits and editing conflicts. Kingjeff 21:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you think FIFA World Cup 2006 should use Ivory Coast or Côte d'Ivoire? For reference Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup. Kingjeff 02:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Confusion[edit]
- Its me again! I found out that there is another area I'd like to explore-Templates. I have already read all the help articles about it, but I still do not understand. If you could give me a link or anything that may give me some help(you may be able to explain it simply in writing, though) it would be greatly appreciated. Happy belated birthday, too. And now for a joke. A boy complains to his dad that his roof is leaking. His dad tells him to fix it. The boy says he can't because it's raining. His dad tells him to fix it on a sunny day, then. The boy promptly replies " But on a sunny day the roof doesn't leak!" Tigereye 53 00:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Headline text[edit]
I dont at all remember doing any of what you're accusing me of. is this another problem with AOL users on wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.67 (talk • contribs) .
RfA Congratulations[edit]
You are now an admin. I'm trying to think of something more profound, but my standard advice is really what I want to get across, so here you go :). I recommend being conservative with the new tools, especially at first, and re-reading the relevant policy before taking any action. Use the administrators noticeboard when needed, and just generally have fun helping the place out. Again, congrats. - Taxman Talk 15:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Good job! Yay!! :) Sergeant Snopake 15:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Conscious 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
| Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy: |
|
| DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL. |
- Conmgratulations. *~Daniel~* 00:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to congratualate you on becoming an admin! Great job!Tigereye 53 13:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Now active[edit]
I am now active on the Simple English Wikipedia, and I am getting ready to leave the English Wikipedia though I may make a few edits to the English Wikipedia over the next few months. Congratulations on becoming an admin! ForestH2
'A'ole pilikia...[edit]
...which means "no problem". And about the Alarm, I plan on removing it, as I tested it and it failed to work. Kalani [talk] 01:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Group stage articles for FIFA World Cup[edit]
What do you think of 8 articles like this 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A when most of the info is in the main FIFA World Cup 2006 and sourced at the official fifa world cup page? Kingjeff 03:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you include the other pages that were nominated in your deletion conclusion? Ansell 07:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to close AFD debates (like this one: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_Wrestling_Federation_(Australia)) as 'delete', please ensure that you delete all the articles listed in the AFD (this was a group nomination). I've cleared these ones up. Proto||type 13:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
(Topics merged)
Googleyii[edit]
regarding Googleyii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is there some way that you could please perma-block him, he has already twice vandalized my page after being temporarily blocked... - Adolphus79 03:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I need an advocate and help with mediation[edit]
Greetings,
I need an advocate who will walk me through the mediation process.
I am trying to get the following added to the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Max Tegark is a renown physicist and a PhD profressor of cosmology at MIT. He agrees with my addition.
I am having problem with an editor by the name of Lethe who follows me around Wikipedia reverting all my edits without commentary.
I have tried reasoning with him on discussion pages, but he refuses to read what I write.
Advantages of MWI
If Hugh Everett's theory was just another interpretation of Quantum Mechanics it would have no followers, especially since it proposes the existence of countless other universes which theoretically can never be observed. Because it is not falsifiable it seemingly violates Popper's criteria for a good scientific theory. The reason it has so many adherents is because it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following:
1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Copenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."
2. It eliminates the "measurement problem."
3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects."
4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness.
5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made."
6. The wave-particle duality paradox evaporates. It simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, "[the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment."
7. Schrodinger's Cat paradox evaporates.
It seems Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle.
Michael D. Wolok 18:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
3RR blocks[edit]
Would you kindly show me what are the edits that got me blocked? --Panairjdde 20:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am still waiting for an explanation of the block.--Panairjdde 10:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
AOL blocks[edit]
Hey! I just noticed you blocked quite a few AOL IPs in the range 207.200.116.0/24. Thought you might want to see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Major_AOL_Vandalism_attack - the range was blocked for 3 hours after a few short blocks were unsuccessful. Same person (you just blocked them) came back straight away and kept going at it. Cheers. --james(lets talk) 13:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- We usually don't, but consensus on ANI suggested we should for this one (the theory is that this is probably a vandalbot). As for range blocking, I believe if you go to Special:Blockip and enter "207.200.116.0/24", it will block every IP address starting with "207.200.116.". At least, that's what AmiDaniel did for his rangeblock of the same range. --james(lets talk) 13:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say just do it, there was no objection to the 1hr or 3hr range blocks earlier, and anyone can always unblock if they disagree. The entire range is going to get blocked gradually anyway as they filter through AIV. --james(lets talk) 13:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Looks right to me! I posted about the new block on ANI too. I gotta get some sleep now, thanks and good night! --james(lets talk) 13:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say just do it, there was no objection to the 1hr or 3hr range blocks earlier, and anyone can always unblock if they disagree. The entire range is going to get blocked gradually anyway as they filter through AIV. --james(lets talk) 13:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you blocked that user for spamming. Whilst it was obviously spam, that user had not received any warnings until I gave mine, and it wasn't spam of the 'evil type' (like misleading links to porn sites or something). So I think you were a bit too harsh to block then. I think it would have been better to wait to see if that user continued after my warning. If so then give a {{spam2}} then a spam3 or spam4 warning, before moving on to a block (spam5). I see you're a new admin, so don't worry about it too much, just remember that talking to other editors can often has a more positive effect than blocking them. Let me know if you have any questions, Petros471 13:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yeh, maybe reduce it to 3 hours, with the same block reason. When and how long to block for is very much an experience thing, so as I said don't worry about it too much. If the spam is not malicious (like porn, obvious adfarm sites etc) then it is always best to warn first. In this case it looked like someone trying to promote their own fansite. If it is malicious then an immediate block can sometimes be appropriate. Petros471 14:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh and you don't need to unblock when shortening a block length. The shortest block always is the one that is applied, irrespective of the order of the blocks. For this reason if you ever need to extend a block you need to unblock first then reblock for longer. Petros471 14:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I was the one who posted a notice of the spamming that the user was doing. I noticed it because he/she started his/her career of editing by deleting a lot of images on tobacco-related sites (without explanation); I happened to have one of these on my watchlist. So the user did more than just spam - there was true vandalism as well. And, as far as I can tell, he/she didn't do a single constructive edit before being blocked. John Broughton 17:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 19th.[edit]
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 25 | 19 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Message delivered by Ralbot 23:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
CanadaGirl and tv316 aren't playing. The other three games have finished, so what we'll do? Remind them after so long or putting MStraw or Dante back into the pool? Other option, perhaps? fetofs Hello! 23:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Silo deletion[edit]
Hi Ian, I hope that you read through all of the arguments on the Silo deletion page, as what it seems to have come down to is that the native wikipedians got offended because the Silo people didn't know all the wikipedia standard procedures (though multiple natives voted to keep the Silo page, one changing his to delete and then to neutral after thinking we were sock puppeting and then realizing we weren't). Silo was proven to be equally legitimate with Modo and ZBrush, which both have pages on here, and the Silo page was made to conform with their examples. If you delete the Silo page, you must by extension delete the Zbrush and Modo pages as well if the deletion is based on anything other than wikipedians being offended at newbies learning their policies. Please feel free to contact me and discuss this.
Tom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by tplewe (talk • contribs) .
- This proposed entry obviously got off on the wrong foot with the meatpuppetry committed by those who didn't know such a thing existed; they had no knowledge that the article was being submitted, found it, and proceeded without awareness of Wikipedia policies. However what is of concern to me is that it appears that the votes cast (other than by those first-timers coming to the Wikipedia scene in defense of the article) after it was revised to the point of including verification in the newly NPOV article were very few -- so few as to hardly qualify as decisive. In your short experience as an admin have you had other similar low-vote decisions to make, and are there recourses on these grounds? Is this a case of notability actually trumping verification, or was the verification weak? Also, would it be likely that a similar article with similar verification would fail on the same grounds (assuming no puppetry of any sort)? I'm just trying to place Wikipedia on some version of a playing field similar to those I have known previously (so far it's not there)-- thanks! --Sarsi 05:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Mega Millions[edit]
Hi, the source was [1]. Your megaball 1-36 was actually for the second version of the Big Game. Dionyseus 07:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The above referenced individual has been deleting all my edits today. A few minutes ago he or she sent me a message saying I am a "suspected sockpuppet". I don't understand this exactly and what do I need to do to clear this up?
This person has been deleting all my edits. Am I going to have to redo them? Or is he or she going to have to fix up their mess?
Please help.
Thanks!!
216.194.3.138 09:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)