User talk:The Anome/archive 7

Bankers Algorithm[edit]

I wondered how you deleted the entire page history before the copyvio went up. I thought wikipedia kept all copies of a page's iterations for archiveal purposes. Any light you could shed on this would be much appreciated 63.76.82.66 16:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Lazarou[edit]

Please go ahead and edit this page. Papa Lazarou Posted by confusedmiked 20.06.05

New Mathematics Wikiportal[edit]

I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existent articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.

I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.

Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page. Thanks a lot for your support! ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Math CotW[edit]

If you wanted to vote for Tensor as the CotW, you should sign your name- those who nominate the article are allowed to vote as well. Also, check out the argument on Tensors v. Tensor Densities. ral315 15:52, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Rienzo[edit]

Rienzo is still editing under further sockpuppets User:65.161.65.104, User:MahBoys, and User:Sandor, and User:130.236.84.134.

This is in violation of a 3 month ban from the arbitration comittee - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rienzo

I would appreciate an immediate block of these accounts. CheeseDreams 14:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reverting Talk:Calendars of 2005[edit]

I noticed that you reverted the deleted section. I understand why you did it, but I did post a proposal in that section for the section to be deleted. I may delete it myself if there is an agreement among the other "frequent editors" of the Calendars. --Munchkinguy 18:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

pennies[edit]

Hello. Just saw your edit at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/February 15. Thanks.
On Decimal Day, it says "...effectively increasing all coins' value by a factor 2.4, ..." Is that wrong, too ? Just curious ...
-- PFHLai 09:43, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

That bit is really about Maundy money, a rather special case. I've rewritten that part of the article to make it clearer. -- The Anome 09:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. -- PFHLai 10:08, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Quotes[edit]

Anome, could you explain to me your preference for colons to indent quotations and not blockquote? In the past, I've had people delete my colon-indented quotes, and replace them with blockquotes, on the grounds that using colons is "bad HMTL". One explanation was that if Wikipedia ever wants to change the way indented quotes look throughout the encyclopedia, they won't be able to do that if people use colons to identify them. However, you seem to prefer the colons. Any light you can shed on this for me, and how to "nest" the blockquotes properly, would be much appreciated, as I'd like to learn how to do it properly. Best, SlimVirgin 00:06, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Who would those people be? Wikipedia is not written in HTML. -- The Anome 00:08, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Template not child-safe[edit]

Please reconsider what you are doing; whilst I understand and sympathise with your motives, you are going against the consensus developed on the mailing list that the information needed for downstream content selection should be possible to obtain from category information, not templates. For example, the category "Sexology" might be a clue here that some people might not want their children to have access to this article. Similarly, images can be assigned to categories relating to explicit sexual or violent content, allowing downstream filtering policies to be implemented in terms of these labels. This also solves the image inlining/linking problem. In this way, adults can see a fully uncensored Wikipedia without extraneous templates, whilst still allowing appropriately filtered content to be generated for children as soon as we have the filtering software ready.

Does that mean, I will be able to filter whole categories? I find a lot of text unfit for children too.--J heisenberg 12:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it should. That way, it's a win-win for advocates of both uncensored material for adults, and censored material for children. However, we should not label images or text as "child-safe" or otherwise; we should instead label them with the topics they belong to, and allow the construction of filtering policies to be decoupled from the labelling of content. Instead of labelling content now, please devote some thought to the classes of content that should be labelled: sex and violence are the most commonly cited, and clearly many people feel differently about text, images and other media.

For example, many people who might want to read an article about decapitation might not want to see a picture of one, still less a video. However, would a picture of a fictional decapitation from a movie be in the same category? Similarly, context matters. Is a medical drawing of a breast identical in content to a photograph of one? Would it be appropriate in the breast article, but not in the Janet Jackson article? How about an image of a bare-breasted public sculpture? How about a medical image of diseased or malformed genitalia, which would be quite appropriate for an article on that subject, but highly offensive to most people elsewhere? If images are potentially offensive, should they be linked, with a warning text, or simply inlined? And so on, and so forth. Content filtering is easy at first sight, but hard when you look at in in detail.

At the moment, we have consensus between the pro-censors and anti-censors to go for a labelling and software filtering solution that is policy-neutral. Please join us on the mailing list to discuss this in more detail. -- The Anome 12:39, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

... consensus developed on the mailing list that the information needed for downstream content selection should be possible to obtain from category information, not templates.

Why is there than a "morbid warning" tag?--J heisenberg 12:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's the first I've heard of it. Are we going to pretend to our children that death does not exist? Oh dear, oh dear. Back we go to the mailing list, then. -- The Anome 12:39, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Since there is a strong consensus on the policy, I'll put it on vote for deletion. BTW, I don't use news-readers a lot. Is there a place on the web to read the mailing list?--J heisenberg 12:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed there is: see http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l and http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/thread.html in particular.

Just to demonstrate the problems with "morbid": should we put all articles on armed forces, battles, warcraft and weapons under the "morbid" tag? Perhaps we delete all history articles referring to killing, or famine, or plague? And that's the Holocaust and genocide articles gone, too. And similarly many other things that should be required reading in schools to learn about the evils of the past. -- The Anome 12:53, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Please don't revert w/o talk page participation[edit]

Please see Talk:Rape#.22Trolling.22_accusation. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

for rollback on 68.79.59.42 -- I was starting to go through each edit looking to see if any were valid (ugh). Best regards, Antandrus 18:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why was link to Bukkake.com removed?[edit]

Hi-

There many legitimate reasons for an external link to Bukkake.com to be included on the wiki page "bukkake".

It is completely appropriate for the topic. Yes, there are adult advertisements on the site, but "bukkake" is a word with adult connotations. Unless the goal of wikipedia is misrepresentation of the true definition of this topic, it should be included.

I have laid out the resons for this several times:

On the "bukkake" talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bukkake

And also on the talk page of someone who removed the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elf-friend#Hi.2C_why_did_you_delete_the_link_to_Bukkake.com_on_wiki_page_.22Bukkake.22.3F

What are your thoughts?

Currently, I'm wondering why you are so insistent on adding a link to this particular site to the article, in spite of the fact that it is repeatedly removed by other editors. Do you have a financial relationship to this website? -- The Anome 07:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

warning about "misleading edit summary"[edit]

There is currently no rule against using a misleading edit summary which means it is allowed. VonBluvens 12:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's a diagnostic sign that what you are doing is deliberate article vandalism, which is against the rules. -- The Anome 15:45, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

astronomy[edit]

Seems you removed "Polarization of light" as a link to or from Astronomy, but it is very important in astronomy. Suggest you restore link Polarization of starlight was first found by Jesse Greenstein about 1948 and led to understanding of interstellar magnetic fields. It is an important diagnostic for radiation from active galaxies and quasars, accretion disks, and so on Pdn 13:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See [1] for evidence that. until I created it as a redirect for an item in the requests page, "polarization of light" didn't link anywhere. It's also clear to me that the correct link for "Polarization of light" should be polarization, since that's the article that discusses the polarization of light. Instead of accusing me of things I didn't do, why not create an article at polarization of starlight yourself? -- The Anome 15:30, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've now created polarization of starlight as a substub. You'll probably want to fill it in. -- The Anome 15:34, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Your (or someone's) latest try at polarization in astronomy mixed up coherent and incoherent radiation. For coherent radiation we require an overpopulation in the upper state, which therefore needs to be "pumped" by some process. In synchrotron radiation, electrons are accelerated by a variety of processes usually involving waves, shocks, turbulence, or magnetic field annihilation, but none of these tends to produce an overpopulation in a higher energy state; indeed, the particle spectra slope smoothly downwards with increasing energy. If this is confusing, think of coherent emission as being due to stimulated emission, which it is, and think of the whole process like old Fibber McGee's closet, or a set of dominoes or house of cards set up to collapse. Somebody has to stuff the top of the closet, or set up the dominoes or the cards. For masers there is another radiation field that does it (the "pump") but for synchrotron radiation and probably for most pulsars, no such thing. Perhaps instead of editing based on assumptions you might consider putting the page up on some request list for improvement (assuming you put in that stuff on "coherent" radiation.) But thanks for your interest and reorganizations. Pdn 16:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of Latin legal phrases / List of legal Latin terms[edit]

Many thanks for your exceptionally speedy merge! Six minutes must be some sort of record...

I was a little intrigued by your edit comment "merged the two lists programmatically" - which program? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A little Python program which took about two minutes to write, namely:

import string, re

data1 = """
[[[Put]], [[all of your]], [[various]]
[[Content]] - ''[[etc]]''
* [[here]]
"""

tags = re.findall(r"\[\[(.*?)\]\]", data1)
tags = map(string.lower, tags) # optional lowercasing
tags = {}.fromkeys(tags, 1).keys() # get rid of duplicates
tags.sort()

# Print nicely formatted
ch = ""
for t in tags:
   nch = t[0]
   if nch != ch:
       print
       print "== %s ==" % string.upper(nch)
       ch = nch
   print "''[[%s]]'' -" % t

-- The Anome 14:03, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks again. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New Mathematics Project Participants List[edit]

Hello The Anome.

In case you didn't follow the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Reformat of Participants list, I'm writing to you to let you know that I've converted the "WikiProject Mathematics Participants List" into a table. It is now alphabetical, includes links to the participant's talk page and contribution list, and has a field for "Areas of Interest". Since your name is on the list, I thought you might want to check and/or update your entry.

Regards, Paul August ☎ 23:12, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Diacritics[edit]

Hi & thanks for your explanation on diacritics. The template is a good idea, I'm now trying to find the Hungary-related articles to add the template. -- Alensha 14:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the news[edit]

Why is the shooting on the top when there's a newer item at the bottom of the list of news item and a flag from the second item pictured? Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Death[edit]

What happens to humans after death?

Second is the question of what, if anything, happens, especially to humans, during and after death (or "once dead", thinking of death as a permanent state). Such questions are of long standing, and belief in an afterlife is common and ancient (see underworld). For many, belief in and information about an afterlife is a consolation in connection with the death of a beloved one or the prospect of one's own death. On the other hand, fear of hell or other negative consequences may make death worse. Human contemplation about death is an important motivation for the development of organized religion.

Many anthropologists feel that the careful burials among Homo neanderthalensis, where ornamented bodies were laid in carefully dug, flower-strewn graves, is evidence of early belief in an afterlife.(I removed this because it doen't belong in either death or this subsection. also, other species bury their dead. It belongs in some history or anthopology type article)

While there is increasing modern study on the afterlife, acceptance of its existence or of its non-existence continues to be a matter of belief for most people. (I removed this because there is NO study of afterlife. What is the experiment? How can it be proved to relate to afterlife? What is the scientific definition of aftyerlife? what are the measurment units?)

Traditions exist across most cultures to mourn the death of loved ones.(And this belongs in "What happens to humans after death"? Why? After death people might mourn you?)4.250.168.50 10:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll find that I restored that section, after another editor removed it. -- The Anome 10:30, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Lemmy and ELP[edit]

You are d*** right that ELP weren't minor (they are still prob my fav supergroup ever and were the earliest records I bought and still listen to them!) I recall that when I added the line to Lemmy it didn't read like they were minor, but checking now all looks well ... --Vamp:Willow 11:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! -- The Anome 11:04, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

and thanks for the heads-up too. The info came from an on-screen interview on the BBC with Keith where he was talking about the screwdriver and Lemmy came up and said "you want to use something serious ... like this knife", sticking an ex-Nazi knife into the keyboard! I was reminded of the Crocodile Dundee clip about 'call that a knife - THIS is a knife' ;-P --Vamp:Willow 11:07, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Various comments moved here from user page[edit]

My point is that HIV tests are designed to confirm that HIV infection is NOT present. A positive ELISA is very common in healthy blood donors and army recruits - about 1% at any time - and usually reverts to negative in several months because most of these are "false" positives. The use of Western blot is controversial because 20% of ELISA negative blood donors have at least one WB band -- (Anonymous poster)

Hi I did not see your reply on polarization here - just a note on my own page. I'll take (an unpolarized) peek at Polarization of starlight. But that is a tiny part of the story. They've observed polarization of quasars, other radio sources, and even the cosmic microwave background. Pdn 02:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello again I fixed some stuff. Hiltner and Hall discovered the polarization of starlight in 1949. Hiltner then explained it as scattering off grains aligned by the magnetic field, but could not determine the direction of the field. Leverett Davis Jr (my thesis adviser) and Jesse Greenstein added theoretical work to allow such determination.

I removed the stuff about quasars etc. The radiation from these other sources is not starlight! It is a big subject I do not have time to write about. The Astronomy index page does not even refer to quasars!

Pdn 03:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your nomination of the page for a collaboration. I did not vote for that because it is not clear to me that a lot more information in this page might better be put separately under active galaxies, interstellar matter, interstellar or galactic magnetic fields, and pulsars. The page could become a sort of hodge-podge or even a Hodge-podge ([2]). Seems to me that the fact that synchrotron radiation is prominent in radio galaxies ought to be mentioned on the page for synchrotron radiation, and that the page on radio galaxies needs work more than a specialized page on polarization. Polarization has, however, also been observed in radiation from the Sun; even circularly polarized radiation was found by Roger Angel and John Darlington Landstreet in about 1974, and if I get round to it I'll put that up on the polarization page. The page on polarization itself is too mathematical and lacks description of common laboratory components for altering states of polarization, such as quarter-wave and half-wave plates. It also repeats the errors in the page "polarization in astronomy" and I'll try to fix that soon. It fails to mention that many migratory birds navigate by use of the polarization of light from the sky. (see [3]). Pdn 21:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) Oops, the page on polarization does mention use by animals. Sorry, I searched the very long page for "birds" and found nary a peep, but there is mention of bees and pigeons. The writing does suggest, however, that the plane of polarization is that of the electric vector, which is natural from a physics standpoint, but, I believe, is wrong from an historical and definitional standpoint, due to the fact that early on, scientists did not know which plane (for plane polarized light) was that of the electric and which that of the magnetic vector. Nowadays they use the electric vector so I will ignore this point of uncertain history. Pdn 21:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) Pdn 02:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Body Language Plagerism[edit]

I have never seen the website that I am being accused of plagerising. I wrote that information over five years ago for research I was doing on the book, Blind to the Molesting Hands. Feel free to delete it if you think I have cut and pasted from a website that I have never even seen. Regards,--TracyRenee 10:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

JPII[edit]

I appreciate your work on reformatting Pope John Paul II, but there's nothing wrong with left-aligned pictures. As it is now, the layout's rather boring and static. Also, there was discussion on the top picture, which came out against using the newer picture at the top: Talk:Pope John Paul II#On Article Pictures —Brent Dax 20:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Melissa Fahn Biography[edit]

Anome- I did in fact write it myself, but it was approved by Melissa Fahn and any editing of it would be adding things that aren't true or verified. Melissa trusts me to keep information about her on the web accurate, and I stand by what I say, I will edit it if I see any changes. I wrote it and I have that right as this is, as you said yourself, an openly editable site. Melissa trusts me to keep what she tells me as what is accurate about her and I won't let people maniacally editing my writing stop that. I'll just keep editing it back. I wouldn't have even joined if not for changing what was already here to keep that very promise. I won't be scared away and I won't break my promise to her.

-Millebaci

If it's going to be such a hassle for me to simply request that one section of the article not be edited, then I will remove it and anything else I contributed to that page and if I see anything from my site on there without my permission or any republishing of information from my website without permission, you'll see me again. I'm really not in the mood to be told what to do by someone I don't even know.

After our discussion last night, I have decided that I no longer want the text from my site to be on the page, if someone wants to write their own biography, they can, whatever, but I do not want what is there, which is (sorry, changing a few words to "wikify" it does not change who wrote it)mine and if you don't remove it, well, it's copywritten text up without permission and that can get hairy, can't it. Please have it removed immediately.

Good day. -millebaci

How would it "get hairy"? You have already stated that you are the copyright owner, and have already granted permission for Wikipedia, and any downstream users, to use your copyrighted content under the terms of the GFDL irrevocably and in perpetuity. Other people are now entitled to derive and publish derivative works under the GFDL, providing they also abide by the terms of the licence. You now cannot revoke that permission retroactively: please read the terms of the GFDL, and perhaps a book on copyright law might help. -- The Anome 19:08, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

142.163.249.114[edit]

I've just blocked 142.163.249.114 (talk · contributions) for 24 hours (my first block...). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my typos/links in the Dworkin article; I'm new and was careless there.

Re: PEEK and POKE[edit]

Hey, we've gotta discuss this! Stop Stop Stop! --Wernher 01:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm here. My line on this is: PEEK and POKE are two sides of the same coin, and need to be merged into a single article. I'm therefore creating/cleaning up the needed disambig pages. -- The Anome 01:03, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Do you want me to finish tidying, or what? -- The Anome 01:07, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, oh well. After having calmed down and thought about it a little, I actually came to the same conclusion as you did---so please feel free to go ahead sorting out the dbl redirects etc. I will do my part as well. Thanks for answering my "distress call", anyway. :-) --Wernher 01:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've done a bit of link-tidying and dbl redirect fixing. Think it's reasonably OK by now. --Wernher 01:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

Many thanks for giving me that information. I had never heard of external link spamming before you brought it up.

Regards, --TracyRenee 10:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greetings[edit]

Not all Lancaster's are named for the English city. Some are named after their founders that established them... like the California and Texas cities.--Anon 07:17, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know: could you possibly split the disambiguation page to reflect that? -- The Anome 08:17, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Your bot...[edit]

... could be used in maybe transwiking PD images to the commons or uploading PD images from government sites... -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

discussion or mediation[edit]

Please see request for point by point discussion or request for mediation in Opus Dei article. Oh well Seems like a moron to me... Lafem 11:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

grammatical error in boilerplate[edit]

The standard Wiki warning sign says: "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article is disputed." which is bad English. The subject is plural, so it should read "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed." I do not know where to find this item and I may not have the permission to correct it so I report it to you as admin-person. Pdn 11:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FIPS/Chile[edit]

Regions of Chile are the last ones in South America that do not follow "local-name uppercase-entityname" to move I need support, because I have to go to WP:RM - would you support me? Already 116 subdivion sets follow this naming scheme: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Subnational_entities/Naming (called "X English") Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please add new comments to the bottom of this page.

Moved old talk to

New Mathematics Wikiportal[edit]

I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.

Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page. Thanks a lot for your support! ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Math CotW[edit]

Rienzo[edit]

Rienzo is still editing under further sockpuppets User:65.161.65.104, User:MahBoys, and User:Sandor, and User:130.236.84.134.

This is in violation of a 3 month ban from the arbitration comittee - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rienzo

I would appreciate an immediate block of these accounts. CheeseDreams 14:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reverting Talk:Calendars of 2005[edit]

pennies[edit]

That bit is really about Maundy money, a rather special case. I've rewritten that part of the article to make it clearer. -- The Anome 09:54, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. -- PFHLai 10:08, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Quotes[edit]

Who would those people be? Wikipedia is not written in HTML. -- The Anome 00:08, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Template not child-safe[edit]

Does that mean, I will be able to filter whole categories? I find a lot of text unfit for children too.--J heisenberg 12:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

... consensus developed on the mailing list that the information needed for downstream content selection should be possible to obtain from category information, not templates.

Why is there than a "morbid warning" tag?--J heisenberg 12:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's the first I've heard of it. Are we going to pretend to our children that death does not exist? Oh dear, oh dear. Back we go to the mailing list, then. -- The Anome 12:39, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed there is: see http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l and http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/thread.html in particular.

Please don't revert w/o talk page participation[edit]

Please see Talk:Rape#.22Trolling.22_accusation. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

for rollback on 68.79.59.42 -- I was starting to go through each edit looking to see if any were valid (ugh). Best regards, Antandrus 18:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why was link to Bukkake.com removed?[edit]

Hi-

There many legitimate reasons for an external link to Bukkake.com to be included on the wiki page "bukkake".

I have laid out the resons for this several times:

On the "bukkake" talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bukkake

And also on the talk page of someone who removed the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elf-friend#Hi.2C_why_did_you_delete_the_link_to_Bukkake.com_on_wiki_page_.22Bukkake.22.3F

What are your thoughts?

warning about "misleading edit summary"[edit]

There is currently no rule against using a misleading edit summary which means it is allowed. VonBluvens 12:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's a diagnostic sign that what you are doing is deliberate article vandalism, which is against the rules. -- The Anome 15:45, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

astronomy[edit]

See [4] for evidence that. until I created it as a redirect for an item in the requests page, "polarization of light" didn't link anywhere. It's also clear to me that the correct link for "Polarization of light" should be polarization, since that's the article that discusses the polarization of light. Instead of accusing me of things I didn't do, why not create an article at polarization of starlight yourself? -- The Anome 15:30, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've now created polarization of starlight as a substub. You'll probably want to fill it in. -- The Anome 15:34, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

List of Latin legal phrases / List of legal Latin terms[edit]

Many thanks for your exceptionally speedy merge! Six minutes must be some sort of record...

I was a little intrigued by your edit comment "merged the two lists programmatically" - which program? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A little Python program which took about two minutes to write, namely:

import string, re

data1 = """
[[[Put]], [[all of your]], [[various]]
[[Content]] - ''[[etc]]''
* [[here]]
"""

tags = re.findall(r"\[\[(.*?)\]\]", data1)
tags = map(string.lower, tags) # optional lowercasing
tags = {}.fromkeys(tags, 1).keys() # get rid of duplicates
tags.sort()

# Print nicely formatted
ch = ""
for t in tags:
   nch = t[0]
   if nch != ch:
       print
       print "== %s ==" % string.upper(nch)
       ch = nch
   print "''[[%s]]'' -" % t

-- The Anome 14:03, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks again. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New Mathematics Project Participants List[edit]

Hello The Anome.

Regards, Paul August ☎ 23:12, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Diacritics[edit]

Hi & thanks for your explanation on diacritics. The template is a good idea, I'm now trying to find the Hungary-related articles to add the template. -- Alensha 14:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the news[edit]

Why is the shooting on the top when there's a newer item at the bottom of the list of news item and a flag from the second item pictured? Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Death[edit]

What happens to humans after death?

I think you'll find that I restored that section, after another editor removed it. -- The Anome 10:30, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Lemmy and ELP[edit]

Thanks for checking! -- The Anome 11:04, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Various comments moved here from user page[edit]

Pdn 03:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your nomination of the page for a collaboration. I did not vote for that because it is not clear to me that a lot more information in this page might better be put separately under active galaxies, interstellar matter, interstellar or galactic magnetic fields, and pulsars. The page could become a sort of hodge-podge or even a Hodge-podge ([5]). Seems to me that the fact that synchrotron radiation is prominent in radio galaxies ought to be mentioned on the page for synchrotron radiation, and that the page on radio galaxies needs work more than a specialized page on polarization. Polarization has, however, also been observed in radiation from the Sun; even circularly polarized radiation was found by Roger Angel and John Darlington Landstreet in about 1974, and if I get round to it I'll put that up on the polarization page. The page on polarization itself is too mathematical and lacks description of common laboratory components for altering states of polarization, such as quarter-wave and half-wave plates. It also repeats the errors in the page "polarization in astronomy" and I'll try to fix that soon. It fails to mention that many migratory birds navigate by use of the polarization of light from the sky. (see [6]). Pdn 21:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) Oops, the page on polarization does mention use by animals. Sorry, I searched the very long page for "birds" and found nary a peep, but there is mention of bees and pigeons. The writing does suggest, however, that the plane of polarization is that of the electric vector, which is natural from a physics standpoint, but, I believe, is wrong from an historical and definitional standpoint, due to the fact that early on, scientists did not know which plane (for plane polarized light) was that of the electric and which that of the magnetic vector. Nowadays they use the electric vector so I will ignore this point of uncertain history. Pdn 21:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) Pdn 02:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Body Language Plagerism[edit]

JPII[edit]

Re: Melissa Fahn Biography[edit]

-Millebaci

Good day. -millebaci

142.163.249.114[edit]

I've just blocked 142.163.249.114 (talk · contributions) for 24 hours (my first block...). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my typos/links in the Dworkin article; I'm new and was careless there.

Re: PEEK and POKE[edit]

Hey, we've gotta discuss this! Stop Stop Stop! --Wernher 01:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you want me to finish tidying, or what? -- The Anome 01:07, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've done a bit of link-tidying and dbl redirect fixing. Think it's reasonably OK by now. --Wernher 01:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

Many thanks for giving me that information. I had never heard of external link spamming before you brought it up.

Regards, --TracyRenee 10:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greetings[edit]

Not all Lancaster's are named for the English city. Some are named after their founders that established them... like the California and Texas cities.--Anon 07:17, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know: could you possibly split the disambiguation page to reflect that? -- The Anome 08:17, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Your bot...[edit]

... could be used in maybe transwiking PD images to the commons or uploading PD images from government sites... -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

discussion or mediation[edit]

Please see request for point by point discussion or request for mediation in Opus Dei article. Oh well Seems like a moron to me... Lafem 11:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

grammatical error in boilerplate[edit]

The standard Wiki warning sign says: "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article is disputed," which is bad English. The subject is plural, so it should read "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed." I do not know where to find this item and I may not have the permission to correct it so I report it to you as admin-person. Pdn 11:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FIPS/Chile[edit]

continued abuse is likely to result in escalated response???[edit]

15 mins is really going to solve the problem

Well, we can block you for more than 15 minutes if you like: done. -- The Anome 19:48, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

James Dobson article categorization[edit]

Hi, I removed the categorization because the category didn't actually exist at the time. Once someone creates it and populates it with sufficient articles then its reasonable to include it. I cast no aspersions as to its appropriateness to the subject but I suspect that once made, the creator might have a VfD on their hands. I'd suggest an alternate name, perhaps Category:Corporal punishment advocates instead.--Hooperbloob 15:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

However, work with me, I'm trying here for a suitable category for the type of person who advocates the corporal punishment of small children. Hence, my opting for something neutral and descriptive, as per my comments in your talk page. What possible objection do you think there could be in characterising him as such, if this is, as appears to be the case from his own writings, a true reflection of his beliefs? -- The Anome 15:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the category as currently named, doesn't express the notion of corporal punishment as such. From the discussions I'm seeing on the VfD page I think the current name will get flagged as POV. I could be wrong but the name strikes me as pretty loaded. I'll leave it up to you and just watch what happens from the sidelines :) --Hooperbloob 15:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Corporal punishment is (at its lowest level) about beating people, and works its way up through progressively greater levels of violence. Since I don't think Mr. Dobson advocates the more extreme forms of corporal punishment listed under our corporal punishment rubric, surely it's only reasonable to use the more moderate name? -- The Anome 16:21, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

FIPS codes[edit]

I wasn't editing down that end (only by sections) so I presume this was the simultaneous editing of long pages bug giving repeated sections. Will try my best to fix. –Hajor 20:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regions of Chile[edit]

Regions of Chile are on WP:RM. That means now there is voting to make them conforming to article names of subnational entities in whole in South America. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fusor tubes[edit]

I'd like to move the article Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor to something more generic, like just Fusor or Fusor tube or something, since I plan to expand on it and include all the history, like Langmuir and Elmore, and the more recent stuff by Bussard and whoever. Good idea? See Talk:Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor#updates - Omegatron 13:49, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Glamour[edit]

Thanks for the disambig on glamour - I thought of creating one but had to put it off until this afternoon and you beat me to it! Onlyemarie 17:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Imitation isn't always the sincerest form of flattery. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

identity wrong?[edit]

WRT "(rm "mistaken identity" story -- can't find any press corroboration: what was the source?)" I googled and apparently American and Afgan officials are firm they found who they said they found, while some European (French !!) "experts" are saying they don't believe it. Do Intelligence officials lie? yes. Do the euopeans offer PROOF? NO. Is the debate worth including in the Wiki article. I chose not to. A few days should provide more clarity. Meanwhile, the people who actually have him in custody say "no mistake in identity" 4.250.168.217 09:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Until this story can be stood up, it's speculation. I agree that intelligence officials are not necessarily reliable sources, but nor is anyone else in this case, not even the arrested person himself. NPOV is your friend here: do these "experts" have names, citable references, and reasons why their opinions might be more than speculation? -- The Anome 12:38, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Removal of items from ITN[edit]

Regarding your removal of items from ITN: Perhaps you should do a cursory look at the page history or the news before reverting to the incorrect version with the edit summary, "…can't find any press corroboration"? Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 16:28, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

ECT[edit]

...but can you name some countries where ECT is outlawed, with cites, please, to support the other part of the sentence?

Yeah, I'm working on that. One of those things where I know it is, but not the where.

MSTCrow 02:35, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Contravariant/Covariant[edit]

The entry Contravariant has a notice: "This article should be merged into covariant transformation. If you disagree with this request, please discuss it on the article's talk page." I very much disagree. I wrote something on the discussion page but the notice is still there, so here I go.

The term covariant has two very different meanings. In relativity theory (and probably differential geometry) it refers to the invariance of a quantity (generally a measurable one) when coordinates are changed, including changes among relatively moving reference frames. For example, the velocity of light is covariant, and the rest mass of an object can be determined in a way that does not depend on coordinate system or reference frame, i.e. a covariant way. But covariant also refers, unfortunately, to certain components of a vector or tensor that do usually change very much when the coordinates change. The simplest example is the vector from one point to another in ordinary three dimensional geometry. In the usual Euclidean metric, the numerical values of the contravariant and covariant versions of the vector are identical. If we perform a coordinate transformation doubling all the coordinates, (x',y',z') = (2x,2y,2z) then all the contravariant coordinates double but the covariant ones are cut in half. The distance, which depends only on the products of the coordinate differences (contravariant times covariant) (summed, and then the square root taken) does not change. It is covariant, but the covariant coordinate increments were all cut in half. The transformation is a covariant one, but does not preserve the covariant components. The invariance of the distance relates to the discussion of "covariant transformation" while the discussion of the changes in individual coordinate values, contravariant vs covariant, belongs in "contravariant". Thus, the notice suggesting merge should be removed. If you want to match "contravariant" with something, then you should create a page "covariant component" as opposed to "covariant transformation." Else you could rename "contravariant" as "Contravariant and covariant components" and I will port some of this discussion in there. These very concepts are rather passé now, at least in relativity theory, as the use of differential forms is supplanting old fashioned tensor analysis, but some folks still use tensors for fluid and continuum mechanics [7], rheology [8], mechanical vibration, crystal optics [9] and other fields not so suitable for the fancier newer maths so the entries should not be dropped. Simple tensor analysis is helpful when a cause (force, mechanical stress, polarized optical beam, e.g.) produce an effect imperfectly aligned with it. Such usages do not lend themselves as much to exterior differential form analysis so there's no reason to toss old-fashioned tensor analysis. Pdn 13:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From User:203.26.206.130[edit]

I hope that you enjoy re-defining vandalism to mean any act that aims to produce facts, whereas of course deleting things randomly is the work of an administrator, like yourself.

You are a moron. Congratulations. 203.26.206.130 18:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a Request_for_arbitration has been opened on user Internodeuser -- Longhair | Talk 12:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contravariant transformation???????[edit]

Dear Anome (sorry to put this as a trailer on some vandalism , but I do not know how to create new messages without appending to old.) I'm afraid that the two usages of "covariant" are so very different that your concept of parallel disambiguation pages won't fly. I have never heard of a "contravariant transformation", though you could ask a person more expert than I in differential geometry or differential forms. As I explained, "covariant components" and "contravariant components" are two faces, so to speak, of the same thing. The second one, in the case of the differentials of coordinates (hope I restricted my remark to that case) is an integrable quantity, a thing many people do not realise. Thus, if one totals the contravariant component of "dx" around some closed curve one gets the change in x, a property not generally shared with the covariant component of dx. I do not know how "covariant" came to be used for vector components, but I do not see it as related to the invariance under transformations. The devil of it is that we can't just change "covariant transformation" to "transformation with invariants" for many reasons, including wide usage probably started by Einstein. You could make up a disambiguation page for "covariant" pointing to "covariant transformation" on the one hand and "covariant tensor components" on the other. Unfortunately you cannot just use names like "covariant tensor" and/or "contravariant tensor" because these are two faces of one item. So you would have to work with "covariant tensor components" and make up a page like the existing one for "contravariant" for that case, so you could change "contravariant" to "contravariant tensor components." Actually, now that I think of it you could rename "contravariant" as "contravariant and covariant tensor components" and I'd be glad to fill in the "covariant" portion - you can leave a stub. Then the disambiguation page would fork between "covariant transformation" and "contravariant and covariant tensor components."

I think we probably need to discuss this at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics I agree with you about the covariant and contravariant components of tensors; tensors seem to be a particularly tricky subject here for some reason. The other terms really need some thought; you've certainly convinced me that a simple merge/redirect will not do the job. To that end, I'm copying your recent comments and this reply into the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics page. -- The Anome 14:51, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Also I return to an item wherein I already posted a comment against a merger, [[10]]. The two subjects for which merger is proposed are almost disjoint, with celestial mechanics being a highly mathematical subject within physics and astronomy, while "astrodynamics" applies to spacecraft engineering. Both astronomy and spacecraft engineering are specialties in which I have published. This merger panel is attracting idle comment and should go away. It shows up directly on the Celestial mechanics page and it is the ruddiest of red herrings. The existing page is rather trivial and does duplicate the other, so I am willing to rewrite the celestial mechanics one, when I have time, but only if the merger notice is removed in both places. I just found where I could delete a couple of lines on merger, but I am not sure if the merger idea would still appear other places. The Astrodynamics page is acceptable. Pdn 14:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript[edit]

How does one create Javascript? → JarlaxleArtemis 00:39, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (provinces)[edit]

Maybe you can have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (provinces). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

inappropriate behavior[edit]

What what? inappropriate? there are 25 pages dedicated to what i did (Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense). And yet i'm supposed to be the flag bearer for responsible wiki behavior all of the time am i? well, EXCuuuuuuusse me for cutting loose for this one time. how bout banning the real no-gooders around here (like the jerkoff that put somesort of rambling threat on my user talk) once in a while? in conclusion: fooorrrget you! (>*_*)>...(^*_*^)...<(*_*<)...(v*_*v) -AfC 9:57, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you're a nice guy, but the rules apply to everyone equally, all the time. Why not try Uncyclopedia? They're a comedy fun site, and they like that sort of thing there. -- The Anome 10:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Because despite my sleep deprivation induced acting out I beleive in the concept, then again I always did like communism as well and that didn't fare so good :\ . I actaully don't really care about being blocked. As you can see there are few limits to what people can do blocked or not. And I was blocked earlier because of the wide IP block someone tried to stop the vadalism that was occuring. And i'm going to bed anyway. I also don't care for BJAODN because i do think it does incourage vadalism beyond that which is naturally occuring, and have always wondered why something like it existed if Wikipedia trully does want to take itself seriously. --AfC 10:17, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN exists for the entertainment of the anti-vandal patrollers, not the vandals. For someone who doesn't care about being blocked, you're certainly making a big fuss about it here; why don't you get some sleep, and come back tomorrow? And take my hint about Uncyclopedia; a good spoof is really appreciated there. -- The Anome 10:26, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

24/7 (BDSM)[edit]

I see you've added a link to 24/7 (BDSM) into the Total Power Exchange (BDSM) article. There used to be an article 24/7 (BDSM) earlier, but it was up for VfD, and deleted because of a consensus. If you are going to make another 24/7 (BDSM) article, then I think the contents should be more than just mentioning it means being in a BDSM position throughout the week. — JIP | Talk 11:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the old article was VfD-able. However, I think the concept is a valid encyclopedia topic which could bear a non-trivial article. Needless to say, I will happily remove the link if it becomes a magnet for similar unencyclopedic content. -- The Anome 11:05, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

A bot is needed[edit]

Hello. You probably don't know me, but I have been doing the bot-assisted transwikis to Wiktionary almost daily now for a while. (See the log on WP:TL). The bot was created by Kevin Rector, who seems to have left the project recently. Well, we need a similar bot, so I can do transwikis to all the other projects, especially Wikiource and Wikibooks, which have huge backlogs and some of those have been hanging around for months (see Category:Move to Wikisource, Category:Move to Wikibooks etc.). There's also a bug or two that could be worked out. Please contact me if you would be able to do this, and are interested in it. Thank you. (Also, if not, do you know anyone else who could?) --Dmcdevit 23:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do this at the moment; my previous bot is now somewhat out-of-date, and I don't have time to polish it up to the currently-required standards. I suggest posting to the wikipedia-l [11] and wikitech-l [12] mailing lists, where potential bot authors tend to hang out. -- The Anome 08:37, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, to be clear, I was assuming I would still be running the bot. I will do what you suggested, hadn't thought of that. Thanks for your time. --Dmcdevit 20:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UK COTW: Welsh people[edit]

Hey, just to let you know that an article you voted for - Welsh people - has been chosen as the UK COTW. -- Cheers, Joolz 18:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slurp slurp[edit]

I prefer wine or beer myself -- despite working in Japan, where people who are otherwise apparently sane like to compare blood types.

I think we need to take a much more sceptical tone here, and just report on the phenomenon of web sites etc. making these claims (the existence of which is not in doubt), and just remove the rather dodgy detailed and conflicting claims made on these websites unless there is third-party verifiable evidence of those claims.

Very well said. Be bold with this claptrap. Meanwhile, I'm going home. (And if I have any meat for dinner, it will be well done, I assure you.) -- Hoary 11:22, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

sarcasm[edit]

sarcasm there is no need for. you deleted to much, so i pu it back, you added tags that have aleady been discussed in the archives, so i removed them... Gabrielsimon 19:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah. I hadn't realized I was in the presence of Authority. Oh, and I note that you still haven't added any cites to support the assertions you defend, although I have added several to back up the assertions I've added to the article. -- The Anome 19:25, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

i would tell you all about why i know things, if you want, IM me on aim gab the shaman is the ID. Gabrielsimon 19:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And a week later, certain contributions to the great debate on Vampire lifestyle are just as bizarre. Anome, if you have a few spare minutes, do please return, armed with Occam's razor and the other tools of a discriminating mind. -- Hoary 14:23, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pakistan[edit]

Would you like to join the animated discussion on the Pakistan's talk page? The current issue is whether "Pakistan is famous for its support of Taliban and 9/11 terrorist" is a suitable sentence to start the article's first paragraph. Your contribution would be much appreciated, as the current discussion seems to be more of a dialog between Ragib and SamTr014 Talk:Pakistan. Thanks !--PrinceA 07:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blowing a raspberry[edit]

Please remember to fix redirects (and preferably other links to the old title) when moving a page. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 17:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. -- The Anome 23:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Howard Stern vandalism[edit]

I just wanted to stop by and say thanks for answering my request in my edit summary regarding User:24.62.59.74's vandalism. You (Talk) 23:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Just wanted to say, I know I didn't handle it perfectly. There was another, less active IP vandalising that page, and in at least one case, I reverted one's vandalism and restored the other's because it was happening so quickly. You (Talk) 23:55, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Duplicated talk page[edit]

It appears that a large chunk of your talk page has been duplicated. Josh Parris ✉ 01:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please have a look.[edit]

A relatively new contributor, Zen-master, has taken a negative interest in the article on Race_and_intelligence has has attacked one of the most highly responsible and objective contributors that I know of, Rikurzhen, essentially calling him a racist and a Naze. A few of us have tried to reason with him regarding the points of possible intellectual inquiry that he has brought up, but he refuses to respond in an objective way and instead fires off another ad hominem attack. I think Rikurzhen can handle the ego assault, but I would not like to see this kind of abuse directed against less resilient and less self-confident contributors. I put in a "request for comment", thought about it, and then deleted it as being perhaps too extreme. Could you please have a look at the article's discussion page? Perhaps as someone not part of ongoing discussions on article content you could set this individual on a better path. Thanks. P0M 02:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another user has entered into a lengthy conversation with Zen-master on his talk page, but the result is the same. I see you had a look at the article itself and made a useful change. Z's main problem, as I see it, is that Z shuts off the discussion by ignoring valid criticisms of his position (and even people who have recently wandered in from the outside without reading much of the previous postings say the same thing). It's as though some doctor in the 1800s got interested in why more skin cancer was occurring in Denver, Colorado than in Boston, but something in his ideology forbade him from looking at the rate at which white people get skin cancer, the rate at which Amerinds get skin cancer, etc. You could look at education, nutrition, economic level, etc., and never get a clue.

FWIW P0M 00:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Map of Tennessee highlighting Sevier County.png[edit]

Hi. I noticed that the image Image:Map of Tennessee highlighting Sevier County.png doesn't exist. I saw that User:The Anomebot created some (all?) of the Category:Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 maps of Tennessee; let me know if I should contact someone else. Thanks. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:55, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Moab[edit]

Need your help/opinion: I think that page Moab should become a disambiguation page and look something like this:

Moab (disambiguation)

Can mean:

*[[Moab (biblical)]] Son of Lot, grandnephew of Abraham
*[[Moab, Jordan]] or the Kingdom of Moab. Stretch of land between the River Arnon and the Brook of Zered on the coast of the Dead Sea, controled by Moab.
*[[Moab, Utah]] Town in Southeastern Utah
*[[Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb]] (also known as the Mother Of All Bombs; accronym: MOAB) The most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever designed. 


{{disambig}}
This is a disambiguation page — a navigational aid which lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

What do you think? It would mean creating a new page for:

Moab (biblical) (taking part of the current Moab page.
Moab, Jordan (moving the existing page Moab to this one.

Let me know, WikiDon 28 June 2005 05:23 (UTC)

If I click "move" does it move all the thinks ("What links here"), or would I have to go to each page and change the link manually? There are a lot of them for Moab. WikiDon 28 June 2005 07:16 (UTC)

It automatically creates a redirect page. However, you will still have to fix double-redirects by hand. -- The Anome June 28, 2005 07:18 (UTC)

Pseudo-homosexuality dispute[edit]

Please add a section to Talk:Pseudo-homosexuality explaining what aspects of the factual accuracy of the article are in dispute. Thanks. -Seth Mahoney July 2, 2005 21:56 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry). I have now summarized the discussion on that page and added certain points which have been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. Any comments, and especially improvements, on the results would be more than welcome. Physchim62 7 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)

Bendix G-15[edit]

On Bendix G-15 you put up an external link to a photo supposed to be a Bendix G-15. It doesn't look like a picture of a compute to me. Is this an error? Bubba73 01:01, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a computer to me. In college, we had something like this which we used as a coffee table. Wish I still had it. linas 05:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Institutional racism[edit]

You asked a question about the "functional integration" of institutional racism a few weeks back, and I responded at length. Because you've entered no response, I thought I'd call your attention to it, in case you missed it. Peace. deeceevoice 06:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I see you've been having fun discussing aetherometry. Just wanted to say "hi". linas 05:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aetherometry[edit]

I can understand that you were unhappy with the content of the article (I wasn't thrilled with it myself), but I was quite unhappy that you unprotected the article, seemingly simply so that you could rectify the problems you saw with it. Unprotecting and editing is, in my book, also something of an offense (although obviously not as bad as editing and protecting), because in both cases one is using one's admin powers to do something an ordinary editor could not do. Hopefully, next time a situation like this arises, you will ask someone else (preferable the admin who protected it, if they are online) to review the protection in cases where you wish to edit an article.

I found unprotecting after only a few hours to be particularly egregious because this article has been the source of problems for almost a month now (see here and here). If the edit war breaks out again, I will be re-protecting it again, and I will be most unhappy if you revert my decision and unprotect it again. Noel (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noel, I am sad that you consider me to have committed what you consider to be an offense against your authority. (Although, of course, not one against Wikipedia rules.) I did two things: First, I unprotected the article, which had been blocked for over eleven hours to keep out a 3RR sockpuppet editor, to allow anyone to edit it, as is normal. Then, almost two and a half hours later, I went back to the article, wearing my normal user's hat and edited it, in what I considered to be an NPOV way, being fair to both sides, and in a way that followed the discussion in the talk page -- note, for example, that I replaced the list I removed with a cite to the original source of the removed text -- and left the article unprotected as before, still available for anyone else to edit. Now, if I had wanted to abuse my admin powers, I would have simply edited it whilst protected. Note that protecting pages to edit wars is only intended as a temporary measure, and is not intended to be used for long periods. Please calm down before you begin describing other people's actions as "egregious" or an "offense". May I suggest that the way forward with the IP sockpuppet is to deal with them by blocking their IP range, rather than indefinitely blocking pages, or taking issue with other admins? -- The Anome 23:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

11 hours is nothing when the edit war has been going on for nearly a month. We leave articles protected for weeks all the time, and there's no reason the article on this inconsequential topic couldn't have been left protected. Noel (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

province->Province[edit]

I noticed that in your List of FIPS region codes, many many red links can be turned blue by capitalising the word Province. I noticed this while working on the Red Link Recovery WikiProject (Capitalisation). You can help by capitalising this word in your list. Wiggin15 05:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UKCOTW: Cornish people[edit]

Just to let you know, an article you've voted for, has became this week's UKCOTW - Cornish people. Come and help out! Cheers -- Joolz 19:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/3.14[edit]

Given your prior involvement in the discussion of a related article, you may wish to participate in this discussion. Uncle G 01:56:54, 2005-07-25 (UTC)

Source for NIN "Talking Heads" quote[edit]

You removes a significant paragraph of info from the Nine Inch Nails article. This section was already discussed in the Discussion section, and a source was provided. Please be sure to check discussion pages before making such edits in the future. --Insomniak 16:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing a cite. The sentence (not a paragraph) that was there before was obviously wrong: the font in the NIN logo bears no resemblence to that in the Talking Heads album. What is similar, as stated by Reznor himself, is the typography, specifically the use of flipped letters. I have corrected the text appropriately. -- The Anome 16:58, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject[edit]

Hi!

I wonder if this guild is anything that you may benefit from, and in that case, feel invited to sign in :)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The World Conspiracy Guild

Have a good day :)

--Striver 01:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leggings[edit]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. PKM 17:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nadia Russ: NeoPopRealism[edit]

I have relisted Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nadia Russ: NeoPopRealism because of irregularities in the process. Please review your vote and indicate whether it stands or you wish to change it. -- Essjay · Talk 13:28, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Deletes[edit]

You might already know abou the {{nn-bio}} template but I thought I would point it out. It gives the admin a better idea of exactly why a page should be deleted. (Vanity is not a cause for sd, only vfd, no claim of notariety is a reason for sd) Usrnme h8er 16:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. -- The Anome 16:03, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright Images[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. I was a very new user, less than a week, when I posted those images. Under the Coyright Policy it said, "if you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license, you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates)" so I assumed, since I did receive permission, it was permitted. I am now aware of the Boilerplate request for permission rather then a simple e-mail grainting permission. As for copyright notices, I am not removing them, I am removing the false statements added to them about me, and following the procedure, adding what is described in the notice, "To the poster: If there was permission to use this image...please indicate so here." I will continue to do this and if I am blocked for doing it then so be it. I have already raised the issue with administrators and will not stop till they tell me to. You no longer have to worry if I am aware about the possibility of me being blocked. Thank you. --Evmore 12:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fenian Rising[edit]

You created a disambiguation page at Fenian Rising, but the only the second rebellion involved the Fenians. I'd rather see the Fenian Rising (1867) article moved to that title.

Lapsed Pacifist 23:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kruskals Tree Theorem[edit]

My apologies for the abovementioned item. The site from which I copied the material stated: " CITE THIS AS:

Eric W. Weisstein. "Kruskal's Tree Theorem." From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KruskalsTreeTheorem.html "

which I mistakenly took to mean that the information could be copied. I will write to the author of the site and request permission to use the content. Thanks for helping me on that one :/

Thanks on Cryptoporticus[edit]

That's gonna be a tough article. Do you know any other architecture and or Roman junkies that can help expand it? Karmafist 00:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting articles on VFD[edit]

A reminder: As per Wikipedia:Deletion process, when you delete articles on VFD, always paste the link to the VFD discussion in the "Reason for deletion" box. It helps other admins like myself to have easy access to those discussions in the deletion log, especially when another user asks about the results, or challenges them on VFU. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for blocking that IP address. I suspect it's the Feces page vandal I had a run-in with a few weeks ago when I protected the page against his trolling. It seems I've not been forgiven. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:27, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Joe Petagno[edit]

I put together what I could find, if you have any comments, you know what to do. Alf ^melmac 10:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking[edit]

Hey, thanks for blocking that spammer. Me and another editor were struggling to keep up with all his vandalism. I am really pleased because this is the first time I seen a vandal Ive been edit warring with blocked. So, while trying not to find joy in a block, thanks a million. Now at least I can go to bed;) Ban e s 19:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking IP numbers[edit]

Please be aware that when you block an IP address used by AOL, you effectively block all other users randomly assigned that number. This happens to me frequently. Please see my file: User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection. I would appreciate a prompt release of the block. Informtion below. WBardwin

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by The Anome.

The reason given is this: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "BUTTSPAMM". The reason given for BUTTSPAMM's block is: "offensive username, no edits so far".

You can email The Anome (no, I can't -- you haven't filed an e-mail address with Wiki.) or one of the other administrators to discuss the block. You may also edit your user talk page if you wish. If you believe that our blocking policy was violated, you may discuss the block publicly on the WikiEN-l mailing list. Note that you may not use the "email this user" feature unless you have a Wikipedia account and a valid email address registered in your user preferences.

Your IP address is 207.200.116.12.

Signoff[edit]

Hello. You are the first admin. I encountered, and I was favorably impressed.

After many hours with Wikipedia, I have decided that to edit science or philosophy articles is hopeless. Obviously, topics like "Objectivism" , "Creationism" the Great Flood, Parapsychology, and "General Semantics" will be dominated by devotees, who will, one way or the other, drown out sensible people and sensible viewpoints. Now it has gotten worse, especially in General Relativity. Some not very competent person "EMS" is promoting his own gravity theory and does not even understand geodesic deviation. His is a flat-space theory, in essence. M. Patel is a nice and reasonably capable chap, well-intentioned but among the various "players" they have let a person who has nothing useful to say Carl Hewitt, write more and more junk, and there are some more loose cannons in there. I have decided to void out as well as I could my user page but I would appreciate it if you could send my identity down the old "memory hole" - i.e. delete me as a user. I will not log in again. Pdn 19:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Horchata[edit]

Thanks for adding the "see also" to the Horchata page. I was unfamiliar with the other drink and I think linking the two together is a good thing. :) So thanks for helping me learn something new today. ManekiNeko | Talk 21:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CP[edit]

Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied"

If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions.

After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to:

{{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~

Blank the page and replace the text with

{{db-copyvio|url=url of source}}

to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not.

Fantastic. This will help a lot. Thanks. -- The Anome 22:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the wilderness society[edit]

cheers for moving that page, just wondering what the factuality dispute on The Wilderness Society page is for? what part of it is suspicious? it looks pretty right to me, though I haven't been involved in TWS myself. --naught101 10:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just highlighting the existence of the critical comment on its talk page. If you think the article's fine, note that on the talk page, and remove the notice in the article. Thanks! -- The Anome 10:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sweet, done.--naught101 10:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Jotter and the Really Bad Parody[edit]

You tagged Larry Jotter and the Really Bad Parody for speedy deletion as "nonsense". The page is not patent nonsense in the sense needed to be a speedy delete candiate, IMO. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Jotter and the Really Bad Parody where the articel is now being discussed for deletion. DES ^(talk) 17:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical quote in internet article[edit]

Hi Anome

I understand that your mathematical quote in the internet artcle is meant to baffle us mortals, but it has three " characters in it and really doesn't make any sense without at least having the word "that" in it somewhere. Could you tidy it up to give us a fighting chance, plaase?

-) --Nigelj 20:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel, I've cleaned up the punctuation. It does actually make sense: in fact, it's actually a reasonably succinct and accurate description of what the Internet is: in plain-ish English, it means "the largest group of computers that can all both successfully send IP packets to, and receive IP packets from, every other computer in that group" (25 words). Seth Breidbart could have left out the "reflexive, transitive, symmetric closure" bit, since that's implied by "equivalence class", and simply said: "the largest equivalence class of the binary relation 'can be reached by an IP packet from'" (16 words), but it wouldn't have been nearly as funny. -- The Anome 09:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. "the largest group of computers that can all receive IP packets from every other computer in that group" (18 words) seems to work, and is nearly as short as the math-phrased 16-word def. -- The Anome 09:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trog say, "Woman good. Neanderthal Theory of Autism bad."[edit]

I think that this is actually the correct way to deal with this.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Q1werty[edit]

Q1werty was improperly blocked due to the fact that four administrators blocked this user infinitely four times. This is a minor notification that his block has been appropriately fixed. If it hasn't, then there's a bug in the MediaWiki system and should be reported. When I checked the logs on this person, I found that there were four infinite blocks on this user:

23:11, 10 October 2005 Rdsmith4 blocked "User:Q1werty" with an expiry time of indefinite (Vandal)
23:24, 10 October 2005 Redwolf24 blocked "User:Q1werty" with an expiry time of indefinite (Vandalisms!)
23:42, 10 October 2005 Katefan0 blocked "User:Q1werty" with an expiry time of indefinite (Page move vandal)
09:48, 11 October 2005 The Anome blocked "User:Q1werty" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandalism-only user)

One thing I noticed is that there was no notice on this particular user's talk page stating the user was infinitely blocked. Anyway, just letting you know what happened. Although, I don't see why he was blocked a fourth time... --AllyUnion (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote on list of lists, a featured list candidate[edit]

Please vote at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics. Michael Hardy 20:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping you a line[edit]

Thanks very much for reporting me to WP:AN/I. I really appreciate how you assumed good faith. Captain Kreuk 18:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. -- The Anome 09:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hey, man, thanks for correcting my mistake vis-a-vis "Multiple Solutions." I like to help out the community, but the styling conventions scare me in the same way that MLA, APA, and Turabian do. By the way, you have one hell of a user:talk page.........

Hoover free flights promotion[edit]

Hi there,

could you please replace the copyright vio with the temp page?

Also note that Harry Cichy was put up on AFD today. You may want to vote... Mamawrit es ^{& listens} 21:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was the nominator. -- The Anome 09:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anchorage[edit]

"Anchorage" used to be a redirect that went to Anchorage, Alaska. I changed it to a dab page, and so I needed to fix anything that links to Anchorage (the city) to make it point to Anchorage, Alaska instead. That's why I came across your user subpage -- it links to Anchorage.

I can tell by the context that the "anchorage" you mean is the place to anchor a boat, so I thought I would do you the favor of changing the link to something like [[anchor|anchorage]], but then there weren't any other links like that, and besides, it never linked to the right anchorage anyway, so my dab change didn't make your page any more broken than it was before.

So I decided to put a long-winded explanation in your User talk page instead.—GraemeMcRae^talk 05:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Diwali[edit]

Africa geostubs[edit]

Hello. I see youve been making and undating some african geostubs. I know becuase ive just changed the stubs on all of them! places in west africa (like gambia and sierra leone) get AfricaW-geo-stub and ones in east africa like tanzania get AfricaE-geo-stub. please could you use them next time? thanks BL kiss the lizard 02:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

82.110.42.4[edit]

Chris Leppard was on the mailing list complaining about the quick block. Did you block him, then unblock him? Fred Bauder 14:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, I can't see the message on any of the WP mailing lists I'm subscribed to, by searching for either his name or the IP address: could you give me a cite, such as a message-ID, or a link to a mailing list archive page containing the mail? Please see the editing history for this IP for the reasons I applied the block. -- The Anome 08:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You left a note on his page but did not actually block him 82.110.42.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Fred Bauder 16:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had an email exchange with him regarding using Wikipedia as an advertising vehicle. It seems his competitors were all listed so he thought it would be ok to make a link to his company also. It did seem that there were many links to companies on the page I looked at Penetration_test#Penetration_testing_companies. I suggested he take up the matter on the talk pages of the articles. I think a number of these folks have listed themselves. Fred Bauder 16:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they thought they were doing us a favour by "penetration testing" the site? Perhaps we should delete all of these other links, on the no-advertising principle? -- The Anome 15:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mário de Andrade[edit]

Why did you revert my reversion to Mário de Andrade? The only change was a link to a redirect back to the article. Chick Bowen 13:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is now; see my edits to make it so. At the time you removed it, it was an open link to the title of an important poem, which seemed to me to be a valid link. I wondered if you had mistakenly reverted this whilst attempting to clean up the previous vandalism of the article. No criticism of you was, or is, intended by this action. -- The Anome 13:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough--and believe me, I didn't mean to be terse--I'm just trying to keep the article reasonably stable while it's on the main page. Now, though, I'm puzzled why Pauliceia Desvairada is in bold. Other book titles in the article are not. Thanks. Chick Bowen 13:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's dealt with extensively in the article, and nowhere else, I thought it a vaild headword for this article. Feel free to split it out into its own article, which is probably the best long-term solution. -- The Anome 14:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will do so. Makes sense, since Macunaíma has its own article (which could use some work too, while I'm at it). Thanks. Chick Bowen 14:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuggeting[edit]

NUGGET (AfD discussion)

You stated that this article was "unsourced" and a "neologism". Please re-visit both the article and the discussion. Please also visit Talk:NUGGET#Cleanup and consider adding the article to your watchlist and assisting in the effort to keep the article clear of unverifiable additions and original research by schoolchildren. Uncle G 15:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In My Travels[edit]

While travelling the US as, among other things,as a prospector, I've heard that the people who are either physically and/or mentally impaired are being experimented upon. I can't confirm this, nor deny this, and I know what this sounds like. One rumor I've heard is that mentally impaired boys experience docs injecting radioactive materials in their testicles. As stated, I know what this sounds like.Martial Law 01:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason behind these rumors is that those that are either physically and/or mentally impaired are incapable of consent, and these people have always been ill treated. In ancient times, they used to be killed, mainly for religious reasons, such as the human female has had sexual relations with The Devil and/or a demon, thus producing a impaired child, and due to this, the child must die, and some sects I've personally ran into still believe that people who are born physically and/or mentally impaired are the fruit of a human and a demon,The Devil having sexual relations. Now, they're being experimented upon, since society says they're valueless - at best. You travel the US as I've done, you'll see and hear some really strange and bizarre, yet true things and matters. Martial Law 01:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT about racisim,etc. at all, just about what I had seen,heard,experienced,no more,no less. Martial Law 02:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this has to do with my talk page. -- The Anome 14:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Federal Standard 1037C clean up[edit]

I thought you might be interested as I saw you have edited those articles back in 2002. Renata3 03:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not modify my comments[edit]

Please do not modify my comments ever again. If a vandal wishes to request to be unblocked, I have provided a link where I may be contacted. Hall Monitor 17:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Please note that I was simply refactoring your boilerplate warning to a vandal to remove internal self-contradictions due to the inappropriateness of the template for indefinite blocks. I was attempting to help you out as a fellow admin in warning off a vandal, rather than attempting to subvert you. I note that after reverting my edits, you made effectively the same changes that I had, plus or minus a few words. Please don't bite your fellow admins. -- The Anome 17:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you were acting in good faith, but would greatly appreciate it if you would contact me before modifying my comments. Please accept my apologies if my request came across too terse; at no time did I feel as if you were attempting to subvert me. ;-) Hall Monitor 17:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer it if I had re-signed the modified notice as my own? Re-factoring comments in good faith has been (was?) long accepted as a perfectly reasonable Wiki-thing to do, providing that you don't change the meaning of the text, which I believe was the case here. I have been correcting typos in other people's comments, without changing the meaning, for a very long time -- it seems to me to be only polite to do so. -- The Anome 18:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I would prefer is that you contact me before changing comments which have my signature attached to them, even if you believe the change to be insignificant or helpful. I understand that you were acting in good faith, but I am not aware of any consensus which supports the modification of comments made by other people. Is there any sort of guideline you can refer to which documents this? Hall Monitor 19:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No e-mail address[edit]

At the moment, there is no email address associated with your Wikipedia account. [13] Would you mind adding one? Hall Monitor 19:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Optimization glossary[edit]

The Anome, I don't think using speedy delete is the right way of merging articles. Please restore the article optimization glossary and make it a redirect instead. You can reply here if you have any comments. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, you're right. Created a redirect to optimization (mathematics). -- The Anome 23:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My request was kind of terse, I hope you did not get mad. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't offended. Regards, The Anome 08:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that...[edit]

Sorry for that removal from the Fuck article. You learn the craziest things about your acronyms sometimes, I tell you....Tommstein 10:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your comment on User talk:OceanSplash. As you might see, he started a campaing against Muslim editors with Jimbo, but when you confronted him, he made a rethorical trick, and claimed he had a problem with Islam. Very objecionable in my view. --Striver 17:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kamisese Mara and Britannica[edit]

Thank you for your note. I'll be popping in to the library tomorrow to photocopy the article in question. I'll then write a report, to be published on Wikinews. I will endeavour to show the similarities of the two articles, as well as the time-stamps from Wikipedia showing that OUR article predated THEIRS (which has only just been published, in their latest yearbook). David Cannon 10:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage[edit]

Anome, are you sure this message should remain on your userpage? JFW | T@lk 23:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kamisese Mara and Britannica[edit]

I've got a copy now of the article, and I think I need to apologise for leaping to conclusions too quickly. I still think the beginning of the Britannica article bears a striking resemblance to the first paragraph Wikipedia article, but the exact wording, and the order, is sufficiently different so a charge of plagiarism cannot be proved. I still suspect that Wikipedia may have "inspired" their article, but I would no longer call it plagiarism. I think most likely they've used Wikipedia as a resource, in much the same way that most of us would use Britannica as a resource. That said, I would like them to say so - especially in view of their negative public comments about Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I take back my charge of plagiarism. I should not have been so hasty to put such a charge in such a noticeable location, and I promise to be more careful in future. David Cannon 05:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DOM Reverts[edit]

Hey thanks for catching the DOM reverts. I was kind of busy this weekend and didn't check in online too much. If you catch them doing it again can you leave a message on my talk page making me aware of it. Everytime this happens, I'm gong to add diffs to the arbitration case.

I've asked for an injunction or page protection. Hopefully one or the other will happen. Thanks again! Davidpdx 05:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you rock[edit]

thanks for breaking off latex clothing into its own article. thankyou thankyou thankyou. I no longer have to war with sockpuppets! Themindset 18:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Geographical Regions[edit]

They exist (mostly because of redirects). --DMG413 16:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know! -- The Anome 02:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone wanna clue me in?[edit]

Reverts, deletions, getting bitched at on my talk page, etc. I dont know why Im even bothering to edit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Trek Rules! (talk • contribs)

You know very well why; you like the attention. One more, and you get blocked from editing as a persistent vandal. -- The Anome 03:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page vandalism[edit]

Thanks for catching it! | Klaw ¡digame! 04:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doosan vandal[edit]

I was going through and tagging all of the stuff db-copyvio, but blocking him is pretty effective. Thanks!!! RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 04:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think this editor's conduct (copyvios, ignoring repeated warnings, using sockpuppets to keep on reposting the same copyvios over and over and over again) is egregious enough to justify indefinitely banning any further sockpuppets on sight. -- The Anome 04:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked User:BorgQueen to intervene. If the user's latest account, User:Doosan, is currently blocked, please unblock it. Thanks. Gazpacho 06:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're back... but not posting copyvio this time. See User talk:Truism77. Gazpacho 10:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

Thanks for the speedy reply and yeh i remember now, thought the page might revert back but it didnt

Thanks Hasty

Hasty

Concurrency articles[edit]

Hi! I've noticed that you've made a variety of contributions to articles on parallel computing and concurrency. There is presently a discussion on restructuring various articles on concurrency and parallel computing taking place at Talk:Concurrent programming language#On the proposed merge, and I thought you might want to make your views known.

There is also some talk of starting a Concurrency Wikiproject to coordinate efforts on taming the structure and content of the diverse articles on concurrency and parallel computing. Would you be interested in contributing to this effort?

--Allan McInnes 17:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6174 (number)[edit]

How in the hell did I manage to get into an edit conflict over a random article that's not been touched for 3 months??? Then I remembered - that new redirect will have shown up in recent changes, won't it. Gah! Anyway, nice one :) — sjorford (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise[edit]

At Muhammad Drawings, please do not attempt to implement a "compromise" that the community consensus has clearly rejected. Babajobu 13:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete the image, I just moved it "below the fold", so observant Muslims who might be offended by the image can choose not to see it, and others, who wish to see the image, can. Rather than telling me about what you consider the consensus to be (as far as I can tell, it was "keep", which I agree with) you tell me why you insist on keeping the image at the top of the article? -- The Anome 13:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second poll clearly indicates that there is well over a supermajority consensus for keeping the image at the top of the article. Please don't try to override the clear consensus with your own preferred version. Thanks. Babajobu 13:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than telling me about what you consider the consensus to be (as far as I can tell, it was "keep", which I agree with) you tell me why you insist on keeping the image at the top of the article? -- The Anome 13:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unwilling to acknowledge the plain fact that there is a 75% community consensus that the image should stay at the TOP of the page (the SECOND poll of two, not hard to find) then I doubt you are willing to acknowledge less concrete rhetorical points with which you disagree, so I'm not going to discuss the issue with you. Please learn to respect (or at least acknowledge) the consensus of the Wikipedia community. Babajobu 13:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the image[edit]

If you look at the second poll it showed that 53 or something like that meant it should be kept at the top while only 18 meant it should be moved below the fold. -Snailwalker | talk 13:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try that again: rather than telling me about what you consider the consensus to be (as far as I can tell, it was "keep", which I agree with) you tell me why you insist on keeping the image at the top of the article? -- The Anome 13:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the second poll for Gods sake, 75 % thinks the image should STAY at the top of the page. --Snailwalker | talk 13:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but as a matter of curiosity, why do you want to keeping the image at the top of the article? Majority voting is not consensus; WP:NOT a democracy. -- The Anome 13:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well because Wikipedia is not supposed to take special care towards one religion. I mean if we moved the image here, then we should also move the image of Piss Christ or ANY other picture which could be offensive to some group, which in the end would mean that we couldn't have one single image at the top of any article...--Snailwalker | talk 13:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me a rationale. I agree; Wikipedia should not show any preference for any particular religion. As with this image, I agree that we should also show an image of Piss Christ, which is just as offensive to many Christians as the Muhammad cartoons are to many Muslims; I would also, consistently with my attitude on that article, suggest that we move that image "below the fold" with a warning at the top, with the same rationale of avoiding unneccessary offence. (Of course, we'd ideally need a longer article on Piss Christ and the related controversy, but there's plenty to write about that; the current article is a bit stubby, anyway). -- The Anome 13:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of consistency, I've just moved the Piss Christ image below the fold. For another example of a consistent and reasonable approach to potenially offensive images, see the compromise at vagina, where the useful and illustrative (and actually rather beautiful) image of a vulva complete with vaginal opening is positioned below the fold, to avoid offending those who find such things shocking. -- The Anome 14:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see my edit to Piss Christ has been reverted. Oh well, I've tried my best, I don't actually care enough to engage in edit battles about this. However, I will reassert my opinion that:

yes, Wikipedia is not censored to avoid offending people, and that is a good thing.
but also: I see moving potentially offensive images "below the fold" as a way of both upholding our mission to inform without Bowdlerizing Wikipedia, and at the same time showing civility towards those who might be offended, rather than just being "in yer face" to prove a point. -- The Anome 14:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to consider a sitewide policy for moving all offensive images below the fold, but ad hoc moving of the Piss Christ image to provide rhetorical support for moving the Muhammad Drawings is no good, IMO. Babajobu 14:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, it wasn't a rhetorical act; I really believe in all this "being consistent", "no favourites", "not censoring to avoid offence", and "civility" stuff, all at the same time, and see no conflict between these principles. -- The Anome 14:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks![edit]

thanks for starting Deborah Batts! Kingturtle 00:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<3[edit]

<3 The Anome, thank you greatly for not calling yourself 'The Faceless Man.'

If I made a Jack Vance Userbox would you use it? --Overand 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fading[edit]

Do you have any ideas for improving our article on fading? --HappyCamper 21:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ithyphallic[edit]

A Loooooong time ago (2004), you did a redir for Ithyphallic -> Erection. Was this a result of a VfD or similar process? The terms are related (in that they both deal with a penis) but not closely enough to warrant redir. An apt analogy would be a redir of Messianic Judaism to Christianity; whilst the end result (the acceptance of Christ as the Messiah) is the same, the context and symbology are radically different. "Ithyphallic" is a term used to discuss physical characteristics and the inherent nature of a god or a mythical figure like Priapus (unquestionably ithyphallic, but not always depicted as erect) or Paba Legba. The state of the penis is not the focus of the word; instead, the erect (or unrealistically huge) penis is a symbol of the being's nature. I see no way to address that logically (or safely - OH the flames) on the erection page. If this redir was not the result of a VfD, I'd like to know whether you'd oppose the creation of a separate article. Thanks, Kevin/Last1in 02:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't object. Please feel free to create one. -- The Anome 20:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ixfd64[edit]

I have filed an RFC concerning an administrator's reversal of several blocks without discussion. This may be of particular interest to you as a one of the blocks was set by you. Regards. — Mar. 12, '06 [15:11] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: San Marino, San Marino; South Tarawa; Spirogyra; Chitra indica; Neisseria gonorrhoeae; Midway Airport (British Columbia); Shemar Moore; A Hard Road; Spira mirabilis; Ken Marino; Michael Ruse; Spira (family name); Susan Page; Genotype; Gary Conway; Devil's food cake; Chaim Elazar Shapiro; McGill University Faculty of Engineering; Marino Marini

Cleanup: List of British pop musicians of the 1930s; Electromagnetic tensor; Equus scotti
Merge: Telephone jack; Frame story; Slave (BDSM)
Add Sources: Radical feminism; Don Black (nationalist); Intrauterine device
Wikify: John Passarella; Sher; Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office
Expand: You're either with us, or against us (slogan); Pedigree (Jewish Encyclopedia); List of British entomological publishers

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Color reversion[edit]

I regret to inform you that I've reverted your changes on Melanotan do see the logic for the colorizing on Talk:Melanotan before you revert again. Thanks! Netscott 14:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've reverted it back again: please see my rationale, also on Talk:Melanotan. As another comment on there says, the colours convey no extra information, and they make the article look peculiar. -- The Anome 23:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oughties[edit]

See User:The Anome/Oughties -- The Anome 01:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The three thousand articles[edit]

See User:The Anome/The three thousand -- The Anome 18:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on renaming article Jew to plural[edit]

Hi:

In looking back over the discussion at Talk:Jew I noticed that you had previously written about using the plural form "Jews" (or "Jewish people") for the article title. Someone recently added a poll on a possible name change. Please take a look. I'm in support of the move for the sake of consistency with other "group" names, and have attempted to provide examples from the List of ethnic groups; some have come out strongly against it. Perhaps you have a different take that would be appropriate, and might like to comment. Thanks! —Leflyman^Talk 19:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with the naming of other ethnic group articles seems to me to be a good idea. -- The Anome 01:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIPS region codes[edit]

Regarding the List of FIPS region codes (permalink) -- it's time to stick a fork in it, it's baked. The vast majority of FIPS regions now point to a valid region article, whether via its proper name, or via some mangled version of its name that is redirected to the proper name. Now it's NIMA magic time... -- The Anome 00:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Draper[edit]

You created the Mary Draper article more than 20 minutes ago and didn't remove the live link from the Requests page. Georgia guy 21:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All about...MURDER, SHE WROTE[edit]

Hey, you deleted the article. Please also close the AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All about...MURDER, SHE WROTE. Cheers! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 23:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too many fair use pictures[edit]

[The 2001:A Space Odyssey (film)] article includes too many fair use pictures. These should be removed. If no one familiar with the article does it soon, I will take care of it myself. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define too many? -- Jason Palpatine speak your mind

When looking at the article, there is an image accompanying plot text every few sentences. Fair use policy states that "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents". Using an image every few sentences certainly breaks both letter and spirit of this law. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Poll Request[edit]

I for one belive in the spirit over the letter. However, as I am the one responsible for this situation; and I want to avoid an edit war like the one I went through a year ago (re: Palpatine) may I suggest that we put this up to a vote? I belived that correlating an image with each paragraph hightened the article. However, I am only, as Carl Sagan would put it, "one voice in the cosmic fuge." So, may we delay any action on this matter for a period of a week so that other opinions may be heard?

People -- I ask for a vote. Should we do as per the demand of Scm83x? Edit it or keep it?

Please let me/us know. Based on the replies here, I/we will act on this matter come May 8. Thank you. -- Jason Palpatine speak your mind

I don't believe a poll is necessary. I think that it is rather clear that placing an image every few sentences limits the ability of the owner of the copyright to market their product. Why go see the film if almost every scene is outlined and photographed for anyone to see? Please take a look at featured articles about film for good examples, including Casablanca (film), Sunset Blvd. (1950 film), and November (film). Also, consider reading fair use policy for a better understanding of the reasoning behind limited usage of screenshots in articles. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 00:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Wikipedia is not a picture storybook. Please: no more than one carefully chosen picture per top-level (h2) section (and please note, I'm not suggesting creating more sections to allow for more images). -- The Anome 00:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALL RIGHT I GET THE MESSAGE![edit]

All right, I ve done as you've demanded. Are you satisfied? -- Jason Palpatine speak your mind

Yes, thank you. The article is still well-supplied with appropriate illustrations for the text, but it's no longer a picture book. Thanks! -- The Anome 01:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the appreciation, I appreciate it. Unfortunatly, the other person involved here uis not as apprerciative. Earlier today, they further deleted most of the images I had left in the article. -- Jason Palpatine speak your mind

My talk page[edit]

You removed the image I had there. Leave it alone. It's been there for a year now. For reasons of my own. I'm not deleting stuff from your talk page. Show the same courtesy. -- Jason Palpatine speak your mind

It's a fair use image, and I'm afraid you can't use fair use images for purposes other than those explicitly allowed by the Wikipedia:Copyright policy -- The Anome 10:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I see that another editor has explained this to you on your talk page, in rather more detail. Please don't take this personally; it's a policy issue, and admins are just as subject to this policy as any other editor. -- The Anome 10:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2448 Speech[edit]

erm, is there any other way of proving the article is vaild, other than looking for google hits? Its not really used on forums at all, generally mostly in games so i think i'll be hard pushed to find some website examples. erm, i'm guessing you can't use chat logs as evidense :P , any other thing i can do? or do i jsut let the article get deleted? thanks in advance. (sorry to post on the talk page, but you weren't respodning on the discussion page) Matthew 12:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthew! Unfortunately, if you can't give verifiable cites for the existence of something, it's not eligible to be in Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not you have personal experience of it: please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOR for details of the policies on this. -- The Anome 12:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, just delete it then, sorry tp have wasted your time :D Matthew 12:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bipolar disorder: edit[edit]

The Bipolar Blog link is extremely relevant to users dealing with Bipolar Disorder. What authority do you have to determine what links are credible, especially in medical related areas? If anything the nature of your deletion could be seen as a minor act of vandalism, even though your intentions may have been to help the community. The Bipolar Blog is back by an outstanding board of health care professionals. You may argue such a link could be seen as an advertisement, however, please enlightment me with an external link on wiki that could not be considered an advertisement. In addition, Such a link in this area would add value for those trying to understand the complexities of mood disorders. I feel strongly as an advocate of such issues it would be of great value. Individuals come to sites like wiki to learn and explore and with the valuable resource of the Bipolar Blog, as an external link, it would be, I believe a significant issue not to allow such a link to remain. Lastly, before you delete an edit you may want to try to discuss with the user who made the edit why such an edit was made. I know I would of appreciated it greatly if you had contacted me before deleting this link. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewisch (talk • contribs)

First, let me say that you are welcome to edit here, and we appreciate all good faith contributors, so please don't take the comments below as personal criticism, but rather as an attempt to explain my reasons for removing the external link you added to the Wikipedia bipolar disorder article.

Let's first look at the other sites linked from that article:

The comprehensive Open Directory Project links page for bipolar disorder.
a page of webcasts from five Professors of Psychiatry at the Department of Psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital.
the Icarus Project site, a substantial site run by an organization of bipolar people who provide information about themselves, and claim to have 350 members, and to hold real-life meetings, released under a Creative Commons licence.
PsychEducation.org, written by James Phelps, who is a psychiatrist, with information about who he is, who funds his site, what his qualifications are, etc. etc.
The legendary pendulum.org, one of the first bipolar disorder sites on the web, which attempts to comply with the HONcode principles
and finally, a set of webcasts from UCLA from three professors of psychiatry and an MD and molecular biologist who heads up a lab at NIMH.

In comparison with these pages, the site you linked appears to me to be a blog/forum site with (so far) very little content, and very little in the way of medical information. It does not appear to me provide any information about who is behind it, their qualifications, its sources of funding. There is apparently no privacy policy.

As far as I can see from the "about us" page, the site is claimed to be the work of a single person who does not identify themselves or list their qualifications. I can find no reference to the "outstanding board of health care professionals" who you say back the site. The domain appears to be registered through Domains By Proxy, who do not give details of the actual owners of the domain.

Given the above I think you probably need to further justify why we should keep a link to this site on the bipolar disorder page, since the sites I have previously mentioned already seem to do a comprehensive and authoritative job of providing further reading on the subject.

-- The Anome 00:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above: The external links section says it is a place to add resources for support groups and forums and the bipolar blog is just that, a community for those affected by bipolar disorder. In addition it would make sense that any resource for helping those who are bipolar is a beneficial one. What difference does it make if one person runs a web site. I would say good for them, because they are doing something that is obviously adding positive value to the community. If you were to look more closely at the content of the site, and the hundreds of contributors you to may be able to see the positive impact the site is having on those struggling with bipolar disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.45.111 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a web directory. I think you'll find that the wording

"There are numerous online resources on the topic of bipolar disorder; including research organisations, healthcare professionals, support groups and discussion forums. See the following:"

in that heading refers to the immediately following link to the Open Directory page, specifically so we don't need to list every one of the many (over 150) excellent web resources for people with bipolar disorder that are listed on the ODP page. I've now edited the external links section to make that clearer.

A question: given your username, and source IP address for your anonymous edit, am I right in assuming you are the operator of the linked website? -- The Anome 07:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Jehovah's Witness Crawl"[edit]

"Jehovah's Witness Crawl" is a valid slang term and should not be deleted from Wikipedia. It is not "nonsense" in any sense at all. -Cataphract_40

A slang term, you say? Google hits for "Jehovah's Witness Crawl": zero. -- The Anome 00:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being an editor for the Jehovah's Witnesses project, might I ask what this was all about? I've never heard the term myself... - CobaltBlueTony 04:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cataphract_40 invented this term as the title of a hoax article. Supposedly, it involved crawling under the window so that you could pretend not to be at home when the Witnesses called. I speedy-deleted the hoax, on the basis of being patent nonsense. -- The Anome 09:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well of course everybody knows that that is what blinds and curtains are for. Have you offered to buy Cataphract_40 (talk · contribs) some, so he doesn't have to duck under his window every time they knock? ;-) Oy vey. - CobaltBlueTony 13:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Box[edit]

Hi there. I've nominated the article Pizza box for deletion. As you are the article's creator, I am informing you and would welcome any comments you may have. Kind regards Vizjim 15:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder + Suggestion[edit]

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

— Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tag[edit]

Thank you for helping to identify Wikipedia articles for cleanup! In case you didn't know, it's not recommended to use subst: with the cleanup tag. Leaving the actual template in place helps make it easier to automatically refile the page later, and allows changes to the template to show up on all tagged pages. Thanks again, Beland 19:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quincuncial map[edit]

Whoa, that's what I get for editing while feeling blech.! Thanks for catching that! - CobaltBlueTony 04:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Tagged, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. With an Alexa rank of 1500, this site is fairly major. I'm not sure it's WP:WEB compliant, but I think it's controversial enough that we shouldn't delete it through prod. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it, as Proposed deletion is only for non-controversial deletion. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Mango juice^talk 18:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of molecular biology topics[edit]

In the M's, "motif" points to the Motif disambiguation page. Structural motif or sequence motif seem like distinct possibilities, or both might apply. I don't know enough to make that ruling, so some help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! —PaperTruths 05:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! A little Googling strongly suggests that you are right: I'll make that change. -- The Anome 05:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fun[edit]

That was fun, wasn't it? I think I've added as much as I can for now...maybe I'll drop by again and add more. See you around! --HappyCamper 17:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

second wave?[edit]

what's that? --Procrastinating@^talk2me 10:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of the first fifty... -- The Anome 11:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help[edit]

could you comment here [14]. Please review the recent edit history of the article. I did not think that using BCE and CE would be offensive to Christians, and the fact is the article has used these twerms for years. Moreove, I didn't think identifying the article as relevant to Jewish articles would be offensive to Christians. I appreciate your help, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but Codex SInaiticus just undid your work. He put in a brief and in my opinion trivial response to your comment. I am afraid I cannot restore the work you did because he might accuse me of violating the three-revert rule. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

again...[edit]

As someone who has recently edited this article, would you care to comment on: [15] and [16] Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus background[edit]

I set out my own views, but I think John Kenney and FT2 represent most clearly two opposing approaches to the article. Do you agree with John, FT2, or see a third possibility? I think we need to sketch out basic options and then try to get a consensus. You should register your view here [17]. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

others[edit]

the others article cannot be merged into a song of ice and fire.--AeomMai 23:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Snow White and the Seven Sins[edit]

The user's appealed his/her block. I don't think the name violates WP:U, myself - or is it too similar to a vandal's name? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll unblock it. -- The Anome 09:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design unprotect[edit]

I saw that you unprotected the intelligent design page. The last protection was for edit warring, and as far as I am aware, does not need semi-protection. As far as I could tell, the underlying reason for the edit war has not been resolved, but maybe I am to persimistic. If you do not object, I will lift the semiptotection as well. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. -- The Anome 13:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehren Watada[edit]

You may want to weigh in on the AfD, since you did some of the original work on the article.--Beth Wellington 05:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Sorry about the length of the tag. Yanksox ^(talk) 13:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wikipedia size graph sep 2002.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Wikipedia size graph sep 2002.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Wikiproject: Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales[edit]

I would like to invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales, as it seems to be in your line of interest, juding by your recent creation of a "Tuning theory" page. (Myself I think we would be better off with a "Tuning theory" category, rather than an article, but I've opened the topic up for discussion at the wikiproject's talk page.) - Rainwarrior 13:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

62.171.198.6[edit]

Thanks for the block, they don't seem to be able to take a hint. Paddyohale @ Uni computer. 16:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Body plan merge[edit]

Hey, fancy helping merge body form into body plan? I see that the latter is pretty much your article - Jak (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you're blocking Yogs....[edit]

Check out User:Y0G, he doesn't appear to be blocked yet. Sincerely, Logical2u (Wikibreak) 19:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~YOG--The Anοme 19:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Pardon me? That's a zero in the YOG of the user I pointed out, sorry. He popped in the User Creation Log. Logical2u (Wikibreak) 19:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The comment by "The Anοme" above was by an imposter: see the letter "o" in their name. I've indefblocked them now. -- The Anome 19:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I noticed that he was blocked, I couldn't se the difference in the name at the time (I've since added an Imposter tag to his page in order to help my popups sort out the difference between you and saw the Alt coding). The matter still stands, I think, regarding that Y0G with a zero instead of an o. Sincerely, Logical2u (Wikibreak)

Eima van Dell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

The username looks like it might have been intended to sound like "I'm a vandal", so a username block may be in order. What do you think?--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 19:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a bit of Googling suggests that "Eima" is not a name in general use, I've usernameblocked them. -- The Anome 19:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle physics[edit]

The article, now titled Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics, has been nominated for FA. Since you've worked on it in the past, would you care take a look at it again? AndrewDressel 01:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia County Maps?[edit]

Hey, out of curiousity do you have a high-res version of the Virginia county map, without the county names? For a Web-dev project, I'm looking for a high-res map of Northern Virginia, but can't seem to find it at the UofT library site, or anywhere else for that matter (if you have it, I may even use it to add to the NoVa article). Thanks! MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 14:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double-entry accounting system name change to Double-entry bookkeeping system[edit]

No discussion has taken place on whether to change the article name. Please undo what you have done and follow wikipedia procedures. One of the contributors will move the location if that is the majority agreement. --NilssonDenver 22:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the article talk page. -- The Anome 23:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments on article talk page, all of them. If you are an administrator don't over due it. --NilssonDenver 10:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to clean up the double redirects. ;) pschemp | talk 23:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- The Anome 23:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way of checking what articles are redirected to the double-entry system article. It looks like double-entry bookkeeping system is the going to be the name of the article. I set a deadline of 23.00 UTC tonight for feedback. There has been no objections and one note of support.
So unless there is sudden oppostion in the next hour, can you use your administrator powers and experience to redirect double-entry accounting to double-entry bookeeping system and move all the article names listed in the discussion section. The conflicting articles should not be moved for now in case there are other artciles that may use the same name. There has been discussion, as suggested by wikipedia guidelines, much time has been given to all sides, now let us do it. Thanks --NilssonDenver 22:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now moved the page to double-entry bookkeeping system, fixed up all the existing redirects, and added the extra ones you suggested. To see what other pages link to a given page, just go to the page in question and use the "what links here" link in the toolbox. -- The Anome 08:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sorting it all out. --NilssonDenver 20:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigga Know Technology on deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nigga Know Technology. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. -TruthbringerToronto 07:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know why Nigga Know Technology was deleted as well. The creator was interviewed on an FM radio station, there are several thousand unique visitors on that site daily, it was college humor's link of the day, alldumb.com's link of the day twice, mentions and interviews on countless internet radio shows.. what's the deal? --Eddie Williams

It has an Alexa rank of 544,460; please see WP:WEB. Over the last month, page-views-per-million have been a flatline. One brief mention on an FM radio show does not confer notability, or every caller on a phone-in show would, by that logic, get their own article. Links from other websites do not confer notability. -- The Anome 23:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a brief mention that's one thing.. this was a twenty minute interview - not just a mention. --Eddie Williams

I'm sorry, a single local radio interview is unlikely to raise you above the notability threshold. There are about 12,000 radio stations in the U.S. -- let's assume that each one does say three such interviews a day; then that's 36,000 interviews a day, 13.1 million interviews a year. Over a ten year period, about 130 million such interviews will occur. Given that there are only 300 million Americans, you can see why having been on local radio is hardly an uncommon achievement. -- The Anome 08:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure, that over a 10 year period, every interview will be unique as well. In fact, in 30 years, the radio stations will have to interview infants because we will have already run through the 300 million population of America. Why is it that Bubb Rubb has an article when he has only been interviewed on a local News station?

The article about Nigga Know Technology was informative and clearly not an advertisement. That is the one thing I'll never understand about wikipedia - the willingness to delete an informative article simply because the moderators haven't heard of the subject matter. Isn't the purpose of this site to serve as an information resource of facts, background, history? As more and more people begin using wikipedia to find out what something is - why would you limit your content and remove an article that serves as an excellent encyclopedia article? --Eddie Williams

Wikipedia is not a web directory. Please see WP:WEB for our criteria for including articles about websites. The article inclusion criteria are set by the Wikipedia community; please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 2 to see a formal review of the deletion of the cited article. -- The Anome 09:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smelly and scratcher[edit]

Can you double check that username block, it seems ok to me, if I don't hear from you shortly I'll unblock and we can discuss later. Thanks! -- Tawker 23:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smelly and scratcher[edit]

This user has requested an unblock; you're the blocking admin, and it appears to be a username block. I've asked around a bit quickly, and the consensus seems to be that it's not too bad; do you have any objections to unblocking on good faith and giving them a test run? You seem to be online, so I'll wait to hear back from you for, say, fifteen minutes or so; if you don't have objections, or if you do, please let me know (my talk page, preferably) right away. If I don't hear back, I'll go ahead and unblock on good faith and we can discuss it later if need be. Thanks, Essjay (Talk • Connect) 23:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your judgment, it's fine with me. We've been having a run of abusive usernames, and this might be a completely innocent borderline case that got caught in the rush to block the others. Please can you keep a watch on this user for a bit, just in case, if you unblock them? -- The Anome 23:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly will; I'll add them to the list of users who's edits are watched in the vandalism detection IRC channel. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Bed with Medinner (series 2)[edit]

I know you had some involvement with this list, which I came across as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery. I wondered if you could confirm that the redlink to Gary Newman in Programme Three should actually be to Gary Numan? Many thanks, TheGrappler 22:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ciudad Seva[edit]

Yes, the article is notable. As mention in the article (wich i'm yet to add the propper references to) this site si one of the largest online libraries in the world and one of the largest (and most amaizing IMO) collection of short stories on the web. I find nto only notable, but also necesary as this is part of my attemps to improve/create all the articles relating to Luis Lòpez Nieves, a puertorican writer.

I am aware that the current stub lacks a lot of important aspects that need to be added for an aticle to be in this encyclopedia, but I ask you to trust me as I will make sure that this article remains as encyclopedic as possible and I will make sure not to make it an unofficial advertisment of the site (that seems to be your main concern right?). In the mean time I invite you to help me correcting whatever you think is wrong with the article either by fixing it your self or by making me a not so that I do it. But please, stop putting that ugly tag on top of the article.Nnfolz 16:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "ugly tag" is there to encourage you to improve the article to meet the notability and verifiability standards; do that, and it can go away permanently. -- The Anome 18:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wanna put a block template on User:Hello Wisconsin's page?[edit]

Hello there, I had reverted one of this user's edits earlier and later found that the user was blocked by you. I also noticed that his/her userpage doesn't currently have one of the blocking templates like {{subst:vblock|Duration}}.

Perhaps this is presumptuous of me, but as you were the blocking admin, maybe you should consider putting one of these templates on this userpage as it seems to be accepted practice. I realize that it may have just slipped your mind in the middle of doing other stuff. Anyway, thanks for your time.--Tachik o ma 00:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page :D Martinp23 22:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:65.138.71.118[edit]

I've been keeping track of what this particularly unpleasant vandal is up to. Problem is, this is not the first time i've encountered racism whilst on patrol, and I have no idea how to deal with it. Somehow, the standard Test, Npa and Blatantvandal warnings just don't seem to cut it. How do I deal with it? Report it at AN/I immediately? Thanks, CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some kinds of behavior are so obviously unacceptable that the miscreant cannot possibly be acting in good faith. This is one of them. In which case (this case involved death threats to another user, and gross racial slurs) there's no need to wear the nicey-nicey hat. This user (65.138.71.118 (talk · contribs))was coming from a dialup concentrator in Louisville, Kentucky: if they persist, we can apply short term range-blocks to the whole concentrator, if need be. -- The Anome 20:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In future I'll take it straight to WP:ANI or an Admin on the first instance. Good to see there is a zero-tolerance policy on racism. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiracial image[edit]

What's wrong with the cute boy? It's time for a new image. He's multiracial. I don't see anything wrong with it. (I'm so bored)

Username block[edit]

What exactly is wrong about User talk:Tater Tot Monger Extraordinaire? I see nothing offensive about it. Sasquatch t|c 04:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing offensive about the name of itself; the reason I blocked it is because a long-term vandal has previouly used similar names, and the name was created at the same time as a number of other names with the hallmarks used by one or more long-term vandals were being created. -- The Anome 07:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... thanks for the clarification :-) Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

WikiThanks

Thanks for devandalifying my talk page! This guy certainly had some sort of bizairre vendetta going to bother coming back two days later and try again. Go figure *shrug*. Thanks! -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 19:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Prostate.gif listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Prostate.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I do not understand why you have blocked me, I have not caused any vandalism, however I get the message:

You were blocked by The Anome for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "28675". The reason given for 28675's block is: "vandalism-only account".

Please unblock me, and explain what this means. Thank you.

I posted, realized it was google, and then erased[edit]

I posted the message, realized it was google's IP (after doing the search), and then erased.

I am using the connection given by BSNL (India), where the same IP address will be used by thousands. In the past, when some idiot using any one BSNL connection vandalises the pages, I used to be blocked and I used to inform that "Please see, we all are innocent" messages.

Since I do not vandalise pages (I hope that my edits are not vandalism - only you can tell that, not me !!!!!), my knee jerk reaction as soon as I saw the "You cannot edit" Page was to post to your talk page.

After that I did a customary IP Look up - to see the node (which region) affected - to communicate with the BSNL officials so that they can look at the matter further and realized that it was Google's IP

I realized that it is something beyond my comprehension and hence deleted the post I made to the talk page

I am a doctor and know very little about the IP and block and other technical stuff. Sorry if this has caused any trouble Doctor Bruno 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan maps uploaded by The Anomebot[edit]

There's a huge number of orphan maps that were uploaded by your The Anomebot (it appears they have all been replaced by better versions from Commons) and I was thinking about putting them up for deletion at IfD if you don't mind (or unless you know any other, less laborious and time-consuming way to get them deleted...) --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad someone has got around to replacing them with better maps from Commons. Please feel free to delete any of these orphaned map images. -- The Anome 20:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evilowen[edit]

I'll be keeping an eye out for Evilowen3 (talk · contribs). Fan-1967 00:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm just about to do some AFD closing, on the basis of WP:SNOWBALL. -- The Anome 00:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sooner or later we're going to have to salt the earth on those, but There are so many damn variations on the titles... Fan-1967 00:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW his IP tonight is 68.45.174.215, which he was using just before registering as Evilowen2 (in the history on PHANTOM FEATURES). Fan-1967 00:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. That IP resolves to c-68-45-174-215.hsd1.nj.comcast.net. -- The Anome 00:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's asked for an unblock, on User talk:Evilowen2. I left him as polite a response as I could. Fan-1967 15:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Stub Sort[edit]

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

FUCK THE ANOME! Thanks! -Ohms law 19:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]