User talk:The Anome/archive 8

Please add new comments to the bottom of this page.

Moved old talk to

Work in progress

The following is the result of taking Wikipedia's category links and the NIMA GNS data, and rubbing vigorously. With quite cautious checks applied to both datasets, this gives an unambigious location for 12660 out of a possible 28628 (44%) articles about non-US cities, towns and villages.

The results are sorted by country, then place, and binned into four files. They have also been compared to the data in Koordinaten_en_CSV.txt (see [1]), and labelled by whether they are new coordinates (NEW), or duplicate coordinates already in articles (dup), and, if so, whether they are exact duplicates, or if not, roughly how many km out they are. (The distance calculation uses several approximations, so treat it only as an order-of-magnitude figure).

User:The Anome/Geodata 1: countries A-F
User:The Anome/Geodata 2: countries G-I
User:The Anome/Geodata 3: countries J-M
User:The Anome/Geodata 4: countries N-Z

Experimental data, please do not use:

User:The Anome/Geodata test (25km tolerance) These data points are more questionable: GNS has more than one point for this name in the relevant country, but they can all fit within a 25km diameter circle. There are 149 of these.
User:The Anome/Geodata differences en:GNS gt. 10km These data points have data both in Koordinaten_en_CSV.txt and the GNS. The figure given is the approximate distance between the two coordinates given, using an approximation that is only good for short displacements. Only points with an discrepancy of greater than 10km are listed.
User:The Anome/Geodata - outliers gt. 100 km: just the 117 outliers from the above with differences of > 100km between the datasets. These are roughly 3.2% of the set where distance can be calculated. A random selection from these should be manually checked for QC purposes.

See User:The Anomebot2 for more details.

Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship/a la carte

I agree.

One of the things that became clear as I wrote Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_Adminship/Role_of_admins is that the relative importance of the various technical abilities of admins has undergone huge shifts over time. Perhaps this has stopped, but I doubt it -- look at the changes in the relative importance of things due to the use of RC patrolling software. I don't think we can reliably predict how this will change in the future and accordingly believe that any changes in adminship process should reflect the fact that we're trying to select people we trust rather than following a security-driven "principle of least priviledge" model.

All the best and thanks for weighing in. I know policy isn't really your thing but you're one of the few who has been here and can think in terms of the MeatBall:LongNow so I value what you do care to share.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshlight revert

Apologies if my revert took out a valid edit of yours. Just having an ongoing battle with spam links on that page - sorry and regards -- Nigel ^(Talk) 07:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khwaja Mir Dard

Hi. Sorry, I can't... I uploaded that image with no sense of Wikipedia policy, copyright, or style at almost the beginning of my existence here. Granted, I think it is probably PD because its trivial work (unless the font is special). But, I think your best best is to ask someone in Category:User hi-N since it's Devanagari... although... Dard would likely have written in Nastaliq... since that's the script more associated with Urdu. I think they best bet may be deletion of the image since it adds about nothing to the article. gren グレン 12:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bots

Can you tell me how to make a bot? Is it difficult to take care of bots?--S e an gorte r^{{mind a chat?} e@ CVU}

Bot2

I've approved your bot's trial run, see WP:RFBOT for details. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at this diff by your bot? Eugène van der Pijll 11:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spotting that: I've now added a check for redirects, and that won't happen again. -- The Anome 12:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now finished reviewing all the test edits, and I've caught a few other special cases where geotagging was alredy present indirectly, using the geolink, infobox, or placebox mechanisms. I've reverted those edits, and also added checks to prevent these from occurring again. -- The Anome 12:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think the present preference is to put the {{coor title dm}} template at the bottom of the page. Eugène van der Pijll 11:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on the basis that a naive user might expect something at the top of the rendered page to be at the top of the article, but I can easily change the code to put it at the bottom. -- The Anome 12:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Templates, point 3. It's a small point. Eugène van der Pijll 12:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference: I'll alter the code to put the template after everything but category and interwiki links. -- The Anome 13:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. I've also added several more checks against duplicate geodata being added, directly or indirectly via a template. -- The Anome 14:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add another report about your bot. It's adding the coordinates template to articles about cities in Argentina which employ a composite infobox including a {{placebox-coor}} template. Please have it check for that first. It's OK for it to add it to articles that have no coords information, though someone will eventually move it into the placebox structure anyway. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report! I've just fixed that -- see above. That edit was a one-off glitch whilst I tested the patch itself, by turning it off then on again. The bot now additionally checks for the presence of links to either Geographic_coordinate_system or http://kvaleberg.com/ in the rendered article, thus detecting any transcluded geolinks. This catches every template I've found so far. I've just re-run it, and it now detects Bragado correctly. -- The Anome 15:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few ideas: I think all of the data that you have are cities (are you selecting only those from the GNS database?), so it would be helpful to add "type:city" to the template; and you can also add the country ("region=AR", etc.). This would for example be helpful for Stefan Kuehn's GoogleEarth files, which are categorized by type of feature and country. Eugène van der Pijll 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. They are, in order: from the GNS, with the same title as an article which is categorized as a city, from the same country the category links up to, if they are the only city of that name in the country, and the GNS has only one entry under that name. I've added the tag now: thanks for the pointer. -- The Anome 20:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct syntax is given at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Parameters. The region is specified using the ISO codes. E.g., this is a tag I've just added to an article: {{coor dms|51|28|10|N|4|59|5|E|type:city_region:NL}}. Eugène van der Pijll 21:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your bot has finished with adding the new coordinates, you could add those properties (type:city and region:ISO-code) to the templates that are still missing them, for the articles that exactly match. I know I did not add them to a large number of articles on Dutch towns, which means they are now "uncategorized" in Stefan's kmz-file. Eugène van der Pijll 15:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Data files now regenerated from new database dump, with approximately 1000 new articles listed. -- The Anome 11:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the caps!

Carfiend 01:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why are there many articles listed here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Upcoming_albums ? Shawn88 12:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Please not that I am Sarah Ziegler as refered to below, the meterials I authors and have copy rights to. I would like to put this meterials up. Do not see how I would be violating my own copyright. If you would like to email me that would be fine sarahziegler@mheresearchfoundation.org "Hello Sarah, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Osteochondromatosis, Multiple article, but various excerpts from it appear to be be taken verbatim from other sources, and we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words.[reply]

Alternatively, if you are the copyright holder for that material, and in a position to licence it under the GFDL for use on Wikipedia, please let me know on my talk page. (I note that you have the same name as Sarah Ziegler, the National Director and Coordinator of Research of the National MHE Registry -- if you are, you should know that we particularly welcome the input of expert authors and editors.)

For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! -- The Anome 23:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)"

Re copyrights

Dear Anome could you please call me on the toll free phone number not sure where you would like me to post the information you requested.1- 877- 486- 1758 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahziegler (talk • contribs)

Not sure how to redirect but you redirect Diaphyseal aclasis and Osteochondromatosis to Hereditary Multiple Exostoses. I would be happy to keep Hereditary Multiple Exostoses up dated and expand this as well. I just need alittle time as in the middle of writting 3 sets of research project paperwork and will be giving a presentation at a research conference. Thanks Sarah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahziegler (talk • contribs)

Done. -- The Anome 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking policy

Hey. You recently deleted a patent nonsense article, and agreed with me that the author contributed nothing but nonsense to Wikipedia. I guess my question is, why is (seemingly) nothing done about these users? I've only been active on Wikipedia for a few days, but already I've seen many many users who have contributed nothing but nonsense, and have not been blocked once. Is the blocking policy this strict, or is it something else? Thanks, Fopkins | Talk 00:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's blocking policy is better characterized as pragmatic, rather than as lenient or strict. Usually, most vandals are people new to Wikipedia who do it once, submitting a series of silly edits, see them get deleted, and never come back again, as the experience was less fun than they thought it would be. In these cases, there's not much point in blocking them. Surprisingly often, some of them will come back later, and start to contribute constructively, and that's to be welcomed.

If they do come back and continue the same behaviour, we usually issue a couple of standard further warnings, and then block them if they don't stop. Even then, we don't usually ban for more than a day or so for first offenders, and allow them at least a couple more tries at editing, applying progressively longer blocks before they reach the end of the process with a permanent block. The reason for this apparent leniency is that we try to assume good faith as a matter of policy.

In really blatant cases of premeditated vandalism, however, administrators have the discretion to just block users indefinitely on sight without warning. Indeed, users may be indefinitely blocked before they make their first edit if they certain types of username which are well known to herald deliberate vandalism.

You might be interested to read the block log to see just how many blocking is actually done. -- The Anome 00:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy reply, and the post on my talk page. I get your point, and agree with the good faith policy. It is surprising to me that users you have described actually come back at a later date and contribute constructively, I guess it will be good to see that firsthand eventually. I think I will read that page; I'm very interested in how Wikipedia is not run over by vandals. Fopkins | Talk 01:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is many blocks, often multiple blocks / minute, but considering the traffic that comes through Wikipedia, I am semi-surprised it is not more still. Fopkins | Talk 01:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current events problem

I saw you were trying to fix the problem at Portal:Current events/August 2006. Don't bother. Apparently, some change has recently been made that is wreaking havoc with pages that use templates many times. See this Bugzilla ticket. Hopefully they'll get things fixed soon. -- tariqabjotu 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rdr over article

Why did you reduce Civil rights movement to a Rdr on top of over 50 edits dating back to March 2002 -- even if the rdr were not to a title ruled out by WP:NAME#Lowercase second and subsequent words?
--Jerzy•t 03:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because all the edits from the end of January on were based on a copyvio from Encarta, and there was a good, free, article already at the redirect destination. What was there prior to the copyvio was stubby [2], and seemed to me to already be covered in the better, longer, article. Renaming the article there to the correct title is easy, but I didn't do it at the time. -- The Anome 08:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now move-over-deleted the good article to the good title: I didn't see any point in keeping the edit history of the stub. -- The Anome 08:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, tnx. I'll clean up the talk-page aspects of it.
--Jerzy•t 09:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bondage hood article

The images in the article illustrate relevant text in the article and serve a descriptive purpose. I have revised the "fair use rationale" and licensing for the "Hells Belles" image. The size of the images are proportionate to the spacing of the paragraphs, so that the text of the article looks neat and orderly on the screen with the images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaiwills (talk • contribs)

Place locations in western australia

The bot is placing coords between the stub and cat, sort of an odd place? It's like not where you'd expect to see the coordsSatuSuro 13:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the place recommended by the Geographic coordinates Wikiproject people, after I discussed this with them. -- The Anome 13:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats daft as in manually provided co-ords in many locations in australia - it is either embedded in the text in the first line after the place name, or even in top right corner?

I'm not putting down your bots marvellous work, but feel bewildered that all the manuualy inserted coords will have to be moved? SatuSuro 14:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, there's no need to touch the manually-entered coordinates: if an article contains any existing geodata information, the bot will not touch it; it checks before each edit. At the moment, the consensus seems to be that it's OK to have lots of different formats, things can be fixed up later, since they all encode the same data in different machine-readable ways, and having the data is the important thing at this stage. Sooner or later, there will be a grand plan that will standardize all the different geodata formats, at which time more bots will probably do the work of standardizing all of the coordinate information. I don't knoiw if that's going to be in an infobox, at the top right, or something else: that's a policy issue for the future. By the way, even though the tag itself is located at the bottom of the article, the actual displayed coordinate is at the top right, in the same way as all the other articles tagged using the {{coor title dm}} template.

At the moment, my emphasis in this current run is simply to put reasonably accurate geodata into as many articles as possible that currently do not have any, both for its own sake, and so the other people working on Wikipedia's geodata projects can use it. -- The Anome 14:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the effort to explain whats happening - all these places I have onm my watch list have been flowing past me today/this evening, your reassurance is a relief :) SatuSuro 14:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing your bot's excellent work on adding coords to Australian towns (watching many NSW locations). It is doing a great job :-) Thanks--Arktos ^talk 20:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not

I'm not using wikipedia for that! Well sure, i'm talking to wikifriends, but that's not why i'm loged on to wikipedia! I clean up, edit, create articles etc. If you want proof, go to the article bellard's formula and click history!Qmwnebrvtcyxuz 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your two edits to PiHex (the article you cited in your previous edit to this page) [3] appear to have been to add two pairs of brackets, and then to take them out again. Could you give me any examples of constructive edits you have made? -- The Anome 23:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do seem to have made a contribution to Bellard's formula. Thanks! I'd really appreciate it if you could contribute more: you'll find that the more you contribute, the more you will feel a part of the larger community. -- The Anome 23:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock Holmes you are not

I'm seriously questioning your cyber-forensic aptitude if you still think I have something to do with the mostly harmless S-Man and his clubhouse. All my edits are legit, and it's bewildering that you would go out of your way to disapprove of my choice to preserve the work of vandals on my user page. I would to see you retract the misguided and poorly reasoned aspersions you have cast on my good name.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies: I'm afraid you got wrongly caught up in the investigation regarding the other users. Please see my earlier posting to WP:AN/I where I stated that I was mistaken, and you appear legitimate. -- The Anome 00:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. And I shouldn't have insulted your detective skills; I'm sure you're doing a fine job rooting out vandals and sock puppets. But I feel badly about what happened to S-Man. I feel responsible for his banishment, since it was the poorly received (but hilarious) joke on my User page that initially drew your attention to his behavior. I truly believe he means well.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cute 1 4 u

Why is it that you are deleting the user space pages (the user and user talk pages) for this user? I had placed the correct tags on the user page, but I am fairly sure that it is not the right thing to delete the user talk page, regardless of indefinite blocking. Ryūlóng 00:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user claimed to be 11, and appears to have put a lot of personal information on their talk page. Either:

they actually are an 11-year-old child, in which case their personal information should be expunged from Wikipedia for their own protection, or
they are someone impersonating an 11-year-old, in which case their carefully-assembled 11-year-old's persona, which has been corresponding with other apparently very young children, needs removing from Wikipedia ASAP.

-- The Anome 00:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qmwnebrvtcyxuz

Hi. Yamla told me that you are dealing with my friend Qmwnebrvtcyxuz. Is he blocked forever by you or did he leave Wikipedia. He left me a message and thanks to him or one of the administors I can't respond. Do you have a source of information to my question? --Bethicalyna2 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bethicalyna2. I'm afraid that we don't let very young children, or people pretending to be very young children, to edit here. Sorry. -- The Anome 00:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The Anome -- This is Randy Padawer (Wikipedia user: Padawer ... also of Psychology.net). The 8-year-old in question is my son, and his infraction is entirely my fault. I had no idea (again, my fault) that there was a minimum age provision for editing Wikipedia articles. He is an exceptionally smart rising third-grader, extremely interested in two topics he has edited on the site (anything to do with the number "Pi" and almost anything to do with astronomy). At first I monitored his activity closely (although I let him create his own account, alas), and then I gradually allowed more independent participation given the good behavior I witnessed. Please know that I will not allow him to have an account until he is old enough to do so (12?), and I will only allow him to edit something if it occurs on my account while I am sitting alongside directly supervising. My problem is that this block is indefinite and affects every account in our house, including my account. I have edited relatively ephemeral things here (items related to the early history of America Online [when it was called QuantumLink in the late 1980s, an entity whose community I had a hand in constructing] and items related to current news events from time to time). I enjoy this community, mostly reading, and I think I set an excellent example for my son -- despite the mistake regarding age limits, a mistake I will not repeat. A review of our history (by IP address and by ID) will reveal only well-intentioned participation, I believe. Would it be possible to lift the block so that I at least may continue to participate as before? If you would like me to document either my identity, my son's, our internet access, or anything else, I would be more than happy to oblige. If you need me to post (temporarily) email, telephone, or other contact information so that you can contact me directly, please let me know. Otherwise, if there is a contact at Wikipedia where I should initiate, please let me know that as well. Again, I apologize for my son, as this unfortunate outcome is due to my having failed to read the site's service terms, a matter I will also correct during the next few days. Appreciatively, and hopefully, Randy Padawer. (P.S. I am using my wife's AOL client in order to post this, and I hope I have not violated another policy as a result in turn.)

Hello Randy. Please see my reply on your talk page. -- The Anome 00:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RCU?

Hey, good work on the whole S-Man incident. So now I'm thinking that the next step should be a checkuser to see if the "children" are the same person. I'm thinking of checking S-man, Qmwnebrvtcyxuz, Cute 1 4 u, and Bethicalyna2. Get back to me if you think this is a good idea or if there are any users I missed. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a good idea. Could you also take a look at the various pages involved and see if there are any I've missed? -- The Anome 00:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced a checkuser will help. Many of these users claim to be editing from the same computer and to be (adopted?) siblings. They all edit from 71.231.130.56 (looking at the edit history on that IP shows at least one user account you have missed) but my point is that the checkuser would presumably just show that a number of them WERE editing from the same IP. That said, I have no idea who belongs with whom. It's all very confusing. --Yamla 01:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can't hurt. I've listed the case, feel free to add any pertinent information I may have missed. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

I can personally vouch for User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. He is not a sockpuppet of any of the other accounts you have raised concerns about. Email me if you have any questions. TacoDeposit 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I draw attention to TacoDeposit's latest edit on User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. Tyrenius 02:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See AN. Tyrenius 03:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah

Why did you delete my edit history? now my edit count has dropped no thanks to you it is not your uerpage it's mine so please restore it and add the edit history Abdullah Geelah 13:01, 21 August 2006 (UT

Please see my reply on your talk page. -- The Anome 13:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least restore my edit history

I'm sorry, I can't do that without also restoring the text in question. However, please see your user page. -- The Anome 13:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about your recent blocks

Can you direct me to any policy that states younger people are not allowed to edit here. I can see that you have blocked a number of users recently for being too young to edit. I have yet to see any such policy, and I thought the general consensus on ANI recently was that children should be allowed to edit if they do so productively. I am the first person to admit that I don't know about any of the individual people blocked. I can tell that some of the blocks seem to be due to vandalism related issues as well. But are all of these users vandals, or are they being blocked specifically for their age? Thanks. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 21:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, there's no formal age policy. However, this case was a common-sense judgment call: although it started as a concern about vandalism, it rapidly became apparent that these editors were real or apparent eight- or nine-year-olds online, posting their personal details in great detail. I did the minimum necessary to resolve the problem, as far as I could: I removed the the details, and locked their accounts to prevent further problems. As a result, I believe that their parents are now aware of the problem (see above) and are doing something about it. -- The Anome 21:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Anome, I appreciate your alerting me to the problem. My son claims he did not post any personal identifying information other than his first name (bad enough, in my estimation), so I appreciate your vigilance. He also vehemently and credibly disclaims vandalism, so I would appreciate if you have confirmed otherwise. Question: logging onto AOL as a proxy in order to fully participate is something I would rather avoid given the integrated browser's quirks on MacOSX (which include not being able to "sign" posts like this one using the "Sign your name" function below). I would certainly be open to a lengthy probationary period, or whatever you deem best as an alternative, but as the senior Wikipedia user in our family I would be grateful if you would consider relaxing the ban on our IP address. -- Padawer

Yes, certainly. I'll sort it out now. -- The Anome 00:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've removed two autoblocks that were still extant. I hope that has sorted things out: if not, let me know, and I'll have another go at finding any remaining autoblocks. -- The Anome 00:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I very much appreciate your help. I just spent a moment reading this whole page at my son's behest. He pointed me to your generous comment from last night ("You do seem to have made a contribution to Bellard's formula. Thanks! I'd really appreciate it if you could contribute more: you'll find that the more you contribute, the more you will feel a part of the larger community."). So that I can supervise him as you would desire, would you allow him to continue editing specified topics under his account (and with my supervision)? We had a few tearful moments here last night, with my alternating between the understanding counseling parent and the accusative inquisitor. Needless to say, I want to encourage the considerable (and impressive, I think, given his age) intellectual exploration he evidences, but I also deeply respect the protocols which ensure this endeavor's continued good health. I would appreciate your consideration, and I will respect and adhere to whatever guidelines you issue. Thanks again. -- Padawer

Hello Randy. Please see my reply on your talk page. -- The Anome 00:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and answered. Your intervention was appreciated and will ensure far greater oversight. (I didn't know whether to answer you here or there. I'm afraid I am still very much a "user talk" novice. On a lighter note, I am happy to be typing this on a "real" web browser.) padawer 00:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay 1980 evil?

Hi Just wonduring, Why user Lindsay1980 is blocked? I dont think her age means anything. We are all wikipedians. I didnt understand what your reason to block her was. Why is she blocked?

regards

user: culverin 06:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The situation is in the process of being dealt with, please see above. -- The Anome 20:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cute 1 4 U

Just to let you know, she's requesting an unblock, I'm passing on it, but you can do what you want. Yank sox 20:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask her to take it to WP:AN/I. Thanks! -- The Anome 20:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um...She can't considering she's blocked...But I'll post on ANI. Yank sox 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're having a discussion at ANI about a possible unblock of Cute 1 4 u, and a suggestion of mentoring has been thrown out. Since you were the blocking admin, we feel you should voice your opinion. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now commented there; I think this is now a matter for the Wikimedia Foundation to resolve. -- The Anome 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Anomebot2

All botflagged now :) -- Tawker 02:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You BLOCKED me?

Someone brought this to my attention. The Fat Man took a great deal of pride in his useful contributions and spotless record, and now it's ruined!!! How about some communication before blocking me legitimately, or an apology for blocking me otherwise? I know it was just for one minute, but, truly, I am permanently shamed. Thanks a lot.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take it personally. It happened in the midst of trying to fix up a quite complex problem which initially appeared to be like coordinated multi-user vandalism, and I unblocked you almost immediately afterwards, as soon as I realised that your blocking was a mistake. See my comments in WP:AN/I, where I make it clear that you are a legimate user, and not implicated in any wrongdoing. -- The Anome 10:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpie has fewer blocks than me!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UFC Spammer

I thought I would pass this on to an admin. It appears the sole purpose of existence for Jpblev and the IP address user:24.12.54.150 is to spam Wikipedia articles regarding mixed martial arts fighters. If their edits are actually legitimate, then I'll leave my complaint at that. Chicken Wing 03:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants

Just to let you know, I've done a bit of cleanup on the Canadian entries in this list. A few (Etobicoke, Gloucester, North York) simply don't exist anymore, having been merged into larger cities several years ago. A few were at the wrong name ("Chicoutimi-Jonquière" —> Saguenay; "Sudbury" —> Greater Sudbury). And except for a few of the largest and/or most uniquely named cities (namely Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Quebec City and Saskatoon), Canadian cities are otherwise always at "City, Province", not "City" or "City, Canada". Just thought I should let you know, so you didn't think it got vandalized the next time you look at it and see entries under Canada that you don't remember. Bearcat 03:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another criterion you're using for addition to that list besides the population figure specified? Because you put quite a few Caribbean towns on it (Bridgetown, Cockburn Town, St. Johns, Antigua, etc.) that don't even have 10,000 people, let alone 100,000. Bearcat 03:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capital cities were also listed. -- The Anome 08:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust

Hi Anome, thanks for correcting me on that point. I will stick with the slight rewording only. Regards Albester 11:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not link standalone years

Per WP:DATE do not wikilink standalone years like you did here. Dates and years are only linked when they allow date formatting preferences to work, but since date formatting preferences don't do anything with just standalone years, they shouldn't be linked. --Cyde Weys 18:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your reading of WP:DATE: I believe that the relevant part reads:

There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text.

I agree completely about linking months and day names: however, I don't believe that any consensus exists about years. I belong to the first camp mentioned, who think that "links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article" -- for example, in this case, giving the reader to compare and contrast the state of the world in those two years. -- The Anome 18:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classy

Just noticed the barnstar on User:Abdullah Geelah's user page. That was very classy of you. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 06:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible S-man Sock

I came accross this account today and I noticed on the page that he claims to be a relitive of User:S-man. This user page was also created by S-man. Not sure if he is a sock of S-man but wanted to bring it up to you just to be on the safe side. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please could you report it on WP:AN/I, if you are concerned about it? -- The Anome 20:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok wasnot sure if it warrented AN/I but I will post it there to be safe thanks. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay1980 autoblock

This user is blocked from editing because of an autoblock. As you blocked Lindsay1980, I thought you might want to review this block. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 20:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note about Bot message

Hi. I wrote a message at the bot's page. / Fred-Chess 22:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your input in action reaction

Thanks & regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restored user page

Hi The Anome, User:Abdullah Geelah asked me to restore deleted edits of his user page which I've done. I know that you deleted them previously for reasons that I do understand, but he has asked me explicitly and seems mature enough to understand the implications. The personal info seems fairly harmless anyway. I thought it courtesy to let you know. If you feel strongly that I've done the wrong thing let me know or redelete them. Regards -- I@n 04:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Ignore this. I've redeleted them after reconsidering. Sorry to bother you. -- I@n 05:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page mentioned on ANI

Will delete soon. Can you courtesy blank the ANI discussion? -- Samir धर्म 11:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bigballs vandal

Any idea why I can't block this bigballs vandal and why I can't delete talk page!--File Éireann 18:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked users can still edit their user pages. Blanking and protecting will stop them from re-making it, but why bother, let them waste time re-creating it over and over... -- The Anome 18:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geodata?

Hi, Anome. Anomebot2 added geodata to the article Abong-Mbang, but I can't see that it changed the article in any way. What does this geodata template do exactly? — BrianSmithson 22:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look to the right of the article title, above the dividing line that passes between the article title and the article itself: you'll see some geographical coordinates. Click on the numbers, and the link will take you to a page full of links to maps of that area. For example, clicking on that link in thw Abong-Mbang article, and then on the "find this location on Multimap" link, will take you to this map. -- The Anome 22:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-hah. Thanks for the explanation. Very nifty little trick. — BrianSmithson 22:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a dumb question, but...

Do you think that maybe you could set the children's accounts that you have blocked to an appropriate setting (e.g. for the 11 year old, 2 year block; for the 8 year old, a 5 year block)? I'm just thinking out loud, pardon me if I'm being really stupid. Thanks. --AndreniW 00:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think your suggestion is a good idea, but I don't think that I, or any admin, should do any more about this. Given the issues involved, I believe that this is a matter for the Wikimedia Foundation to decide. I believe that Brad is aware of this situation -- we should wait for the Foundation to decide what to do. -- The Anome 07:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Trollius Vandalus Maximus

The protection of this user's talk page was lost, especially since you deleted it to remove vandalism and undeleted one revision of it. It still contains the {{deletedpage}}, so that you can either protect or delete the page. Thanks. -- ADNghiem501 07:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now re-protected it. Thanks! -- The Anome 07:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stingray

Compared to Steve Irwin, which was also recently semi-protected, Stingray is getting nothing. Although I agree with your protection as the page was not developing while reversion was necessary. Cheers, Ansell 12:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Usenet posts mentioning wikipedia graph sep 2002.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Usenet posts mentioning wikipedia 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. Nv8200p talk 16:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:For Great Justice

Please protect the page User talk:For Great Justice for whom you blocked. He is repeatedly removing the block message. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 18:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your userpage

What's a second-wave wikipedian? --Snarius 19:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drdavidhill

This guy sent a request for unblocking to the unblock list and I checked him out and found out that several people had warned him about spamming, and told him that that was the reason. Since then, he's been sending emails to me on a daily basis, and has now sent an email to Jimbo complaining because *I* won't unblocked him. Grrr. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Innovation Foundation

After reading your post on ANI I did a little research. Here is a copy of my reply from the noticeboard:

I've done a LexisNexis seach on this and what I've found is even more mysterious. While the article and the site claim Glenn Seaborg as the founder, an article I found in The Yorkshire Post from 2003 tells the story of Dr. David Hill, who after "his construction company went bust" created the Foundation, whose "boldest idea is the creation of Open Research Establishments, so-called People's Creative Thought Incubators, where individuals would have their ideas and inventions analysed and developed." When one of these incubators, described as a "£50-billion scientific super city" was proposed to be built in North Lincolnshire in 2005, the local media at first reacted with breathless excitement, but in a later story said "... since speaking to one of the organisation's founder members, Dr David Hill, the Telegraph has contacted a number of organisations which claim they know nothing about the project." After that date I can find no more articles about the Foundation. There is definitely something amiss here, and the fact that so many scholars have accepted membership, yet no major news source has explained what this group actually does, is bizarre. I really am at a loss as to how to proceed. —Nate Scheffey 08:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Innovation

I'm very confused by the edits that appear to be made by you to Innovation. Your comments refer to removing portions related to the World Innovation Foundation. I'm not concerned with the WIF edits, but other edits that you did, or somehow were merged into your edits. Specifically, a paragraph, uncited, that appeared to be a book promotion with a link to an external promo page for the book. Additionally, a number of links to a consultancy and pdf publications by one of the principals of that consultancy, links that had been removed previously. Were all these edits yours? --Ronz 15:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No: I'm afraid that I reverted to a previous version with the linkspam in it: my bad. I see that other people appear to have removed the linkspam now. -- The Anome 17:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it looked like. Thanks for the confirmation. --Ronz 19:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Company names

Thanks for pointing that out, however I didn't notice something like that in Wiki's editing policy. By the way, join editing if you want, I'll try to promote the article to the GA status in the future. --Brand спойт 18:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely strange revert on the Obedience Article

Firstly, i dont mean to sound like i'm being nasty, but i have the same book which this article was used to create, and the information on obedience is ENTIRELY CORRECT as i have a more recent edition of the book[4], as well as several newer books and the information has changed very little over the past years since such experiments have been made. I'm also getting the idea of a very "religious zealot" undertone from the amount that Christianity is mentioned in the edits. I dont know why, but i get the feeling that the article, despite the fact it wasnt perfect, was much much much better than IMMEDIATELY reverting to a .version which, for all intents and purposes, was dog shite. Sorry, but you're VERY wrong for flagging this one up. No offence to you.

"The research was also conducted with amazing verve and subtlety—for example, Milgram ensured that the “experimenter” wear a grey lab coat rather than a white one, precisely because he did not want subjects to think that the “experimenter” was a medical doctor and thereby limit the implications of his findings to the power of physician authority" [5]

Take a look here also.

The American spelling for Grey, a neutral color.

James S 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. See my lengthy reply on your talk page. Suffice it to say that I didn't revert that version of the article to the previous version, I instead edited it to merge the two together into a single longer article, and removed parts which appeared to duplicate the pre-existing Milgram experiment article.

Regarding the substantive element of your comment: great -- then add that cite, and reinstate the material, mentioning the nuance. By the way, I didn't revert your edits, I copyedited them, removing only some parts where they appeared either to be unsupported or duplicative of other articles, merged appropriate parts of the old article, and then expanded on them. For example, I removed the grey labcoat reference exactly because it seemed unlikely without a cite to support it. -- The Anome 23:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record,i was the one who did the edits for the material, not the person who posted above. The grammar in some places was rushed, but i was typing on an extremely poor keyboard which seems to enjoy jumping back places in experiments. In any case, the edit summary titled "Gray lab coat?" seems to be the idea that the article was just whizzed through with foreknowledge, and i can understand why "gray lab coat" rings alarm bells, due to the fact that it's very.

I appreciate the fact that you're editing the article, but if you removed, for instance, EVERYTHING which was not entirely devoted 100% to the name of the article itself, very little of the articles for the main fields of Scientific study would be empty and just a list of links to particular topics in that field. I think it is relevant to include references to the milgram experiment in there because it is one of the most well known, and well referenced obedience experiments that has ever been attempted and sheds a lot of light on the topic of obedience.

Also, you re-instated some material which is to do with animal obedience and should belong in a different topic. Anyway, i was going to continue editing here, but i think i'll not bother after this lovely endeavour which has quite soured me on the idea.

Cheers anyway. You can delete/ban my account now if you would be so kind, or at least disallow others from taking it or so.JCraw 09:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be discouraged: even though your edits needed polishing, they were still very useful, and have helped improve the article. I'm not upset by other people editing my work, and nor should you be. I expect that within a few months this article will be substantially different from the version I left it in, and that it will, in all probability, be a substantial improvement on the current revision, as the slowly improving article attracts the attention and careful revisions of multiple editors. -- The Anome 10:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no thanks. I spoke to the other editor outside of the wikipedia using email, and he said that these things happen all the time. I can assure you that the errors which were made on the article were made due to poor hardware in this facility, and not myself. Sounds like it's a nice place to edit as long as you all agree with administrators.

Out of interest, have you studied Psychology, and if so.. at what level? I'm studying it currently at degree level, and the other editor James, S is a physician.. so i imagine he will have had to do some form of module or soforth on it.

Still, i thank you for your dissonance, but i'm afraid i won't continue editing here. JCraw 11:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, believe me, they do happen. If you'll take a look at the comments above, you'll see that the other contributor referred to my revision of the article as "dog shite", something which he would be unlikely to have said to my face. Please don't let things like that get you down -- if we all assume good faith, these misunderstandings tend to work themselves out eventually. Your contributions are appreciated, and you should not feel bad about having your edits copyedited by others; we are all working towards the same goal, even if we temporarily disagree on direction.

About administrators: you are not required to be any more deferential to admins than you would be to any other editor. When admins edit articles, they are editors like any other. We're janitors, not authority figures: the admin powers are there to help enforce the rules, not make them. -- The Anome 11:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

“

Think of Wikipedia as a massive garage where you can build any car you want to ... But every one else, and I mean everyone else in the garage can work on your car with you ... the people who are allowed to work on your car can completely disregard what you were doing with it. They could have flown in from Boola–Boola Island 2 hours ago, not know the language, can’t read the manuals, and just go in and paint your car pink. And drive it. And leave it somewhere.

”

Jason Scott (2004).

Sorry, i assumed good faith. You're the one who removed some information which was accurate because you didn't hear about it, so it's therefore fact. You've marked the article as "expert attention" and that was the reason why i went to the page in the first place. Now, i'm not going to waste my time if it means that personal opinion and thought comes anywhere near the editing process here. Not an Editor, Don't respond 12:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC) User:JCraw 12:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for hanging on! Yes, Wikipedia can best be described as "it's broken, but it works". If people remove your accurate but uncited information, simply add a citation, so it can be checked. See the verifiability policy for more details. As I say, your contributions are actually welcome here: it's just that the to-and-fro of Wikipedia editing takes some getting used to. -- The Anome 12:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the guy who was editing seems to have taken this badly.. Perhaps it'd be better if next time we posted explanations on the talk page before doing big edits. Nevertheless.. i'm sorry i named your edit "Dog Shite", but despite the somewhat "lax" order of the article beforehand, i think it was a bit nasty to so publicly call that editor's work "Terrible", and maybe that was the reason for the change in attitude. There's a lesson to be learned from this, but not just for the editor and me, but for you, and moreso. Case in point: the "Gray lab coat" issue.

Well, anyway. I'm chiming in to say what we all do isn't perfect, and some of the work you have done is far from perfect, and so is some of mine due to whatever it is that limits our ability to concentrate at the time. I'm sure JCraw will learn to add information in a more wikipedian-way if he/she continues to stay here, but you must admit that these kinds of issues could put people off who are new to the process. James S 17:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Unblock my IP

I know that I have been vandalizing a lot, and I was just about to learn my lesson and give up. The other day, you reverted a paragraph I had added to short bus claiming it was vandalism. I don't see how that paragraph could be considered vandilsm, it was completely relavant and helped to expand the article. I promise I'll stop vandalizing if you unblock me. I believe that the block was unfair because the edit that you reverted wasn't vandalism at all. Yes, I know I have a history of vandalism, but I had already decided to quit when I was blocked. My ip is (24.29.37.46) BigBadUglyBugFacedBabyEatingO'Brian 14:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think i may stay

Although i may be impeded by my ability to utilise computers aptly or properly, i can assure you that i am an "expert" on the study due to my educational involvement on the issue, and the breadth of the reading i have done on it.

I may not be entirely aware of internal wikipedia guidelines, but i am willing to learn them and forego social relations if others would do the same, in order to concentrate such "energy" on articles. Not an Editor, Don't respond 13:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double-entry accounting system

Despite my best efforts I cannot get this article back to your July 1st entry. Someone messed with the redirection and it should point to Double-entry bookkeeping system. Can you have a look. Thanks --NilssonDenver 21:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a look: I see you've managed to fix it since your comment above. Thanks for doing that. -- The Anome

Misleading edit summaries

If you write somethig like this "... misleading edit summaries are not acceptable behaviour, and do not encourage others to believe that you are editing in good faith." -- The Anome 19:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)" first look at Gmail for somethigh similar "Gmail Drive: How to use Gmail as an external hard drive" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joa987 (talk • contribs)

Indeed: that [6] was one of the cases I was referring to. As you can see, I had already reverted that edit. -- The Anome 14:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Populist Party (UK) Listed for deletion

Blast from the past possibly. JASpencer 20:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished edit?

You ended a paragraph in your Robert Bishop edit with "and". I was going to delete the incomplete sentence but I think the article would be improved more by it being finished.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like I'm rdering you around, which I didn't intend to do, or giving you an ultimatum, which I certainly didn't intend to do. Having at least once filled in the edit summary and clicked "Save page" without actually making the edit, I understand how these things can happen; I intended only to bring it to your attention.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem; it was a copyediting error, and I've fixed it now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- The Anome 03:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:127.0.0.1

This IP has been used in the past, and may be used in the future, to add pages to Wikipedia from a user logged in on the server. Please see Special:Contributions/127.0.0.1 and User talk:127.0.0.1. While the developers (who would be the ones to use this IP) can obviously unblock themselves, there's neither anything in blocking policy that says they should have to deal with it. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not been used since 2004, back in the day when "the server" had some meaning. Today, there are hundreds of servers, and developers editing from within the cluster will almost certainly not be logged on to one of the Squids, where the IP addresses are captured: even if they were logged on to a machine on the local LAN, their address would most likely be in 10.0.0.0/8. I'll unblock it, though, since the reason for my making the block was that I misread the year on the contribs log, and assumed that someone had edited from a Squid in the last month, which would have been somewhat suspicious, for the reason given above. -- The Anome 04:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TEMPLATE

Dear Anome, yes you are right. TRNC is the best. But allready some one directed Template:TRNC-> Template:N CYPRUS,(which make no sense). I can not redirected back. So I redirected to Template:"Tur..Re..No..Cyp..". What is the best way to do this. Help? Regards. Mustafa Akalp 10:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: TRNC is the best choice of tag for this template, regardless of your opinion on the legitimacy of that entity: this is consistent with the choices previously taken for other flag-and-country tags of disputed states. I've copied the template text back to Template:TRNC, and also left it in place at Template:N CYPRUS. I suggest you change the links in all the pages that link to Template:N CYPRUS back to use TNRC, but that, after doing that, you leave Template:N CYPRUS as-is, so we don't get into an unnecessary edit war about template names. -- The Anome 10:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I will try my best.
There is no any country/state which is named as Northern Cyprus or N CYPRUS. Accepted name is Turkish republic of Northern Cyprus.(unrecognized or recognized is a different matter that allready all articles related with this country is marked as "recognized only by...". So there is no problem to change this template to internationally known name. I may need your help in the future. Thanks a lot. Regards Mustafa Akalp

Just having a laugh

You can't take yourself too seriously, you know...--MonkBirdDuke 21:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think you could use a history lesson....I don't think Eichmann ever tortured or sadistically murdered anyone. Although he arranged for it, of course. But I suppose it sounded better to say that in your little soapboxing episode...sitting on your cloud of judgment, passing down life lessons to all of us sinners...give me a break. --MonkBirdDuke 22:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel able to "have a laugh" about Adolf Eichmann's program of mass murder. Unfortunately, there's not much that I can do to help you, except perhaps to suggest that you visit one of the many Holocaust memorials set up around the world to help keep the memory of these horrific crimes alive. -- The Anome

TRNC

I was reverting it to the state that the organization in question placed it. See the page's talk page for details on why it is faulty to edit the page in most instances.--Thomas.macmillan 02:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about User:Lindsay1980

Hey, a bit of old news I know, but you blocked this user indefinitely and the log was a bit vague on why. I'm sure it's a good reason, as the 24 hour block seemed to be for good enough reasons, it's just that I'd like to know that wasn't the end of it. Anyway cheers, and you all keep doing what your doing. Galactor213 23:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was a good reason -- the block was related to protecting user privacy: I can't really say much more about it for that same reason. -- The Anome 23:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reichsjustizamt

Thank you for the compliment! — PM Poon 08:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jew Town notability

What exactly is that you need to know? The Jew Town self titled single was a major hit in Australia.The Kasparov of Sheshbesh 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a verifiable third-party cite for that? If so, please cite it in the article. -- The Anome 09:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 19 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article sanitation, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Andrew Levine 19:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan K. Ullman new article

Thanks for the help on the Pumphead syndrome article. I started another new article. I did a thorough search to make sure there already wasn't one. I'm pretty certain there isn't one. This is one of the founders of the shock and awe doctrine. In the shock article his name came up red. the question is how do I do a redirect so Harlan Ullman goes to the article. Thanks. Will314159 19:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:New articles vs. article count Jun 2003.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:New articles vs. article count Jun 2003.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 its not being deleted. Thank you.

User talk:Val K. Seamus vandalism

Hi, I welcomed this user, but did not catch the vandalism. Can I have a look at these to see what I missed? 11:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A final response

I realized that it was not a copyright infringement only after I consulted an expert. I then approached you and tell you about it. But did you address the points raised? No, right?

You mentioned: "intend to continue with this behavior.... to halt your repeated copying of other people's work into Wikipedia short of blocking you". Have I contributed anything since, that contravene YOUR idea of copyright infringement? What system of justice are you using? PREEMPTIVE ACTION? Go ahead and block, if you want. ASK A FELLOW ADMIN FRIENDLY TO YOU TO HELP YOU OUT SO IT LOOKS IMPARTIAL! And I won't even bother to ask for an unblock, so block it in perpetuity, if you must.

(NOTE: Seems like admins here don't have to follow guidelines, right? First, you don't practice Wikipedia:Assume good faith, thus your idea of premptive action. Second, you don't have to follow the guideline, Archive — don't delete. Two sets of guidelines for citizens here, one for them ordinary folks, and one for admins, rite? — PM Poon 14:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shuffle

Greetings M. Anome,

Please see my comments at Talk:Shuffle and respond. I noticed that you were the original contributor of the section that I took exception to.

Thank you, NTK 03:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See response at Talk:Shuffling. Thank you for your attention. NTK 03:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of martial arts weapons

I enjoyed learning about martial arts related weapons. Thanks for taking the time and creating the article. Freedom skies 15:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diatasis

Thanks for your notification. Actually, I lifted the piece from One Look Dictionary, and saw it repeated elsewhere in the internet. As far as I am aware, dictionary definition are not copyrighted, unless I am mistaken. In any case, I had trouble rewording the second definition, although I did attempt to reword the first.

As you can see, I am just a hobbyist-writer, not a vandal. Our earlier argument was because I was told by my lawyer-friend that "fair use" is not copy-vio, but a privilege given to writers to balance the rights of copyright owners with the needs of the general public and researchers to have access to copyright materials. As Nick Boalch has drawn my attention to WP:FUC, I will do my best to comply, although personally, I am still wondering why Wikipedia does not want to make use of the privilege given. On the one hand, we give our copyright freely, and yet on the other hand, we won't even make use of the privilege bestowed to us by law. It seems ridiculous to me, but I won't want to argue over it, once a consensus has been arrived at.

I am submitting Saptha padhi where I lifted the translation of the mantra for which I will not be able to translate myself, even if I see the original. Can you check whether there is a copyvio, and if so, just delete the whole page. Thanks. — PM Poon 15:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your latest message. I guess I better retire for good. Will not be contributing Saptha padhi although I have finished the article. — PM Poon 15:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

I am busy on recent changes patrol and came across a number of administrator type edits by a new user who was leaving indefinite block messages on user pages. Initially I thought that this was vandalism but saw that the user was in fact indefinitely blocked. My questions are:

Why would a new user be posting these messages?
Why would a user be indefinitely blocked after relatively few attempts at vandalism and no prior blocks. I'm referring to Jeezapopo.

Thanks

LittleOldMe 13:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your point 1: a review of their edits so far suggests that they seem to be trying to help. They clearly know their way around the system, and this suggests that they are a sock of an existing user. So far, so good, and I'm willing to assume good faith.

Regarding your point 2: Jeezapopo started off with minor vandalism, then over a few minutes rapidly increased the scale and rate of their vandalism. You can't see the chain of random-typing-titled redirect articles they created, since they've been deleted: they ended this chain with a redirect to lol, a shibboleth of non-AGF vandalism. Their immediate response to a {bv} warning was verbal abuse [7] [8] involving profanity and SHOUTING IN CAPITALS FOR EMPHASIS. Based on long experience, this is not the behaviour of a good-faith editor, and that rather than wasting multiple warnings on these cases, it's better to indefblock them and get it over with. Following the indefblock, they confirmed this impression with verbal abuse using repeated templates [9], another characteristic behavior of vandalism-only editors. -- The Anome 14:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too came to the conclusion that Bluesheep02's edits were good faith edits, and I could see that Jeezapopo deserved to be blocked, but surely an indefinite block is a bit harsh. I have seen numerous IP's which have been repeatedly blocked yet they never get an indefinite block, not even for anonymous only. Why the discrepancy?

Also, is it normal to replace all the user talk history when an indefinite block is put on an account?

Sorry for all the questions, but I'm trying to understand how the guidelines are applied.

Thanks

LittleOldMe 14:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are many reasons. Admins are human, and human beings are not consistent. Some IPs visibly have multiple users, and they tend to get a bit more latitude; an account should only have a single user, and blocking them is much less harmful than blocking an IP -- for example, the same person can create a new account later, and return as a non-vandal. IPs of ISP proxy servers are an extreme example of this.

Also, there's lots of scope for choice in the treatment of apparent vandals: if there appears to be even a flicker of good faith, most admins are much more likely to apply the multi-step series-of-warnings procedure rather than the LART-and-go approach. Also, during concerted vandal attacks, the same vandal often creates multiple accounts one after another, and that tends to result in a short-term reduction in the willingness to WP:AGF during these times. -- The Anome 14:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and yes, it is increasingly common to replace the user talk when applying an indefblock; the talk is still available in the history, and these pages then tend to get auto-deleted after a period of time, to prevent them from being seen as trophies by vandals; even when they have been deleted, admins can still look at the old edits if a review is needed. -- The Anome 14:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V for Vendetta & OR

I have a question. Why is the V & the Number Five section of V for Vendetta original research? You must have noticed that that section had, in fact, been present when it became featured and I know that you know the kind of scrutiny an article undergoes before it becomes featured. So my question is, if the FA review board were okay with that section, why aren't you? Cbrown1023 02:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it looks like OR to me. There's a simple way to clear this up: just cite a verifiable reference to a reputable third-party source that supports the arguments of that section, as per WP:V and then restore that text, attributing the opinions within to that source. -- The Anome 11:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific American July 2003 Article on Pumphead Syndrome

Needs to be footnoted I"ll come back as soon as I remember how Will--Pumphead.Stutz, Bruce. Sci Am. July 2003. Vol.289. No.1. p.68-73. Super Article. I have a subscription and have downloaded it. I can put it on my website if you would like to read it. Very good, nice illustrations. adobe. pdf Espabila, Favila, que viene el Oso! Will 01:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

power stuff

Thanks Anome - look forward to your editing.

 kind regards...engineman....

Links in section headers

I couldn't find a prohibition on links in section headers in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you believe the practice inadvisable, perhaps you could propose adding it. In the absence of policy, I imagine different editors will often have different preferences regarding layout esthetics. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look, I just got a wolf ticket

Hi,

I remember your user name from years ago. I don't remember whether it was the race article or something on sexuality that we were both working on. Anyway, I just got my first ever "vandalism" warning from somebody I've never heard of.

I have been keeping an eye on a contributor who was very badly savaged a year or so back (I felt bad for not having picked up on the abuse in time to rise to her defense). I noticed a mention to trouble on an article called Black people, and since I've spent lots of time on the Race article I could identify several problems with the article. (No sign of my old friend.)

I made a couple of changes that were reverted. Rather than engage in an edit war I have tried to get a coherent discussion going on the discussion page. The person who reverted to one of my changes made assertions but never provided the evidence to support what he has said. I was just thinking about using the evidence I found in a direct way to attempt another edit when I got the "vandalism" notice out of the blue.

I am finding some of the people who are editing this article to have very uncivil and unproductive ways of trying to forward their beliefs. Since you have some familiarity with the article yourself I thought you might be in a position to suggest that personal attacks, unsubstantiated charges of POV-pushing, and calling any valid edit a case of vandalism are all behaviors that are inappropriate.

Thanks. P0M 23:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two or three other editors have received the same treatment, i.e., "blatant vandalism" warnings on their talk pages. I think a word to the perp from an administrator might be helpful. P0M 10:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squircle

Please check out what I pasted at Talk:Squircle. I think the whole article is seriously confusing, but only because the mathematicians themselves have bungled it up so badly. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 11:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Note that the image and an excerpt that does not describe the image by construction, are also on DYK on the Main Page. Dunno what to do about that, as the nomenclature appears to be FUBAR by the mathematicians. Yours truly, cimon.

Opus Dei RFC

After lots of NPOV problems, I have recently done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. I don't know if you know much about Opus Dei-- I still don't actually know that much about them, but you strike me as a fair, honest judge of articles, and I have no clue what your religous point of view is, which makes you an ideal candidate to serve as a frehs pair of eyes. Could you look over the page and comment on whether the rewrite is an improvment and maybe help out in the ensuing discussion? --Alecmconroy 08:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on Talk:Opus Dei. :) Thanks for your help. If and when there's a strong consensus that the article is free of NPOV, maybe I would support and ultra- ultra-brief mention that Escriva also practiced it, but I don't think we need to get into it. The article isn't about him, it's about something larger than him. --Alecmconroy 14:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei: a section title and balance

Anome-- thank you so much for helping out before by lending your eyes to Opus Dei. If you have a second, could you look things over and give us some feedback?

Here's the latest on Talk:Opus Dei. One issue is on whether it's acceptable to have section entitled "Criticism and 'cult' allegations". It's undisputed that notable cult allegations are being made and are they are the #1 criticism of the organization. However, one school of thought holds that referring to the "cult allegations" in the section titles is so prejudicial that we shouldn't cut it from the header. I say that if the allegations are notable enough to have section, they're notable enough to have a title that reflects their mention-- but there are some good editors who have made points in opposition.

A second question going on is whether the article complies with NPOV. Are the "criticisms" and the "support" section 'balanced', or are we giving undue weight to one side or the other. I think we're doing pretty good on that at the moment, but there are a lot of different ideas all over the spectrum on what those sections should look like, so anything you can do to help us strike the right balance and get to FAC would be much appreciated!

Thanks for all your advice and help. --Alecmconroy 20:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surrendered wife vs. BDSM comparison

[10]: I know you've done a lot of good work, so I will ask you to reconsider rather than simply revert you: is it really appropriate to add a see-also/compare link from what is basically a Christian doctrine of female submission in the household to what is basically a BDSM practice of female domination? I understand how someone could read this religious doctrine as somehow resembling kink, but it seems to me like a stretch, and the link comes off as polemical and disparaging. If we can find an overt citation comparing it to kinky submission, fine, but otherwise this seems like sneaking POV/OR through a back door. - Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to revert me, if you disagree with my edit. Having read both, I was struck by the remarkably close resemblance of the topics covered by the two articles to one another; both involve willing submission to the "loving authority" of the other partner in a heterosexual relationship, and the philosophies seem remarkably similar, regardless of what goes on (or not) in the bedroom. Hence the interlink.

For an indication of the similarities between the two, a moments Googling for "surrendered wife BDSM" found these two links, [11] and [12], from an (in places rather disturbing) website associated with the "surrendered wife" movement (it explcitly endorses the book), which respectively explain its philosophy in two different ways: one drawing on a Biblical basis, and the other by comparison with BDSM; I think [13], from the same site is probably an even closer demonstration of the similarities. -- The Anome 22:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is Taken in Hand "associated with" the Surrendered Wife movement? I tend to think of Taken in Hand as sort of "lifestyle kink". I see that they cite the Surrendered Wife movement here and there, but is there any evidence of any citation/endorsement in the other direction? Without that, this is no deeper a connection than a masochist getting off on the Book of Martyrs. Which I might talk about in an article on masochism, but would probably keep out of an article on the Book of Martyrs.

I'm not reverting you, because there may yet be something worth having in the Surrendered Wife article, if we can find something solidly citable, preferably by someone writing from outside of either Christian or BDSM circles, but I still think that just throwing it in the "see also" comes off as exactly the sort of synthesis by juxtaposition that WP:OR warns against. - Jmabel | Talk 22:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I find the two worldviews remarkably similar: both advocate the lifestyle submission of one partner in a sexual relationship to the domnation and authority of the other partner, which is in my opinion the very definition of a D/S relationship. (Note that D/S does not imply the presence of other aspects of the BDSM spectrum, which is a common misconception.) Men who find "Loving Female Authority" attractive could easily be called "surrendered husbands", and the "surrendered wife" movement clearly, and very similarly, exalts "loving male authority".

The only essential difference I can see is that one was once socially acceptable, and the other wasn't: the "obedient wife" was regarded as a figure of virtue, and the "henpecked" man who failed to "wear the trousers" in the relationship was regarded as a figure of ridicule. In modern Western society, where the current ideal is for equal partnership between the two sexes, both are deviations from the norm.

I can also see that you disagree. Feel free to revert the links, but I hope you can see that the comparison was not intended maliciously. -- The Anome 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sprotected2

Could you semi-protect this fairly new protection template as it links from every major article on Wikipedia now? semper fi — Moe 23:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization/sation

According to dictionary.com "civilisation" is also an acceptable spelling. I prefer to leave things as they are in articles before people start tearing each other apart over minor spelling/grammar issues. --Wafulz 00:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine by me. -- The Anome 00:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:217.160.230.178

Could you admin rollback on this one? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, actually could you block it as a proxy? Notice the slashes before the '. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user appears to have had their edits rolled back already: someone has just blocked that IP address for 3 years, which should handle the open proxy situation for the time being. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. -- The Anome 23:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I meant an admin rollback, wiping out the history. That is possible, isn't it? I think I've seen Centrx do it. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All done. -- The Anome 02:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Hackett

Ooops sorry, its just these sort of people who make pointless vanity pages get on my nervesDebaser23 10:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wikipedia article count graph to Oct 04 2002.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wikipedia article count graph to Oct 04 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 18:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wikipedia article count graph jan 2001 - oct 2002.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wikipedia article count graph jan 2001 - oct 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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 18:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen Police

Thanks for putting some time in on kp duty. I think there are a lot of interesting aspects of military subculture that crop up in the civilian world, but there is limited information available. I'd love to see a whole article on spit shines, for example, or a military section in the Brasso article. KP Botany 22:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Hi. So if you make a derivative work of a LGPL image, what is the derivative work... also LGPL?
The form doesn't have a specific option for LGPL... what license should I choose?
Thanks for the infos -SColombo 02:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I thought that since LGPL was not in the dropdown that it wasn't an option, but I saw how someone else did it (just put LGPL in the description), so I put it up on the commons as LGPL.

Thanks anyway -SColombo 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black people

The article was confused because it was using 2 totally different definitions of black. I decided to limit this article to the racial-ethnic definition of black and created a separate article for the skin color definition of black. That way we're not constantly fighting about which definition should be paramount in the artilce. I moved huge sections of the article to the other article__Whatdoyou 18:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right to try to separate the issues of "Black" and "African", but I think you're approaching it the wrong way. Can I suggest the creation of an article African people, instead? The term "Black people" is used in many other situations not involving people of African descent, for example in Latin America. Which is rather the whole point of the Black people article. -- The Anome 18:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I created a separate article for those who want to use black to describe dark skin. People of African ethnicity have the right to use black to describe ourselves which is the most common use. What's wrong with 2 articles so we're all happy?__Whatdoyou 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you completely that we should have two articles. However, we disagree about how the split should be made. I think the Black people article should be about people who self-describe, or are described by others, as "Black people": which necessarily includes African Americans and Africans who describe themselves as Black people. However, not everyone agrees; for example, the indigenous people of Latin America are often referred to as "Black" in those countries, in spite of their lack of any direct ties to Africa. I think the lack of an African people article has been a gaping hole in Wikipedia's coverage so far; if we fill it, I think a lot of the pressure on the "Black people" article may subside. -- The Anome 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wikipedia article count 2001-2002 complete.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wikipedia article count 2001-2002 complete.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 its not being deleted. Thank you. —Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nullity Redirect

Please don't delete the link to transreal number from nullity until the VfD for transreal number comes to a consensus. There was a rather lengthly discussion earlier today as to the content of that disambiguation page, and the consensus was to include both (at least as long as transreal number exists). --Tjohns ✎ 03:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sykpwn

Shouldn't this user have an indef block since all of their contributions have clearly been nothing but vandalism? --Wafulz 22:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, an indefblock would be appropriate: done. -- The Anome 09:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Attack Only User Pages

Hello Anome, I recently came across this user page of User:Just no. Just no's contributions have only been attacks and defemation on his page as well as another which may be a sockpuppet user page of his. If a user page appears in such a way does it qualify for speedy deletion or is the user warned/blocked and the page left alone? I appreciate your time, thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say so: user pages are there to be used as an adjunct to editors' work on Wikipedia, not as attack pages. Speedy deleting. -- The Anome 23:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was generally thinking. Thanks for your quick response!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Charlie Da Tuna

I saw you blocked this username indefinitely. The block was certainly justified given the nonsense he was spewing. It's odd, though; this account was created last week and was making mostly constructive edits until this morning, when he started his wave of peculiar vandalism. Is it possible that there is a legitimate user out there and someone else (someone immature) got access to his account today? --Russ (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly occurred to me. Unfortunately, there's no easy way to tell this scenario from that of a sneaky vandal, or simply a previously-reasonable editor who just blows a fuse. Perhaps you could leave a note asking them to contact the mailing list if they consider that they were blocked in error? -- The Anome 15:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything wrong with the city infoboxes for Chaska, Minnesota and Chanhassen, Minnesota. Were they erroneous? Appraiser 16:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; since they were his only edits to those articles, I decided to err on the side of caution, since all of the following edits seemed to be nonsense, and their subjects appeared close to that of the most recent blatant vandalism. If they check out OK against verifiable sources, though, I see no reason not to restore them. -- The Anome 16:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: as far as I can see, Charlie Da Tuna appears to be a sock of User:Kungfudog, or vice versa. See the latter's edit history for more on this. -- The Anome 16:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs: Anaclitism; A Kind of Magic (song); Rectal examination; Grammy Award for Best Disco Recording; Napoleon complex; Rough sex; Kirk Fogg; Ardleigh Green; Tie Your Mother Down; Paul Goodman (sound engineer); Xenophobia; Spitting fetishism; Progressivism; St Anselm's College, Birkenhead; Redhead fetishism; Grammy Hall of Fame Award; Bankside; Cap-Vert

Cleanup: Fart; One Vision; Latin Grammy Awards
Merge: Coronary heart disease; Wristband
Add Sources: Mysophilia; Killing Me Softly (album); Seru Rabeni
Wikify: Rosenstiel Award; Simon Lau
Expand: Michael E. DeBakey; Slim Fast; Dora the Explorer

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. 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. -- ForteTuba 17:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal umlaut

Greetings! There is a journalist for an NPR station who would like to talk to some of the authors of heavy metal umlaut; would you be interested in being interviewed? Please let me know at mindspillage@gmail.com. Thanks! Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 05:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your tip. I moved the article to wikiquote http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Open_source_bashing Thanks, Larytet

Question about vandal

You reverted the trollish edits of a vandal [14].I also wanted to point you to his contribs where he has been putting trollish and racist comments everywhere[15]. Is there any action that you can take? Rumpelstiltskin223 04:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is using another ip [16], to continue the same acts.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polecat Pictures

In case you hadn't noticed, Polecat Pictures has been proposed for deletion. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of rollback

Please explain these edits you recently made: [17][18][19]. KazakhPol 04:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. [20] reverts an out-of-content attempt at provocation by an anonymous IP editor, as does [21]. The middle one is collateral damage in the cleanup of their other edits. Editing Wikipedia is not a right, and Wikipedia is not an unfettered free-speech forum for those who wish to disrupt it: if you spend your time goading other users with penis-size insults, you can't expect those who are cleaning up your messes to go through your edits with a fine-tooth comb, separating the good from the bad. -- The Anome 22:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by size of armed forces

You have totally messed up the whole article.

Chanakyathegreat 10:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC

By formatting the table in a legible way? The problem is the auto-sorting code, not the page layout. Might I suggest that you file a bug about the auto-sort code instead of making the table illegible with leading zeroes, or stop trying to use auto-sorting tables? -- The Anome 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Latin Username Blocks

There is some dispute as to whether these blocks are supported. There are many active editors who do just fine contributing with non-latin names. Per the discussion here, there seems be support for reccomending for to people creating a username at en.WP to not use non-latin characters. But does not appear to be consensus for blocking people on sight who already have a non-latin account at another Wikimedia wiki. Will you please start taking these non-latin username through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names in order to better gather opions on the mattter? Thank you for your atttention to this matter.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username Blocks & Autoblocks

When blocking non-malicious usernames, please consider unselecting the "Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent addresses they try to edit from" option. When you leave it selected, their IP address is autoblocked and they cannot create a new account to edit from. As of the moment, you have a number of autoblocks based upon usernames. I just lifted one of them. The user was trying to create a new account per your instructions and was frustrated that he couldn't. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 15:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, sorry...

Sorry about running you over regarding the Talk page of Adolf Hitler I. I didn't realize you were taking care of him. It wasn't my intention to put the original warning notices back. Sorry about that. -- Gogo Dodo 20:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007

All the best in the upcoming year :) --Brand спойт 21:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flashbulb memory =

I fixed the article Flashbulb memory in one edit. :] [22]

Bot

Hi Anome,

your bot added a geodata template to Federal Ministry of Defence (Germany), which shouldn't get one, since the article is not about a building or anything like that, but about a governmental institution, which has a headquarter in Bonn and an office in Berlin.--Carabinieri 01:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. (Incidentally, the location was that of the HQ in Bonn.) There are a number of curious tags in the de: Wikipedia. For example, on review, I've just reverted a geodata tag for Tower of Babel. The bot is designed so that it will not, by default, revisit any location it's already tagged, so it should not overwrite corrections. -- The Anome 02:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Düsseldorf-Rath and coor

Your bot added coor to the Düsseldorf-Rath article. There were coordinates in it previously. Your bot had different coordinates, further north and further east. Where did it get them? --Bejnar 21:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the German-language article: de:Düsseldorf-Rath. The bot is programmed not to tag any articles containing an existing geotag, but since the lat/long in the existing English-language article had not been formatted as any of the possible geotag variants, the bot regarded the article as untagged, and geotagged it anyway. Since the de: entry was put their by a German editor, and Google Maps confirms that location as being reasonably close (about 1km) to its label for "Rath" within Düsseldorf, I'll go with the de: geodata, and remove the old, unformatted, latitude/longitude data from the en: article. -- The Anome 21:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Info

After seeing your blocks, I did not want to end up like User:Lindsay1980, User:S-man, etc. I hope I do not have to much personal info and if I do, come tell me and I'll remove it. I do not want to be blocked. Thanks. By the way, my mom is having twins, would you please vote for names and spread the word? Thanks, heres the link User:Shaericell/Name for mom's twins. --SHAERICELL!!!!! (is slightly crazy) Talker to! 20:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Block of Mr. Wikipedia 019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Clerk note • In addition to the well-placed username block you gave the user, I would like to inform you that a recent Request for CheckUser revealed this to one of many sockpuppets made by sockpuppeteer Ockenbock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anomebot2 added some coordinates to the menu article. Has it mistaken this article for one about a place? RupertMillard (Talk) 18:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! RupertMillard (Talk) 17:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. A spelling mistake for Manou in one of the source databases that managed to sneak past the data-cleaning process looks like the most likely culprit. -- The Anome 17:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I didn't want to just remove it, on the off-chance that there's actually a place called Menu. All the best now. RupertMillard (Talk) 19:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hook, Line and Sinker

Thanks for helping me disambiguate that expression! -BiancaOfHell 09:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! -- The Anome 09:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daytime TV schedules

The source that I used for the schedule tables is the only one I could find for any weekday network TV (there was also a book but I do not know the title). This information is in the public domain, inasmuch as I don't think you can copyright a TV schedule. There was a store in my area which sold, among other things, old TV guides, but it is gone. Furthermore, there are other TV schedule articles are kept in (US prime time and US Saturday morning), therefore I considered this worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Attmay 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion going on about this in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Personally, I think there's no reason why the schedules should not be kept, if the copyright situation is OK -- what's not clear is what the copyright situation is in this case. -- The Anome 20:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I would argue that Feist v. Rural would make the content non-copyrightable. Attmay 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical coordinates

Thank you for your work with the bot. So we will wait now for the next dump with entities until 03- January-2007. You say, that you have trouble with our CSV-file and the UTF-8 code, sorry but Stefan and I are both no professional computer scientist and first of all no UTF8-specialists. Stefan is cartographer and I'm a mechanical engineer.

Do you know, that you can get a accout on Toolserver? Or, I can give you a phpmyadmin-account for my database on this server. Do you want this?

Perhaps we can talk about a bot for the german wikipedia. With the other languages I would wait, so that we don't reproduce mistakes. de:Benutzer:Kolossos 10:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good idea.

I wouldn't worry too much about the mojibake in your database: the encodings and re-encodings made were, in the end, completely non-destructive, since no data was ever lost, it just needed a bit of reverse engineering to recover. The problem here was that at least one of the programs in your toolchain was "smart", and interpreted the UTF-8 code as if it was Windows-1252, and "helpfully" re-encoded it as UTF-8 encoded Unicode.

Generally, the best approach in simple tools is not to pay any attention to character encoding issues at all, if you know that all of your input is going to be UTF-8 encoded Unicode to start with, as is the case in Wikipedia: UTF-8 was explicitly designed to pass straight through any 8-bit-clean application without being damaged at all. -- The Anome 19:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want work with us: The Toolserver-account could need a little bit longer, so you should write to meta:Toolserver/New_accounts. For the phpmyadmin-password I need your E-Mail-adress so write me a mail over my german userpage. de:Benutzer:Kolossos 22:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on my talk page. Koweja 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Terry wrist

I started at that screen for 10 seconds wondering...username block? Why? Then I said it out loud.... -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of psychiatrists

Thank you for acknowledging my work! It is truly appreciated! I thought it was a good idea to make a list, and stringently differentiate from List of psychologists, and List of famous figures in psychiatry, which for some reason contains individuals that are not medical doctors. In this manner, we can have a list for notable, and yet non-famous psychiatrists, who are medical doctors specializing in the field. Now all we need to do is populate it, making sure the individuals are medical doctors, and fit the criterion described. Smeelgova 12:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Um, hi

You blocked this d00d for one month, instead of a week, as stated in the summary – [23]. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 09:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me! I'll re-block with an updated summary. -- The Anome 09:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglophone_and_Continental_Philosophy deletion

Hi there. I noticed you supported a "keep" for this article. No doubt the content is fixable, but the main issue (I take it) is that the title is unfixable. I urge you to reconsider your vote. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the content is fixable, it should be fixed. If the title is wrong, it should be changed. Neither requires an AfD: indeed, if your account is more than a few days old, you should be able to rename the article yourself, after, of course, the closure of the AfD, and after letting other people know about your intentions on the talk page, so they can make other suggestions if appropriate. -- The Anome 15:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preview

Today you made 39 consecutive edits to Orders of magnitude (numbers) in 90 minutes. Please consider using WP:PREVIEW to limit number of edits. PrimeHunter 15:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fingerbang

You changed the Fingerbang redirect from the South Park episode to the actual sexual act. While this is probably more accurate, it probably makes most people way more confused, since the term became well-known mostly from the South Park episode. I added a {{REDIRECT5}} for Fingering (sexual act) to straighten things out.

Cheerios.

Kelvinc 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gratitude for Block

Thank you for your recent update of the block on 208.31.155.254. This IP address, utilized by the public school at which I instruct, should not be permitted to haphazardly vandalize materials on Wikipedia. Your citation that previous blocks have not resulted in corrective action is wise and accurate, and given that the address represents a collective mind of literally thousands of teenagers, a change in this trend is unlikely. I appreciate your candor in being explicit about the continuation of the vandalism, which we seek to curtail internally at every possible juncture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhs itrt (talk • contribs) 19:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

spelling

What can I say, dracunculiasis is one of my favorite words ;) - Nunh-huh 08:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tube station co-ords

Hi. Well done for correcting some of the co-ords. I've been doing the same, and just left a message on DavidCane's talk page letting him know he's been using bad co-ords here! --Rebroad 22:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not quite sure what your bot is trying to do!

Hi. I just reverted a change your bot did - here. I'm not sure where it got these co-ords from, but they were somewhere in South America! Any idea what it's doing? Would you be able to check its other edits around that time to see if any more need reverting please? --Rebroad 00:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, it is a rather impressive bot you have there - considering the amount of value it has been adding, I'm not surprised it will make the odd mistake now and again. You're doing a fairly good job of keeping an eye on it! If I spot an incorrect co-ord and remove it, is your bot likely to re-add it again later please? Thanks, --Rebroad 00:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think I've got it. I think the article you were referring to was Skull and Bones, and the location was 4°21′39″N 75°54′27″W / 4.36083°N 75.90750°W, which is in Colombia. The source of this was the German Wikipedia, and it is, I believe, a single-character typo for 44°21′39″N 75°54′27″W / 44.36083°N 75.90750°W, which is (I think) the coordinates of Deer Island, mentioned in the article. You were quite right to remove it: articles should not be geocoded unless they are about a place, and I missed this one in my manual checks to remove non-place articles; the typo in the source just added extra confusion. -- The Anome 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: just to clarify your last point: for just this reason, the bot keeps a log of all the pages it visits, and won't revisit a page it has edited, unless I manually remove that page from its visit log. It also won't add a tag to any page that already has one (it checks for a wide number of geotag variants.) -- The Anome 00:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MDMA

Could you please explain the move of MDMA, there has been a move request, which had as outcome 'no move'. Furthermore, placing at MDMA is against several wikipedia policies (clearly named by the opposition)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably on the principle that it should be called by its proper chemical name? Prior to the move, the name was neither a precise chemical name, nor a commonly used name: the worst of both worlds.

Feel free to move it to 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine, or, perhaps if you want to be even "more correct", to its longer IUPAC name, 1-benzo[1,3]dioxol-5-yl-N-methyl-propan-2-amine. Of course, if that's too awkward, you might want to call it something a bit more convenient, perhaps the short name used for it by chemists, pharmacologists and physicians everywhere, MDMA?

For a demonstration of this, compare the following:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Methylenedioxymethamphetamine+site%3A.edu 9770 hits
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=MDMA+site%3A.edu 46900 hits

-- The Anome 19:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you did not read the opposition in the move-request. MDMA is agains WP:NC, both BBC and CNN can be found to use both names, I think 10:000 vs. 50:000 hist is already substantial (and we are talking about google testing), so when other policies should be taken into account. MDMA is used for other things as well, if you want to use google testing, ecstacy gets even more hist. So I again strongly oppose the unilateral move. While we are at it, can you also move tetrahydrofuran to THF, dimethylformamide to DMF .. I am sorry. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to destroy the naming of the article at least fix all the redirects damnit! They're all over the bloodly hell!!!! OFMSELKJELKGJLKJR!!!!!!!11111 why?! --x1987x^(talk) 20:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's called 'Generic Naming' International_Nonproprietary_Name. That is why we don't call acetaminophen/paracetamol N-acetyl-p-aminophenol. This is a standard, stop messing with it. --x1987x^(talk) 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm convinced. Moved back, as per request. -- The Anome 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for all your work on Wikipedia:Missing articles for towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants--Youssef

Anglophone/Analytic article

Hi, there is a undelete review to change the name of the Anglophone/Analytic article, see:

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_17#Analytic.2FAnglophone_and_Continental_Philosophy

regards, Lucas 17:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 24.49.193.87

You're far too kind. I gave him a test2; seems that his contribs warranted it. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 10:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DCI Kettle needs more work

I've never put a contribution on Wikipedia before so I wouldn't mind for just a quick explanation why my page on DCI kettle is down for 'speedy deletion'. It was barely up for a minute.

Anyways, I haven't finished it yet. But it's about a film me and my friend did so if that's not worthy for Wikipedia then just say why and then you can delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulw8812 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You might find WP:WEB helpful; it is a pretty good summary of Wikipedia's guidelines as they apply to the inclusion of web content. -- The Anome 20:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod on Spanking magazine

Spanking magazine

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Spanking magazine, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Eastmain 00:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perineal Reflex

I apologize for tagging your article so quickly. I forgot to go back 10,000 edits like I usually do while on WP:NPP. The article is off to a good start. TonyTheTiger 21:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming

Hi Anome, I was reading the article on Peak Oil - which is excellent and followed the link to global warming and was very surprised that that article did not refer to peak oil even in passing.

I've added a section with some basic facts effectively inviting readers of global warming to visit peak oil to find out more. I don't know why some of the global warming evangelists are being so upetty about it, but they are giving me hassle. I noticed you were a contributor to the peak oil article, and I am leaving this to ask for some support88.110.38.52 22:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If you have a moment to spare to try to keep Peak Oil Madness out of the GW page, I'd be grateful William M. Connolley 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wrong locations by bot

(Copied from User talk:The Anomebot2) I've noticed that some of the places you've placed coordinates on are just plain wrong. For example, the coords in Okura, Yamagata point to south-west Tokyo (200 miles south of Yamagata). The coords of Ōgata, Akita are not only more than 400 miles off, but on the wrong island. Just by looking at the latitudes in the edit summaries between 2:18 and 2:37 this morning (JST), it seems that several others are messed up. What did you use as the source? Are non-Japanese locations prone to the same errors by this bot?? Neier 22:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, of the first five I checked (the last five the bot edited), four of them were completely wrong, and the fifth was off-shore in the ocean, but at least, it was close to the correct latitude. I'm going to revert the lot (of Japan changes) until the discrepancy can be explained. Neier 02:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that: I've now stopped the bot. The data source is the usually reliable NGA GEOnet Names Server, and the algorithm is unchanged from the one used in previous passes, which has so far proved to be pretty accurate at matching Wikipedia articles to places using a number of heuristics. It looks like something has gone wrong here: at a guess, it may be problems with orthography confusing the filtering code, but that wouldn't explain a location being put in the sea, nor one coordinate being right and the other one wrong. I'll investigate the results in more detail over the next few days, and resolve this. -- The Anome 12:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biome

Just a quick note. The vandalism you reversed did not go back far enough to catch all of it. Not sure if the bot can handle that or not, but I wanted to let you know. Turlo Lomon 09:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my article

Hello,

This is the second time I try to fix an article about Aquarius (gay hotel, Patong Beach) the hotel I spend all my holidays since years and which is more than an institution on Phuket island and in the whole thailand. This time I tried my best not to be commercial but you still deleted it, can you please clearly tell me what was wrong so I can do it again. Thank you by advance

Just as a sign of notability I added this time 2 link from the most recognized gay asian websites about this establishment

Thank you by advance —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomtomfr (talk • contribs) 10:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello! I didn't delete your article: I did, however, tag it for deletion. Please read the guidelines on notability for companies; if you can demonstrate notability according to those criteria, the article can be kept. -- The Anome 10:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I tried again... can you please let me know if this one meets Wikipedia requierements? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomtomfr (talk • contribs) 10:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please, please, read the WP:CORP guidelines, and also see the WP:RS guidelines. -- The Anome 10:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible wrong coordinates placed by bot

In this edit the bot puts the west coordinate at 94 degrees but it should be 69 degrees and I changed it here. I'm not sure about the other Nunavut ones but I will check them out. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please let me know if you find any more errors: I'm keen to find any quality-control problems with the bot data, so I can fix it. I believe that the data for that place came from the de: Wikipedia article, so it should be fixed there, too, if possible. The bot is programmed not to re-visit articles, so it should not re-introduce any corrected errors in later runs. -- The Anome 11:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep it was in the German version. Corrected now, but I hope the edit summary is OK. Does your bot ever put in the "type" parameter? I find that "airport" works well for smaller places. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Taxonomy of Pseudomathematics

Hello Anome. It looks like you originated the material in the section now called "Some taxonomy of pseudomathatics" in the Pseudomathematics article. Is there a source for this? Or is it OR? --OinkOink 04:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a summary from various sources, but I wrote this so long ago I can't remember what they were. The works of Martin Gardner and Underwood Dudley contain lots of information about all of these, and would be good places to look for cites. -- The Anome 08:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User requests unblock

Hi The Anome, I just wanted to make you aware that one of the users you've blocked, Strider01, is requesting to be unblocked on his talk page. While I don't disagree with the block, I think an indefinite block the first time around might warrant a second chance, but you can take a look for yourself and see what you think. —Pilotguy push to talk 20:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given their edit history, I think their unblock reason is plausible. I've unblocked them. -- The Anome 08:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Kingdom locations

Hi, I saw your bot adding geotags. A very useful bot. I thought this list List of United Kingdom locations may interest you. It may be of use or you may be able to help correct some of it's problems. GameKeeper 08:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, that list looks useful -- it potentially provides lots of information I can cross-correlate with the bot's data. However, I would need to do quite a lot of QA on it before I use it as a data source. I can also see that it is in great need of disambiguation -- for example, it contains several entries for "Cambridge", all of which link to Cambridge. I'll add it to my Wikipedia consider-doing list: however, given my outside-Wikipedia workload, it may well be some time before I get round to doing anything about it. -- The Anome 08:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Anomebot2 Geodata

I'm sure you're sick of being asked this, but a quick scan didn't reveal the answer. How is it your bot picks up the geodata for places? I'm rather impressed. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 00:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two main data sources. One is the public domain NGA GEOnet Names Server database, which is cross-correlated with information from the Wikipedia category graph, with a substantial number of heuristic checks and fudges being applied to screen out false hits, followed by manual spot-checking for QA; the other is geodata tags on other Wikipedia editions in different languages, linked to en: articles via interwiki tags. -- The Anome 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Checkuser Admin

That account was a doppelganger and isn't suppose to be used by anyone. The account was created in order to prevent the account being created by vandals, who liked to impersonate admins or checkusers. The block needn't be lifted on that account, but when blocking the account, you somehow also auto blocked my ip address, thus making me unable to edit. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 06:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies: I left the autoblock flag on, I should have fixed that when I left the message on your page. The autoblock tool shows that you were hit by autoblock #392762, but that it has already expired. If you have any problems editing, please let me know, and I'll try to fix it, but at the moment I think you're OK. -- The Anome 08:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo and Juliet, Feb. 13

Hi. You reverted the above article to a previously vandalized version. It's fixed now. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 20:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OOXML

You asked for a citation for the EU and Open standard issue. It is difficult as the issue is clouded by OSS, FSF fans and MS competitors trying to find something to indicate that OOXML isn't open. But I can find this very trecent one from the EU itself http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=26971 (paragraphs 3.2 and 3.2 seems to indicate that the EU the EU consider OOXML an open standard) hAl 00:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good cite, and gets close to what I wanted: how about quoting and citing an appropriate extract? However, it falls short of actually saying OOXML meets these criteria; rather, it states that Microsoft has made assurances that it will, which is not quite the same thing. -- The Anome 00:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't abuse WP:SNOW

WP:SNOW is meant for speedy keeps, not for speedy deletes. It's inappropriate to delete an article because of your perceptions on how other editors are likely to treat it. It was in inappropriate in this case, as poorly formatted things alleged to be original research may be appropriate in some area of expertise and have actual secondary sources available. It also ammounts in this case to biting a newbie because it gives them no clear indication why the article was deleted. I personally have no idea why THE GREAT MOCKINGBIRD was deleted because it was deleted before I had a chance to review its case. Sorry to bother you, but I thought it was important to point this out, i kan reed 05:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW is a common-sense get-out clause that allows the shortcutting of process when there's no chance whatsoever that that process will end in any other way. Trust me, you didn't miss anything -- the article was clear CSD G1 material, and didn't need the AfD process. It was also obvious that the article's author was not serious. Sometimes nonsense is just nonsense, and the AfD in this case had no chance whatsoever of resulting in a "keep", hence WP:SNOW. I was about to undelete it, to allow the process to complete as you wished, but the article has since been recreated, twice speedy deleted as CSD G1 by other admins, and put on the protected-deleted titles list. Which is unsurprising, given its content. -- The Anome 08:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobodylikesasmartass (talk · contribs)

Hi there. You recently blocked this account. It's currently subject to a RFC. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names for comments regarding this username. Cheers. -- Longhair\^talk 11:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. Thanks for letting me know. -- The Anome 11:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geodata

Hi,

I see that you have been adding Geodata to articles using a bot. Thats fine, but the format you are adding is different to that added using the Template:Infobox England place.

On a similar note the articles under List of United Kingdom locations use a third system of co-ordinates so the entries in the list do not tie up with that in the article headers.

Should we not standardise on the format of the co-ords so that all places have the same system applied so that it is not confusing to the reader?

Keith D 15:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly should. I'm currently concentrating on getting basic geodata tags into articles, so that there is at least some data available -- articles which already contain geodata, either lat/long or OSGB, should not be touched by the bot. (If you know of any cases in which the bot has added redundant geodata, please tell me, and I'll add new tests to the code to catch those special cases, in addition to the current set of checks.)

Standardizing infoboxes is a sub-project that I hope to work on in the near future, but one that will need to be coordinated with the relevant national Wikiproject. The use of multiple coordinate systems is a big problem for the systematization of geodata, since they are not easy to convert between, and there can be a significant loss of precision by converting back and forth between them in their rounded forms. The current system uses WGS84 lat/long data for all entries other than those using OSGB36 National Grid easting/northing coordinates. Ideally, I'd like to store all data as WGS84, but to display it in either/both of the WGS 84 and/or localized forms, something which will become possible when the geodata extension is added to MediaWiki. This will also help in other countries that use local national grid systems. I'm working on some WGS84 <--> OSDB36 conversion code which I hope can be rolled into the MediaWiki geodata extension, to try to resolve these problems.-- The Anome 10:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explaination of what is going on. It is much better to have something on the page to get to the map then to have nothing at all. Will just have to wait until we get the updates. Keith D 13:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bell-boy lyrics

Ok, thanks for saying, sorry about that. -HitMeWIth Muzak

Creativity and bipolar disorder

I am wondering why you deleted the literature list in this article while you were cleaning up the article?--Grace E. Dougle 13:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because none of the cites remaining were actually referred back any of the text remaining in the article. Cites should be referred back to the text from which they are cited, or they are just a bibliography/reading list. -- The Anome 13:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked back and found out it wasn't you who kicked out the bibliography but one of dpeterson's socks. We had discussed the day before that the bibliography could stay. Zeraeph put a request for expansion on it and I think any literature list would be a good start from for whoever will do the expanding. We are not talking about a finished article (in which case I would understand your argument). --Grace E. Dougle 13:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's peculiar: I'm pretty sure I trimmed it out myself at one point: perhaps this was after the dpeterson stuff.~~ (On review: no, I trimmed out article material, not the cites: see [24])

See here for an excellent reading list. However, I firmly believe that it is best practice to add cites organically as the article is rewritten, using in-line references, rather than just piling in links to papers, or restoring an earlier list of cites. -- The Anome 13:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, they should at least be moved to the talk page, so they don't get lost to the writing process.--Grace E. Dougle 14:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea to me. -- The Anome 14:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of image on Muhammad

The Anome, this issue is currently in mediation, and the page is protected. By what authority have you removed it?Proabivouac 08:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following the wikipedia's guidelines and policies WP:V. and Proabivouac please read WP:V. Thank You.--Towaru 08:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry: is the article currently in a mediation process, or not? If so, I'll leave it alone. If not, User:Towaru is right, WP:V is a core policy, and the article should be unlocked and either the caption changed or the image reverted. -- The Anome 08:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is. User:Towaru appears to be the sockpuppet of blocked user User:VirtualEye. However, I would agree that the identification of the image with Muhammad should be attributed to its creator, Al-Biruni; such attribution is one component of what is likely to be the result of the mediation.Proabivouac 08:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me: it sounds like identifying the image as a conventional representation, not a literal image, might possibly satisfy reasonable people on both sides of the argument, as well as meeting the requirements of WP:V. -- The Anome 08:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declining a request

I am here to personally tell you that you need to decline 77.99.31.32's request(I believe you will...) or RC patrollers die.Thats it.121.7.56.203 14:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The_Anome/cascadingprotection

I was new page patrolling and came across this in the main space. I'd move it to your user space myself, but it's protected. Just wanted you to know. Leebo⁸⁶ 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've fixed it now. -- The Anome 22:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot adding coords

Yay for your bot! I'm pretty sure I've got every Oregon community on my watchlist and I see there are several places that didn't have coords. I hope you don't mind/aren't offended if I go and change those to the geolinks template: {{Geolinks-US-cityscale|foo|-foo}} I like having the links to the maps handy. Happy editing! Katr67 22:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't be offended at all. If you find any errors in the coordinates that the bot has assigned to articles, please let me know. -- The Anome 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian International Auto Show

I rewrote and improved the article for the Canadian International AutoShow including adding a picture, and removed the advert. warning you added. If you have talked about this as advertising else where I recommend you delete it. The article has been improved now although it is still only basic information. I hope it is satisfactory, but the article should not be deleted! Thank-you. --Benjrh 08:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]