User talk:The Anome/archive 6

Just World hypothesis

Hi Anome. I explained in the Rape talk section why I dropped the Just World thing. I still think it's not really relevant. If you can explain its importance in this case please add to the discussion. User:Paul Barlow

Odd listings on CAT:CSD

You've been around much longer than I so maybe you can help me wrap my head around this. There are two articles (Italy and Japan) listed on CAT:CSD that are clearly not CSD's. The odd thing is that when I check the article histories I don't see anything that would have caused them to appear on the list. The only thing they seem to have in common is that both have recently had the G8 box added to them. Sign me... confused. SWAdair | Talk 00:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right, I've found out what it was. Some user added the speedy deletion template to the G8 template: see [1]. This automatically put all articles with the G8 template in into the speedy deletion candidates category. It looks like the links table has got a bit stale, so those two have stuck in the category for the time being. It should sort itself out fairly soon. -- The Anome 00:41, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, so that's what it was. Since only those two from G8 were appearing I didn't think it was related to the template, and didn't check. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 00:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Green Wing

Hi, are you sure Sally Phillips was in Green Wing? Don't you mean Sarah Alexander? Maybe both were in it but I don't remember Sally Phillips. --FrankP 13:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are quite right. It was Sarah Alexander. Amending. -- The Anome 00:48, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Anomebot Licencing

I was looking at the U.S. city/county articles and noticed that you've made a number of bot changes (User:The Anomebot) adding county images. I've chosen to multi-license all of the rambot contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike Licence. I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all your contributions (or at minimum those on the geographic articles) so that we can keep most of the articles available under the multi-license. I thought I'd also ask if you'd like to do the same for the images themselves. Many users use the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template on their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I understand, but I thought I'd at least ask, just in case. -- Ram-Man 18:19, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't the author of these images: I was simply uploading them on their behalf. I personally have no problem with dual licensing, but I'm not the person to ask for permission. I'll try to remember who the original image author was. -- The Anome 22:32, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Here are the details, from Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Counties:

About the U.S. county maps

The red and black U.S. county maps are generated from scanned public domain originals, which have then been modified by User:Wapcaplet and User:Jdforrester to indicate the counties and licensed under the GFDL. User:The Anome is uploaded these images using a bot. User:Ram-Man included links to these maps in all of the county articles.

Each of these county maps is credited thus: "Public domain Wikipedia:U.S. county map courtesy of The General Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin, modified to show counties. Released under GFDL."

The page Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Counties/checklist has pointers to all of the image filenames, whether they are uploaded yet or not.

The gold maps for Califonia counties and grey maps for Nevada counties were done by User:Brion.

I'm not sure who did the versions with the dots for towns, but I know I wasn't involved.

-- 22:40, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I forgot that you were the one who uploaded but didn't create the pictures. It's been a while! Anyway I will move on to the correct party to ask. Nevertheless, I was asking about more than just picture licensing. I was wondering specifically about the edits done by the bot. Edits are separate from the pictures themselves so I was wondering if you would license all your edits, or at least the ones specific to the modifications you've made to the city/county articles under the dual-license listed above since the bot has modified a large number of articles. I'm also checking if people would like to dual-license ALL of their edits made to Wikipedia. -- Ram-Man 00:41, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

wikipedia question

Hi TheAnome. I am doing a small research project on Wikipedia and have a couple questions about your contribution to Hidden Markov models listed on my discussion page. If you have time, I'd really appreciated if you could send me answers. Great articles and thanks! --Caromk 01:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you're the author of the Nolan chart image...

There's a conversation on the talk page of the Nolan Chart that you should know about; it concerns the terminology used for the 4th quadrant, opposite of libertarianism. Juan Ponderas 03:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Economy of Europe

Hi, I noticed you'd made an edit to this new article, so was wondering if you would add your support to it's nomination for Collaboration of the Week. Simply add your support here. Obviously such a big project needs as many users with relevant knowledge as possible, so hopefully this will promote it a little. Thanks, Grunners 00:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Laser star hypothesis VFD

FYI, Laser star hypothesis is on VFD. As you're on the talk page, I thought you'd like to know.

External link(s)

Hi, thanks for your comment on my talk page. Could you point out to me where is this policy written down? Many thanks. --Edcolins 23:22, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Ed, here are a couple of places I found:

There's also recently been a programme of "fixing" about 5000 pages with the "External link" format (out of a total 400,000) to the "External links" format. On looking at this again, I can see that this is not spelled out very clearly at the moment, and it should be. -- The Anome 23:32, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

None of the links you mention explicitly states that the "External links" title should also be used when there is one external link only. It seems natural to me to use "External link" when there is one link, and "External links" once there is two or more links. --Edcolins 09:32, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Partition of India

You voted for Partition of India, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

cause of transexualism

Hi, My text was not intended to advertise anything, but in order to back up my claim, I felt source information was required. Was I wrong. How am I suppose to make an argument if my source material is censored please? Thanks, --Rebroad 00:25, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VIP

Thanks for the quick response, that was getting tedious. --fvw *† 12:01, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

What's going on here? Didn't you just block User:194.35.219.100? He's still editing. --fvw *† 12:12, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

I make his last edit at 12:06, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC) -- are you sure you're not seeing a cached version of a page? Perhaps he's changed IP? -- The Anome 12:21, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

He appeared on the block log at 11:58. Still, he's stopped now so I suppose it just takes a little time to propagate. --fvw *† 12:28, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

Maid to order

Please, please stop putting cosplay pictures into articles where they are not appropriate. I remember the lengthy discussions relating to the leotard article; now you have added a similar image to the maid article. Can you tell me why you consider these images to be appropriate illustrations for these articles? -- The Anome 12:38, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Why aren't these appropriate? For starters, there are no other images of maids available for us to use, so far as I know. Would you not agree that something is better than nothing? Also, when we have many other opportunities to get images of villains and mad scientists, through the marvel of screen captures, we end up with two cartoons. Not only that, but these cartoons are deemed "featured" by the Wikipedia community. -- user:zanimum

Regarding fictional villains and mad scientists, I think they are original illustrations donated to Wikipedia rather than screen captures. As regarding maids, a few minures research on the Library of Congress website found, to name but two:

...and you can find many more with a few more minutes search. -- The Anome 19:15, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Libertarianism (philosophy)

Hi - I see it was you who started Libertarianism (philosophy) - someone added something and the whole article ended up being inconsistent, so I've commented out a substantial part of it...

I'm not even clear myself these days what Libertarianism actually is. Is it:

1. The view that if Alice is free she "could have done otherwise".

Or is it:

2. The view that if Alice is free then some causal chains are started by her, and there are no prior causes of this.

There are certainly arguments to the effect that Alice "could have done otherwise" even if the prior state-of-the-world entails that Alice does not do otherwise, so the 1st view can be made consistent with compatibilism and determinism. However, I doubt that the 2nd view can.

I rather thought that Libertarianism was the 2nd view, however what you wrote makes me wonder if it's the 1st... Evercat 01:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, can I ask you for a source on the "compatible with determinism" bit? As I look through Google, it really seems like libertarianism is the combination of incompatibilism with the view that we do have free will, ie see this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry: libertarian free will, the kind of free will that is incompatible with causal determinism. or this one: A libertarian is an incompatibilist who believes that we in fact have free will and that this entails that determinism is false. Evercat 14:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was just trying to keep the previous text as an alterntive view. You've now convinced me, and I'll move the other text to the talk page. -- The Anome 22:56, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

collaboration of the week

Hi- I've nominated American comic book for collaboration of the week. This if it is selected it will bring a many good contributors to work on the article. If you don't mind, please give your vote of support here (near the bottom of the page). Happy editing! ike9898 18:16, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Names for inorganic compounds

Hi, I notice that you have just changed the title of two of my recent submissions. Can I ask which system of nomenclature you are following? I am currently trying to get everyone to standardise on the IUPAC system of inorganic nomenclature (also recommended by the ACS). Do you think an alternative system (with a space before the parenthesis) is better? We are currently discussing this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals

Also, can I ask you to join us on this project? We need more participants!

Refs on nomenclature: http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/bioinorg/MO.html#62

http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Nomenclature/HO3-Flowchart-Cations.pdf

ACS Style Guide, 2nd edition (don't have details, lent mine out this weekend).

Walkerma 21:57, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since the above pages are not "primary" literature, I now have a PDF of the relevant section (2.252) of the actual IUPAC rules scanned in at http://www2.potsdam.edu/walkerma/inorg_naming.pdf

Also, on page 256 of the ACS Style Guide, 2nd Edition, it states, "...write oxidation numbers on the line in parentheses closed up to the element name or symbol, copper(II) ....." Walkerma 23:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know this. I stand corrected: I'll use the IUPAC style from now on. We probably need to reference this information in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, since it is different to normal English-language style for parentheses. -- The Anome 08:28, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying things. I have added a couple of links from the Scientific/chem section of the Manual of Style to say: "For general information see systematic_name, and for organic compounds in particular see IUPAC_nomenclature." I also added a few more links to systematic name. I think our template on chemical compounds should include a link to systematic_name, or a more specific page if one is written. By the way, thank you also for the other edits, I'm still getting used to the standard styles! Walkerma 20:05, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More JoeM aliases

I found more JoeM aliases that should be added to JoeM's user page and banned:

User:Infinate justice
And this IP address: 4.247.194.236

Sorry if you already knew about these. --NoPetrol 02:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anorectic

Oh wow, I really should have checked that out before I edited the article, I guess. I had only ever heard one person say anorectic, so I assumed it was wrong. Thanks for pointing that out. Superking 17:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That non-OPEC, non-FSU oil production image is perfect, thx

Though, the rather dramatic production declines are steeper than I imagined they'd be, possibly foreshadowing the future, not good. They are steeper than the rate of production increase even. It's almost as if OPEC and/or the FSU knew to wait a while... zen master 20:57, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Concept map

Thank you for incorporating my text about Concept maps. You may be able to solve a mystery for me. I searched for it before creating the page and didn't find it so yesterday I created the page, and made a link on the Peter Russell page to it. Today I followed the link from Peter Russell to Concept map, and was surprised (and pleased) to see much more good information there. By looking at the history, I see that you incorporated my text, but I forget the exact name of the page I created. Did I create Concept mapping and you took the text from there and turned it into a redirect? Did I create Concept map and you made some other kind of moving or redirect? I can't see [[Hu] indicated in the histories of either concept page. Perhaps there is some explanation I haven't thought of. Don't worry about this, I'm just curious. Hu 05:53, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

I've taken a look. I can only imagine that there was a database glitch. -- The Anome 14:07, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Network protocol design principles

I assume this content is going somewhere, like Network protocol? We have had complaints from "ordinary" readers that the networking pages are more appropriate for techhies than for ordinary people, so maybe it would have been good to keep that as a separate page. Certainly the "Network protocol" page is going to get kind of long if all this material is moved in. Perhaps we could move the list of protocols to List of network protocols? Noel (talk) 13:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just so, and yes, respectively. -- The Anome 14:07, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Looks good! Also, without meaning any way to be a pain, I'd like to mention that according to Wikipedia:Duplicate_articles#How articles should be merged:

If you copy material from one article to the other, you must explain in your edit comment that you have done so, giving the name of the source article .. This is important so that all contributors to the article can be properly credited, as required by the GFDL.

I have made entries on the Talk: pages for List of network protocols and Communications protocol on your behalf, providing this information (as I can't edit the edit messages in the history). As I expect you understand, that direction is not pointless bureacratism, but is needed to protect our own asses from copyright problems. Noel (talk) 21:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks! Noel (talk) 21:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Andy Kaufman lives! (I think we have all been tricked big time.)

Can you please do me a favor? Do you administrators have the ability to see the IP address of a registered user? If so, can you please tell me if the IP address of User:Paektu is similar to that of User:JoeM (which I know is 4.247.194.236)? If they are similar, then I am the biggest fool on Wikipedia. --NoPetrol 03:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Given JoeM's tendency towards sockpuppetry and creation of alternative identities with various extreme political views, I would not be at all surprised if this was the case. However, I am unable to look at the server logs: you might want to try one of the Wikimedia developers, who do have the appropriate low-level access to do this. (See m:Developers). If Paektu does turn out to be JoeM, they would then be subject to JoeM's hard ban. -- The Anome 12:46, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I've just figured this out: JoeM's full name is Joseph feakin' McCarthy. This is a joke, after all! --NoPetrol 01:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Energy Development and Hubbert's Peak Theory

There is a little storm brewing at Hubbert peak concerning, well, many things. But currently concerning how to organize information concerning future development of energy schemes (phrased as "Oil Alternatives" or "Future energy development" depending on whom you ask). As you might guess, Hubbert Peak is an article that might be expected to draw a lot of public interest and heat; Energy development is not. We could use your input regarding how to proceed. Visit Talk:Hubbert Peak to contribute. Thanks for your consideration. Tom - Talk 21:06, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Blocks are not expiring

I'm posting this message on every admin who has made a block in the last few days. The title says it all really: because of a bug in the new software blocks are not expiring when their time is up. Until this is fixed can you get in the habit of manually unblocking a few everytime you block one. If everyone does this we'll be able to keep on top of things until the bug is sorted out. Note also that another bug is displaying indefinite blocks as expiring at the current time and date. obviously you don't want to unblock those. If you want to reply please do so here Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

vandalism!?

What am I vandalizing? I'm getting tired of your nazi admins deleting my article. It's real, and you're calling me a vandal racist now? This is pathetic.

Dear anonymous user, please see your talk page. -- The Anome 23:57, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

vandalsim

Please tell me what I am "vandalising"

I am very upset about this

If the message on your talk page is not clear enough, there is little I can do to help you. -- The Anome 00:03, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

From VIP

copied from VIP, sorry about forgetting to list my actions there

- Hm. 207.36.86.132 is an anoymizing proxy. I'll block it. -- The Anome 11:34, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - Oops, I forgot to post it here, but I'd already blocked it for being an open proxy. I've also sent an email to the 195.169.149.55 operator as I suspect that's a case of trojaning. The other two I'm not so sure about what's going on yet. --fvw * 12:29, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

short

Thanks!!

82.194.62.17

Heya, what are you basing your proxy block of User:82.194.62.17 on? I'll admit, they've been up to little good, but I can't find any evidence of the IP being an open proxy. I suspect it's just a shared proxy for a large ISP in Bahrain. --fvw * 00:04, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

It was listed as an open proxy by a report on blog spammers; one of four such proxies on the given network, the others of which are listed in our blocklist. I have not directly tested it, but felt it should be blocked for completeness' sake. Please feel free to test it and unblock it if needed.

Ah. Here's the report: http://www.annelisabeth.com/blog/ -- The Anome 00:15, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have to be careful just taking the info of some blog, you should verify that it is in fact an open proxy server, which I've seen no evidence of. A good rule of thumb is that if you can't edit wikipedia through it you shouldn't BlockedProxy it. If you don't want the hassle or aren't technically up to it, ask someone to check on WP:AN, WP:VP or my talk page. --fvw * 01:36, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Some quick checking seems to show that it's no longer open. I'll unblock it. -- The Anome 01:45, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Already done. Was it open earlier?? I scanned these a while back and couldn't find anything out of order. --fvw * 01:54, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/HIV test/archive1

I've added many suggestions for the HIV test article. I hope that they can be actioned! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm archiving that page as no response has been given. If you would like to respond, please feel free to relist the page. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)