User talk:The Anome/archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

From titansolaris: Anome, you didnt even let me the time to explain embedden mental values, nor did you let me the time to explain branches to actions, are you sitting infront of this log all day ?

From titansolaris: Anome stop deleting my submissions, they are important and are neutral at most point. Far from idiosyncratic. Is that a new word you learnt today?

Please see talk:mind control. -- The Anome 11:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RE:deleted "List of notable myrmecologists"

Well, that's wikipedia's loss, because such information is unlikely to be posted again. However, I will say that everyone on that list was entirely genuine, and I had been intending to expand upon it. If you don't believe that Forel was a notable myrmecologist then it's about time someone posted an article on him.

If you don't want your content deleted without checking, don't post elaborate spoof articles which are designed to look like genuine content. We rely on good faith from our contributors, and community moderation. Other contributors do not have the time to tell the difference between your genuine contributions and your spoofs. Please note that you are listed several times on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. In the end, we may just have to decide that you are not a good faith contributor, and ban you from the site. If you are willing to change your behavior, this may not have to happen. Please note that none of this has anything to do with your political beliefs or opinions. -- The Anome 18:32, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I admit I have posted a few spoofs, although I strongly contest that they are "designed to look like genuine content". Unless you are either extremely guilable, totally lacking in a sense of humour, or both, you wouldn't think for a moment that they were "designed to look like genuine content".
However, everything that wasn't obviously a spoof is and remains genuine content, and not inconsiderable time went into creating it.
I got a little carried away with links to Horace Donisthorpe, although I do believe he is of sufficient standing to merit a mention under the various locations associated with his work.
RE: political beliefs or opinions; except a single experimentation after I found this site ("newbie test" or similar), I have not intentionally written anything biased; moveover I have attempted to remove bias from articles several times, many of which were utterly opinionated even to the most blinkered reader.
If you contest this, I would be more than happy to explain my reasoning behind edits/additions, logic that seems greatly lacking from those people who attempted to remove them and re-bias. Thus, you can tell nothing of my opinions, and you mention of them implies that you've pigeoned-holed me on the basis of 'gut-feeling'.
I will take you comments at face value, and try not to stereotype you. We seem to be having a genuine useful discussion about Peterborough, with encyclopedic value. (We both seem to be half right -- it's a unitary council, listed for many purposes as part of an informal "cambridgeshire"). The community can work with you if you are willing to share its goals; it is designed to work with a diversity of opinions. Spoof articles, on the other hand, are unacceptable. Please list all your spoof articles here, and I will delete them for you. -- The Anome 19:48, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

File upload for regular users is hosed -- some kind of database error related to the upload log. I suspect the bot, as most of the entries in the log are from it. Can you check please? -- ESP 19:05 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Bots always have an interesting way of finding bugs in the wikipedia software. Anyway I just wanted to make a mention that my personal internet connection has been having some trouble, but as soon as all of the pictures are done being uploaded I'll start modifying all the articles and adding in the pictures. It should be really easy and not take too long. I wonder though if the naming for all the articles will be correct. I guess we will see. -- Ram-Man 22:38 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I will be shocked and astounded if all of the filenames are correct :-) User:Hephaestos has gone through many of the states manually and added the counties, and has pointed out several mistakes to me; I don't know how far he has gotten, though. -- Wapcaplet 00:03 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

All the pictures I have to date are now uploaded. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Counties/checklist for the list. Note that one of the files in that checklist has a space in its name, but the actual uploaded version has that space changed to an underscore. This shouldn't make any difference with normsl Wiki links, though. -- The Anomebot 22:59 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I just need to do Georgia, and re-do Florida (had some problems with the source, since it was a Jpeg), and will be e-mailing them to James F. in a day or so. I'll let you know when they're ready for download. -- Wapcaplet 00:03 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The rest of the counties are done, and placed in the same website directory as before. -- Wapcaplet 11:03 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Also, I can't recall if I mentioned; there are a bunch of "Map of USA highlighting (STATE)" images in the same directory; if you could please grab and upload those too, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! -- Wapcaplet 01:25 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OK, I've grabbed what I hope are the correct files (including the new USA maps), and I will upload them tomorrow. -- The Anome 08:00 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

So, I just want to say, the county images look superfantastic. What an excellent addition. -- ESP 06:38 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi Anome,

In March 2002, you added a link "see also: Maximum entropy method" to the article Likelihood. Since then, the article Principle of maximum entropy has been written, but it doesn't have a lot to do with likelihood. I'm not sure what information you thought should relate maximum entropy to likelihood, so I'm hoping you will add the appropriate material.

Cyan 21:02 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I point you to the words "Rather than actually carry out, and possibly have to repeat, the rather long random experiment, our protagonist decides to simply calculate and use the most probable result." Now, does that mean likelihood, Bayesian probability, or frequentist probability? I think it means likelihood. -- The Anome 22:20 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Also see

-- The Anome

A bit more research shows that this is heavy-duty stuff beyond my current mathematical competence, where even experts in the field disagree. Nevertheless, there are clear signs that they are considered to be either related or equivalent in the limit by numerous mathematicians. Any real mathematicians in the house? -- The Anome 22:44 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for the lateness of my reply: I forgot to put this page on my watchlist. I was hoping you were a real mathematician.
On another topic - the sentence you've cited above does not indicate the use of maximum likelihood: in maximum likelihood, you're given a sample from a distribution with unknown parameters and you calculate the values of the parameters which make your sample have the highest probability. In the above sentence, you're given the distribution with known parameters, and instead of actually sampling, you calculate the most likely sample. It's similar, but different. Cyan 04:56, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Where are the states such as Alabama in the county pictures? Just curious. Maybe you just havn't gotten there. I have been running the bot and it found a few states that were missing. It should be noted that all of the california counties already have pictures. I suppose we should just keep what we have and not use the ones you uploaded? I am not sure what to do about those. -- Ram-Man 01:31 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No idea about the state of the bot, but the idea was that we would implement the maps for all counties of all states, for consistency's sake. The images currently there, though better than nothing, are somewhat... oddly coloured.
James F. 07:15 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I'm on it; I missed some maps last time. The Alabama maps and some more are being uploaded now. -- The Anome 14:37 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
OK, stopping for tonight, will resume tomorrow. I have updated the checklist to include all the current state/county map candidates for upload. -- The Anomebot 22:08 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi Anome, I've written a thing that IMO needs some review. As you have often gotten involved with medicine-related topics, I thought it might help if you looked it over? I would be most grateful. Kosebamse 13:17 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've noticed some states (California and Delaware specifically, but there may be others) already have county maps, and they're quite good. Should we leave the status quo there, do you think? - Hephaestos 21:32 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Anomebot status:

  • Uploading resumed. Currently working through Kansas. -- The Anome 10:35 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Now working through Louisiana. -- The Anome 12:58 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Massachusetts! -- The Anome 14:16 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Missouri. -- The Anome 17:20 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Montana. -- The Anome 21:05 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Restarting... still on Montana. -- The Anomebot 11:19 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Stopped, most of the way through Oklahoma now. The Anome 22:03 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Restarted. -- The Anomebot 06:38 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Finished this batch. -- The Anomebot 23:00 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Now uploading last 3 states: Tennessee / Virginia / West Virginia. -- The Anomebot 06:47, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Done! -- The Anome 22:08, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is this the right way to reply to you? You suggested merging the page on causes of sexual identity with the article on sex. People watching the Homosexuality article, to which it was originally linked, did not like it and plan to get it deleted. I put in the link because the homosexuality article makes mention of three different ideas about causation, but doesn't bring them together in any coherent way. The result is that the reader gets 3 competing explanations with no idea of what is going on. Today someone took out my link and substituted a link to causes of sexual orientation, which is a pretty good discussion. I think that the materials in the page I wrote summarize a burgeoning attempt to take this subject out of the realm of dogma and ideology and into the realm of science. I would need to substitute "sexual individuation" for "sexual identity." Any advice? Thanks.

Patrick0Moran 22:35, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi, could we talk about your capitilisation changes before you carry on? (Perhaps at talk:list of dog breeds, the subject has been raised there before) The "dog" is part of the full name of the breed German Shepherd Dog and is almost universally capitalised: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] etc. etc. Anyway - I didn't want to just revert but do feel this is a strong case for capitilisation of the title (as are similar dog breed names). Regards -- sannse 16:36, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't realise that this was the consensus. I'll undo my changes. -- The Anome 16:41, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- sannse


I am a new user and I see that you have changed my page title from 'Indian Writing in English' to 'Indian writing in English'. The former is the accepted convention I think. I also have written a page for'Indian architecture' which just existed as a link. I feel that the page should be titled 'Indian Architecture'- again that's how I think the convention goes and how people search on the net. Could you please tell me how to do it, or would you do it?

Hello, new user, and welcome to Wikipedia! I made the change to follow the Wikipedia:naming conventions for articles. Generally, the rule is not to use capitals except where absolutely required (proper nouns, names). You need to create a user account (see the "log in" button at top right) before you can use the "move page" features. -- The Anome 17:49 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Sorry I used the top of page- when I tried to edit the page at the bottom, it stopped somewhere in between -- KRS

I re-uploaded Image:Map_of_Pennsylvania_highlighting_Allegeheny_County.png at Image:Map_of_Pennsylvania_highlighting_Allegheny_County.png (there was an extra e in Allegheny). Just thought you'd like to know.. -- Notheruser 23:58, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Dear Anome, i've noticed that you "catch" lots of copyvios. This one Tetracyclic antidepressant looks a bit suspicious. I'm not sure how to check if it's a copyvio or not. Perhaps you could explain your hunting method. Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 13:06, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hello, Muriel. Here's my guide to spotting copyvios --
  • they tend to have give-away phrases like "this booklet" in them
  • they may also have words or phrases on their own such as "top", "go to top", "next page", that were originally part of the HTML structure of the original site
  • they often still contain the original site's copyright notice, copied intact!
  • they are typically not wikified
  • they are typically submitted all at once in finished form, rather than "growing" in stages with multiple users editing
Most of all, you can spot them by highlighting a sentence or non-trivial sentence fragment that is unlikely to be found by chance in many documents, cutting and pasting it into Google, and searching for it (the Mozilla browser is good if you do this often)
Regards, The Anome 13:42, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Re: Self-publishing (better?). I'd feel better if the thing had more examples than just AK Press, for self-publishers that became publishing businesses. Quite a plug for one outfit. Then again, the article's not supposed to be about self-publishers who succeeded in the publishing business, and that'd just make the section longer. If it were up to me I'd delete the whole paragraph, and merge the last sentence with the preceding. Yeah well, vanity presses need the work.

What's driving this need to put in "positives" about self-publishing, is what Sol Stein called (in How to Grow a Novel) the "dope of hope." All writers suffer from it. But some Wikipedia users don't want the bubble of their belief -- that self-publishing can take the place of talent and hard work -- to burst. It's that simple.Jstanley 02:21, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

Please stop remvoving my disambiguation of God. Anthony DiPierro 17:21, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Moving a page...[edit]

Did I move Arthur Travers Harris the wrong way? I found it also a little bit clubsy, but it worked, I thought... Pascal 14:56, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just use the "move this page" button in the sidebar, and that should do it for you. Cut-and-paste moving loses the edit history. -- The Anome 15:00, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I was editing down from several sources, and appear to have left some "original" in there. That said, at least 95% of the text was NOT cut-n-paste as your edit logs appear to suggest, so reverting to what is an innacurate and rather non-NPOV article was hasty, to say the least. It also sparked a major revision war and both articles have now seen about 25 edits, many over the space of a few minutes.

I will be reverting the article again. Please make sure you point out specific examples of things you feel are violations instead of doing a full revert. I will fold in your new comments as well.

User:Maury Markowitz

Wiki Theory[edit]

I don't think Wiki Theory belongs in the Wikipedia: namespace. It should be moved to Meta, if it is to be kept at all.—Eloquence 10:11, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

I though it was a grey area, so I took the lesser course: please feel free to move it to meta. -- The Anome 10:15, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Some American conservatives, indeed. I wouldn't even venture to say "most," though I know that logically all it means is "at least one." Koyaanis Qatsi 15:05, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I like your NPOVing work on Islamofacsism. Thx! -- till we *) 16:35, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

re:Wonalancet, New England leads to a disambiguation page... but i think it is in the USA, because everybody else is aware of the fact, that there are other countries on the world except their own ;-) --Diftong

My inadvertent blanking.[edit]

I think it was a weird bug in the software. I'll come by later to give a blow by blow, but first I have to apologize to Montrealais. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

Hi - could your statistics stuff from the old version of Ley line be added to Alignments of random points if nothing else, with a link there from ley line? Evercat 00:08, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It certainly can. I've restored quite a lot: please pare it down as needed. -- The Anome 22:09, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


what's the deal with these category tags? All it seems to do is an an ugly "?" link at the top of the article, eg electrode. -- Tarquin 16:42, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't see a question mark...but I don't know what the category tags do. Are they like HTML meta tags or something? Adam Bishop 16:53, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The question mark shows if you have your preferences set to the alternative setting for broken links (a question mark after the word rather than a differently coloured link). Either way, I think our anonymous friend needs to stop and talk about this. -- sannse 17:00, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP temporarily to stop the ill-conceived bot edits. --Brion 17:08, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
BTW Special:Whatlinkshere/Category:physics lists some of categorized articles. -- User:Docu

I have noticed you are adding category tags. What are they? Did we finnaly get an automatical categoralization scheme? If so, that would be very sweet! -- Taku 17:01, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Are you using a bot? If so, is it authorized, and why isn't it making minor edits? It should probably also run more slowly than it currently does. There seem to be some unresolved problems with these category tags, they do not display correctly on pages. You should IMO also be adding them at the foot of articles, NOT the top. I am sorry to have had to block you, but you weren't responding here - Tarquin 17:03, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There are a LOT of physics articles, you know... :) Phys 17:19, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why are you catogorizing math articles as physics? Phys 17:38, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My apologies for this (for I am the anonymous bot poster). Thanks for stopping the bot: I wasn't aware that the links were visible in some skins. Also, something seems to have happened to the PHPSESSID, as the bot was previously logged in as User:The Anomebot, which is my registered bot account. (By the way, the bot has been carefully written and tested to ensure that it didn't damage articles, so I'm a bit bemused about the PHPSESSID change). The bot is also designed to back off in case of server congestion.

Justification for the category links:

  • they were intended to be harmless, and
  • to be ready for Magnus' category code, which is currently being tested.

The aim of the category code is to provide a means of annotating articles with metadata, allowing the possiblity of at a later date of adding nice features like:

  1. auto-generated indexes
  2. special treatment for collating orders (for example, sorting on last name if category:person is set, unless category:normalsort is also set)
  3. scaling "recent changes" and watchlists by creating per-category "channels" and "watch channel"
  4. auto-categorization of articles, by using the already-categorized articles as a training set for a learning machine (my interest)

However, it's a bit chicken-and-egg: the category code is not much use without some articles which have been categorized, and the category data is not much use without code to display and process it. Hence my aim to kick the process off by categorizing a few hundred articles.

Pages marked so far:

for some examples.

I'll stop posting for now. Please direct all criticism / comment at User talk:The Anome.

-- The Anome 17:31, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Do people want me to back off the changes made so far? -- The Anome 17:52, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

OK, it looks like they do. Script writing in progress. -- The Anome 18:26, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The rollback script is now running. -- The Anomebot 19:15, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

All category links should now have been removed. Let me know if I missed any. -- The Anome 21:02, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I know it's too late know but I don't understand why all the category links were removed. Ok, there are question marks for those who have preferences set to show missing articles as question marks... but surely for now we the linked-to pages in the category namespace could be made blank rather than missing and the ?s will go away. Or am I missing something? Pete 21:48, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Sadly, yes. I've tried it: all that happens is that you get a "!" instead of a "?" if the target exists and there is blank link text. What we need is code that makes category links invisible in the main article body, regardless of setting, and displays them in the article frame like interlang links. Magnus is working on it, I understand. -- The Anome 00:02, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
ah, that's probably the symbol for a stub or something. Thanks for letting me know. Pete 00:29, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think the foot of the page might be better for the category link, as it's less confusion in the source text for the novice editor. You're right, we should start tagging them now before the category system goes live -- it's just the problem with the "?" links that needs fixing somehow. (I'm personally not convinced of the whole category system... but I may change my mind once it's in place :) -- Tarquin 19:09, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. They should be consistent with interlanguage links and the guidelines for these state that "at the top is conventional". Angela 19:17, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Languages links also should go at the bottom; the initial convention of putting them at the top is deprecated, as it floods the edit box. --Brion 19:28, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Discussion on interlanguage links moved to Wikipedia talk:Interlanguage links. Angela 19:42, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I notice that you added a "Physics" category tag to How Archimedes used infinitesimals, and then removed it. I don't think that article is primarily about physics at all. It applies some ideas of physics to geometry; the latter subject is the goal. Michael Hardy 18:57, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The idea is that any user can add or remove any category tag, thus allowing us to have a free-for-all reach a consensus on the appropriateness of any category: I was just using a bot to reflect the decisions of the authors of List of physics topics, rather than making an editorial decision. -- The Anome 19:04, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There should be a mathematics category tag. And maybe religion too. Pafnuty Chebyshev's work was in number theory and probability, so mathematics rather than physics is appropriate. (OK, maybe he worked in physics too and I don't know about it.) Michael Hardy 19:16, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See User talk:The Anome/categories for a start on this...

(William M. Connolley 22:34, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)) I've edited "the Anome" page so its no longer a redirect. It now disambiguated between you and Jack Vances book. I hope this is OK. It seems only fair to give priority to the real-world object.

Thanks, William! That page, and the old links, date back to the time before there were separate article and user namespaces. Since I now have a user page, there's no need for me to be mentioned in the article space. I'm relinking all the old links to "The Anome" (except the one in the book context) to point to my user page, to avoid confusion. -- The Anome

MOUT edited[edit]

I rewrote much of MOUT while you were creating urban warfare. please merge as you see fit before replacing MOUT with a redirect to urban warfare.JamesDay 13:58, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The redirect change prevented my MOUT change save and I updated urban warfare instead. Good luck with your merge if you are editing there as well... I'm done for now - one person at a time is plenty!JamesDay 14:05, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I need to apologise to you the anome, and to tarquin for deleting the pages and vandalising them :-/ I have averted my ways and will stop doing so. You now have my full respect.

I will return, and hope that any trouble I have caused will be reversed.

See you soon, Breneric.


Hey there, Anome.

My first contribution to the wikipedia was Floaters. Just as I was learning about redirects instead of my silly link, you beat me to the punch by a few seconds. Wow! I'm impressed. Keep up the great work. It's people like you who make this site so amazing.

Scottj 21:47, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

RE: British National Party

I've made no "major changes" - simply (in the most part) reverted to how the article was before G-man again re-posted his biased propaganda. This has been discussed and countered by Tails. However, I would be quite happy to go through each change point-by-point if you dispute this. G-man describes himself as "left-wing" on his user page, and he certainly has no qualms about letting these personal opinions rub off onto articles. I, on the other hand, am simply trying to make this article neutral and fair. 20:32, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Neutral and fair??? ROFLMAO!!! 20:36, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

To This is where NPOV gets difficult: your idea is "neutral" is clearly not mine or G-man's. However, we can collectively all fix this. As per the Wikipedia:NPOV guide, we should now concentrate on stating either:

  • statements that can be generally agreed by everyone
  • or statements that cannot be agreed by everyone, attributed as to who says them

Where controversial statements are more commonly supported on one side than the other, we should also state what the majority view is, and that other views are minority opinions. This means a lot of arguing things out point-by-point, and evolving compromises with those who disagree with you. We have managed to do this for ultra-controversial articles such as abortion: I don't see why we can't get there with the British National Party article. -- The Anome 20:43, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, I'm quite happy to debate points, but I cannot do that if you automatically revert all my modifications without explanation or justification - particularly when those modifications had already been discussed beforehand, before G-man silently reverted them to his own propaganda. 21:14, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You claim not to be a BNP supporter, and merely "trying to make this article neutral and fair". I have tried not to stereotype you based on your earlier edits. However, your more recent edits also appear to me to be mostly directed towards removing or criticising claims that portray the BNP negatively. You consistently use wording which attempts to portray them positively. Given the tone of these edits, it is hard for me not to believe that you are at the least a sympathiser with the BNP, rather than a neutral observer. -- The Anome 10:13, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying - only just noticed this comment. I have made no claims "not to be a BNP supporter", nor have I claimed that I am a BNP supporter. I have merely said that my only objective with regard to this article is to ensure that it is neutral and fair. My personal opinions are immaterial - as should those be of other people who have made clear that they oppose the BNP. I don't believe that the BNP should be portrayed either negatively or positively in this article; merely that it should contain neutral facts, and not obvious smears by people who let their personal opinions on the matter over-rule the wikipedia NPOV policy. 80.255 19:30, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Bans and blocks#Reverting and deleting. By the way, I reverted's last edit to this page at the time as writing this as it was nothing more than a personal attack. Angela 00:51, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wheras snide insinuation that anybody critical of the BNP is a Stalinist was something other than a personal attack??? If we are going to throw terms like 'NPOV' about lets make sure it cuts both ways. Removed the BNP appologists comment as well. 18:26, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replied at User talk: Angela 19:04, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

Awareness graph[edit]

Could you update the Usenet awareness graph?—Eloquence 12:12, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)

Map of Natrona County[edit]

Where is the map of Natrona County, Wyoming? -- anon Also Niobrara County, Wyoming

The edit war on the BNP article seems to be going on and on like a ping pong match without any resolution, If it carries on like this for much longer, do you think it would be a good idea to apply to someone neutral to get the page protected for a while to cool things down? G-Man 17:41, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Probably. I can't do this, since I'm involved in editing the article, so we should ask a neutral admin who is not involved. -- The Anome 19:48, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thats what I meant G-Man 19:54, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why 3rd -> Third? In everything that I have seen over the past decade the form "3rd" is used far more frequently than "third", and is more recognizable (that is, related to the topic of 3rd party software components.) Mike Schinkel Oct 25th 2003

  1. It's a stylistic change, for consistency of the formatting of small cardinals and ordinals in the rest of the encyclopedia: "three people" rather than "3 people", "who's on first?" rather than "who's on 1st?".
  2. This style appears to be significantly more prevalent on the WWW: try Googling for "third party software components" (987 hits) vs. "3rd party software components" (68 hits).

-- The Anome 10:06, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks on the NYT note. I missed it (woulda bit me if it were a snake. reddi

My God... You seriously are policing me! You'd think you have something better to do... But it seems that every article I edit, you fuck around with... What in the name of God is your problem with me? Khranus

Get a fucking life... Stop policing me... Khranus

Then please stop re-inserting an image to which you do not appear to own the copyright or to have permission to insert into the Wikipedia under the GFDL. You may not think copyright issues are important, but we must take care with copyrights to ensure that the Wikipedia is kept free for everyone. See Wikipedia:Copyright. -- The Anome 09:09, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Just curious, but why, exactly, is the 'factual accuracy' of the Dolphin Intelligence article disputed? And where exactly is this dispute? I don't see any evidence of a dispute on the talk page--merely a couple explanations for edits... Perhaps you just don't personally like it? In that case, the notice at the top of the page should be removed... Khranus


Thanks for jumping in on the Mormons aren't Christian article. I'll take a break while you clean up after my perhaps over-hasty edits. --Uncle Ed 15:49, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for helping with the renaming/redirecting thing. I'm gonna go take a lunch break now, now that Mecca has given me food for thought. --Uncle Ed

%&@#!!!! ANOME! STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT! I'm so pissed at you and Ed right now. You are making all these article renaming changes without giving regard to the discussion already given on this subject. DO NOT MAKE ANY MORE CHANGES UNTIL THERE IS MORE AGREEMENT TO THE NAMING CONVENTION. B 17:38, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

My apologies. I had thought that it was not controversial was to use the solution for this kind of problem: call it by the name commonly used by English speakers, followed immedicately by the name used by the local population. I think it likely that within a decade or so, the educated English spelling may be "Makkah": conside "Beijing", and "Mumbai" for similar examples already in transition. For the moment, though, it's "Mecca". However, for now we should adopt the usual compromise of:

Mecca (Arabic language [Unicode of arabic name], Makkah Al-Mukkaramah) is the holy city of Islam...

and add a small section about usage in the body of the article.

-- The Anome 18:01, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've just realised you were talking about the Mormon articles! OK, I need to look at the talk pages for these and update myself on the naming conventions. -- The Anome 18:12, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I understand why you put the Nommo page on VfD, but why'd you also remove the text of the article? Accident? orthogonal 17:53, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, it's just that the article was such nonsense that blanking seemed like a good idea. Please read it, to see why. It just needs rewriting from scratch, with some cites and fact-checking. -- The Anome 18:03, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I restored Sedan(car). Please use wikipedia:redirects for deletion to nominate redirects for deletion - they are not candidates for speedy deletion, unless they are vandalism. Martin 00:59, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think we need a new policy for this: redirects which are clearly made in error, with no links to them, created only minutes earlier, are unlikely to have gathered any external links, and they are therefore ideal candidates for prompt deletion, as the sole reason for keeping bad redirects does not apply. -- The Anome 10:49, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Perhaps. In this case, the anonymous person who created Sedan(car) may well have it in hir "back" history, so if you move hir content to a new location, keeping the old redirect may save some "huh" moments - and any error that is made once can be made again. Thin, perhaps, but no thinner than the case for deleting a harmless redirect, IMO. Martin 18:25, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Greetings, abiding Anome dude. I have a question for you. I just stumbled across the article on sexual dimorphism, where you wrote:

although homo sapiens have a very low level of sexual dimorphism compared with most other species.

Now I am scratching my head to remember a biology class from way back in which we covered sexual dimorphism and the dimorphism index, and I thought I remembered that humans are actually close to median; well above some species and well below others. I did some Googling and was able to find comparisons only to other primates, for which we are indeed close to median. Maybe that's what I was remembering, and primates as a whole are unusually low? --Roger 15:52, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Let me think about this a bit: I don't have a cite for my original assertion, so research is needed -- there's the sexual size dimorphism index and the binomial dimorphism index: now all we need are some stats... -- The Anome 16:34, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Good work on Giffen goods. You beat me to it. I can still add the income and substitution effects diagram. Maybe tomorrow. Till next time. mydogategodshat 04:20, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Who's the banned user? RickK 23:24, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

142.177.x.x, aka EoT and various other aliases -- The Anome 23:25, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I thought. RickK 23:30, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Note NASA's page refers to our sun, which is a second-wave star, and has been making helium of its own for some time. I'd take data specific to the sun with a grain of salt (on the other hand, it provides much more data for spectroscopy than "the universe" as a whole does :))

See what I pasted on the talk page, though I'd like an independent source for that. Pakaran 13:39, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I also added some content about the ocean since you last edited that page. -- Pakaran 16:05, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC) is up for me. Xah P0lyglut 15:45, 2003 Dec 12 (UTC)

Hello, ANome. COuld you please check my changes on cache coherence, memory coherence and multiprocessor to see whether i got i all right? [[Szopen]]

I've noticed your list of legal cases. This could potentially be a very long list, but it is not a bad thing to do, it can always be made into sublists. BTW the convention is that the case name is italicized, just thought I'd mention that. — Alex756 14:15, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

WikiProject Programming languages[edit]

Would you be willing to join WikiProject Programming languages, I could really use your help. —Noldoaran (Talk) 03:54, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

British/American spelling[edit]

Ehm, why did you move Anesthesia? I don't see why either version should be preferred over the other, as both spellings are internationally accepted. Kosebamse 12:47, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree, both are correct. Google listed (and still does) almost three times as many hits for the spelling anesthesia, so I moved it to the most common usage. -- The Anome 08:56, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't really matter what name it's under. Looks like someone moved it back (no idea why), so it might be best to leave the article wherever it is to avoid the impression of a "move war". Cheers, Kosebamse 13:59, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Not that I have any strong feelings one way or the other, but I had thought American English was the standard for WP, with redirects from British English - or is this just the de facto reflection of the larger number of American users? Anjouli 14:07, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The latter. Wikipedia accepts both orthographies. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Usage and spelling style. Kosebamse 14:28, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. And thank you Anome for the use of your page! Anjouli 14:31, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dear Anome,

As the poster of Bam Citadel article, I have replied about its source and ... in its talk page, as you advised. I hope the article will be backed to the Wikipedia soon and probably there will be a link for it in The Main Page.

If you need any further info about it, please let me know.

Thanks, A.R. Mamdoohi, 2 Jan. 2004

I _do_ consider that your version of rocker launcher _does_ add something more relevant. - Nilmerg 10:25, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That's kind of amusing. I noticed a while ago that I had accidentally made the range to instead of to But, I thought, that's only 2% of the range, what are the chances of him being allocated one of those IP addresses? Well the chances are pretty high if he dials up and tries to edit pages a few times per day for a couple of months. The words "get a life" come to mind. I've fixed the range. -- Tim Starling 01:39, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

Oh mighty Anome! Please feel free to delete my new page on Notable Drug-Related Deaths. I can see it is simply a dupe of a much better page.

I would do it myself, but I am not sure how, and besides. it is sort of like shooting your own dog.

Thank you for your kind welcome, although I have been around here for a few months. Still I'll take kindness wherever I can find it.

Paul, in Saudi


Thanks for helping me edit Bakkah. From a quite POV article it is now NPOV, as far as I can tell. — Jor 14:34, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Listing for de-admin[edit]

This was formerly posted on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, under "requests for de-adminship". It's now yours to do whatever you want with. Enjoy! -- Cyan 02:25, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

start of moved text

The Anome[edit]

  • For blatant vandalism of Brianism in an attempt to circumvent the proper peer review process on VfD. Anjouli 19:17, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • 1) The edit to Brianism did not involve the improper use of sysop powers. 2) I don't see any effort on your part do discuss the edit with him. Discussion should always be the first step in conflict resolution, not requesting that someone be stripped of his admin status. --snoyes 19:28, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your comment. Since "character" seems to be a requirement to apply for SysOp status, presumably lack of it should be grounds for removal. Certainly someone who vandalised a page would never be granted SysOp status if they applied. Others have been refused for lesser crimes. I was not aware that the abuse of an actual sysop power was a requirement for removal. But in light of your reputation and experience, I accept your superior knowledge of this undocumented convention and withdraw my request. I was indeed discussing this matter on the VfD page. However The Anome did not respond to my most recent comment. Instead he vandalised the page. I am sure you do not condone this behavior. Anjouli 19:45, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • I did not claim that there was a policy stating that improper use of sysop powers is a requirement of being de-sysoped. I merely offered my opinion that unless there is serious and repeated transgression of the fundamental rules of wikipedia, I personally consider an abuse of admin powers to be necessary. Sysops have to be trusted to a certain degree, and even though the Anome's edit was courting controversy I don't think that it shows that he is not to be trusted. --snoyes 19:59, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
          • And I do accept your opinion.Anjouli 20:06, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • This is an exceptionally frivolous de-adminship request, even by the normal low standards on this page. Oppose de-adminship. Morwen 19:36, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • I have withdrawn the request, which was perhaps made in haste and frustration. But please address the core issue of the vandalism. I respect your opinion. Anjouli 19:49, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • What The Anome did was certainly not vandalism. Vandalism is things like blanking pages, making every fifth word say 'penis', and so on. You have a content dispute, this is all. At best you can make a case that Anome was violating NPOV, but we all do that. Morwen 19:53, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
          • I must very respectfully beg to differ. What The Anome did was to delete the entire existing content of the article, whilst it was under peer review in VfD. At best, this means many will judge the article on its current content - which appears deliberately contrived to make it a candidate for deletion! This is hardly ethical conduct. This circumventing the proper voting process by duplicity. Anjouli 20:03, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose de-adminship. I see no vandalism, only a dispute between users on the content of a single article. -- Finlay McWalter 19:53, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • It looks like Anome was trying to remove the unverifiable information from the article. This is neither vandalism nor a reason to be listed on this page. I've re-added the original information so people can see what they are voting to delete but I don't think Anome was necessarily wrong to remove it. Angela. 23:24, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

end of moved text

dispute notice[edit]

Can you please add a dispute notice to Anti-Zionism? (''The neutrality of this article is [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute|disputed]].''). That version is very strongly disputed. (1 2) -- Zw 13:55, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You can do it yourself... just edit the article, and put it at the top. -- The Anome 13:59, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is protected. Zw

File:Us county list.txt[edit]

I have listed it for deletion. Reply there (or move it to sources) if you still need it. Dori | Talk 21:42, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)


I do not know if you are watching Brianism Talk, but it is fair that you should see this: An Open Letter from Rex Mundi, co-founder of Brianism. In view of this, I have changed my vote to Delete. Link has apparently been "e-mailed to participants in the discussion", but not posted on WP by the writer - which is why I am doing it. I also do not see how the writer would have all the e-mail addresses involved. I also apologise for requesting removal of your admin status. This was done in anger and haste. Anjouli 13:48, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The vote was far from 2/3 in either direction by my count. I counted 5 for and 5 against. Clearly not a majority in either direction! In addition, I was under the impression that articles had seven days of voting, not five, and that serious discussion merits additional time. Please undelete it. - UtherSRG 19:47, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Undeleted as per request. A quick confirms that the expiry period is five days. Can someone re-tally the votes? -- The Anome 22:10, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll tally the votes and post them here and on talk:Brianism. - UtherSRG 22:14, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I haven't done a proper count of the votes, but it's certainly not 7 v. 8. I don't think those without any prior edits should be counted, and Reddi hasn't given any reason for keeping it, so I would discount that too. For some reason my comment has not been included in the tally UtherSRG made either. I think it needs to be left on VfD for longer. Angela. 23:18, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the fact that in many parts Wikipedia will stay far from quality and neutrality working this way - its not a matter of democracy. -- Nichtich 13:16, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)


I'm not sure if your vote/comment on VfD is accurate [it was vandalized ... one of my votes had to be reposition] ... you may want ot look @ it January 30 votes. JDR

Poll notification[edit]

Jack (now known as Sam Spade) created a poll at Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god poll on the capital G issue in atheism, so I figured I should drop a note about it to all the major participants in the editing on that article since Jan 11. I just went through the edit history clicking names that looked prominent, so if you aren't interested in the issue feel free to ignore it. Bryan 05:29, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Help please[edit]

Please check in on the DNA and Talk:DNA situation. Two egocentric people are creating a situation worthy of Kaffka on speed. P0M

Wow! That was fast. P0M 02:19, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Brian Paddick[edit]

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but why did you add the word 'dick' to the end of the Brian Paddick article in the first place??? -- Graham :) 00:19, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, it happened like this...

  1. in Mozilla, start typing a google search in for "brian paddick" in the toolbar whilst opening the edit link in a new tab
  2. lose keyboard focus to the new tab, but don't notice, thus appending the last 4 chars of "brian paddick" to the edit window at the bottom
  3. see "brian pad" in the toolbar, complete typing the missing chars there, do Google search
  4. get info, add to article at the top, don't see "dick" at the bottom
  5. hit "save" button
  6. see article, see error, remove with comment "doh!"

-- The Anome 00:27, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I did have to ask didn't I? I did wonder for a second if it was a sleight on my extended family... -- Graham :) 00:29, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for your participation in Mandragoras. I wasn't trying to be a pain but the copyvio and then my analysis showing that the web site is the same were both deleted multiple times. I just wanted it to stay there long enough for a fresh eye to evaluate it. - Texture 15:36, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I hope that the outcome will satisfy everyone involved. -- The Anome 15:41, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think the name Israeli West Bank barrier is ridiculous. What was wrong with Israeli separation barrier? -- Dissident 19:58, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Hi. I guess it's kind of ironic, in a way, that I created anti-twister because someone added it to an article but didn't provide any text for it. Since I hate bright red links (sorry, I'm a wikiholic), I feel compelled to fix them before I can proceed. And now what do I find appended to the article??? Anti-twister mechanism, which gets one Google hit. I found the Google article quite interesting, but don't feel I have sufficient knowledge to address this topic - would you mind building at least a stub for this, if only to keep me from obsessing about it? Thx. Denni 20:27, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)


Thanks for your help with Zap! By the way, you may want to note indefinite-time blocking logged-in vandals in future. Thanks Dysprosia 12:02, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. Do you known what the interaction of indefinite blocks with timed blocks is? Do you get the least block time possible, or the greatest? -- The Anome 12:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think it works like a layered system, if someone blocks first for say 20hrs, and someone blocks for 8 above, the 8 block expires first, leaving the 20 below, so essentially a stack. Though I'd like to test it out at the Test Wikipedia, but I don't have admin access there to do it/don't know the Dev password/don't know if Dev has admin rights... Dysprosia 12:10, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)~

HTML tags[edit]

Why did you move this page back? AaronSw 23:54, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Because the standard Wikipedia article naming convention is to make article titles singular if possible, and to make links like [[HTML tag]]s if plurals are needed. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. -- The Anome 23:58, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Can just I have the editing abilities on a protected page? For example, I think I can update Wikipedia:All pages by title rather diligently. --Ryan and/or Mero 02:26, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

No, at the moment, you need sysop powers to do this. You can't split the power to edit from the other sysop powers, and any sysop can edit, protect or unprotect any page. But, having said that, why not just request sysop powers? They are given to anyone who can show a good editing track record, and no major misbehavior. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship -- The Anome 02:32, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I will take the ethical approach and wait until the first 6 months are over. I’d like to be humble, and thanks for the response. --Ryan and/or Mero

PS. Who would possibly approve of me? =)

I don't know if it is OK to put this here or not, but you didn't specify an email address. If you are still interested in more sources for the popular Christian belief concerning the fallen angels, check back at that page or check out the Book of Adam and Eve.
[7] (Wikipedia - Fallen Angel)
[8] (Book of Adam and Eve (13-15 (XIII-XV)))

Re your comment about NPOV on Fathers' rights article, I am interested in what you would change and, perhaps more saliently, what I should change, if I have contravened the NPOV guidelines. Confucius, he says: "If the Superior Man is not 'heavy, ' then he will not inspire awe in others. If he is not learned, then he will not be on firm ground. He takes loyalty and good faith to be of primary importance, and has no friends who are not of equal (moral) caliber. When he makes a mistake, he doesn't hesitate to correct it." Matt Stan 21:21, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

- Jonathan