User talk:Anville

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're wrong. I'm right.

And that won't change, not even if we fight!

—Mary Prankster, "Tell Your Friends (Part Deux)"

Anville
This user is on indefinite Wiki-sabbatical.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 11:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bogdanov Affair

Your welcome. I found the article from browsing down into Category:Banned Wikipedia users (a short list, though at least two editors I've edited with have ended up on it lately), so I was really surprised by finding a quality well-ref'd article considering the rathole I'd just crawled through, and even more so after the scary "Give up all hope ye who enter here" Gates of Hell-like intro-box. I remembered hearing about the affair back in 2002. I figured it was worth a discussion, though cries of "too soon" were expected. -- Kendrick7talk 20:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damn it...

... I hope you'll come back. Metamagician3000 01:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I see you've been contributing! Time to lose the "leaving Wikipedia" box? Metamagician3000 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, most of my "contributions" have been due to finding something by accident and realizing I was more able to fix it than anybody else. (Speaking of which, have you any thoughts on WP:FRINGE?) I still feel more "gone" than "back", and it's not as though my free time is growing without bounds. . . . We'll have to see what 2007 brings. Best wishes, Anville 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
My first thought about WP:FRINGE was that it was unnecessary and provocative to have it at all, but I'm more positive about it now. I'll have a look. I hope you are pleased at how the the Pseudoscience case turned out. I thought that the ArbCom handled it very wisely and fairly. (I'm not so pleased that MONGO has been desysopped in another recent case, but them's the breaks.) Metamagician3000 22:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought the ArbCom handled the Pseudoscience and ScienceApologist cases in a pretty judicious way. While I have often been frustrated by Wikipedia's inability to deal with chronic problems — cruft buildup in Featured Articles, for example — whenever a group of Wikipedians is forced to make a judgment call, it seems to work out well by the time the bits settle. Anville 00:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retrocausality

As per JzG's recommendation, I've totally reworked the above article as a revamped stub. Please take another look if you like. Thanks Bwithh 20:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And Chaos

Good work on the article. I've changed my vote. If you haven't already, I recommend contacting the original AFD nominator and request he/she withdraw the nomination. Failing that, if the article is deleted it can always be recreated under the correct title format. Do you know the year the book was published? There should be a year category added to the article. 23skidoo 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: AfD

Thanks, for the note about the changes made to the "And Chaos Died" article. I'm always a proponent of fixing articles rather than deleting them wherever possible, and it looks like some great progress was made. great job! I'm definately going to argue for a keep on the basis of a good cleanup and sourcing.

Also, just so you know, you seem like you might be interested in some changes I've been mulling over making to Sex in science fiction to give 80's sci/fi (IE the cyberpunk movement) some representation given the sociological themes brought up in seminal works of the genre like "Neuromancer" and "Islands in the Net". I'm also considering writing some articles for author Walter Jon Williams. If you'd like to help or just be kept abreast of any changes just let me know!

Thanks again, Wintermut3 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Those all sound like great things to work on. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time lately to contribute to WP in any major way (and it looks like this situation won't change for the foreseeable future). Still, if you'd like any input — or if you've put something on Peer review or FAC — let me know. E-mails will reach me more surely and rapidly than comments on this page, although I'll try to check both of them frequently.
Metamagician3000 is around more often than I am these days and is interested in many of the same topics. Anville 22:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy: world resources and consumption

Could you please look at the brand new Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help.
Frank van Mierlo 13:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:And Chaos Died.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:And Chaos Died.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, let me state that the image is a book cover (for the Joanna Russ novel And Chaos Died) which has since been replaced by the first-edition cover. It can be deleted without concern. Anville 17:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] review request

I'd like to get your thoughts on User:MikeURL/Credentials. One thing I have tried to do is make sure that there is an alternative policy that neither elevates nor denigrates credentials on wikipedia.MikeURL 02:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for showing the link

I appreciate you showing the link to Essjay controversy. Apparently I missed out the whole issue even though I was very active at that time in Wikipedia. Thanks again. OhanaUnited 04:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. No reply needed.

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community_discussion

I think you have a good idea on the section on synthesis, and I have suggested what might be done about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's another example. To me the chunk of material about the mating habits of non-human animals is original research in the context of an article about polyamory, even if someone can provide a citation. Why? Because it is not an example of polyamory - it is, at best, tangentially connected in some way, and we are being invited to draw a conclusion about what that way might be. If the obvious additional comment were made, "Therefore polyamory is natural and good", the OR nature of it would be obvious, but the fact that no connection is explicitly made does not change the fact that it is someone conducting his/her own research project. On the other hand, if the conclusion to be drawn were something uncontroversial, or if a citation could be provided not only for the facts but also for the inference, it would look less like someone on their own frolic. The current AfD re the list of FRSs who have a public position on religion is also an example, though not everyone seems to see it that way. Metamagician3000 09:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd opinion

I just noticed that I've started four AfD today -- without actively seeking for bad stuff or doing anything like new article patrol. Unfortunately I've found an entire set of dubious articles. I'm sometimes wondering whether I'm becoming more and more paranoid (and editors I respect, like User:Omegatron already cricized me), so I would like to get a second opinion before starting even more AfDs.

If you volunteer, take a look and comment at User_talk:Pjacobi#Even_more_notes_to_self. There are two (loosely related) sets: the "X economy" articles and the air powered car stuff. As the energy density of compressed air is that bad (correctly explained at air engine), I can't take these air powered car proposals seriously, if not as an investor scam.

Pjacobi 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My first reaction would be to trash the "X economy" articles (with the possible exception on notability grounds of methanol economy), since anything worthwhile they say can be covered, should be covered and/or already is covered in articles like biodiesel. I suggest alcohol fuel as a merge target for methanol economy. The air-powered car stuff can also go, I think, since if we keep articles around on these companies we might as well use Wikipedia to host generous offers from rich Nigerian widows. I suspect gerotor is a legitimate page, although the "Starrotor Corporation" paragraph looks like advert-cruft. Anville 14:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "fractured ceramics"

Took me a few seconds. Nice. bikeable (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A friend told me that Carl Sagan maintained a file with that name (I mean a file as in the manila folder thing one keeps in a cabinet) holding the letters he got from people about perpetual motion machines, theories of everything and so forth. I don't know if it's true, but I like the phrase. Anville 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberpunk

Cyberpunk has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. P4k 01:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'll have much time to help, but thanks for the notice. Anville 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

Isaac Asimov has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

[edit] Morphic Merge

Hi Anville. You recently moved Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake); to release the title Morphogenetic field for the concept as it is more conventionally understood in biology. I have since then proposed a merge of the page you moved with Morphic field. The discussion for this is at Talk:Morphic field#Merge with Morphogenetic field (Rupert Sheldrake), and I would welcome your input. Thanks -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 09:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bjork_Pagan-Poetry_uncensored.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bjork_Pagan-Poetry_uncensored.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lowry gathering blue cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lowry gathering blue cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of planets in Futurama

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of planets in Futurama, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of planets in Futurama. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of planets in Futurama

List of planets in Futurama, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of planets in Futurama satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of planets in Futurama and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of planets in Futurama during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pynchon-Against-the-Day.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pynchon-Against-the-Day.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Feh. A better version has been uploaded; let it die. Anville (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lowry-messenger-2004.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lowry-messenger-2004.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tommy-og-Tigern.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Tommy-og-Tigern.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TracerBullet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TracerBullet.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Calvin-et-Hobbes.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Calvin-et-Hobbes.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)