User talk:The Anome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] User Unblock Request

Hi. I understand you blocked me for a death treath. i apologize for my behavior, although it was really a joke. Anyway, can you please unblock me? I am a long time contributor and I have new material for articles I have been very active with. Look, I am totally again disruptive behavior and I know what I did it's something I usually criticize. Thanks. User:Camilo Sanchez

Please use the {{unblock}} template on your user talk page to request unblocking, with your justification for unblocking in the template, like this:
{{unblock|your reason here}}
Another admin can then review your request, and unblock you if appropriate. I would expect a commitment to make a formal retraction of the threat and an apology to the threatened user as a minimum requirement for unblocking. -- The Anome (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anome

new sources and citations have been compiled..... please advise. Allegrodivino (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The_Anomebot2 error.

[1]: link was for a place in the Eastern Cape province, not the Gauteng province. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-21t12:07z

Thanks for catching that. This is the second error I've seen in the bot's GNS-derived data relating to the Johannesburg region: I'm not sure if there's a common factor here. -- The Anome (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Another error in locations for you from back in March diff where Cross Roads, West Yorkshire appears to have been placed in Ireland. Keith D (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This seems to be an actual screwup in the GNS source data, thus:
1 -2593229 -3568099 54.633333 -6.85 543800 -65100 29UPA3877356114 NN29-06 P PPL UK 00 V CROSSROADS Cross Roads Cross Roads 1994-01-13
-- The Anome (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Updated: here's a fuller explanation of what I think has happened. This "Cross Roads" appears to be another name for "Corchoney Cross Roads" in Northern Ireland (which, although located on the island of Ireland, is part of the UK). It also appears to be the only "Cross Roads" that the GNS lists in the UK, and the location in Yorkshire is not listed at all. "Corchoney Cross Roads" does not seem to appear at all on sources such as Google Maps. Since both were unique within their country, and categorized as populated places ("village" and "PPL"), in their respective sources, there were enough points of resemblance for the bot to match them up. Wrongly, in this case. -- The Anome (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable block

Why did you block User:Eeeeeeeeeeeeeesdgsrbvgxdvgdfs? The user has no contributions. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it didn't seem to be worth waiting for them to make their first vandalism edit? -- The Anome (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
We have a policy called assume good faith. Also, if you're that convinced they're a vandal, why would you want to username block them (so they can easily come back and keep vandalizing under a less conspicuous name, if they choose) instead of seeing them vandalize and giving them a hard block for it? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I do assume good faith, unless I have a clear signal that the user is not here to make good-faith contributions. In my long experience, usernames which are generated by mashing the keyboard aggressively (try it!) are a sufficiently clear signal of bad intent. If you doubt me, please find some accounts with keyboard-mashing usernames that have made good faith edits.
These are drive-by vandals, not determined vandals, so softblocking is entirely appropriate. -- The Anome (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Strathfieldsaye (estate)

I have nominated Strathfieldsaye (estate), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strathfieldsaye (estate). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Booglamay (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger

It has been proposed that the article List of surgical instruments, that you created, into Medical_instruments_and_implants#Used_in_General_Surgery. Please discuss at the talk page.sarindam7 (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apology Accepted

Now, I shall go about creating the sandbox for the article I have intended. ----DanTD (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Title Blacklist

A friend of mine was having trouble creating the new page General Anaya earlier because of the block on HAGGAR. It seems that the HAGGAR block wasn't merely block titles matching the string H*A*G*G*A*R, but anything with a "G" and an "A" anywhere separated by a space. I verified this myself by attempting to create articles with names like "G A", "A R", and so on and finding that I was being blocked. Then you removed the HAGGAR line and it began working. But yet, even though you have placed those lines back in again, it is now still possible to create articles with subsets of the string HAGGAR as long as the whole thing is not there. So it would seem that there isn't a problem now, but I am just bringing this to your attention in case there is a potential malfunction lurking in the code that no one is yet aware of. Soap Talk/Contributions 16:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I just noticed your edit history. If "the breakage" is what youre talking about then I guess you already know about what I was saying. But I'll leave this comment here anyway just in case. Soap Talk/Contributions 16:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centrifugal Force

Anome, there is absolutely nothing in the introduction that I proposed that conflicts with established theory.

The offending line was the line which points out that co-rotating objects and fluids will experience actual acceleration or hydrostatic pressure.

That bit not a contentious issue. But there is a group here who are absolutely determined to play those facts down because they are preaching a false view of the world in which everything is relative and in which there are no absolutes.

The idea that a rotating bucket of water could possess hydrostatic pressure is too much for them to cope with. They are in denial.

That is why they insist in pushing the term 'fictitious' to the fore. David Tombe (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

David, you seem currently to be in disagreement with almost every other recent editor of this article. Since Wikipedia has no hotline to THE TRUTH in any matter, we have to resort Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy in such cases, and citing verifiable attributable reliable sources to support any contentious views. Perhaps you could help by giving us some cites to reliable sources that support your assertions in this article? -- The Anome (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
David continues to misunderstand the sense of 'fictitious' as used in current texts, confusing it to mean 'imaginary' or 'non-existent,' thus his constant use of the bucket analogy, cyclones, etc to show that centrifugal and coriolis forces exist. That's a common misunderstanding, which is why I personally avoid 'fictitious' and use 'inertial' instead. Unfortunately, he keeps rewording the articles in a way that reflects his misunderstanding of the terminology and thinks editors are ganging up on him when they revert. There is already a section in the Reactive centrifugal force article which explains the difference, but David either hasn't read it or doesn't understand it. Incidentally, I'd like to see the two articles merged. Plvekamp (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a very good summary of what I also think may be the source of his concerns. "Inertial force" and "pseudoforce" (Feynman's preferred term) are both less contentious than "fictitious". -- The Anome (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Anome, I'm glad to see that there might then be some hope of eventual agreement. Can I first correct you on one important point. You keep saying that I should be neutral and that I should provide citations.

Can you please point out exactly where the original research, point of view, or unreferenced material was in that recent introduction that I wrote. You are listening to false allegations.

It's all very well you producing citations that claim that centrifugal force is 'fictitious'. But does that mean that we have to hide away references to true facts which might cause the reader to question this term? And I mean by true facts, such simple matters as the hydrostatic pressure that is induced in a rotating bucket of water. Notice that it is exactly these bits of information which the confederacy is so keen to erase. Notice how Wolfkeeper dealt with this issue. He went into denial and started to mock. Is that the kind of person you want to have editing your physics articles? It is these guys who are subtely impoising their point of view on the readers. It is not me. I am trying to keep it neutral. These guys are trying to impose a false view of the world where everything is relative and there are no absolutes. Hydrostatic pressure in a rotating bucket of water destroys this view on them, so they have to hide it. David Tombe (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than try to reinstate your edits wholesale, have you considered starting with one small point within your argument, and working on supporting that according to the WP:NPOV policy? Alternatively, can you provide references to reliable sources that argue that any of the arguments for assertions contrary your point of view are invalid? -- The Anome (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Anome, This has got nothing to do with reliable sources or point of view. You have missed the point entirely. There is an aspect of centrifugal force which these guys will not tolerate in the article and it is an everyday phenomenon. It is the centrifuge device. It causes heavy particles to move to the edge. The fact that heavy particles move past light particles means that we are observing an absolute effect which can be seen from any frame of reference.

No matter what I write, whether small or large, it is instantly deleted by either PeR, FyzixFighter, Wolfkeeper, RRacecarr, or Henning Makholm. I haven't had a single edit yet remain.

It has got nothing to do with citations or point of view. They are the ones with the point of view and they are collectively guarding the article. Their point of view is that centrifugal force is only a relative thing which depends on which frame of reference we view something from.

Introduce the centrifuge, or hydrostatic pressure in rotating water and they delete it immediately. It doesn't matter whether you play by the rules or not. These guys will not tolerate anybody else contributing to these pages.

Just look at yesterday's edits by FyzixFighter. He was trying to distance the centrifuge from centrifugal force. The whole idea of absolute rotation spoils their view of things.

They have fooled you into thinking that I am the one that has been pushing a controversial point of view. To suggest that I need to provide citations is sheer false inuendo. David Tombe (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

David, can you provide reliable sources that support the statements above? If so, you will have a good starting point for incorporating these views and arguments in the article according to WP:NPOV. If not, I'm afraid you're engaging in either WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS, and are unlikely to make any further progress in changing the existing consensus about the overall content of the article. Unfortunately, your belief that your views are the WP:TRUTH, and that everyone else is wrong, is not an effective argument in the face of well-cited consensus.
Also, have you considered the possibility that the other contributors might be right about this, and that you might simply be misunderstanding their views, none of which -- as far as I can see -- actually appear to deny the idea of absolute rotation? -- The Anome (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Anome, I'll give you an example. In the next 48 hours, I'll insert this clause into the introduction of centrifugal force,
To the extent to which the object or fluid element co-rotates with the frame, a radial acceleration or a hydrostatic pressure is induced. One practical application of centrifugal force is the centrifuge device which causes heavier particles in a solution to drift towards the edge.
That clause is not opinion. It is not original research. It is so well known that it doesn't need any citations. But I guarantee you it will be erased within minutes.
Why? Because it draws attention to the real effects of centrifugal force. They are trying to hide all such facts because they want to emphasize that centrifugal force is fictitious. David Tombe (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'll wait to see what happens: but I hope you understand that the operation of a centrifuge is just as explainable within a non-rotating frame entirely in terms of conventionally-understood forces such as centripetal force and reactive centrifugal force, and entirely without the use of the concept of centrifugal force, as it is within the rotating frame with the use of a centrifugal d'Alembert force? -- The Anome (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done it now. By the way, in the rotating frame, what force causes the heavy particles to move to the edge? It is centrifugal force. Is the centrifuge not a good example to put in the introduction.David Tombe (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the centrifuge is a really good example for this article; however, since it can be shown that the motion of the denser particles to the outer edge is entirely explicable within a non-rotating frame of reference without the use of pseudoforces, I think you might find a detailed treatment of the phenomenon rather disappointing. (Hint: consider the limiting case of zero density and zero viscosity of the surrounding fluid, and the tendency of masses to move in straight lines relative to an inertial frame in the absence of other forces, and the apparent motion produced by these straight line trajectories when considered from the viewpoint of the rotating coordinate system. Then restore the effects of non-zero density and viscosity in the surrounding fluid, and see how this fails to overwhelm the tendency of the dense particles to move outwards.) -- The Anome (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we please take this discussion to the Talk:Centrifugal force page, so the editors involved don't have to go to multiple user talk pages ? Plvekamp (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks!

I am new the the whole editing on Wikipedia thing. Thank you for making minor touch ups to an article I started. Any assistance or advise will be greatly appreciated. Miller.12b6 (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

Anome, Why did you create a section asking 'Is Centrifugal force Real?'. It obviously wasn't in the hope of obtaining evidence in favour of a 'yes' answer.

I gave two fully verified quotes which indicated that Maxwell and Bernoulli both believed it to be real.

How do you expect me to take you seriously if you allow Plvekamp to delete these references and then come to me complaining that I am not abiding by the verifiablity rules.

As regards my comments on the gravity orbit, nobody that knew anything about orbital theory would ever ask for verification regarding this equation. That topic is widely covered in the textbooks.

The article is a total mess because you are all refusing to accept the most important fact of all which is that centrifugal force is a product of actual rotation.David Tombe (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

David, all of these issues have previously been discussed in great detail over hundreds of postings by both yourself and other editors in various talk pages. If you can abide by Wikipedia's ground rules, and can demonstrate that your point of view is attested to -- even as a significant minority viewpoint -- by multiple reliable sources, we can try to accommodate it within the article. As has been explained to you elsewhere, your quotes from Maxwell and Bernoulli certainly demonstrate that they used the term, but have not demonstrated that they used it in the sense that you mean, rather than that generally used by scientists and used in the article, and they thus fail to support your argument. -- The Anome (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Anome, you lost all credibility when you asked 'Is centrifugal force real?' and then proceeded to deny references to Maxwell's and Bernoulli's papers which indicated that they had believed that it was real.

As for your reversion of my edits a few hours ago, that was plain vandalism under the guise of demanding citations. No citations were needed for those very obvious pieces of information.

You do not delete other peoples' edits on those grounds when more often than not, there are no citations.

Let me give you an example. Racecarr deleted an edit (that I had put) which was similar in principle to the one that I deleted a few hours ago. Rracecarr, didn't say to me 'No Citations'. RRacecarr explained why. And in that case, I believe he may have been correct, although I'm not 100% sure about that.

Rracecarr said that only the Coriolis force is involved in meteorology. I would agree with him that it is certainly the only important force, but I think I have seen the involvement of centrifugal force in meteorology debated somewhere.

Nevertheless, Rracecarr's deletion was appropriate because it removed something which was a predominantly Coriolis issue from the centrifugal page.

That then raised the question of whether or not we ever need a rotating frame to analyze centrifugal force.

I pointed out that its effects can be described adequately without recourse to a rotating frame and I straightened out all that nonsense about the colloquial centrifugal force.

The introduction right now is a farce and it will remain a farce so long as a certain team of vandals continue to edit in a spirit of spite.

Your big problem is that you took on board allegations too readily from a certain group who have a desire to totally play down all real aspects of centrifugal force.

And since then you have shown yourself up in your true colours as a one sided arbitrator. David Tombe (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

David, I can only repeat what I have said in my previous replies. The issue is not whether article material is orthodox or heterodox; the issue is whether it is attributable to third parties as attested to by verifiable, reliable sources while avoiding synthetic arguments. This has been explained to you repeatedly, by many, many different editors. The "vandals" you are complaining of are editing according to Wikipedia's policies, and the material you are complaining about is clearly supported by the multiple references cited in the article. Most of the changes made by other editors have simply been attempts to express these ideas in such as way as to be persuasive to even the most skeptical reader, driven by your difficulty in accepting that this is the mainstream scientific view of centrifugal force. As far as I can tell, you have refused to provide a single reference that backs up your assertions; unfortunately, your inferences based the quotes from Newton and Bernoulli do not count, since they are based on your personal interpretation of these quotes, something clearly dealt with in the WP:SYN and WP:OR policies.
If you can abide by Wikipedia's ground rules, and can demonstrate that your point of view is attested to -- even as a significant minority viewpoint -- by multiple reliable sources, we can make progress. If, however, after extensive discussion and multiple warnings, you still persist in ignoring Wikipedia's core editorial policies, blocking unfortunately appears to be the only remaining option available to stop you doing so.
Based on your re-insertion of the same unreferenced assertions that you have been warned about before (see this diff), I am now blocking you from editing for a period of 31 hours. (I have also notified you about this on your talk page.) You are welcome to make constructive contributions again when the block expires. -- The Anome (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On Smellysnail

What's offensive with his username? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right: I was over-zealous about this, given that it was following a series of obvious vandal accounts. I'll unblock it. -- The Anome (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:I am the Authority . com

You beat me to it... Cheers, --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. I've been here for eight months now, and that was the first time it's ever been vandalised! :P Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC).

[edit] You are right but let someone else do it

You're right about David Tombe, but for the sake of appearances, why not let someone else block him? No doubt, they'll agree with you. Antelantalk 15:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll get the folks on WP:AN/I to review the block. -- The Anome (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think the block itself was well deserved, but I don't think that it was warranted on the grounds that you cite. (I know that the AN/I discussion says otherwise.) There wasn't much disputing the particular piece of text that you quote. A block for repeatedly calling his fellow editors "vandals", "wikistalkers", and other rude things, would on the other hand be warranted in my opinion, but I think the decision should be made by someone who's not actively editing the page.
Other than that, I want to say thank you for showing up on the page. The situation was getting out of hand before you arrived, and I think your presence has helped calm things down a lot. --PeR (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this up publicly. Like I said both here and there, this is a good block. I just didn't want you to get burned down the road if someone dug up diffs and decided to try to misframe these events to make it look like the block was inappropriate. I think bringing it to AN/I makes that an impossibility; strong work. Antelantalk 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I admit that I applied the rules very strictly in the case of that particular edit, which combined being just subtly wrong enough to add to the confusion in the article with a complete lack of references. Normally, a minor infringement of WP:V such as this would not deserve blocking, by itself, and would be overridden by the WP:AGF principle. However, the particular edit which led to the block was the final straw in a whole cumulative pattern of disruptive edits that mixed blatant violations of policy and system-gaming edits that carefully skirted the rules, with (as PeR mentions above) descriptions of other editors as "vandals" and "stalkers" and overt declarations that "references don't matter" in spite of many, many polite requests to ensure that contributions were referenced, and multiple previous warnings; it had to stop somewhere, and this was it. -- The Anome (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Anome, you have totally misrepresented the situation. There was no fringe viewpoint being pushed. There is a controlling group which are actively trying to keep the cause and effect aspect off the article.

I notice that you are capable of turning a blind eye to the insults coming from others. SCZenz is pretty good at dishing out insults but that doesn't seem to worry you so much. 118.175.84.92 (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please wait for your block to expire. -- The Anome (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I was curious where David comes from and decided to do a Google search. I found this site[2] which has many of his publications, showing that he is indeed an expert in centrifugal force and how this real force explains many fundamental questions such as the four types of electric charge, the DNA of electromagnetic radiation, Maxwell's 5th equation, and gravity reversal and chemical bonding. --Itub (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates for Warsaw Old Town

Hi, I saw it was your bot that added the coordinates for Warsaw Old Town (last year, mind!) so I thought you'd be the best person to ask. They seem to be in the wrong place- I checked the top three (Google Maps, Mapquest and Yahoo Maps) and they all show it on the wrong side of the river and a bit too far North. I have absolutely no idea how these things work myself so I have no idea how to fix it! Thanks, MorganaFiolett (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! As far as I can tell from my logs, the data was originally taken from the Spanish-language Wikipedia. I'll see if I can get a better location. -- The Anome (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I've relocated the geodata in what I hope is the correct place. I hope this is an improvement. -- The Anome (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks spot on now :) MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Shadow to the past

User:Shadow to the past is requesting an unblock. I don't know the history of the "shadow" usernames, but are you sure this is a bad guy? Not making an opinion here, as I don't know. Corvus cornixtalk 02:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In their 04:14, 15 May 2008 edit to their talk page (now deleted: admins can see the content), they effectively admit to being a long-term vandal. -- The Anome (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I of course, couldn't see that. I thought there was probably more to the story.  :) Corvus cornixtalk 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invalid Cites

Anome, it was an invalid cite. It didn't answer the question. I was the one who put the citation tag there with a specific question. I will decide if the citation given answers that question. The matter is still being challenged. If you want to block me permanently then go ahead and do so, but it will be a total abuse of administrative authority. David Tombe (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

David, please read WP:OWN. -- The Anome (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think its the others that need to read that.David Tombe (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just give up...

...on trying to convince David Tombe. We don't need him to be convinced; we just need to have an accurate article. Ignore his talk page ramblings, and if he inserts unverifiable nonsense into the article again, block him for a longer time period. It is time to close the discussion. --Itub (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I've said all I need to say in my last post to him. It will be a pity if he gets blocked; he's had a net positive effect on the article, and there is much remaining to be said about the topic in terms of historical viewpoints on this in the early development of classical mechanics, and popular intuitions in terms of naive physics. But if he persists in flouting the NPOV policy within article space in spite of apparently endless warnings and last chances, I agree with you that I can't see much alternative. -- The Anome (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you followed User_talk:David_Tombe#Fictitious_Force_article? David has agreed the final formulas are correct (how can he fight every known reference) but that there is room for interpretation. It is impossible not to be convinced that David has little to add to this part of the argument. If he wants to do an historical segment, that is fine. However, guaranteed that he will be unable to resist mucking about with the other sections to get his ideas in there. I'd recommend that he be blocked from the centrifugal force article until some reasonable contribution is ironed out on his talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] D Tombe

I guess arguing with David can be fun. I've done it myself. But you have to admit, it's just recreation. It has nothing to do with the articles, with physics, or with a prospect of achieving unanimity.

I don't see signs that anybody but David believes there is any error in derivations, formulas, or the way the formulas are applied in any of the articles fictitious force, centrifugal force or centripetal force. Do you agree about that?

If so, please, what is the objective of the D Tombe engagement? If not, please tell me what is at stake here, because I'd like to clarify any points that really bother you. Brews ohare (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'll stop. It's frustrating; over and over again, I kept expecting him to have an "aha!" moment any moment, but he's had this described to him in every conceivable way, to no avail. And it's stopping us from writing the encyclopedia. Have you seen my suggestions at the bottom of Talk:Centrifugal force? -- The Anome (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re Gnomewiki (talk · contribs)

Hi, I was perusing the above AIV report - and the first three random contribs I hit upon were for accounts that were indef'd today. I note you have now applied the same sanction to this account. Unless you have some other knowledge - or managed to hit the only three non blocked accounts, or I hit the only three blocked ones - I wonder if you might check the contribs again. I did again and found 2 indefs and one 1 year block of the next 3 contribs (1 mistake out of 6 ain't bad...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked nine successive edits, in addition to the few I checked at random previously: all of them were indefblocked. Can you give some examples that were not indefblocked? -- The Anome (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
N User:Chrispfister is blocked for one year "only"... I had noticed that you had unblocked and was coming back to strike out my earlier comments. I am retiring for the night, otherwise I would start at one end and check for any other discrepancies... Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting that. Since most of the rest of their edits appear to be in good faith, I'll warn them, instead of re-blocking. -- The Anome (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Update: It looks like someone else has already done that. -- The Anome (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latitude & Longitude for rivers?

Hi, I noticed that your bot was assigning lat. & long. for rivers. What criteria are you using to define the accurate values of these parameters for a river? (I ask because I'm trying to figure out if an anonymous editor made a valid edit. (He decided to copy your work on Dabus River, & added a geographic location for a point the river passes through -- not its source or its confluence with the Blue Nile.) I'd be happy with even a simple pointer to the appropriate policy page -- llywrch (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding the points defined in NIMA's GEOnet Names Server database. They seem in general to be the endpoint of the river, either where it reaches the sea or lake, or where it joins a larger river. They are rounded to the nearest minute of arc, so they may be some way out from the actual precise point. This seems to be neither, but at least it's on the river. -- The Anome (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rayleigh–Taylor instability

Hello. I moved Rayleigh-Taylor instability to Rayleigh–Taylor instability, in accordance with Dash#Usage_guidelines and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)#Dashes, since Rayleigh and Taylor are two different persons. Moreover, many articles on scientific subjects named after several people have en dash in their article title to separate the names.

You moved the article back to Rayleigh–Taylor instability. As the reason for this move you give: "back to simple ASCII orthography: articles are supposed to be easily linkable". But it was still easily linkable, since there was a redirect page from Rayleigh-Taylor instability to Rayleigh–Taylor instability. Moreover, I changed the wikilinks in several articles referring to Rayleigh–Taylor instability, in order to avoid redirects. So, I do not understand your move. Please explain. Crowsnest (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

On reviewing the MoS: you're right, and I was wrong. Provided a redirect from the hyphen form to the em-dash form exists -- and it did in both cases -- this seems fine to me. I've reverted my changes. -- The Anome (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. By the way, this – is an en dash and this — is an em dash, so you re-inserted en dashes. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again. I'll have to re-read the MoS; it seems I'm way out-of-date. -- The Anome (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diplomatic Missions of the Republic of China

Thanks for reverting the change made by a Polish IP address making banal references to "Communist China" and adding flags. I have requested semi-protection for page. If you could add your comment to the talk page it may also dissuade him - or you might be able to convince me that he is suggesting something worthwhile... Kransky (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Kransky (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MSN Encarta

Well it would take me a long time to find pages for all of them, I won't link to that site agian if it is problematic. I am under a great deal of pressure on here at the moment and I can't be expected to do everything at once. If wikipedia had a decent atlas as you get in a written encyclopedia then there would be no need to have any links at all. As it is, the bot won't be including a link to that site from now on. You run the AnomeBot right? Any chance you could use a bot to copy the commune infoboxes from french wikipedia straight onto english wiki? The have to be copied and pasted manually at present which could surely be done with a bot as there is a huge balcklog of french communes to develop too ♦Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 11:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The bot's on hiatus right now; I broke it a couple of days ago when I activated SUL on its account; I know how to fix it, but it's a few hours of coding away from being operational. I'm not sure my current bot-operators remit covers the copying of infoboxes, but I'll take a look at the problem anyway. - The Anome (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Basically it is copying the infoboxes striaght from french wikipedia and inserting onto here. E.g here. I'm certain a bot could read it on french wikipedia and insert it into the french articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject French communes Gradually they are being checked at Wikipedia:WikiProject French communes/Status but a bot could probably add the infoboxes ten times quicker than a human would. With having to deal with this current situation, it would be one less load on my mind to attend to. Ideally the french communes should have been created with a bot and infoboxes and some useful paragraphs of information. Hopefully this can be done for other places. ♦Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 11:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

for creating Academic Pentathlon. Kingturtle (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! -- The Anome (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

and for John D'or Prairie, Alberta! and for doing such a nice job at evening out those request lines. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rusty Harding

Thanks for the note about this deleted article. Could you make a copy of the article in my userspace somewhere? I have no idea what article this is, but if I created it, I'm sure I have sources -- at least for whatever part I wrote.

Did I create both articles? Were they the same content? The deletion discussion makes it seem to me that it was a "bash biography" -- which is not my style at all. , Anyway, if you copy the article to my userspace, I'll look at it and see what's wrong with it and if it's 'worth' saving it or even possible. (I do have a homeschool group that uses this lab, but they generally tell me when they write something on WP, so it's actually more likely it was my work.) If it is my work, I probably have whatever text or reference prompted me to write it in the first place, but I am not even sure of what the subject matter is at this point.

Thanks so much for your time, and if this article needed deleting twice, and if I created both of them, I really really apologise for the extra work this has caused. I've not been very active on Wikipedia since my adminship was denied a couple years ago. It seems all my good edits count for nothing, and that adminship is not "no big deal" as Jimbo said it should be. I'd rather work on the books I'm writing than remain a very active second-class citizen on wikipedia. Probably more productive anyway.

Thanks User:Pedant (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I remember the article now, there seems to be not a whole lot of information left. I guess it was deletable once the info was all gone. I made the stub, and assumed that since there is a huge amount of references available (see my comments on the AfD for boomerang engineer) I think it would have been cool to get in on on or two of the deletion votes for Rusty harding, rather than just find out when it was already a fait accompli.

Maybe if you find an article I created that looks deletable, you might point it out, and I will be glad to see what put it in that state and try to fix it if possible, saving the community several man-hours discussing/voting/deleting it. I wouldn't intentionally start an article that was suitable for deletion, I have enough experience to know better than that, I think.

Anyway, thanks for your help. Let me know if I can help you in return. User:Pedant (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Given your comments, you might want to put Rusty Harding up for the Wikipedia:Deletion review process. It looks like most of the material in the Boomerang engineer article either belongs in the main Boomerang article or in (were it to be restored) the Rusty Harding article. -- The Anome (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think you are right. Thanks for the advice. There's no rush to do this is there? By that I mean, "since it's already deleted" it won't hurt to delay the review process a bit? I'm thinking it might just be better to do a full rewrite of the article and make a better assertion of notability, and provide better references and all... I trust the Wikipedia process, if it's been deleted twice, it's real likely not a bad decision to delete it.
An article has to stand on its own merit, I think. It makes little sense to me to use the valuable man-hours on a deletion review. It probably was suitable to delete it. Just not because boomerang engineering is "an improbable specialty" or because WP:CORP applies (I don't think that it does) or because someone made a flippant joke about "throw away/hope it doesn't come back".
I agree that most of the info in that article applies to Rusty Harding, the rest could suitably be swept into the general Boomerang bucket. Thanks again for the time and effort you've spent on this. User:Pedant (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks once again, for the advice and help. I'm copying the text from Boomerang engineer to my userspace and will (_eventually_ ) re-re-create Rusty Harding as a less stubby start which will not need to be defended and will stand on its own, with enough references to establish notability etc. I look forward to working with you in the future. Let me know if there's anything I can ever do to help. User:Pedant (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry?

You removed some vandalism from my user page and blocked User:Coksukka in the process. Judging from their edit histories, I'd assume he's the same as User:124.180.77.55 and User:Finley08 (contributions), who, if I interpret this edit correctly, got caught up in the IP auto-block following Coksukka's block. Is it worth reporting this (perhaps at WP:Suspected sock puppets), or should I just assume good faith and hope Finley08 will not engage in further vandalism? Huon (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd just make a mental note of it. If they come back, we can do something about it. -- The Anome (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clinamen

Humble request: I would like to see an explanation of how clinamen relates to Wabi Sabi on the wabi sabi article. Or maybe it should be on the Clinamen page. I am preparing a dictionary of aesthetics to put somewhere on the Net to be used by artists in discussions among themselves. The Japanese have a lot to offer to us on this. Thanks.

Cellorando (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)