User talk:The Anome/archive 1

Welcome on board. We're writing an encyclopedia, and it can be more fun than you might think. In fact, it's addictive. You can write an article on the Knights who say Ni if you want... The Anome 16:03 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the formal justification pointers. I did reply - see the discussion on it. Kidburla2002

Can you give me somewhere where I could find a formal justification of the product rule? Kidburla2002

Can we expect a reference to Jack Vance? Armillary

Only if you do one to 'armillary coherence' -- The Anome

Thank you for your corrections. I have always problems with articles in English - whole concept of articles is somewhat arteficial to me. szopen~

ps: One of these days, you could try to pronounce "w szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie" :-).

Welcome to the Wikipedia! And thanks for moving the Moonie guy to his rightful place. I'm still not sure what happened to the nickname for members of my church. It may be vaguely disparaging, but I'm used to it now: I miss it :-( User:Ed Poor

Thanks for removing this rubbish from digital video: "Apparently there are no interlaced DV cameras, as they are more expensive and for professional use, and their users therefore afford the highest fidelity." I didn't notice when it was added. There are indeed interlaced cameras, (the Canon ZR-10 is one example), and they are both cheap and decidedly not for professional use. :-) Koyaanis Qatsi

Re your remark/question about the Gregorian calendar: when I wanted to write more information I saw that it had already been changed by someone else. Anyway, your request made me look into the subject and I learned something. That's a good thing about Wikipedia. Thanks! -- G_from_B

What was your basis for pruning info from the automatism article? --user:Daniel C. Boyer

I have no intention of removing all reference to surrealist automatism from the article, but as there is an article dedicated to the subject, I moved the material describing surrealist automatism to the article with that name, leaving just a mention of it in automatism. Feel free to merge the two articles back together, in which case I believe surrealistic automatism should be a redirect to the merged article.

O.k.; I think it is better this way, as in the non-legal section of automatism there is a mention of surrealist automatism and mediumistic automatism so more detail on these should be in the respective articles. --user:Daniel C. Boyer

By the way, I still think that [surrealist automatism] is a secondary meaning, with the legal one being the general meaning. The Anome

Wangus is pretty far-out and difficult to understand, and how one should approach an encyclopedia article on it is debatable (perhaps it should merely be a redirect to reality enforcement if it should exist as a Wikipedia article at all) but I think you cannot completely reduce it to idiosyncratic (398 hits on Google). --Daniel C. Boyer

Have a look at those hits. Most of them use "wangus" as a silly word, or as an abbreviation for "Angus, W." in an E-mail address, etc. etc. The Anome

What do you think of this exception? --user:Daniel C. Boyer

A low-traffic mailing list, with a wacky POV? The Anome

Given. But its existence makes me question whether wangus should be excluded from Wikipedia entirely, or in what way it should be dealt with. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:06 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)

Did you create the wikipedia growth graph? If so, can you produce a version that isn't JPEG? PNG is the appropriate format for drawings and charts and such iconic images. That would get rid of the fuzzy text and grainy background, and should be just as small a file. --LDC

Done The Anome

Hi Anome: since you have elected to move UK flat racing, can you do the same for horse-racing and all other entries beneath it please for the sake of consistency? The links will need fixettes, also... rgds user:sjc

I don't understand what you're asking for. I moved the article to correct the lack of a space between the main name and the opening parenthesis in the name: I don't see any other articles that need moving to match. In any case, it's a bad name, and I'll move it to what I hope is a better name. The Anome

Now done. Moved to Flat racing, which appears not to be a UK-only term. The Anome

That's precisely why I put the UK up front, the rules, conditions, etc are significantly different in other countries to the extent that they are fundamentally different things. You also stripped the hyphen btw, which was inconsistent with horse-racing... user:sjc

I have now hived UK horse racing off flat racing to describe UK specifics and left flat racing as a generic description. user:sjc

Hi Anome, thanks for removing that Feyerabend citation in Scientific mythology. Note that you should mark typo corrections as minor edits (check box next to "summary"). FvdP 10:28 Sep 4, 2002 (PDT)

Hi, just a quick word of caution for the future; when you disambiguated Eros in Talk:Asteroid, you changed the meaning of what Maveric had been proposing. Maveric is a believer in avoiding disambiguation pages where possible, AFAIK, and wanted "Eros" to be about the god, not "Eros (god)". Bryan 14:49 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)

Whoops. Thanks for telling me. The Anome 09:18 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your removal of my totally relevant commentary in "The Origin of Species" entry. What I added was a direct quote from an actual movie along with factual information regarding how many esteemed scientists look upon the text; you removed it with a comment that it was a "crap joke." I am re-adding it, and if you remove it again I will have to take it up with the admins. -Easter Bradford-

Go on, then, give me a cite of these esteemed scientists' views. I'm interested to hear from you.

The film quote does not appear to be relevant, as it does not appear to mock the Origin of Species: it makes a joke about mis-hearing things. The Anome 21:41 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

Perhaps the joke is above your head? The library clerk in question comments that the periodicals about "oranges and peaches" are "holier-than-thou." She is in actuality making fun of what the woman actually was asking for, which is "origin of species." As for asking me to cite quotes from actual scientists, I can only say that it is common knowledge in the literary world that "Origins of Species" reads like an in-your-face manual on what you absolutely must believe to be fact. It is commonly considered informative but very pompous. As it's 5:56 PM and Im on my way home and don't have a computer there, I will gladly give you direct quotations to that end in the morning.

However, the point is that you deleted someone's entry without giving an explaination as to why other than to call it a "crap joke." That's rude, and it's not in the contributional spirit of the wikipedia. You shouldn't arbitrarily delete people's information and then cite that you did it because of your own POV. Obviously not everyone thinks it's a "crap joke." -EB-

My apologies for the abrupt tone of my edit comment. The tone was because the film quote, which was offered in support of the assertion about present-day views of the book, did not lend support to those comments.

I'm really not convinced that the joke is over my head. Your original text says:

As such, it is regularly the subject of mockery in pop culture, in both text and film. An example of this is the film "Party Girl" in which a library clerk is approached by a woman who simply says, with a lisp, "Orrngses n' spches." Ther puzzled clerk replies, "Oranges and Peaches? Well, you can try the food=oriented periodicals, but sometimes they're a little holier-than-thou."

This quote, as written, appears to imply that the library clerk mis-hears "Origin of Species" as "Oranges and Peaches", and that the mockery is of "food-oriented periodicals". This seems quite likely, given the fact that many food magazines are exactly that. Perhaps you are reading something into the film that isn't there, or the quote is wrong as written?

I look forward to you providing cites, as my understanding is that most modern scientists consider the Origin of Species to be a masterwork. Yes, it has failings, but they are those of its time, and it needs to be read in that context, and allowances made for the fact that it is nearly 150 years out-of-date (or 150 years ahead of its time). However, I would be interested in being corrected with the aid of authoritative cites if I am wrong. The Anome 21:56 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

I redrew the tree structure image as you requested. branko

Thank you! The Anome

I answered your query on Ram-Man.

I didnot understand at that moment. My apologies. User:anthere

See Talk:Kings Cross, London, England - aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! Sorry. Nevilley 09:00 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

Regarding ATOLL: All programming languages should be titled "Nnnn programming language". When redirecting a name with an incorrect format to the correct format, the incorrect format should be redirected TO the incorrect one and not the other way around. Thanks! Robert Lee

I am not nor have I ever been dymtri kleiner 216.129.198.41. He is a real person. It is not my vainity which added the listing in cultural movement. I understand that you may be busy; however, maybe run a google before destroying valid content. I will be reposting there.

What is it with the "China's Assessment of US Human Rights Record Must Be Linked From Every Article" guy?? Sheesh. I am not even sure it should be linked in from the main US page, as I think it is not mainstream enough for that. I DON'T mean I don't think that H.Rights in the US are important but I do question what that link is doing there. 194.117.133.118 10:04 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

See, there is always a good and easy solution to edit wars. Re: Fifth World Also, Re: the above -- The Chinese Assessment should be linked from a page on US Human Rights but not from the pain page. Main pages should be like a table of contents i think. Vera Cruz

Thank you, Vera. The Anome

The pages for "micronation" and "micronationalism" should be merged, as they deal with identical topics - namely the hobbyist activity of setting up and operating web-based

There is no basis for saying that all micronations are "web-based." Many of them "exist" (to a greater or lesser degree) somewhat, or completely outside of, the Web. --Daniel C. Boyer

"countries" that have no bearing on or interaction with the real world. The term "microstate" or "aspirant microstate" on the other hand should be used to distinguish between these hobbyist activities and entities such as Hutt River Province, Sealand, Seborga, Atlantium and others, that (i) have a verifiably serious intent, (ii) claim physical territories which their supporters actually hold legal title to according to the laws of the countries from which they claim to be seceeding, (iii) manufacture and sell/give away stamps, coins, flags, awards and other physical paraphernalia, (iv) have had their activities documented in the independent media, and (v) have recorded interactions, either in person or via correspondence with other organizations or individuals in the real world.

Thank you for that. I have already done so. There is a wide spectrum of seriousness here: the fact that games-playing and reality blur into one another for some people does not help. I like the description "aspirant microstate" for the more serious projects, as it acknowledges (a) that they are not a state yet (b) their aspiration to be one. I await your changes. The Anome 10:20 Dec 29, 2002 (UTC)

If you are agreeable will set up a new article under the title "aspirant microstate" in the next few days, and transfer relevant data from "micronation" to that page. I believe this would also allow coverage of such failed secessionist states as Katanga, Biafra etc, and should help clarify the present muddy waters somewhat. George

He seems bent on editing his older version... Vera Cruz

I fail to see your logic in having a page called 'Anne Windsor'. There IS no such person. Windsor is the name of the Royal family (House of Windsor), but the family surname is, and has been for decades, Windsor Mountbatten. But I fail to see the logic in applying different rules to male and female royals, and of forgetting that senior figures in royal families are known by name and title, not surname. (In most countries, the family name of the local Royal Family would not even be widely known). Are you going to rename Pope John XXIII's page as Angelo Roncalli, former king Constantine II's Constantine Gluckberg, Prince William of Wales as William Windsor-Mountbatten or even more ludicrously William Windsor? Everyone I have come across, bar one, has thought naming the Princess Royal's page as Anne Windsor is plainly absurd. No one can see the logic of your change, which simply mucks up the logic (is Catherine of Aragon going to be renamed, as after all, of Aragon wasn't her surname but her pre-marital title?) and makes it more difficult to find the reference, which runs contrary to Wiki's own mission to provide information using most commonly used, accurate name, not a wrong version of a wrong surname. I see a number of your moves have been controversial, according to this page. Please explain the logic, because I cannot see it, and nor can others? JTD 21:17 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Question for you (and other photographers) at talk:f-number and perspective distortion. Koyaanis Qatsi

Nice work at Hitchcock zoom. :-) Koyaanis Qatsi

Thank you! The Anome

why did you move sv-pedia to a Wikipedia: metapage?

Because it's an article about a subset of the Wikipedia. and the Wikipedia: namespace exists for the purpose, to keep the main encyclopedia namespace clear for articles on the rest of the world. The Anome

Is this Sri Vaishnavism wiki not outside Wikipedia? - Patrick 14:18 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was intended to be a sub-project within Wikipedia. If it isn't, and it's a bona-fide outside project, the page should be moved back. The Anome

I don't know if you're sympathetic to this cause, but I need support in trying to keep football at football. They want to move it to soccer, please see talk:list of footballers. Mintguy 10:29 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Obviously not. Mintguy

It was a move using association football that sparked this off in the first place and now you've moved it there again. Mintguy

Sorry about that: I do sympathise with your position. The disambig solution is a compromise, and as a result, will irritate both sides a bit. If I had my way, I'd do football == Association Football everywhere. But not everyone thinks as I do, and I've got to recognise the truth of their positions, too. Wiki dynamics will find a way.

Thank you for your contribution to the debate about football. I felt outgunned and needed all the support I could muster. Thanks. Mintguy

Who is this mysterious banned user? I'm curious. JTD 23:02 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

See the mailing list for long history. The Anome 23:04 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Oh God not that dreaded Lir person again. AAAAAGH. If it is Isis, I'll just give a small aaaaagh! JTD 23:08 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Please take this to the list. The Anome 23:12 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

I have taken it to the list (with the question where the previous debate you refer on "Iraq crisis" is - could you tell me?). --Elian

I see that dodgy Bush League has reared its ugly head again. I am not fan of the Bush dynasty (to put it mildly) but this hardly seems suitable in the absence of wholescale NPOVing for Wiki. JTD 01:48 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Anome, why did you move Beethoven/Symphony 9 to Beethoven's_ninth_symphony? This is inconsistent with the other Beethoven articles. See:

Beethoven/Piano Sonata 14 Beethoven/Opus 1 Beethoven/String Quartet 16

(other examples exist)

I thought that sub-pages were deprecated in favour of descriptive names, for a number of reasons. You'll notice that the old link still works as a redirect. If this is a major problem, we will need to discuss it on the policy pages. The Anome

Fair enough...

Just in case anybody questions why you are reverting 142.177's work: [1] --mav

To sate my curiousity, could u expand upon the link between autism and Machiavellian intelligence Susan Mason

Some theorists believe that autistic people lack Machiavellian intelligence. One hypothesis is that they lack a "theory of mind" which is necessary for both cooperation and deceit. The Anome

Hi Anome, I question the validity of comparing BGP to SS7. BGP is a single protocol, although it is central to the Internet. SS7 is a protocol *suite*, built basically from scratch starting from layer 2 (or maybe 3). It mostly deals with intra-provider routing (ISUP) with inter-provider typically being fixed. And it transports service related information (INAP), subscriber-related information (MAP) and even short messages (poor MAP again). I would contract SS7 with the TCP/IP protocol stack. Yaronf 17:00 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, you're right: the two stacks have different structures, so you cannot make direct comparisons. The comparison is that they are both "inter-provider glue" essential for commercial peering (even that's not quite right): it's an invitation to "compare and contrast" that makes for revealing comparisons: "what's the iBGP of the PSTN?" etc.

BGP and routing registries etc. are rapidly growing into a subterranean protocol suite: read NANOG for more details. The Anome 18:45 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Am I right that you have some interest in psychology? I just did a major rewrite of the article Attachments. Would you mind looking at the earlier version, and what I did, and commenting? Thanks, Slrubenstein

You were wrong to move "Legendre polynomials" to "Legendre polynomial". If I am wrong about this point, why did you not answer my explanation, on the discussion page, of why I had moved it from "Legendre polynomial" to "Legendre polynomials"? Would you write an article about John, Paul, George, and Ringo and give it the title "Beatle", instead of "Beatles"? The same thing applies here: the Legendre polynomials are a sequence of polynomials that are thought of as a sequence rather than individually. Michael Hardy 20:30 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Usage vs. policy:

Google says 12500 "legendre polynomials" vs. 6230 "legendre polynomial"
Wikipedia policy is to use the singular in the common case.

I'm not doctrinare about either, just so long as both point to the same article. The Anome 20:34 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

We try to avoid spurious pluralization for article titles (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pluralization)). But the whole point of that is to make sure linking to articles is easy. So if there is very little chance of anyone ever referring to a single of those polynomials, then there is no need to move the article to the singular. --mav

They do get referred to in the singular, just as Ringo Starr might be referred to in the singular when writing about the Beatles, but no one would call the article "Beatle". Michael Hardy 20:42 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)

Moving DVI (TeX) to DVI file format is debatable: it's still ambiguous according to DVI (not that I've ever heard of GEM DVI format).

If you are back (march 31), please look at Racial characteristics. I just did some basic NPOVing but I believe the article is beyond hope -- please look at the original version too. I think it is just someone's atempt to do an end-run around the race article. Slrubenstein

Hi Anome, I just have seen that you have moved the page Wave-Particle duality; can you, please, change all the links to this page because the 'Related changes doesn't work for redirected pages. Thanks. -- looxix 22:13 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)

I noticed your comments on Mr. Wales' Page. Lir/Vera's IP address is not to be confused with my user name, 172!

172

WAIT! I thought the general rule was not to include "Dr." etc. in article names such as Dr. John Snow? Maybe John Snow (doctor) instead, if you need to disambiguate? -- John Owens 07:37 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

You are quite right. I've now used a disambig block at the head of the article, instead. The Anome 07:42 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for doing "the dirty" for The absolute article. Personally I am not sure that there should not be an article with that header. But on the third tentacle I did not think that particular article came close to being appropriate. It might have been appropriate, if there were a huge number of other viewpoints added... not likely though. I do hope someone will start over again from a more neutral viepoint. Cimon avaro 16:03 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Green movement, Talk:Gaian, Talk:Natural resources - you were the person who originally listed those pages on wikipedia:pages needing attention, some time ago... Martin

We are trying to increase the number of people who are Wikipedia Administrators. Until now, we've been relying on users to take the initiative to ask for this access themselves but this has resulted in a slow rate Admin rank expansion. So we've gone ahead and nominated and approved you and several other long-time users for the account upgrade. This means that your fellow Wikipedians feel that you are a responsible, well-known, and fair-minded user.

Agreeing to be an Administrator does not mean that you are expected to do any additional work above and beyond what you do now ; It just means that we trust you to to have certain privileges and responsibilities that can't be entrusted to random users (such as editing the Main Page, protected policy pages, or banning the IPs of vandals).

All we need from you now is your consent. You can either send an email to WikiEN-L (preferred) or simply state "I agree" on the bottom of this page.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

I agree. Thank you for the invitation. The Anome 07:11 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now a sysop! Please see Wikipedia:Administrators for our sysop guidelines before using your new and amazing powers. --Eloquence 08:20 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Basic theories of science is an orphan. Maybe you could find some articles to point to it :) Kingturtle 06:58 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Yeh, I just saw that too. I guess I should make it habit to preview everything. ... I wonder how so many spaces get there, anyway. Koyaanis Qatsi

Hey I just posted to the list about Andre. It is a little worrying, whether it is him or someone who cracked his code. Danny

hi, thanks for the deletion the other day :-) ant

Without realizing that you had moved Non-parametric statistics to Non-parametric statistic I moved it back. Sorry. I'd restore it but since that could just create more confusion I'll leave it to you. I prefer the title with statistics myself, but I can live with the statistic. Jfitzg

Thanks for changing thou. I was absolutely dephlogisticated as to why my new thou article was picking up an unforeseen link from the standardisation topics list. My dictionary was plentifully ignorant of the thou (unit). Never 'eard of it. -- IHCOYC

Hi ths is smith03 i was going to write up a little about my

college Augsburg and it said you had block me? --[smith03]

Hello, smith03, I don't remember blocking you: can you tell me what the message says -- there's usually a message on the page with the block message. Are you an AOL user by any chance? We recently had to block an abusive AOL user, and the blocks may be affecting other AOL users because of the way that AOL's service works. Please reply to me here, and I'll try to help. The Anome 21:55 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Hello Yes I am an AOL user when i click on link to Augsburg College from the Minnesota page it states user/id has been block. I can get into anyother college from the state of minnesota page but Augsburg

Aide-memoire:

22:31 28 May 2003, The Anome blocked 152.163.252.165 (contribs) (unblock) (appears to be Michael / Weezer....)
22:35 28 May 2003, The Anome blocked 152.163.252.167 (contribs) (unblock) (IP-hopping vandal, abusive comments)
22:38 28 May 2003, The Anome blocked 152.163.252.5 (contribs) (unblock) (IP-hopping Michael/Weezer)
22:39 28 May 2003, The Anome blocked 152.163.252.2 (contribs) (unblock) (IP-hopping Michael/Weezer)
17:10 29 May 2003, The Anome blocked 142.177.92.150 (contribs) (unblock) (banning you-know-who, repeat offender)
21:36 29 May 2003, The Anome blocked 152.163.253.5 (contribs) (unblock) (banning IP apparently associated with Michael / Weezer vandal)
21:49 29 May 2003, Hephaestos blocked 152.163.252.66 (contribs) (unblock) (banning IP apparently associated with Michael / Weezer vandal)

To smith03:

OK, I've unblocked these AOL proxies in the 152.163.0.0/16 block. Let me know if you can edit now. The Anome 22:17 31 May 2003 (UTC)

yep thanks

In case you didn't already know, I've created a group watchlist of sorts at Wikipedia:Favorite pages of banned users to help with tracking when Michael is vandalizing (and any future vandals like him). So feel free too use it, I have already found it helpful, and please add to it when he vandalizes more. Thanks. MB 22:13 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I didn't know that OPL isn't compatible with GFDL, that is really sad. I've read the licensing terms and they seemed compatible with publishing in Wikipedia. Do you know of any resource or comparison between the OPL and GFDL? -- Rotem Dan 10:49 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

See http://www.dairiki.org/HammondWiki/opl.html : for a start, it requires redistribution of derived works only under the OPL, and prevents distribution for a fee, which GFDL explicitly permits. The Anome 10:56 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I'm having a hard time reading legal documents, I guess I misunderstood it. -- Rotem Dan 11:15 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The issue of clerical names has long been debated. Papal and cardinal names have been agreed and been used in the format agreed. We are currently debating the form to use in patriarch's names. re cardinal names - the format agreed was the only one workable. Some cardinals changed their name completely when they became a cardinal. Others way back in history have obscure long forgotten first names. It was agreed to use {name} Cardinal surname because

It can be universally applied to all cardinals, whether they changed their name or not, whether they are 11th century or 20th century.
It is the correct name and for papal and royal titles we have followed correct name.
It keeps cardinal surname together, so someone checking '"Cardinal O'Connor on a google search will link to John '"Cardinal O'Connor easily.
Where we don't have a first name or it has been lost in time, we can still use Cardinal x. If we dropped 'cardinal' we would not have enough info to create a page. Using Cardinal avoids that.

As a result, this usage was agreed on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) and has been used for all cardinal pages created. So please don't rename the page in breach of an agreed convention. BTW when you moved it the last time you created a duplicate page. I had to delete the page for that reason.

BTW - don't rely on google searches. I know of at least 50 articles I have worked on where google searches are not merely wrong but complete bullshit. For example, tens of thousands of google searches say the Prince of Wales' surname is Windsor. Hundreds say Mountbatten-Windsor. The tens of thousands are wrong. (That fact was checked with Buckingham Palace!) Don't take google searches with a pinch of salt but with a bucket of salt! wikilove, FearÉIREANN 16:32 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Notice you removed David Brinkley from the current events page. Should we also remove Donald Regan. Help me understand the death critera. Would Bob Hope qualify? Ex-presidents? User:robertkeller 12 Jun 2003

My understanding is that all deaths, unless of world-shaking importance, should go in Recent deaths. So the answer to all those questions is: no, not unless the policy changes. The Anome 17:26 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I see you're updating all references to "George Bush" (the elder) to "George H. W. Bush", so that George Bush can perhaps be a disambiguation page. This will certainly serve Wikipedia well in the future. I would just urge some caution when updating the links to "George Bush" as you have been doing. On April 2003, the reference to George Bush was actually to the elder. I'm not sure how many other unclear cases there are like this, but they do exemplify why this disambiguation is a good idea. -- Minesweeper 09:03 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that, Minesweeper. I'm trying to be careful with these changes: please let me know if I screw any more up. -- The Anome 09:34 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I saw you reverted a 'nice' change about the Tesco store, perhaps from an dissatisfied customer. Question: how do you revert to an older version? Or can only admins do that? Pascal 12:02 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Go to the page history, select an older version, select "edit this page" on the older version, and save it, usually with a comment saying you are reverting to an earlier version. Admins have a short-cut for doing this repeatedly for abusive users, but it has exactly the same effect as doing the above. The Anome 12:30 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for supporting my sysop application. Angela 14:15 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Anome. DP is Distributed Proofreaders, a part of Project Gutenberg, which creates online versions of Public Domain books. The Nuttall Encyclopedia is one such book, a 1907 encyclopedia, with lots of biographical stubs, that is currently being processed. I took the stub, wikied and NPOVed it, and I also changed the language a bit to make it more up to date--I also added the first name, which did not appear in the original article. This is the third article I have based on that, hoping to fill in some of the lacunae here with some stubbish articles with some content. For more information on this, see the Talk page to Gabriel Derzhaven. I think it is much more useful than a pure dump of Britannica 1911 articles, since these are so much easier to transform into updated, (more or less)original works. Hope this answers your question. Danny

No probs. As soon as it becomes available I will link to it. Danny

Re: Michael - if his account is blocked he'll just edit anonymously with a constantly changing IP. It's actually much easier to revert his stuff if he's logged in... though admittedly he wouldn't be able to move pages... Evercat 19:28 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, moving pages is a new one. Several people have noted that Michael continues to edit here against repeated notifications that he is officially banned. Perhaps the problem needs to be pushed upstream towards his ISP... The Anome 19:36 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I wish I actually had a copy of Winning Ways, so I could go from raw source as opposed to second-hand. I just have a copy of On Numbers . . . Phil Bordelon 23:29 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My English teachers always told me that one should use "one", it is more or less improper to use "you" unless you are referring to a specific person(s). Pizza Puzzle

The text is referring to one specific person, who is unique in context; the person who is reading the article. The Anome 14:54 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That is wrong, the text is not referring to any specific person, only to any person who happens to read the article. Pizza Puzzle

No, at the risk of being pedantic, the term "you" can only mean one person to the person to which it is addressed. Think "What should one do if a tsunami is on its way?" vs. "Hey you! Yes you! A tsunami is on the way!". But I am being needlessly pedantic, and some greater pedant will now arise and strike me down. -- The Anome 22:35 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Actually, unless you speak a dialect of English which uses "thou" for singular, "you" can mean many persons besides the one addressed. But it always includes the one addressed. Personally, I much prefer languages with separate singular and plural forms; if there was a chance of bringing "thou" back into regular use, I'd be all for it. -- John Owens 22:41 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm batting for "observer-dependent second person singular" here, with second person plural as my fallback position. The Anome 22:48 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

15:09 21 May 2003, The Anome blocked 65.161.65.104 (contribs) (unblock) (repeated vandalism: has read the "vandalism in progress" page but still continuing)

assuming the guy has gotten over being dumped by his girlfriend, is it now safe to unblock the IP address he once used? Martin 22:32 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree, and I have now unblocked IP 65.161.65.104 -- The Anome 07:51 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks :) Martin

Could you update the graph in Wikipedia:Awareness statistics? I can do it myself if necessary, but my gnuplot-fu is a bit rusty. --Eloquence 00:56 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! --Eloquence

YOU!!![edit]

You know what? I just created a knew account to add this comment/discussion since my old one was blocked. And you know who blocked me? YOU!!! What kinda ass-kissing, cocksucking, motherfucker would do that? I was just expirementing with the articles, that's all. I wasn't commiting a hate crime on the Internet or Wikipedia or something. If your not too much of a pussy to respond to this comment, talk back. P.S. What the fuck kinda name is "The Anome" anyway?

RE: Whatever[edit]