User talk:Freakofnurture

Maine

Hey I noticed you did some cleanup on the few Maine Highways that have articles. I have a question that maybe you could help with. Is it "State Route X" or just "Route X" in Maine. I moved them to State Route months ago however I'm starting to think that may have been an error. I've searched high and low on the MDOT site and Google and so far it seems "Route X" is more accurate. I get just shy of 3 million hits for Route X vs 2.2 mil for State Route X. Also both the Maine court system and DOT seem to favor Route X. Any thoughts? Gateman1997 17:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I found matches SPUI's conclusion that "State Route" is correct.

etc. Also, in the charts being linked to, the abbreviation "SR" is consistantly used:

— Jun. 15, '06 [17:13] <freak|talk>

Ah ok cool. It looks like the DOT uses both then. Guess they're not really caring which is used so I'm fine with them as is as the current names are a bit more descriptive. I believe one of those links I actually used as rationale for moving them to State Route in the first place now that I think about it. Gateman1997 17:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second question. Any idea how we can find the length of Route 9A? I for the life of me can't find any info on how long it is. However 289 miles is definitely longer then the distance between Wells and Kennebunk (unless 9A has the most switchbacks in history ;) ). Gateman1997 17:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7.0 miles + 4.2 miles = 11.2 miles (totally certified original research method). The latter part isn't shown as 9A on Mapquest, but it is on Google Maps^[1]. — Jun. 15, '06 [17:52] <freak|talk>

Thanks. I've gone ahead and added that. And since it is verifiable by a third party I doubt this would fall under OR ;). Gateman1997 17:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, it's about as verifiable as taking a piece of elastic thread to a Rand-McNally atlas, i.e. it will keep you from running out of fuel anyway, as long as you don't stretch it too much. — Jun. 15, '06 [17:58] <freak|talk>

True enough. Still for obsure and little cared about routes like 9A I think that may be the only way to figure out how long they are. Gateman1997 17:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of schools sharing the same name

I just realized that since you created the category, as a courtesy, I should notify you directly that I nominated it for renaming on June 9. -- Usgnus 21:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Educational institution disambiguation sounds good. — Jun. 15, '06 [21:45] <freak|talk>

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burlington Center Mall

I guess I can understand why you would go ahead and close the AfD even though there was still debate, due to time constraints, but the "all talk and no consensus" kind of sounds a bit snarky (but ye, I see your point). What would you suggest be done to allow the debate to continue? youngamerican (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: I took it over to deletion review to ask for some more time. As I noted there, I fully believe that you acted in good faith, but I respectfully disagree about the ability to reach consensus. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is, frankly, pointless, unless your goal is to get it overturned and deleted, seems to contradict your original sentiment. — Jun. 15, '06 [23:43] <freak|talk>

I wanted the discussion to continue to see if more people wanted it redirected. The idea of a compromise came along rather late inthe discussion. Is there a better place to take this up than deletion review? youngamerican (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest the talk page of the article being merged from, and the talk page of article being merged to. — Jun. 15, '06 [23:52] <freak|talk>

Thanks. Despite being an inclusionist on individual shopping malls, I was getting burnt out with putting effort into these AfDs and not getting a result either way. I had some unrealistic optimism there earlier today and kind of felt it pissed away when, as you correctly stated, it was headed to another noncon. I think I am just going to step away from the whole debate and go back to content adding for a while. Thanks for bitchslapping me back to reality :) I withdrew the DRV, too, as it not the right action to take. OK, off to copyedit something. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for breaking my template

The only way to get it to work was to {{}} to a subpage, otherwise it breaks the URL, now the whole thing is broken, could you restore and protect?--AOL user 03:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't insert {{urlencode:{{PAGENAME}}}} directly into the template, because it breaks the url, and the PAGENAMEE version that you reverted to doesn't work at all--AOL user 03:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I've tried something else instead--AOL user 03:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

urlencode

So, I finally noticed (well, a bit late) that {{urlencode}} was working and went to update all the templates I'd ever edited that had external links. When I was almost done, I noticed some already had been converted. --- I didn't use quite the same format as you did on {{User2}} though. The ones I updated: {{User2a}} {{User3}} {{User5}} {{User6}} {{Userblock}} {{User-full}} {{Admin-full}}. Maybe you can doublecheck my work? Or revert if needed ^_^. --Splarka (rant) 08:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, why are there so many of them? — Jun. 17, '06 [13:19] <freak|talk>

Atlant says "Thanks!"

Thanks for correcting the vandalism to my user page!

Atlant 15:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it

Someone made an RfD nom you disagree. Stop being silly and comment on the RfD, rather than stomping around in a temper. Thank you. -Splash - tk 16:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're being wrong and rude and you know it. Please stop. -Splash - tk 16:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are 33% correct, and you don't know which part. — Jun. 17, '06 [16:48] <freak|talk>

I'm on the point of RfCing about your repeated incivility to editors who don't deserve it. You know very well that the article redirects nowhere at all during the RfD, and you know very well that you should not be closing it early when the comments are to delete. You know very well that you should not have started, and that you should stop. You also know very well that there is no need to accuse me of spite and asshattery along the way. So don't do any of them. -Splash - tk 16:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Rollback misuse" seems too narrow, though. — Jun. 17, '06 [17:13] <freak|talk>

Closing a debate, repeatedly, when you've seen it reversed once already is entirely rollbackable. It was certainly not an edit made in goodfaith, easily determinable from the edit summary utilised, and anyone - anon or not - closing a debate in that manner would be likely to get rolled back by anyone. -Splash - tk 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should just delete the redirect then? — Jun. 17, '06 [17:28] <freak|talk>

That is what I should like to be done, as I said in the RfD. But there's no need to hurry that discussion. -Splash - tk 17:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. RFD has become a progressively greater timesink, ever since the colorful templates and section headings and archival directories were added. These are trivial items anyway; better than 80% of the nominations are things that the nominators know exactly what needs to be done with. If we can figure out how to codify common sense, we'll become smarter than Tawkerbot2, even. — Jun. 17, '06 [17:38] <freak|talk>

Yeah, I think I commented at the time that the coloured boxes and paperwork were more than RfD needed. But some people can't make it through the day without wrapping something up in a coloured box. When I got to WP I read the policies/guidelines etc and regularly thought "oh, that's an excellent way to put it, obviously that's how it should be done". Only later did I realise that what I think is common sense might actually not be either common, or particularly sensical. -Splash - tk 17:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meetups, events, &c.

Hi FoN,

There's currently some discussion about whether and how to set up [a] US wikimedia chapter[s]; among other things this could help better organize meetups and gatherings at large events and cons. I'm trying to notify people who have been involved in local meetups; if you are interested, see the mailing-list and meta-page on the topic. Cheers, +sj + 16:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two words: Gas money. — Jun. 17, '06 [17:14] <freak|talk>

Mathematical logic glossary

Just wanted to let you know that Mathematical logic glossary, which you deprodded, is up for deletion here. —M e ts501 (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did what? — Jun. 17, '06 [17:39] <freak|talk>

Oh, sorry about that! I must have not been paying too much attention at the time. —M e ts501 (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need an advocate and help with mediation

Greetings,

I need an advocate who will walk me through the mediation process.

I am trying to get the following added to the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Max Tegark is a renown physicist and a PhD profressor of cosmology at MIT. He agrees with my addition.

I am having problem with an editor by the name of Lethe who follows me around Wikipedia reverting all my edits without commentary.

I have tried reasoning with him on discussion pages, but he refuses to read what I write.

Advantages of MWI

If Hugh Everett's theory was just another interpretation of Quantum Mechanics it would have no followers, especially since it proposes the existence of countless other universes which theoretically can never be observed. Because it is not falsifiable it seemingly violates Popper's criteria for a good scientific theory. The reason it has so many adherents is because it offers numerous advantages over the Copenhagen Interpretation, among which are the following:

1. Quantum mechanics becomes a deterministic theory making it more compatible with the theory of relativity and all other physics theory to date which are all deterministic. The Copenhagen Interpretation introduced indeterminacy and randomness into science. Aside from the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics there is no scientific theory that includes indeterminacy or randomness. Einstein particularly objected to this aspect of the Copenhagen Interpretation. In response to it, he said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

2. It eliminates the "measurement problem."

3. It eliminates Von Neumann's "boundary problem": where to draw the line between the micro world where quantum mechanics applies, and the macro world where it does not. Shortly before his death in 1953, Albert Einstein wrote: "Like the moon has a definite position whether or not we look at the moon, the same must also hold for the atomic objects, as there is no sharp distinction possible between these and macroscopic objects."

4. It eliminates the special place for an observer and human consciousness.

5. It restores objective reality of the universe between measurements. Shortly before his death, Albert Einstein also wrote: "Observation cannot CREATE an element of reality like a position, there must be something contained in the complete description of physical reality which corresponds to the possibility of observing a position, already before the observation has been actually made."

6. The wave-particle duality paradox evaporates. It simply and naturally explains the double-slit experiment. Richard Feynman said, "[the double-slit experiment] has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery." David Deutcsh wrote: ". . . the argument for the many worlds was won with the double-slit experiment."

7. Schrodinger's Cat paradox evaporates.

It seems Einstein's main objections with quantum mechanics had more to do with the Copenhagen Interpretation, than with quantum mechanics itself. While MWI does not quite generate the kinds of worlds necessary to justify the anthropic principle, it is a step on the way to Stephen Hawking's No Boundary Proposal and Max Tegmark's All Universe Hypothesis which do justify the anthropic principle.

Michael D. Wolok 18:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a bit bombarded by this, but consider that I almost failed high school physics. Perhaps somewhere on this very page you'll find somebody who knows what you're talking about. — Jun. 17, '06 [18:17] <freak|talk>

Thanks

I hope you have a few minutes to take a look at the stuff I hatcheted over on Sam Vaknin. I have not had time to properly look into it.--Jimbo Wales 18:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jimbo, you know writing isn't my strong suit, right? — Jun. 18, '06 [19:44] <freak|talk>

Page moves

Sorry about the cut-and-paste page moves. I didn't realize that it was illegal. The times that I've requested moves via admins or the noticeboard it has taken an inordinately long time so I figured that I would speed up the process. If it's a real problem, the solution would be to cut and paste everything in return, and then you (or another admin) can move them back properly. --DLand ^TALK 19:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits, then properly moved the page to the title you suggested, because there was no complaint. Case closed, I think. — Jun. 18, '06 [19:03] <freak|talk>

Do you think you could fix up Shulchan Aruch as well? I made the same mistake there, moving from Shulkhan Arukh. --DLand ^TALK 20:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page protected

Also Why did you Protect Talk:Userbox [2]? I can't request an edit on the talk page because it is protected. Since when is it acceptable to protect a talk page?--E-Bod 23:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left more comments on (With the edit I am requesting on)User talk:Tony Sidaway#Userbox I Would have put the request edit template if i could edit the talk page --E-Bod 23:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong with AfD Yesterday page

Don't know if these two things are related, in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday page, there is no [edit] link to the right of each title, and there is a stray 2006 June 18}} at the bottom of the article list. Looks like there is an issue with the new template. Fan1967 01:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see any edit links. Is it possible that the page is protected, so that as an admin you see the links but non-admins don't? Fan1967 13:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. --Michael White^T·C 17:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here! I got the one to my talkpage, but you beat me to the userpage! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalproof

Apparently the tool still has some bugs in it. — Jun. 19, '06 [21:37] <freak|talk>

Yes, many apologies for the warning being placed on to your Talk page, we both reverted the same vandal and you got there before me. All corrected manually now! (aeropagitica) (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: the Be bold redirect

Good evening. I've requested a review of the RFD discussion on be bold. If you have a minute, I think the discussion would benefit from your input. Thanks.

By the way, thank you for providing the link directly to the RFD discussion when you reverted the change yesterday. I was wondering from the page's history whether or not this had been discussed somewhere but couldn't find it myself. A case of hiding in plain sight, I'm afraid. Thanks again. Rossami (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wii refs section

Huh? I never said anything about there being too many refs (though it is quite a large list) as my reasoning for moving it to the bottom. According to Wikipedia:Citing sources here: [3], the refs should go at the bottom. Even common sense and simple asthetics dictate their movement to the end (we should have to scroll past a huge list of refs to get to the external links?) Is there some other rule/guidline I'm missing? I do agree that the other info boxes are... haphazard at best. I was planning on streamlining/formatting them or removing some altogether after I fixed the refs section. But if you could enlighten me to the reasoning behind not putting refs at the bottom, I would appreciate it. Danny 22:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citing_sources#Further_reading.2Fexternal_links

An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed at the end of an article after the References section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. Although this section has traditionally been called "external links," editors are increasingly calling it "further reading," because the references section may also contain external links, and the further-reading section may contain items that are not online.

— Jun. 19, '06 [22:22] <freak|talk>

Thanks! I didn't see that, I only ever looked up where the refs section was to go, not where it goes in relation to external links. They both say "at the end of the article", though, so perhaps it shold be fixed since they can't both go at the end of the article? Danny 22:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for June 19th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 25	19 June 2006	About the Signpost

Foundation hires Brad Patrick as general counsel and interim executive director	NY Times notices semi-protection policy
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	Undeletion of images now made possible
Adam Carr's editing challenged by Australian MPs	News and Notes: Project logo discussions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential problem

Potential problem on Rotary International with a single-agenda (on multiple wikis) editor who is starting to get a bit insulting & is POV pushing/cherrypicking & making out of context statements (in my opinion) & doing unsubstantiated reverts often stepping over the 3RR line which make it difficult to engage in debate. Wondering if you or another admin could have a look-see (perhaps I am over-reacting - will leave that to your judgement). Thanks.Bridesmill 14:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove your section from the Workshop page

I had thought you were changing the links to redirects from the articles, however I now see we were doing the same thing. Removing links to redirects. I've changed my responses accordingly. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I would appreciate it if you restored your comments so that the replies I made will have some context a week from now when somebody actually reads them. — Jun. 20, '06 [19:01] <freak|talk>

As I no longer believe what they said and the context no longer exists I'd rather not. But feel free to remove your comments so they don't appears out of context. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peru's article: Music

Hi, I just want to let you know that I'm not erasing any data in Per's article. I am just adding it into the music section. As you can Coastal or Andean music are sub topics of Peruvian Music, so it's unnecesary to have them separate, while we can use all that space to put any other category that can be more relevant and useful. If you have any questions or concerns about my changes, please let me know before reverting them. Thanks a lot. --Evelyn Zuñiga 19:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately without an edit summary it's indistinguishable from section blanking vandalism, which happens frequently. I attempted to revert back to the your last edit, then found you'd made 2 more edits since then, so that probably just caused more problems. — Jun. 21, '06 [19:17] <freak|talk>