User talk:The Anome

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)

Anome

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

category

This category is notable because it's unusual that underage nudity occurs. Is there a rule against categories?--CrashTestSmartie (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. You appear to have a very specific interest in categorizing such films. How does this advance Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals? -- The Anome (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not very common. It seems that these films will not be made like this anymore, making them ever more rare. Why would it harm the goals of Wikipedia? This info is also on imDB, so it's public knowledge. Also, wikipedia has loads of categories, why not this one? What is UNencyclopedic about it?--CrashTestSmartie (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. If you want to discuss this further, please take this to WP:AN/I. -- The Anome (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Apology Accepted

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

User:I am the Authority . com

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

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).

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. Antelan^talk 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. Antelan^talk 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)

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)

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 cornix_talk 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 cornix_talk 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

For your comments, I will read what you suggest.Andycjp (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

IP vandal talk page

Hello--an unnamed use who's been diligently vandalizing a few articles just blanked their talk page ([3]). I'm tempted to revert, since the talk page consists mostly of warnings, but I'm not sure if it's cool to revert someone's own talk page changes. Advice? Thanks Cretog8 (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits removed

I am new to Wikipedia, so I'm not familiar with your policies. I am also a reviewer at AdultDVDTalk.com. I was pointing to two of my reviews, one for "Sensational Janine" in the article on Patricia Rhomberg, and the other for "G for Gianna" in the article on Gianna Michaels.

Were they pulled simply because the reviews reside on the same website, or was there another reason?

If so, is there a way I can rectify the problem. As Patricia Rhomberg is less well-known, and "Sensational Janine" is her only movie that is available in English, if I need to choose, I would want to post that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pornfan (talk • contribs) 14:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia. The general policy is to avoid linking closely-related articles from a single source, to prevent self-promotion. Although I can see that you were editing in good faith, linking to articles you wrote yourself, or a website you have a personal or commercial involvement in, is generally regarded as a bad thing. -- The Anome (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood.

I have put the text for the Gianna article back in, but without the link.

As we are discussing porn, there are things in the reviews which wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia. So linking seemed the best way to make the information available to people.

"Sensational Janine" is a little-known classic in the genre. I think readers who discover the article about Patricia Rhomberg would be interested in the review which includes some tasteful nude pictures of her. As I said, I have modified the Gianna article, so as not to include the link. If you deem it fit to link to the other review, I will let you revert to my last edit.

Thanks for your time and attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pornfan (talk • contribs) 14:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Filler (media)

I have nominated Filler (media), 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/Filler (media). 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? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"oldrequestbot" for Articles requested for more than ...

I placed a bot request here that may (or may not) impact Wikipedia:Recent changes article requests. Please feel free to join in the discussion. Bebestbe (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Afd for Her Words Kill

As you can see by the blue link, it's been recreated. I was going to close the Afd, when I saw this had popped up. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Now fixed, and the AfD closed. Thanks. -- The Anome (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

why did you delete the Her Words Kill articles???

all the articles were made with the approval of Joshua Pickett! he is one of the original members of Her Words Kill. maybe i made mistakes? i am not english, so i can't understand difficult sentences, maybe this is the reason why i made something wrong?! now please write me, what should i do, as soon as possible!

thx.

deniel.

(i made the deleted articles as DenielStrange) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StrAngelART (talk • contribs) 14:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Deniel. The article was deleted because

1. you didn't provide any evidence that the band met the WP:MUSIC criteria,
2. it was written like an advertisement
3. and then, after the article had already been marked as a possible advertisement (because of its promotional writing style) added an explicit advertisement to the article which removed all doubt.

If you believe that an article can be created about this band which meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and follows its content policies (see WP:PILLARS), you are welcome to request that the article be unlocked and recreated using the Wikipedia:Deletion Review page. -- The Anome (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Creating geo lists

Hi I've made an intital suggestion at the GEOBOT talk page in that it would be an excellent idea to generate a full lists of places in a tabled list. Once this is accomplished we can work through what articles could be started in their own right if there is enough info avilabale. I see it as a solid comprehensive base to build geo content on if we have a full world list organized like this. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography/Bot#Creating lists. Please offer your thoughts thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving "AT Attachment" to "Advanced Technology Attachment" - please revert

I appreciate the motivation to comply with Wikipedia standards, but in this case the new non-abbreviated name is not factually correct. The official name of the standard is (as it says in the article) simply "AT Attachment". Or more precisely, "AT Attachment with Packet Interface - n (ATA/ATAPI-n)" where "n" is replaced by the version number. I'm looking at a copy... the phrase "advanced technology" appears nowhere in the spec, let alone in the title. Will you please revert this change? Thank you. Jeh (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The key phrase is "comply with Wikipedia standards". I'll add a note to the article to state that the common name is not the official name. -- The Anome (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The intro to the article now starts with "AT Attachment with Packet Interface, commonly known as Advanced Technology Attachment (ATA)". -- The Anome (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So... it is a WP standard to be factually incorrect? This makes no sense for an encylopedia. Common names can be covered with redirect pages. Jeh (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Providing that we give the full official name right at the top of the article; yes. Official names can be covered with redirect pages. See WP:NAME.

If you are going to rename the article to something other than Advanced Technology Attachment, please move it to "AT Attachment with Packet Interface". "AT attachment" is not a good name, since it's neither the common usage, nor the official name. Note that if you do so, you should immediately mention the common name "Advanced Technology Attachment" at the start of the intro, to avoid confusion.

The Wikipedia naming convention is that we should in general use the common name of a thing as its article title, or, if there is sufficiently good reason, or a class exception to the general rule, the official name.

For example, the article on North Korea should either be called North Korea (which is the name almost universally used by others), or Democratic People's Republic of Korea (the official name of the country). "DPR Korea" (for example) would not be a good name, since it is neither.

Thus, we should either call ATA "Advanced Technology Attachment", or "AT Attachment with Packet Interface." Even though it's officially incorrect, almost everyone reads ATA as meaning Advanced Technology Attachment -- not unreasonably, since "AT" originally stood for "Advanced Technology", and I believe the article should stay with that name, according to the standard naming convention. -- The Anome (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in some cases the correct name is very wildly at odds with the common name. This should not be used as an argument to support cases where the names are very close. I really doubt that very many people are going to be typing in "Advanced technology attachment" OR "AT Attachment", they are far more likely to use "ATA" than either of those - and that should be a redirect. It is a matter of record that the T13 committee eschewed the term "Advanced Technology" to avoid trademark issues re. the IBM PC/AT. (Why "AT" was deemed to not conflict, I do not know, but there it is.) Who are we to insist that the correct name for the page is a term that appears nowhere in the spec, let alone in the title, for reasons that seemed sufficient to the people who wrote the spec? Come to think of it, should we rename the page to "IDE" because that's what more people call it? Nonsense. Again, redirect pages can be created for all common names. In fact, I don't see why moving North Korea to to Democratic People's Republic of Korea should be a problem as long as a redirect from North Korea is provided, but that's not my issue... I'm going to sleep; I will move the page to "AT Attachment with Packet Interface" tomorrow and create the needed redirect pages. Jeh (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Providing you leave the two mentions in the article that "Advanced Technology Attachment" is the common usage, that's fine with me. Please bear in mind that you will be going against generally accepted policy, so don't be suprised if someone else moves it back. Whatever you do, don't move North Korea to Democratic People's Republic of Korea -- see WP:POINT. -- The Anome (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it IS common usage. Just "ATA" is certainly more common than either. Google finds 173,000 hits for "AT Attachment", only 61,400 for "Advanced Technology Attachment", for example. "ATA" is not a useful search, but "ATA drive" (with quotes) alone gets about 247,000, "ATA interface" another 549,000, etc. Jeh (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with Original Research

Hi Anome,
I’m a professor at Boston College doing a study on medical information on Wikipedia. I’d like to ask some editors a few questions about their experience. The questions can be found at user:geraldckane/medsurvey. You are one of the first people I have contacted, I’d also appreciate any feedback about 1) the questions themselves or 2) the methods we are using.

I gather by your talk page that you are an admin. If so, I'd particularly welcome any advice or guidance you may have in how to conduct this research in ways that respect Wikipedia and its users. This is not my first time time conducting research on Wikipedia, but I am always open to constructive guidance and support!
Thank You,
geraldckane (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Duplication & illegibility

Hi. I've just revisited a French commune (one of thousands) that I've transposed from Fr:Wiki and found that there's now two sets of links to maps/satellite views overlapping. This is because the template French commune includes lat and long within it, then Anomebot2 adds a coord template later on. As an example, Le Boisle : {{French commune|name=Le Boisle |image_map = France_jms.png |x = 136 |y = 33| |region=Picardie |departement=Somme |arrondissement=Abbeville |canton=Crécy-en-Ponthieu |insee=80109 |cp=80150 |maire=M. Jean-Paul Butin |mandat=2001-2008 |intercomm=sans |longitude=1.9853 |latitude=50.2719 etc etc.
I looked in your talk pages and the bot's talk page to check whether this was a known issue - doesn't seem that anyone else has commented on it. What is your preferred solution ? Dickie (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The bot should not add its own templates to any article with any template which generates Wikipedia-style geolinks. Perhaps the coordinates were added after the template was initially added? If not, it's a bug in the bot, and I'll investigate. -- The Anome (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: it appears to be either a glitch, or the result of a bug in an old version of the bot. I've inspected a few other randomly-picked edits from those made by the bot to other French commune articles on the same day, and they're clean. -- The Anome (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Update 2: It's probably because before this edit, the {{French commune}} template would not have displayed a geolink for this article, which uses "longitude" and "latitude" parameters, so the bot would not have picked it up at that time.

A random sampling of User:Dickeybird's other contributions around the same time, and later, also failed to find any similar problems, so I hope this is a rare case. If there are a lot of these, I'd be happy to look at how to find and fix any more articles like this with duplicate coordinates. -- The Anome (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your in-depth investigation - perhaps it is just the odd one? If I spot any more, I'll let you know. Best wishes, Dickie (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fraternity vandalism

Thanks for protecting Camden, New Jersey. I'd appreciate any insights into how this kind of persistent, ongoing vandalism can be addressed by administrators. Protecting specific articles and blocking IP addresses one at a time feels like a pointless game of whack-a-mole with this group of tenacious vandals. Is there a better way to deal with this? It feels like every appeal for past intervention has gone nowhere. —Whoville (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah so

I don't know what a moby noun is but unknowable is a def primarily an adj. see also known known, known unknown, unknown unknown, rhetorical tomfoolery, and veggie sausage. IKnowAboutKnownUnknowns 18:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Hat tip

Wow! I was editing the Wiki article Gun laws in the United States (by state) and expanded the article in the Wyoming section (with was blank); in so doing--I discovered that there was no Wiki article on the Attorney General of Wyoming. Then--Pow! You wrote the Attorney General article AND a stub on the current office holder! Man--I need to get off of decaf! Hat tip. Take care. ProfessorPaul (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for your comments. -- The Anome (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hat tip again

Hey, I wanted to thank you, again, for inspiring me to write another Wiki article; in the above entry, I gave you a "hat tip" for so quickly writing two stub articles. But then I realized--there was no Wiki article on the hat tip--so, I wrote it. So, a hat tip to you for inspiring me to write the article "Hat tip." Take care. ProfessorPaul (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Milky_water

It looks like you blocked this user's alternate account here, so I figured I would let you know about this AN/I entry. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Gang Stalking

What's wrong with a redirect to Stalking? —Centrx→talk • 19:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gang_stalking. At the time, we couldn't protect deleted pages; this one got missed in the general cleanup at the time. -- The Anome (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose if it the phrase does not exist outside of that group..., but otherwise shouldn't anyone searching for "gang stalking" be redirected to the general article on "stalking"? —Centrx→talk • 20:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Christian the lion

You didn't check the history on Christian the lion before deleting it. There was a non-copyvio (although crappy) article there before the Daily Mail stuff was inserted. Please remember to check page history before hitting delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now also removed some movie-blurb text from this early version of the article. -- The Anome (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Democratic socialism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Democratic socialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic socialism. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Soman (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

GOOD Magazine afd

Hi Anome. I've found a bunch more sources about Good magazine and was wondering if you'd consider taking a look at the new article and seeing if you still feel it should be deleted. Among the highlights are three NPR pieces [4] [5] [6], two New York Times stories [7] [8], an article in Inc. Magazine [9], a Foreign Policy Magazine feature [10] and a short piece in the Washington Post [11]. That's on top of the original Los Angeles Times piece [12] and two National Magazine Awards [13]. If that's enough to persuade you, or you just want to comment and say why you think it still need to be deleted, the afd is here. Thanks! Vickser (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing the moby noun list

Are the subpages of User:The Anome/Moby nouns to remain in their present state, or should I edit out the titles of articles that have already been created? --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 21:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for offering, but they're fine as they are: it lets me gauge the fraction which are completed. -- The Anome (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I will make contributing to this list's fulfillment as one of my priorities. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 22:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverend James L. Richard

Hi. Re this article, I've dropped a message on the authors talk page - I assume (from the tone of the article) that they meant to say "revered" rather than "reviled" - but it's best to check :-) ! CultureDrone (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be right! Thanks. -- The Anome (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, 'revered' probably violates NPOV and will have to be deleted anyway (if the person is actually notable), so it's a moot point... :-) CultureDrone (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Andycjp

(Continued from the incident noticeboard. I don't think archives are supposed to be edited, so I'm posting here.) Perhaps you are aware that Andycjp (talk) continues in his highly disruptive participation in Wikipedia. He was recently blocked for 24 hours by C.Fred for edit warring. The block was no more effective than a speed bump. The particular issue was unrelated to the link changes, but there is a clear similarity: he violates a policy (in this case, WP:NOTCENSORED), gets noticed, apologizes ostensibly, argues with the policy, and continues editing with a vengeance. He has made well over a thousand edits in the last month, most of them unconstructive. He must be stopped. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely something a bit peculiar about his editing style. Would you please also let the editor himself know about your concerns, to give them a chance to respond, and to put this on record? If you have any more problems with this editor, please feel free to let the admin community know at WP:AN/I, and I'm sure something can be done to try to resolve the situation. -- The Anome (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

See also my comment on User talk:Andycjp. -- The Anome (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, is Saint Peter`s hospital noteworthy? Wikipedia has very few articles about local hospitals?Andycjp (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we have many articles about local hospitals. See Category:Hospitals in England. The point is that it might well be notable: it was a hospital in a major city, and (you may be surprised to hear) we have numerous articles about defunct hospitals -- Category:Defunct hospitals in England currently contains 36 articles.

Even the briefest Googling would have shown you that this hospital was potentially notable: for example, see [14], which states that it was "a showcase of Jacobean architecture", and provides a substantial history: which, incidentally, includes the 1834 cholera epidemic, and a past history as a workhouse [15]. It's also the subject of a 45-page monograph ([16]), which suggests that the history of the site may date back as far as 1402. And that's only the results of a few minutes' searching: I haven't begun to explore library and journal references.

Redlinks are in general a good idea: see WP:RED. Given the above, can you tell me how your removal of that link improved the article, and why you thought that the article needed an apparently-irrelevant link to St Peter instead? -- The Anome (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I`m sorry, I didn`t know that. Actually I used to live in Bristol for 3 years and I have never heard of St Peter`s hospital until now. My theory with red links is that although they have the potential to create new articles, in practise they are often left uncared for, looking messy. So if you or any other user feels they want to create an article about a defunct hospital or whatever, please go ahead. And I am happy if an edit of mine challenges somebody to go ahead and create that new article rather than leaving it unfinished. But I can`t help feeling that a good blue link leading somewhere is on the whole better than a red link leading nowhere unless the red is of vital importance. I mean, wikipedia is enormous already, when are we going to stop? I guess it goes back to how finished WP ought to look.Andycjp (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I now see your motivation. However, current policy holds that links like this need to be preserved, for good and sufficient reasons: cases like the above are why policies like WP:RED exist. Most estimates suggest that Wikipedia has the potential to grow to between 5 and 10 million articles before we run out of notable topics to document, so there's no need as yet to consider finishing Wikipedia.

One of the outstandingly cool things about Wikipedia is that it provides a way of illuminating apparently arcane topics: this is potentially one of them.

I hope that this provides an adequate explanation. Like most other Wikipedia policies, this policy is the result of long and careful deliberation, and is deliberately designed to help Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission, rather than just existing to provide an opportunity for rules-lawyering and WP:BITEing new users, although it may seem that way at first.

Would you like to write the St Peter's Hospital, Bristol article? -- The Anome (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasonableness. I think I understand. No, I am still happy with the link to Saint Peter, but if you wish to revert I won`t stop you. Although I know Bristol a little I thankfully didn`t spend any time in hospitals while I was there. Can I just ask something else? If there are only a few red links on a page, I can see your argument. But if the page has dozens of red links and hasn`t been touched for months does it still apply?Andycjp (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the policy still applies. If you see a page like that, you might want to consider creating articles for one or two of the red links. -- The Anome (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably be a good idea to keep expiry times under your hat.

Now that they know the block expires in three hours, they may be back in three hours... HalfShadow 20:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

username blacklist and commas

Just so you know per the instructions any filter you add that has a commas(,) in its parameter will not work. You should replace the notes you added that have commas with hyphens. _{1 != 2} 14:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I should really have spotted that myself! -- The Anome (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

See my Talk Page

Thanks,

Please see my Talk Page, regarding the Psychophysical Paradox

--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

S-man

I have unblocked S-man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He is now 11 and believes he can now edit without all the nonsense. It has been a bit over a year. Fred Talk 22:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Help...

Hello, I'm S-man. Although I am now unblocked, I would like to know why you blocked my aunt, Pizzachelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) All I did was help her create her userpage. Also, how is she blocked, but my father isn't? BikeDog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --S-man (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't get this. Neither of them edited hardly at all. Any why is The Anome being subjected to this ancient history. If they want to edit they can. Just have them drop us a note. Fred Talk 15:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Understanding Categories

Hi Anome,

I have placed Category-Tags in the Psychophysical Paradox article.

What I have attempted to do, was - to automatically create sub-Categories (for example: a "unsolved problems in physics" sub-Category Whithin "Physics" Category, and place the article automatically in the new sub-Category that I was supposed to just gave created.

I probably didn't do it properly. Can you please give me some tips about what I did wrong, and about how to do it correctly?

Can you please answer in my Talk-Page ?

Thanks for your help and effort,

--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Reinagle

Thanks for the revert. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Undertheheavens

Hi, I have unblocked User:Undertheheavens, giving them a second chance (and some extra warning). I hope they stay away from spamming now. Regards, --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Drowning

He edited Osamu Dazai who suicided himself with his lover as drowned into a canal near the writer's house. It is possible that the user is out of his home and wander near his neighborhood to seek a right place....--Caspian blue (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

nonsense

the entire argument is nonsense, and your stance is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.233.233 (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

? - The Anome (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Porthemmet

Why did you revert my edit to the Emmet article? It was sourced and highly relevant. Rabidfoxes (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Pillock

How is correcting a redirect vandalism? Even the article for Bollocks where it originally redirected to states that thinking 'pillock' means bollock is incorrect. 86.163.244.239 (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: your edit certainly wasn't vandalism. The vandalism in question was in some of the earlier, now-deleted, revisions of the article, which are no longer generally visible to editors. -- The Anome (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Using the correct block reason

In a conversation I'm having with a user about one of their spurious UAA reports, they're pointing to your username block of User:ROTFLMAOLOLWTF! as an example.

I have to say you were a bit sloppy there:

• There's really nothing in the username policy that disallows the string "WTF", especially in such a silly context.
• The block message suggests that the user was blocked for having the string "WTF" in their username, instead of for vandalism.
• You softblocked a vandal. Vandals are supposed to be hardblocked so that they don't just come back and keep vandalizing less conspicuously.

Do you agree with me that this should have been a vandalism block, and is not a shining example of applying the username policy? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. Yes, it should have been a vandalism block. No, I think usernameblocking "WTF" is perfectly reasonable: it is clearly intended to spell "What The Fuck", and like STFU, GTFO, and all the other similar acronyms involving "fuck", is a very good sign of bad intent in account creation. -- The Anome (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't get the blocking based on "intent". Usually you can find out their intent within one or two edits -- as you could here -- instead of guessing at it from their username. Then, you can either hardblock them (if they're in bad faith) or welcome them (if they're not), instead of applying a username block that doesn't make sense in either case. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Autoblocks

Just responded to an {{unblock-auto}} request relating to your block on this user. I was confused, at first, when Special:Ipblocklist showed the account blocked with AB disabled; I realized the autoblock had activated after the original block was set, and hadn't been released when the block settings were modified. Odd little tidbit. Just letting you know, if it's ever important for future reference. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Leona Lewis on The X Factor - nominated for deletion (again)

The article Leona Lewis on The X Factor has been nominated for deletion again. I noticed that you were a contributor on the discussion for the first nomination, and your opinions on this topic would be valuable once again. Please feel free to offer your comments to the discussion. Thanks — Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki-Link-Checker

You know, it would be nice to have some instructions on how to use it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

About the unprotection of Wikipedia:Recent changes article requests and Template:Recent changes article requests

These two pages should be semi-protected instead of protected, just like Chinese Wikipedia, since the pages are not in edit war state, and vandals to them are mere IP users. Also, though admins can edit the two pages, they do not add interwiki link to Chinese edition. --RekishiEJ (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. Vandal edits to these pages can be used to break Special:RecentChanges, which would make a lot of people very unhappy. -- The Anome (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to unprotect it; I just request the them to be semi-protected instead. Vandals to them are not autoconfirmed users. --RekishiEJ (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's most determined vandals -- who would be those most likely to exploit semi-protection of either of these pages -- have no problem in creating "sleeper" autoconfirmed accounts for the purposes of circumventing semi-protection. -- The Anome (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Merrow illustration

Hi -- Just wanted to let you know I've put back the illustration for the Merrow article with an explanation on the talk page. Let me know if you strongly disagree and we can talk about it :) --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 15:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Where we we..? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett

Hi

You may be interested in the discussion going on here. The DMOZ links in some articles have been reverted, while others have not. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot conversion of dates in templates

I can't recall; was it you who expressed interest in using your bot to convert dates in templates? Might that be possible, please? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Coordinate provision in station infobox

Also posted at User talk:The Anome/Railway station coordinates

The infobox {{Infobox UK station}} (and the equivalent for disused stations {{Infobox UK disused station}}) has the following, with guidance notes on the /doc pages:

| latitude    = 53.089                  
| longitude   = -2.437                  
| gridref     = SJ710547                

Note: latitude must be present if longitude is present, and vice versa, and they should have the same number of decimal places (trailing zeroes are significant)

These infoboxes provide provision for Coordinates and also for the OS Grid Reference. --Stewart ^(talk) 19:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you....

...for blocking the socks and looking after my talk page - it is all getting somewhat tedious especially as he and I are in widely different timezones. Thanks again, kind regards, nancy ^(talk) 07:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletions on Centrifugal

I do not believe you understand the issues here at all. Your simple deletion of all material disputed on the talk page is not a BOLD step, but a dereliction of duty to understand before wading in.

I do not know how to react to your arbitrary action. The material deleted is (in my view) clear, well documented, useful to the reader. It has been removed for no reason whatever (except "the above", which seems to refer to Timothy's suggestion that the article should be shorter). So I just don't know what to do. I'd like to revert your edits.

I am disgusted. Brews ohare (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's good material, and I know you've put a lot of effort into it, but it's very long and the article does not need it in order to achieve its encyclopedic purpose. Perhaps it could be spun off into an article of its own?

"The above" was Timothy's comment on the talk page:

The "Centrifugal force in polar coordinates" and the sections directly following it are a prime example of an editor falling in the pitfall of trying explain something. In this case it has lead to an essay several pages long trying make his point. The fact that a long the way the need arises to introduce new nomenclature should be seen as writing on the wall. Nowhere in the cited literature is connection/difference between the two "types" of centrifugal discussed, hence the wikipedia article should not either. Any attempt to discuss either - without any direct reference to a reputable source discussing this precise topic - will result in some form of original research.

As with all WP:BOLD edits, you are welcome to roll it back, but I think we need to start somewhere in reducing the size of the article, and this seemed to me to be the best place to start. -- The Anome (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Timothy's comment in no way provides justification for the deletions you have made. His remarks simply are an end run around points raised for discussion that he does not wish to handle more directly. I will not participate further. Brews ohare (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping my changes, and removing the curvilinear coordinates section as well. I look forward to helping tidy up the rest of the article. -- The Anome (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hello can you help me learn how to use Wikipedia?

Hans8972008 (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:WELCOME, and WP:HELP. Please let me know if you get stuck. -- The Anome (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

More on centrifugal force deletions

Hi Anome: I thought I'd follow up with a few observations and questions. First, this page has a history of one debate after another. The topic seems to be prone to such things. Among the earlier debating editors were David Tombe and Paolo.dL; more recently it is Fugal and TimothyRias. A feature common to these editors is an insistence on a point of view (such as the reality of centrifugal forces regardless of the frame of motion of the observer) despite confrontation with exact quotations to the contrary from such lesser known figures as Einstein and Newton.

Sometimes these debates can be amusing, but they always are very time consuming. The recent deletions have returned the article to pretty much what it was several months ago before I added the very specific subsections on polar coordinates that show by simple, well documented example (with actual formulas, not blah-blah-blah) that these other editors have no leg to stand on. They then resort to other methods, of course. Besides appealing to administrators, claiming foul, censorship, and bias; they absolutely refuse to meet counterargument head-on and retreat into rhetoric and diversion from topic.

Your actions have succeeded for now in resetting the stage for a replay of all this rant. I suspect that you acted on "general principles" without taking enough time to look at the Talk page issues. I also suspect that you entertain a view of Wiki itself as strictly a junior-high level effort, and that too much math makes you dizzy. I hope you will come to understand that view is not universal, and that many articles are both longer and more mathematical than centrifugal force ever was.

I don't think I want to go through the next cycle of craziness on this page. I do fear that rather inexpert oversight by yourself will lead eventually to a nutty article (but very simple to understand), but that's life I guess.

In future, I advise you to take more care, to steer clear of intervention in technical matters where you do not wish to educate yourself, and to pay a little attention to just who is who and what is what in the entertaining debates on talk pages.

I am afraid that both you and I underestimate the degree of detailed examination and time commitment necessary to write and to keep up quality articles in a public domain. Brews ohare (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In which case, I think the right course of action is to archive the relevant article sections to non-article space. I greatly appreciate your work to try to preserve and improve the quality of the article during the recent battles over its content; but once the conflict is over, I believe that the additional material should be mothballed as a valuable source of supporting research should it be needed again. -- The Anome (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

UK station coords

Coordinates for UK stations should probably make use of the latitude and longitude parameters of the infobox template rather than being seperate. I'd also ask where you have got the coordinates that you are using from? Adambro (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm concentrating on getting the data into the articles; standardization can come later, as part of my larger plans for template standardization, which should be able to extend over a large class of template types, not just UK rail stations. However, that's a task for the future. The coordinates are derived from National Rail's own data, after some cleanup and disambiguation. -- The Anome (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I've moved your comment back here since I'm watching your talk page and it makes sense to keep any discussion in one place rather than spread other multiple pages. It is great to get this information in the articles but aren't you creating additional work later down the line to bring the formatting into line with the other pages? Surely it would be better to do this all in one go? Adambro (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Computer time is cheap: it's programming time that's expensive. It's easier to write programs with generalized functions, and do thousands or tens of thousands of articles at a time, than it is to write a special program for each template type. For the moment, I simply want to get the data into the articles: there are numerous other bot operators who can do things with the data as soon as it's in there, including, if they so desire, transferring the data to specialized templates. In addition, with the increasing prevalence of geodata-aware mapping services and mobile devices, adding geodata templates can also bring human editors to articles. -- The Anome (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, well thanks for doing this work. Whether or not it is worth retrospectively reformating the data I'm not sure. Adambro (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

your opinion please...

Thanks for reverting recent edits to Patrick M. McCarthy. I saw you admonished the editor. Did you see their edit to User:Geo Swan?

I left a note on the village pump.

I can't help wondering whether User:Yachtsman1 and User:Halfdzn48 are the same individual. Do you think I have sufficient cause to request a checkuser?

I suspect that Patrick M. McCarthy routinely googles himself, and that the request I received from the young Public Affairs Lieutenant came from McCarthy himself.

I am intensely curious about the relationship between Yachtsman1, Halfdzn48 and McCarthy himself.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal force (disambiguation)

I've introduced a new page at Centrifugal force (planar motion) to incorporate the sections removed from the main article. See what you think. Doubtless it will attract the old controversialists. I hope I can gain your support for this effort. Brews ohare (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to me. -- The Anome (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion

I noticed that you have edited in related areas within WP, and so thought you might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dumdum vandal

Is there a CU or something for this? I was looking for it and couldn't find anything. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

RfD request

I saw your name at the Computer security article. The RfD Nimp.org → Shock site could used some expert opinions that help characterize Nimp.org and perhaps a likely redirect target. If you have some time, please consider helping out. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates for Communes of the Nord department

Is Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 22#Coordinates for Communes of the Nord department a job for your bot? Thanks, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Deprecated coordinates templates

At long last; here's another bot request which may interest you: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 22#Deprecated coordinates templates ;-) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nudge ;-) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Since my bot was responsible for about 56000 {{coor title *}}, I could make a start on those. No ETA though: it's a low-priority task for me. -- The Anome (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Is there some way I could help? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. I have all the tools at hand. -- The Anome (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'd be willing to donate processor time and bandwidth, if there was some way of running a copy of the bot, but I don't suppose that's possible. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Why did you revert? Great_Liberation_Through_Hearing_During_the_Intermediate_State is supposed to be the official title. Prowikipedians (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC) See: .

´´´Tibetan Book of the Dead´´´

This is one of the great texts of Tibetan Buddhism, and a big seller in the west. The English title is not a translation of the Tibetan title - the book's true name is Great Liberation through hearing during the intermediate state, commonly known in Tibet as Liberation through hearing.

The book deals with the experiences of a person as they pass between death and rebirth.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/subdivisions/tibetan_2.shtml

Prowikipedians (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You attempted this using a cut-and-paste move, which dumps all the history of the article, making it noncompliant with the GFDL. If you want to move an article, please use the "move" tag at the top of the page, which will do it cleanly, preserving the original article's history. -- The Anome (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Explanation accepted. How long to move? Or am I allowed to move without discussion? Prowikipedians (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You are indeed allowed to move articles without discussion, but you may find your moves will tend to be reverted if not accompanied by a good rationale. The general rule is that article titles should either be the original name in its native language, or the most commonly used name in English. See Category:Wikipedia naming conventions for the bewildering thicket of rules and guidelines in this matter. Your proposed title is neither, but you're welcome to move it if you wish. -- The Anome (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Preparing redirection. Proposed title: Great Liberation Through Hearing During the Intermediate State (formal name). Prowikipedians (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Need help with redirect. Problem. Error: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text. Prowikipedians (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've now deleted Great Liberation Through Hearing During the Intermediate State, so you can do the move. I think you'll find that other editors will move it either back to Bardo Thodol or to Tibetan Book of the Dead fairly rapidly, as per the Manual of Style, since there does not seem to be one single "official" translation of the name to English, and "Tibetan Book of the Dead" is the commonest usage in English, but I won't interfere. -- The Anome (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Coords

Ah, no problem. I suppose I should've found the bot owner, but I was a bit busy working on something. Cheers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've found the error in the really complex general-purpose lat/long parser regexp: it'll need another complete dump parser run to fix it properly, so I'll just remove all the hurricanes for now, and try a few more points experimentally. -- The Anome (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert of vandalism

Hello The Anome, thank you for rv the Piscator discussion page. The user had vandalized the article as well (photo, text box & heavy content deletion). I've placed another notice on his userpage. Blastsofast has deleted longer paragraphs 9 times since his registration and may require attention. Thank you. --Diggindeeper (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Totley Co-ordinates

The co-ordinates given for Totley are outside the built-up area. A location on the main road directly north would be better. --VinceBowdren (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it to point within the built-up area. -- The Anome (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

User:B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0

Hello - it wasn't clear from your block message, but you realize that this user (which is the renamed version of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles) is under discussion at AN? Avruch ^T 13:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the two issues are independent of one another, so there shouldn't be any policy issue; random hex strings are a clear-cut case for {{usernameblock}}ing. -- The Anome (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just freaking retarded. Please unblock. I'd rather have the guy come back, and this isn't helping. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If we allow random-string usernames, it would lead to an absurd situation as such names proliferated. There's a good reason why confusing usernames are not allowed. Usernames are there to allow users to put a name to their online persona, so that other users can remember them and distinguish them from others. How do you propose we should remember the difference between User:B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0 and User:Dfa173569150fecfb407cc3af0c4c6e9, User:Caa91beb4c5e3f3ae3bfde95d0278509, User:22cc25461ec101d50a2cf9b213806613, User:03224a77a241dbb3dc460fe9707238c7... and so on, to name just a few of the 2¹²⁸-1 other possible md5sums? -- The Anome (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If he actually becomes active again then he'll request a username change. I can almost guarantee it. I'm assuming this rename is a compromise between undeleting his talk page and helping to lessen the amount of off-site harassment he's been getting. If you have such a problem with this then bring it up with the B'crat that approved and preformed the name change. -- Ned Scott 08:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, this rename was done before the undeletion. -- Ned Scott 08:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Submarines coordinates

I've just removed coordinates, which your Anomebot2 added in April 2007, from Unterseeboot 43. You might want to check and see if you did something similar to other submarine/ ship articles about that time, as part of a batch. 19:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made a list of all the similar articles, at User:The Anome/Geotagged Unterseeboot articles. Most of these are valid tags, marking the place the U-boat was sunk, but some, like the one you cited, aren't. I can't see any way of telling the difference, other than going through them by hand. -- The Anome (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In this instance, as you're probably aware, the article discusses four different vessels of that designation. I'm happy to do some manual checking. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just done so, and removed the geotag from all the {{shipindex}} entries. By the way, the bot now detects {{shipindex}} as an indication that an article is not geotaggable. -- The Anome (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd just reached the same conclusion. Thanks, Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, an anon removed coordinates from one article, saying "not to be found there". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine: I just transwiki'd the things from the articles on fr:, I can't check every entry by hand. -- The Anome (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal force redirect

The thing is, I did a review of the different definitions of 'centrifugal force' on the web and put it on the talk page of Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) and most of them seemed to refer to the rotating reference frame case. That being so, it seems that pointing it to the Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) article is desirable.

Other evidence includes the server hits. If you look at the disambiguation page for example, hardly anyone goes there (even though it's well advertised):

http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/centrifugal_force_(disambiguation)

Whereas the Centrifugal force redirect that leads to the rotating reference frame is actually quite popular:

http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Centrifugal%20force

So, I intend to move the redirect back, if that's OK with you.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads-up: reply from Google

Please see [17] (If you would like to let me have your e-mail address, in confidence, that would be handy. With your permission, I'll also pass it to my contacts at Google Earth/ Maps.) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Belgave Road, London

Would you explain why you have referenced, as "see also", Belgrave square and Belgravia? Other than the name there does not appear to be a connection. The square is several kilometres away, and the road is not in the district with the similar name. I have not yet removed this section, but will do so unless you provide a reason for its inclusion.

DonJay (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

After checking the map again; you're right. I'll remove them. -- The Anome (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Template: Coordinate TfD

I have nominated {{Coordinate}} for deletion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. {{coordinate}} is a step too far, too soon, before we've even cleaned up the existing mess: it's an example of second system syndrome. One day we may want something like that: but it's more likely to be implemented by progressive evolution of {{coord}}, without a need for a whole new syntax. {{coord}} is a kludge; but at least it's a single and currently-used kludge, which can be used as a bottleneck for resolving problems as we evolve the system, without having a flag day. -- The Anome (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

... for deleting my bad redirect. Can you say syntax error? Bearian (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

David Tombe

FYI. I blocked a couple of the IPs he was using the evade his block, leaving a message on each regarding the legitimate way to appeal a ban; after doing so I came here to post here that this editor wants his talk page unprotected, so he could make his case for unblock, but now I have read through some of the earlier threads on your page, and -- oy. I see you are much more familiar with the history than I am. Maybe I'm crazy trying to give people second chances and all, -- and he seems to know what he is talking about, -- but what do you think? Is it worth unprotecting his page? Antandrus (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A look at the earlier revisions of their talk page, particularly the last few screenfuls prior to indefblocking, as well as a review of Talk:Centrifugal force and its archives over the last couple of years, might be illuminating. -- The Anome (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Anome, I think that you and I got off on the wrong footing. You were obviously called into the centrifugal force dispute by some of the people that I was arguing with, and it seemed to me that your strategy was purely to try and persuade me that I might be wrong, based on the fact that I was arguing against so many people all at once.

Since then, I think that we have both learned alot. I have learned the need to abide by the wikipedia's consensus policy, and I think that if you are honest, you will admit that you have learned at least something about centrifugal force since you entered that arena.

The argument on the centrifugal discussion page has reached a stage now were it needs to be directed. Fugal is arguing with Brews&Wolfkeeper over the issue of whether the centrifugal force in rotating frames is the same as the centrifugal force in polar coordinates. Fugal says that they are the same, and I would agree with him.

Harald88 is now arguing with Brews over something different. He is arguing about the distinction between fictitious centrifugal force and reactive centrifugal force. Despite the fact that I detest the term 'reactive centrifugal force', it is a fact that it is something subtley different. It is a knock on effect, as weight is to gravity.

Our argument in May was very much over semantics although it didn't seem like that at the time. There is one single physical effect. It is a radial effect. In polar coordinates and rotating frames, it is called 'centrifugal force'. In cartesian coordinates it is described in terms of Newton's law of inertia. I was getting angry because it seemed to me that the people that I was arguing with, including yourself, were continually diving behind the cartesian language in order to deny centrifugal force any time that I tried to introduce a scenario, such as the centrifuge, to illustrate the effect. They would then fall back into polar coordinate language again for other aspects of the argument.

I think it's time to undo the block. I won't be going unto the main article again without consent. I've learned that lesson. I think it's time to put the past behind us and move on. I want back in again to the discussion page to try and mediate in the current crisis.

I'd be grateful if you could remove the block. David Tombe 86.150.86.57 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

David; although the indefinite block remains in force, and I cannot currently see no reason to remove it, even for editing article talk pages, I have removed the protection on your user talk page so you can make another unblock request. However, could you please read WP:TRUTH and Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing once more, before posting it? -- The Anome (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Anome, Thanks for doing that. I didn't notice your reply earlier as there seems to be something wrong with the software at the moment. Your reply shows up on the history, but not on the actual page. Anyway, I'll have one more attempt at getting the indefinite block removed. But it's important that the two of us get a better understanding of what caused the initial animosity. I will certainly put in an appeal, but I fear that many of the administrators will merely look at the block history without looking at the content of the key edits involved in the dispute. Meanwhile, you and I have got to re-examine what happened in the past, and then I'll tell you how I see the way forward. Centrifugal force has always been a very controversial topic. I personally hold the belief that centrifugal force is a concept which can only realistically be described in polar coordinates, since it is a radial effect. That does not conflict with the official position, since the official position is that when the same effect is described in cartesian coordinates, we talk in terms of Newton's law of inertia as opposed to centrifugal force. Hence, I see no point in ever mentioning cartesian coordinates when it comes to talking about centrifugal force. I see centrifugal force unequivocally as a radially outward force that arises in connection with rotation. I do however object to the name 'fictitious force'. I much prefer the equally legitimate term 'inertial force'. I think that in May, you had been led to believe that I was pushing some controversial viewpoint without any sourcing. That was not so. I gave very good sources from the university textbooks that I used many years ago, in order to show that centrifugal force is a radially outward force that is used in planetary orbital theory. However, the editors that I was arguing with were determined to keep the context of the article entirely restricted to rotating frames of reference. 'Rotating frames of reference' is a separate chapter in most advanced classical mechanics textbooks. It is a topic which also involves centrifugal force. My aim was to generalize the article and simplify the introduction since the introduction was geared exclusively to rotating frames of reference. I think that we got off on the wrong footing because you thought that I was pushing an original research point of view. Anyway, my opinion is that there should be one single centrifugal force article. It should have a very simple introduction along the lines of 'the outward force that occurs in connection with rotation'. Then there should be many short sections. For example, a few illustrative examples in circular motion involving objects on the end of strings. A section on centrifugal potential energy. A section on planetary orbits. A section on artificial gravity to cater for the knock on effect that they have been calling 'reactive centrifugal force'. A section on the centrifuge device. Anyway, thanks alot for unprotecting the talk page. I'll have one last try. 86.170.57.221 (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush hid the facts

More bizarre still, the Bush hid the facts link in Charset detection is valid and not political. Who knew? I've RVd your edit. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Geodata and Archaeologic Sites

The standard geodata for archaeologic site is notoriously unreliable. Your bot should not be changing the coords for those willy nilly. To quote Menze et. al. "Unfortuneately, even the locations of large and important tell sites occur in the archaeological literature with unknown reliability and precision. It is not uncommon to find significantly different co-ordinates being given for the same site in different sources. ... Even when the suggested co-ordinates do not plot in the sea (as some of the entires in the archaeological gazetteers have been known to do) ..."

So perhaps you can ask your Bot to skip the Ancient Near East category? Thanks. Ploversegg (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)ploversegg

No problem. I'll get it to ignore articles with "Ancient" in any category name, for all processes that add coordinates. The bot should not at the moment be changing any coordinates, and it will not add coordinates to any article that is already geotagged, either directly or indirectly through other templates. The other operations, such as technical internal formatting changes to geotag templates, shouldn't make any changes to any coordinates, or to article semantics, so I'll leave those enabled. -- The Anome (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Ploversegg (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)ploversegg

WP:UAA

Thanks for the pointer. My bad. I forgot to notice whether they were unified login accounts . Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 13:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates repeated in plain text

I've found quite a few pages, like Roopville, Georgia, with coordinates repeated in plain text, thus: {{coor dms|33|27|24|N|85|7|52|W|city}} (33.456731, -85.131219){{GR|1}}, you might want to watch for that, if & when you once to convert them to {{coord}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll get round to it eventually, but not now; it's safer to make only one kind of change at a time, since each change can then be debugged and QA'd independently. -- The Anome (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Redundant geographical infoboxes

Well, it's a start..!Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! -- The Anome (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinate format

Could you and Docu get together and agree on a format for coordinates? See [18]. Thanks Talltim (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Indonesian admin regions

It interesting the bot has found that regencies dont have coords - it might be difficult for them to have them due to their spatial spread - im away for a week from now - I might remember to get back to you about it then - cheers SatuSuro 14:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

bogus map

Hi It seems to have been fixed by an admin. Basically a user had edit a map that was made two years and manipulated its demographics in sept 25. thanks --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates for squats

Here's another category, needing coordinates: Category:Squats. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This category has so few entries that it's not worth using the bot, so I've simply done it by hand, which was quicker; however, doing this has made me realize that buildings, structures, theaters, hotels, churches, masts, etc. are not currently used as a category for generating {{coord missing}} candidates.

The bot is really much better suited to marking large supercategories of tens of thousands of articles, rather than marking a few dozen in a small category; it takes several hours to build a set of category roots and keywords, and then to QA the data generated and to write filters to catch the many different classes of false positives thus generated, and then days of bot supervision to finish the process, with occasional reworking of the candidate generation process, and hand-fixing of false positives, as I catch the remaining bad cases during my random checks of bot edits.

You can best help me by identifying suitable roots for these category trees (typically of the form "X by country") and keywords that can identify sub-categories that might plausibly belong to then.

For example, Category:Buildings and structures by country is the obvious root category for finding the buildings and structures I mentioned above, with sub-category matching keywords such as "buildings and structures", "houses", "bridges", "tunnels", "airports", "museums", "power stations", "hotels", "lighthouses", "cemeteries", "cathedrals", "churches", "music venues", "forts", "sports venues", "places of worship", "canals", "houses", "palaces", "places of worship", "amusement parks", "monuments and memorials", "dams", "fire stations", "chapels", "astronomical observatories", "indoor arenas", "government buildings", "monasteries", "mosques", "Buddhist temples", "synagogues", "palaces", "piers", "police stations", "office buildings", "oil refineries", "restaurants", "prisons", "skyscrapers", "shopping malls", "libraries", "theatres", "hydroelectric power plants", "nuclear power stations", "cinemas and movie theaters", "barracks", "chapels", etc.

Can you suggest any other suitable root category/category-matching keywords combinations to find geolocatable things? (I already do geographic stubs, administrative areas, populated places such as towns, cities and villages, rivers and other water and ice features, and mountains and mountain passes.) -- The Anome (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought about doing it by hand, but it occurred to me that you might also want to include it in future checks for new additions. I have found a few articles about theatres, arts labs & galleries without coordinates, but, for example, parent categories like Category:Theatre stubs unhelpfully mix venues with articles about plays, movements, etc. That said, Category:Art museums and galleries by country looks promising, with keywords "art museum" & "gallery". Likewise Category:Opera houses & Category:Outdoor sculptures. I'll see what else I can come up with. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That would be very helpful. -- The Anome (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

...and Category:Railway stations by country, Category:Bus stations, Category:Stations, terminals and stops. See also Category:Categories by geographical location. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just added about 28000 more geolocatable things to the bot's list, just by using Category:Buildings and structures by country. I'll add your other categories as seeds soon. -- The Anome (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Using your railway station suggestion added another 7200 items to the list of geolocatable things. That's more than 35,000 things added to the list of {{coord missing}}-taggable items today. Thanks. -- The Anome (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thanks again for your diligent work. To elaborate on my earlier comment, Category:Categories by geographical location has many potentially-relevant sub-categories (and sub-sub-cats), for example, Category:Gates by country; I didn't think it sensible to list them all here. Í'd be happy to do so in your user-space, if that will help. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be excellent. Could you put it at User:The Anome/Geolocation scan candidates, please. -- The Anome (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, but please will you do the first one, so that I can see what format you want? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits

Done. Ideally, the root should be an "X by country" category, or the scanning program won't be able to tell which country the entries belong to. -- The Anome (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've found some sets of "X by country" categories, where the parent lacks that designation; for example Category:Bus stations. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, you should give me a suitable wildcard pattern for all the "by country"/"in country"/"of country" seed subcategories eg, "Category:Bus stations in $COUNTRYNAME", and I'll feed them all to the categorizer together. -- The Anome (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've only just seen your comment; I'll try that, later, Meanwhile, please have a look at what I've done, so far. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0 part 2

User has had name change, no reason to remain blocked. -- Ned Scott 01:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I forgot to give you notice about WP:ANI#User:Renamed user 19. -- Ned Scott 21:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of bot-adding useless requests for geographic coordinates?

Zingium is a vague name for a whole region which was not confined to modern Kenya, so requesting precise geographical coordinates within Kenya is pointless. And the Moonlight towers occur in multiple locations in the city of Austin, so are we supposed to take the average of the geographic coordinates of all the towers or what? AnonMoos (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if these particular tags were added in error; this is part of an automatic process which is bot-tagging tens of thousands of articles with {{coord missing}} templates. As with other similar bot editing processes, the articles selected by the bot have already been through a filtering and selection process that tries to eliminate false positives. I've tried to keep the error rate as low as possible but even with a very low error rate, occasional errors will still occur. You're welcome to remove these tags from individual articles if you think they're inappropriate to that particular article; if the bot is tagging whole classes of articles inappropriately, please let me know, and I will fix it. -- The Anome (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Those were just the ones which which happened to be on my watchlist; I don't really have the interest or patience to check up after your bot in general. However, in the case of Zengium, the fact that the article has both a kenya-stub marker and a tanzania-stub marker should have been a warning signal that requesting precise geographical coordinates might not be appropriate... AnonMoos (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this might be related to the request for coordiantes on an article about an experiment that happened to be named for a city (Saskatoon experiment. I'm assuming it's an error and am removing the bot request. 23skidoo (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The request seems valid to me; the correct coordinates in that case would be those of the radio telescope itself. -- The Anome (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of coord missing

You seemed to have missed my query at the bot's page, so I have posted it here. cygnis insignis 05:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please direct me to the discussion on the roll out of the template "coord missing". cygnis insignis 18:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You can find it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. -- The Anome (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

TheAnomeBot2 blocked

I've blocked TheAnomeBot2 as it is screwing up some PRODs. See WP:AN. Once you've fixed the issue please request unblocking there, or just unblock it yourself. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I can't even begin to imagine how it did that... I'll find the bug and fix it, and do some more testing before letting it loose again. -- The Anome (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've found and fixed the rather silly bug; because it was performing checks in the wrong order, it was seeing "WP:" as an interwiki prefix. See [19] for an example of correct operation after this fix, where it removes the old tag (which it always does by default), and then inserts the new tag at the correct place. -- The Anome (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

bad username

I see you blocked I suck **** for having a bad username, maybe you should have gave him a warning first? Also check out my newe awesome userpage sign your guestbook if you sign mine!--Spittlespat! ǀ T ♦ C ♦ S 01:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:USERNAME; obvious disruptive user names can be blocked on sight by any administrator. -- The Anome (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to self

• Category:Country subdivision templates by subdivision type looks like a promising seed for category tree traversal... -- The Anome (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Open label study

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Open label study, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. —G716 <^T·_C> 04:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

David Tombe requests unblock ...

FYI. What do you think about this? While he seems to know what he is talking about when the topic is physics, he does not seem to get that his behavior has been in any way problematic. (I don't want to unblock him until he does.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding physics, I shall make no comment. As you say, the major barrier to unblocking is that he does not consider his previous behavior to have been a problem, and therefore that is is difficult to see any reason why the same problems would not recur after unblocking. -- The Anome (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

coords in Marine Barracks, Washington, D.C.‎

Hey, I noticed that your bot added template:coord missing to one of the pages I watch, Marine Barracks, Washington, D.C.‎. I went ahead and used Google Maps to add coordinates (diff), but since I've never used coord templates before, I was hoping you could double check that I did it correctly. I would appreciate your help! bahamut0013♠♣ 19:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you seem to be spot on. Thank you! -- The Anome (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Centrifugal force (planar motion)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Centrifugal force (planar motion), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centrifugal force (planar motion). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Another geotag goof

Your bot has tagged Western Maryland 202, but since this is a working locomotive that's rather questionable. Mangoe (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. I had it confused with a different loco. Mangoe (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the categorization of the article as being geolocatable is OK: it's on display in a fixed location, rather than being a working locomotive. Hopefully, working locomotives won't be assigned to "historic place/museum" (and other similar) categories. -- The Anome (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

coordinates of rivers and similar linear features

Anomebot2 tagged various Zimbabwean articles that I watch as needing coordinates. I am working through these, and adding where I can, but some are on rivers and other linear features - what coordinates are wanted there?Babakathy (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate your efforts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear for some guidelines. -- The Anome (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

coords missing template

Hi, Is there any human oversight of the bot adding coord missing templates? I have just removed the template from:

• An article on a person, Ruth Crisp
• An article on a restaurant franchise with 100+ locations
• An article on the bach as a generic structure

as well as switching New Zealand to Guam for one article. Mind you, the process of reviewing the category has uncovered several articles in need of rescue and several which neeeded deletion. dramatic (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, there is human oversight, but because of the vast number of articles being processed, it can only be in the form of spot checks and systematic review, applied to both the article scan output, and to the bot's live edits. When I find an error in one of my periodic QA checks, or when an error is reported to me, I'll first fix it by hand, and then try both to go back and fix similar cases, and then try to add code to stop the bot from making the same mistake in future.

The bot first uses the article category tree from a database dump to categorize articles, then peeks at the live article content at the point of editing an article, in order to perform last-minute checks to prevent errors such as the above. There are numerous heuristics in both the category scanner code and the bot code to try to catch a wide range of common classes of potential error.

Unfortunately, with hundreds of thousands of articles to be edited, even a set of heuristics with a 99.9% success rate will still leave hundreds of errors behind, which will eventually be found and fixed by human beings. Please accept my apologies for this; I am continuously working to improve the bot, and error reports such as the above are very useful.

In the case of Ruth Crisp, her article was marked as an astronomical observatory and building, and did not contain any of the distinguishing signs that the bot looks for (such as the words "birth", "death" or "person" in any category) to prevent false positives on biographical articles. I've solved this by splitting the article into two: Ruth Crisp is now about the person, and Ruth Crisp telescope is a new article‎ about the telescope. I've interlinked them both, added appropriate categories, and tagged the telescope article as {{coord missing}}.

Similarly, I've tagged La Porchetta as an organization, and Bach (New Zealand) with "*" in its category sort key, as being about a type of building, rather than an individual building. These changes should be sufficient to stop the bot from making the exact same mistake again on these particular articles.

Regarding the types of mistakes, I think Ruth Crisp was an unusual special case, and that there are unlikely to be many other similar cases. However, I'll look into the other two errors, and see if I can work out heuristics to try to prevent similar errors in future. -- The Anome (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)