User:Ancheta Wis/Contributions

6,823,977 articles 11:34 (UTC) Wednesday, May 15, 2024 {{Cc-by-2.0}}

I subscribe to the tradition exemplified by the New York Times and am also pro-defense.
- Article 3 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man: "The sovereignty of a government lies in the nation" (the people) -- Thomas Paine.
  - Corollary: A nation whose survival is threatened, will defend itself, as in the UK, 1940: this was their finest hour.
  - Corollary: A nation will defend its peoples, as the US defended my own homeland, after the simultaneous attack on Pearl Harbor and on cities in Southeast Asia.
  - Corollary: No nation can invade the soil of another without opprobrium; Tom Paine spoke a truth which we ignore at our peril, to the present day and in the future.
- "A nation may be said to consist of its territory, its people, and its laws." --from Abraham Lincoln's Second Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862.
  - The People: If you want to understand the American people, you might start by attending a baseball game (little league will do). I grew up in the American Southwest, but now live in the American heartland, and still miss the night sky, filled with stars. As a boy, I hiked and climbed in the Franklin Mountains, and was once caught in a dust devil. See the Potrillo flow field if you want to see the undisturbed American West. Be sure to bring water and wear a hat; your cell phone will be useless.
  - The Land: I have climbed Pikes Peak. Yes, I have skied Purgatory, Alta, Park City and Mammoth Mountain. Yosemite is the most beautiful place; I recommend the Mist Trail.
  - The Laws: King Canute understood the limitations of political power: "When one flatterer gushed that the king could even command the obedience of the sea, Canute proved him wrong by practical demonstration at Bosham, his point being that even a king's powers have limits."

I have studied with Richard Feynman, Kurt Lehovec, Lew Kowarski, Raja Rao, William Arrowsmith, and am a former oboist, published author and a co-inventor for one patent.

?[edit]

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk paige. Inbox for my /Desk temporary watchlist

I[edit]

mediawiki Internet Relay Chat wikipedia Internet Relay Chat temp files=ToDo=TBD (da Vinci)

Image galleries[edit]

You recently commented at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_to_modify_WP:NOT_an_image_gallery. In a related development, another, in my mind, valuable Image gallery is up for deletion (AfD). Please comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

K[edit]

Igor V. Kanatchikov Andrey Nikolaevich Kolmogorov User:Ems57fcva/sandbox/General Relativity

F[edit]

A British Chariot manned torpedo

Operation Title was an unsuccessful 1942 Allied attack on the German battleship Tirpitz during World War II. The Allies considered Tirpitz to be a major threat to their shipping and after several Royal Air Force heavy bomber raids failed to inflict any damage it was decided to use Royal Navy midget submarines instead. Operation Title involved a pair of two-man British Chariot manned torpedoes which were transported to Norway on board a small boat named Arthur. Both Chariots were lost when bad weather caused them to detach from Arthur on 31 October. It was not possible for the Allied boat to reach the sea due to German security measures, and Arthur was scuttled. The Allied personnel attempted to escape overland and all but one reached neutral Sweden on 5 November. The other – a British serviceman – was taken prisoner by German forces and murdered on 19 January 1943. Tirpitz was eventually sunk by another bomber raid on 12 November 1944. (Full article...)

Recently featured:

Fusion at UCLA (Seth Putterman etc) Focus footnotes

Freedman et al., "Categorical Representation of Visual Stimuli in the Primate Prefrontal Cortex", Science 2001 291: 312-316

G[edit]

Girl[edit]

		An Award
		For your contributions to the CotW focusing on Girl in September, 2005, I, Mamawrites, award you, Ancheta Wis, this THANK YOU.

J[edit]

O[edit]

R[edit]

References Harvard_Classics

Wikipedia:Library Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Science

Syntopicon

Propaedia

Scientific_method

Recovery Windows 2000 recovery console Windows XP recovery console Restrictions on use of recovery console You cannot install the Recovery Console on an Itanium-based computer.

Talk:Religious Pluralism[edit]

Thank you, Ancheta, for formatting my contribution to the talk page. I don't know whether we'll be able to integrate your proposal about diversity into the new Religious Pluralism article; it might go into a the section about explanations for Religious Diversity, something like that; perhaps you can make a proposal.--Robin.rueth 08:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

RFA for User:Hike395 --- please see my response on my talk page, thanks!

D[edit]

/Desk 'Wikipedia:Database queries'

diaresis

Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Microsoft Word

Adams & Laughlin cosmological decade A dying universe, Rev. Mod. Phys.,April 1997 U Mich cosmological decade hypography's precis cosmological decade The Great Cosmic Battle timeline

Spread the meme! | let's hash it out
Quinobi updated Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikiportals and the Community hash 4 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)

C[edit]

Wikipedia:Categorization#How to create subcategories

[C programmer viewpoint of Wikipedia] HowTo Installation CVS SourceForge

Focus concentration attention cognition knowledge foraging Wikipedia:Common words, searching for which is not possible

Concepts are bearers of meaning as opposed to agents of meaning.
Categories are a technology for indexing (a way to speed up a search)
Classifying space
Category theory

Template:Categorybrowsebar

Cats![edit]

Thanks for all your work on categories. We don't have anything like a consensus about what is fundamental, or where we should be going with highest-level categories or levels of granularity in each category... but I hope we will soon. Is there a main Categories Wikiproject?

In any case, we shouldn't let our debates about categorization spill out onto the Main Page. I am confused about why the people who have been active in editing the category-list haven't chimed in with their thoughts on the new main-page template. +sj + 22:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello, AW. You said:

Thank you for responding to my appeal on the Fundamental category. What if we transfer the thread of conversation to Category talk:Fundamental. I will alert the folks on the Main Page that we will pick up the conversation there. Ancheta Wis 01:42, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good idea - copy or move my contribution and put yours in too (telling BodNotBod!) Maybe new heading such as "Refining number and wording of the "fundamental" categories"? Robin Patterson 03:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

AW, I've no idea whether this is a reasonable location for this note, so move it if it's not. Gald to see a coment from you re Purr. I'd lost track of you after I gave up on Scientific method. You've clearly more patience than I with what had been going on there for a long time before you began to contribute to it. I've gone back and taken a look at it, and I hadn't expected it to grow in the direction it has. Too bad the tone that's evolved is so 'philosophical' and unapproachable by the Average Reader. Good to hear from you, even if indirectly. ww 02:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

W[edit]

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not —	he is a fool; shun him.
He who knows not, and knows that he knows not —	he is ignorant; teach him.
He who knows, and knows not that he knows —	he is asleep; awaken him.
He who knows, and knows that he knows —	he is wise; follow him.

— Jewish proverb I am that I am

welcome, wikipedia (papua article), waterfall model

User:Jimbo Wales/Chicago Meetup

Wikipedia:Browse Wikipedia:Category schemes Wikipedia:Library Wikipedia:Press coverage Wikipedia:Zeitgeist wikipedia namespace wikinfo (Fred Bauder?)

N[edit]

Wikipedia:Nooks and corners of Wikipedia that should be frequented Wikipedia:Namespace notation

News![edit]

See m:Wikinews and m:Talk:Wikinews.

⁴ Note 25: Horowitz, Paul & Hill, Winfield (1989). The Art of Electronics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521370957.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

*<sup id="fn_4_back">[[#fn_4|4]]</sup> <cite id="fn_25">[[#fn_25_back|Note 25:]] </cite> {{cite book|author=[[Paul Horowitz|Horowitz, Paul]] & Hill, Winfield|title=The Art of Electronics|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1989|ISBN=0521370957}} Template:Book reference {{{Author}}} ({{{Year}}}). {{{Title}}}. {{{Publisher}}}. {{{ID}}}.

Autonumbered Footnotes[edit]

You asked about using symbolic references rather than numbered. Wikipedia:Footnote3 is a new proposal which allows that and automatically generates numbered notes from them. Mozzerati 22:06, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

P[edit]

Pauli and QM

T[edit]

Wikipedia:Tip of the day archive /Archive Test Wikipedia Talk:Main Page time in physics

Thank you for your kind words on my talk page -- hike395 12:53, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

browse by Topic[edit]

There's a related discussion at the WP 1.0 editorial team project page, about starting with a superset of 1-10k articles and getting a first-cut of a 'reviewed network of articles' to see what it looks like. +sj + 17:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

/t-- /u-- /v-- /w-- /x-- /y-- /z-- /a-- /b-- /c-- /d-- /e-- /f-- /g-- /h-- /i-- /j-- /k-- /l-- /m-- /n-- /o-- /p-- /q-- /r-- /s-- [[/.]] a| b| c| d| e| f| g| h| i| j| k| l| m| n| o| p| q| r| s| t| u| v| w| x| y| z| 0| 1|

Trinity anniversary[edit]

July 16, 2005 —two months from now—will be the 60th anniversary of the "Trinity" test. I'm trying to organize a few people into getting that article to featured quality before then, anticipating a lot of general news coverage and curious minds. I've noticed you doing good work on Manhattan Project-related articles in the past, so I thought I would see if you were interested in helping out. Please see the discussion at Talk:Trinity site for some of my further thoughts on what should be present in the article, and please feel free to share you own. Thanks! --Fastfission 19:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

U[edit]

Unverified Image

Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Elephant-shapedBluffOnTransmountainRoad.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, or {{PD-self}} if you mean to release the image into public domain.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thank you, Dsmdgold 03:01, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

The creative commons license tag does the job well. Thank you. Dsmdgold 13:29, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

B[edit]

Bangor-Is-Y-Coed

boilerplate: Wikipedia:Boilerplate text

Bible & Hebrew Script Issues[edit]

Hi Ancheta, thanks for the response to my question. Digging on Amazon, the only book I can find that you refer to is "The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible" [1] Is that the one? Spellbinder 18:19, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Ancheta. Sorry, it's taken a while to respond, but I've been away. That 'Cambridge History of the Bible' looks fascinating; I'll have to try to get hold of a copy. Spellbinder 21:15, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

N[edit]

Naming conventions

M[edit]

Manual of Style

H[edit]

Wikipedia:Help Template:Hc

Health Questions to identify a stroke

Ask victim to smile
Ask victim to raise both arms
Ask victim to repeat a simple sentence

These have been identified for use during 911 calls

Dr. George F. Springer, M.D., developed Springer's vaccine for breast cancer. The 5 and 10-year survival rates for his group of patients with stage II, III and IV breast cancer far exceed the norm for those who are untreated. Since his death in 1998 the vaccine is unavailable, but many of the components are known. See: Dr. Peter J. D'Adamo's book on blood types, Live right 4 your type ISBN 0-399-14673-3 pages 235-6.

How to help yourself survive a heart attack when alone[edit]

I got this from my mother-in-law, who spent months last year in a cardiology ICU, and who is now at home again. She emailed me with this last March, but it's on paper now and wikipedia is a superior place to have this information if I need it. Ancheta Wis 00:58, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

And take aspirin. Glasses of water are a good idea.

A cardiologist says if everyone who gets this mail sends it to 10 people, you can bet that we'll save at least one life. Read this... It could save your life!!

Let's say it's 6:15PM and you're driving home (alone of course), after an unusually hard day on the job. You're really tired, upset and frustrated. Suddenly you start experiencing severe pain in your chest that starts to radiate out into your arm and up into your jaw. You are only about 5 miles from the hospital nearest your home. Unfortunately you don't know if you'll be able to make it that far. You have been trained in CPR, but the guy that taught the course did not tell you how to perform it on yourself.

How to survive a heart attack when alone

Since many people are alone when they suffer a heart attack, without help, the person whose heart is beating improperly and who begins to feel faint, has only about 10 seconds left before losing consciousness. However these victims can help themselves by

coughing repeatedly and very vigorously.

A deep breath should be taken before each cough, and the cough must be deep and prolonged, as when producing sputum from deep within the chest.
A breath and a cough must be repeated about every two seconds without let-up until help arrives, or until the heart is felt to be beating normally again.

Deep breaths get oxygen into the lungs and coughing movements squeeze the heart and keep the blood circulating. The squeezing pressure on the heart also helps it regain normal rhythm. In this way, heart attack victims can get to a hospital.

Many Thanks[edit]

Greetings, Ancheta!
I've not been around for the past month or so and I only yesterday saw your best wishes on my Bob McEwen article being posted on the front page. I'm grateful for your support. And thanks very much for the praise on the narrative style. If I can help with your articles, do let me know. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 16:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Galilean Transformation[edit]

Hi, can you tell me if Galileo actually published his Galilean transformation in Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, or did he just explain the concept of relativity via the "cabin below decks in a sailing ship" example? What I am wondering is whether the Galilean transformations are a Newtonian interpretation of Galilean relativity, since I know Newton was big on absolute time. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WinFS[edit]

Hello. Please try to avoid making inappropriate edits such as what you did here with WinFS. Have a look at the contents of that category, and you will see that the articles there cover subjects that deal conceptually with failure (e.g. power outage), but not specific products or technologies. WinFS has precisely nothing to do with failure as a concept. -/- Warren 12:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:The new "test" articles you've created[edit]

Hello Ancheta, I'm just letting you know we try to keep all tests in the sandbox and in our userspaces. Shall I move the test pages you've created into your userspace, or nominate them to be speedied?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone already nominated one, I nominated the other. I hope you don't mind. FWIW, no one will bother you if you create test user subpages.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Hi, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA. The final vote was 68/21/3 and resulted in me becoming an admin!

For those of you who supported my RfA, I highly appreciate your kind words and your trust in me. For those who opposed - many of you expressed valid concerns regarding my activity here; I will make an effort in addressing them as time goes on while at the same time using my admin tools appropriately. So, salamat, gracias, merci, ありがとう, спасибо, धन्यवाद, 多謝, agyamanak unay, شكرًا, cảm ơn, 감사합니다, mahalo, ขอบคุณครับ, go raibh maith agat, dziękuję, ευχαριστώ, Danke, תודה, mulţumesc, გმადლობთ, etc.! If you need any help, feel free to contact me.

PS: I took the company car (pictured left) out for a spin, and well... it's not quite how I pictured it. --Chris S. 23:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:DonHaskinsUTEPcoach.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:DonHaskinsUTEPcoach.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 23:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sue'sBrain.jpg[edit]

Hi! This is a lovely image... I've just got a couple of queries about its source and copyright status. The image doesn't have good sourcing at the moment (as in: did you scan it from a particular book? or upload it from a particular URL?) and if the Field Museum are the copyright-holders, this should probably be made clearer (it's not obvious whether they are merely the host and source of the image, or the copyright holder). In addition, adding some evidence that the image is available under a creative commons license is really pretty important, not because I'm assuming that it isn't and you're wrong in classifying it as such, but because there are loads of images with daft or deceptive copyright statuses uploaded and a requirement of providing some evidence that rights have been released is near essential. Hope this helps - the image is a nice find, and I would hate to see it getting deleted! TheGrappler 23:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks. In that case, who is the copyright holder? The image is licensed as CC-BY, which requires the copyright holder to be clearly stated. In this instance, is that you? TheGrappler 03:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, pictures of pictures, much like photographs of copyrighted buildings (e.g. the bizarre example of the Eiffel Tower, which is uncopyrighted by day but copyrighted at night) are generally pretty dodgy. If you take a picture of a copyrighted picture, then the copyright definitely stays with the copyright holder of the original. Being permitted to take a photograph is a little different to being able to claim the copyright of the photograph. But this does all raise the question of what the copyright status of the original was. TheGrappler 03:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that they didn't have copyright over the fossils. The Eiffel Tower is a good example: at day, nobody has copyright over it, so you hold copyright over your own photo of the tower. At night, the tower becomes copyright, and when you take an image of it, copyright belongs to the the copyright holder. Your camera, your photo, your film, your own physical print, but not your own copyright. Similarly, if you took a photo of a television screen broadcasting a (copyright) show, the camera, film and physical print are yours, but copyright rests with the copyright holder of the TV show. Copyright law concerns intellectual, not physical, property and is therefore a little bit weird... if the screen contained copyrighted information then you can't claim ownership of the copyright of the photograph, even if you took it. That's why the copyright status of the original displayed image is relevant. Kinda confusing, unfortunately... TheGrappler 03:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Elvis.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Elvis.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 23:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikimania[edit]

Hello Ancheta Wis,

I'm wondering if you'd be interested in doing a video interview with us about Wikipedia. We're making a short educational documentary about Wikipedia for Project New Media Literacies, a MacArthur-funded research initiative at MIT's Comparative Media Studies program. Our video series will be free and online, and we're especially interested in making media literacy pieces for jr high and high schoolers.

We'll be coming to Wikimania, but we'd really like to pre-schedule some interviews so we don't get lost in the excitement of the goings-on. Please have a look at my post on the Media section http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Media. Please let me know if you're interested (vanbertozzi(at)gmail.com). Hope to hear from you soon!...Vanessa Vanbertozzi 01:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your talk page[edit]

Just leaving you a note to explain why I reverted your talk page: the text I removed was a spurious/vexatious request from User:HotHotSoup, the latest sockpuppet of User:PoolGuy, spamming the talk pages of admins (and a few non-admins), and apparently working alphabetically. Contributions of a banned user may be reverted by anyone, but if you would still like the message to be included here, feel free to revert back. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobel medal[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you added the image of the Nobel medal to Nobel laureats pages. AFAIK, the Nobel Foundation keeps a tight copyright on everything Nobel related, especially the design of medals and diplomas. They state that permission must be asked to use the image of these things and when granted, the permission is for a single use. My concern is that it might not be fair use to put it like that in all articles, though I'm not a lawyer. Question is, are you sure that it is OK, as this might be a pretty serious problem for WP?

PS: You can answer here, I'm watching your talk page AdamSmithee 07:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Any fair use rationale provided at Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg can presumably cover its use only in the Nobel Prize article, as the article uses the image as part of its "critical commentary and analysis" of the Nobel Prize. (see Wikipedia fair use guidelines) I believe its use in the biographies of individual Nobel laureates thus constitutes a copyright violation. If you would like further discussion or verification of this conclusion, then I can post the image in question at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. In the meantime, please stop adding the image to any more articles.

In addition, I really don't see the relevance of this image in individual biographies. Wikipedia articles are not military uniforms. There's no point to add an image of every award received, and the image used is not unique to the individual (e.g. as opposed to a generic image of the individual being awarded the prize). A template showing the Nobel prize attached to every Nobel laureate biography was deleted a while ago. Even if copyright were not an issue, I do not think the images should stay.--Jiang 10:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

New Nobel Medal[edit]

Hey Ancheta, check out the Nobel Prize winner biographies now. bunix 11:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please undelete "Adequacy.org"[edit]

Adequacy.org was proposed for deletion July 27, 2006 and deleted August 1. I don't know what it contained. Undelete it. Thank you. - Calmypal (T) 06:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but the article wasn't AFD'ed, it was a PROD. When I said "I don't know what it contained," I was referring to the article, not the site itself. And in case you're wondering why I chose to contact you specifically, I was clicking through RC looking for an admin. - Calmypal (T) 06:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Check this out fast[edit]

Click here: [2]

reverting[edit]

When you undo vandalism, make sure you revert the whole edit. In this edit you fixed the damage a vandal did to a picture, but you missed the fact that the vandal also deleted a big chunk of the article. Because you had "fixed" the vandal edit, nobody else noticed that there was still a problem.--Srleffler 06:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

more image vandalism: Elisabeth of Bavaria[edit]

In this article, I see the Image:Elisabeth von Ungarn-Östenreich.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Empress Elisabeth. has been hacked in a similar way to the History of technology article's top image. Perhaps you may wish to publicize this new method of attack, and maybe suggest a systematic method of repair. --Ancheta Wis 09:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that one was deliberate vandalism. It looks like a mistake by an editor with an otherwise-good recent editing history. In fact, it looks like the image filename contains a typo, and the editor "fixed" the typo, without realizing that this would break the link to the image.--Srleffler 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Event[edit]

Thanks for your explanation about event vs. phenomenon on talk:event, and sorry for the trouble I might have caused with incorrect disambiguation. But now I'm a little confused what to do with the event disambig page: see talk:event. Maybe you can help me out a little? Thanks.--Stijn Vermeeren 11:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Debate on History of Science[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but could you please take a look at the discussion between me and User:Logicus starting at Talk:Scientific revolution#Newton on the Scientific Revolution and continuing on for far too many words. I'm trying to be patient, but I find Logicus's interpretations fly in the face of everything I know about the Sci Rev. Looking back through the history, there have been debates on similar issues in the past, which have contributed to the lack of coherence of the article.

Any assistance you could give would be welcome. BTW, I've also mentioned this to Ragesoss. --SteveMcCluskey 21:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"... Thus Butterfield failed to see that the main reason why sublunar violent motion required a mover in Aristotle's dynamics was to overcome gravitational resistance to motion, just as it does in modern physics,..."

This quote from a previous thread has to be taken with some skepticism. I interpret "gravitational resistance to motion" as inertia of a mass (moving under the influence of gravitation) which is the whole point of the thread (whether or not Aristotle had a theory of inertia). Please stop reading if that is not the case, and throw out the words below.

To disambiguate Aristotle's physics from Newton's physics, I use past tense for Aristotle's physics and present tense for Newton's physics.

One difficulty is that Aristotle's dynamics had friction built-in. The "mover"'s job was to overcome friction.

Newton gets past this problem by considering the motion of the Moon (no friction); he throws out the "mover" with his First Law of Motion "objects in motion tend to remain in motion; objects at rest tend to remain at rest (i.e. The equation for the First Law is Δp=0, where p=mv) unless acted upon by an outside force".

Now where I bonk in the quote is "...just as it does in modern physics,..." because freshman physics teaches us that you don't need the mover. So leaving out the "modern physics" part of the quotation above, gives us a clean separation between Aristotle's physics from Newton's physics. The two are then independent. I believe this takes care of the argument about inertia: Aristotle's concept of inertia differs from Newton's concept of inertia.

And, from freshman physics, Newton simply realized that the Moon was continually falling around Earth (This is a picture in Principia, which we really ought to have in the encyclopedia) and Aristotle clearly did not have that concept, or else he wouldn't have needed the "mover".

In other words, the quotation defies freshman physics, much less modern physics. But that's not Aristotle's problem. --Ancheta Wis 03:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Many Thanks for the comments here and at Scientific Revolution. I think that where Logicus is being led astray -- as far as I can follow his argument -- is by equating Aristotle's concept of weight/heaviness/gravity (which is a property of a body) with Newton's concept of gravity (which is a force acting on a body). Gravity (and its opposite, levity) meant something different before and after Newton. I'm going to try to sit out this debate for a day or two so it can cool down and I can get some work done.

FYI, I have a brief exchange with Ragesoss on my talk page. --SteveMcCluskey 14:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've about given up on Logicus. He is repeating the same unorthodox interpretation of Aristotle's view of inertia on Talk:Scientific Revolution that he raised a year ago on Talk:Inertia and other venues—and he seems to have been succesful in getting a line or two on the article on Inertia to present his interpretation of Aristotle. We seem to have a fringe interpreter of primary sources whose work clearly meets Jimbo Wales' criterion[3] for deletion on the grounds of NOR.

Judging from the outcome on Inertia, I don't think he's amenable to rational discourse. He expressed his frustration that he was unable to convince I. B. Cohen of his errors. I think his edits should be watched carefully and, as appropriate, deleted, reverted, or otherwise edited. It doesn't seem wise to encourage further debate by replies.

Bachmann's Law: Trolls are the driving force of Wikipedia. The worst trolls often spur the best editors into creating a brilliant article with watertight references where without the trollish ecapades we would only have a brief stub.[4]

--SteveMcCluskey 20:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your Jitter edit[edit]

The Jitterbug article does not say anything about Jitter. Do you have a source for the relation between the two terms? As it is now, the Jitter article is about a technical term used in telecommunications. I suspect some work needs to be done on disambiguation and etymology in this area. Suggestions?

--Jtir 20:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I see where you were going ... radio/electronics jargon may be adopted from pop culture.
Is a revert as unsourced the best way to summarize? I'm a real newbie on reverting others' edits.

On a related note, are you aware that Microsoft has patented a method for conjugating verbs? How are they related?

--Jtir 22:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I created Jitter (disambiguation) with a link to Jitterbug.

--Jtir 19:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar redesign final vote![edit]

It's that special, special time! No, grandma's not coming over. No, not time to clean out the fridge. It's sidebar redesign voting time! Yes, the community has narrowed it down to 3 different options, and a vote for the same old original sidebar is a choice one could vote for as well. Voting for multiple options is allowed, and discussion on the whole shebang is right there on the vote page itself.

You're probably getting this message because the sidebar fairy (JoeSmack for now) noticed you commented on the project at some time over on at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign. Lovely. JoeSmack ^Talk 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on template fields[edit]

Hi Ancheta, we are try to reach a consensus on which fields to delete in the scientist template. Please can you weigh in at: [5]. Best, bunix 10:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:DevilRay.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DevilRay.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 11:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Scientific Revolution[edit]

I think 212.135.1.57 is due for a block for his recent (and repeated) vandalism.

Thanks --SteveMcCluskey 16:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked per your request. I will monitor the page and re-block if he persists. --Ancheta Wis 23:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

On 25 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Difficult Run, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Max Born[edit]

Ancheta, Please can you weigh-in your opinion on the Max Born talk page [6]. Best regards, bunix 15:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing on Scientific Revolution[edit]

Ancheta -- Regretfully, I've initiated the Disruptive Editing process to try to bring Logicus's actions to a halt so we can get on with writing an encyclopedia. If you can, would you look at the guidelines and procedures, and at the discussion on Talk:Scientific Revolution to help bring this to a speedy closure. Thanks --SteveMcCluskey 19:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be most grateful for a reply with some possible Wikipedian guidance to my response to your apparently helpfully intended comments of 12 September on the Scientific Revolution Talk disputes. Having failed to hang me with NOR policy, McCluskey is now trying it with Disruptive Editing policy. Note that he has misrepresented my comments to you about Bernard Cohen to Ragesoss as “He expressed his frustration that he was unable to convince I. B. Cohen of his errors”, whereas I expressed no such thing, and indeed Cohen's 1999 view supports mine rather than McCluskey's and Westfall's. [Re McCluskey's message above to you 'Wikiband masonry of three against Logicus' as McCluskey apparently sees it, please see my Talk comments to Ragesoss on why the Disruptive Editing claim is untenable re my 4 proposed edits.] Logicus 01:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Dobbs and Jacobs quotation[edit]

Ancheta,

Could I trouble you for the full text of that marvelous quotation you just posted from Dobbs and Jacob, Culture of Newtonianism. It expresses a point I want to make in a book review I'm writing better than I could, so I'd like to quote it. Thanks, SteveMcCluskey 03:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed quotations. Since Dobbs and Jacob were quoting Dobbs Janus Face of Genius, I know what I'll be getting from the library. --SteveMcCluskey 13:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory[edit]

The article Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory is currently being debated on AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory. You probably don't remember this, but you asked for a very similar article under this title to be deleted back in November 2004 (it subsequently was), and so I thought you might be interested in expressing your opinion again. Thryduulf 19:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

article on definition[edit]

not sure what you were wanting here. Did you want me to start off a new article on definition, or something like that? everything is possible. Dbuckner 16:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have completely rewritten the article. BEst Dbuckner 11:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Trusting investigators[edit]

Hi, Ancheta, I'm responding to your remarks about Galileo:

There would have to be a technology / tool to delve into the unknown quantities. That does not preclude techniques in the future. But to attempt an investigation without techniques gets you nowhere, by the tenets of scientific method. You understand why; if you were to use some specially selected person who was sensitive to occult influence, you are would be at the mercy of that person. It would be impossible to detect cheating.

I think we are already at the mercy of specially selected people: research scientists. I have not personally checked the assertion that there are moons revolving around Jupiter (one of Galileo's first discoveries with the telescope); but I have personally used a 60 power telescope to observe craters on the moon; and I once travelled to a spot where it was predicted that a total solar eclipse would be visible.

I can't afford a cyclotron, so I just have to trust those folks who say they've run experiments on small, speedy particles. I can't launch a satellite, so I have to trust S. Fred Singer. I can't see the spirit world, so I have to trust Sang Hun Lee and Dae Mo Nim.

In fact, medical and psychological researchers have to trust volunteer subjects, who report things like levels of pain (when testing analgesics).

I wonder if we can study things scientifically when we ourselves must rely on the observations of others. --Uncle Ed 18:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Physics development activity[edit]

Noticed the message earlier in the day - I will review and comment at the WIP page sometime this evening - busy trying to get miktex installed on my system ATM! SFC9394 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ancheta Wis, I see that you have tidied things up at our WIP page. It looks and works much better now, I think, so thanks for that. I admire your creativity and your energy! The politics of it all are a bit strained, aren't they? O well. Let's try to think positive, or at least try to improve our own act from the experience of wrangling through all this. That's the attitude I'm coming around to. I hope you'll continue with the page. I intend to, provided we can get those who are less philosophically inclined to see that the matter is weightier than setting up a review chapter for a text in Applied Physics 101. Don't know how we'll go! Meanwhile, best wishes to you. – Noetica 06:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ancheta Wis, I continue to be astonished at your creativity and industry. But I fear you go too far. The suggestion from SFC9394 was that we each develop a lead for the article, not an entire article! I note that you want to respect that suggestion; but you continue to add new material. Here's a suggestion of my own, and I hope you will take it in the positive spirit in which I offer it: Cut things back so that we can see only your proposal for the lead; move the whole of your extended proposal to your own page, here, with a clear link so we can see how it's shaping up; then just wait. When we have the appearance of completion at the WIP page things can be taken further.

I really do like a lot of what you have come up with. A bit scattered and over-exuberant! I thought independently that Schrödinger's work would be important to note; but you have come up with much more, and a lot of it should find its way into the article, I think. Patience, yes? Best wishes. – Noetica 22:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ancheta Wis. It looks as if things are ready to move on soon, at our WIP page. May I suggest that you post some comments on the various proposals? It would be a shame not to have some observations from you, after all of the laudable effort you have put into your own proposal. – Noetica 22:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:AztecSunStoneReplica.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:AztecSunStoneReplica.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ccwaters 17:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Just type something that simply says you took the picture. That's all. I figured as much, but am not in a position to assume. ccwaters 18:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Physics, comments[edit]

Please refrain from modifying other people's contributions. You've moved 3-hour-old comments into archive, and have adjusted the position of a comment I made towards you in a way that rendered it out of context and somewhat confusing. If you feel that text written by other people should be modified or moved, ask those people to move it themselves instead, unless they're violating firm posting conventions (for example, top-posting above other people's responses or injecting comments into the middle of another's contribution). –M^T 15:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Physics/wip - moderator needed[edit]

I will deal with the situation at the weekend, unfortunately Real Life ^(TM) is a bit too busy for me at the moment (aside from checking my watchlist and reverting the odd bit of vandalism). TBH I believe that there simply isn't a critical mass of people - 3 or 4 editors aren't enough. We need 10's of people involved to enable people to give views rather than being directly involved in the argument. RFC, a note on one of the pumps or the community portal page? I am still strongly against opening up the WIP page to full editing - it will be a mess - especially with the encampment situation we have at the moment. SFC9394 19:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Scientific theories[edit]

Ancheta Wis, your addition of "Scientific theories" is incorrectly implemented. Please fix it. Also, what else do you plan on adding to that section? If you don't have a plan, then the image should just be added to "Selected pictures." Rfrisbie^talk 19:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image in user namespace[edit]

Hello! You have used a fair use image in your user namespace (User talk:Ancheta Wis/l). Criterion 9 of the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria states that "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine." I have removed it on these grounds. Sincerely, --Oden 17:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikilogos[edit]

I've noticed you're very involved here, you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Logo Variations and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

huh?[edit]

What was the point of [7] ? It seems as though you could have achieved the same effect by finding out the name of the image, searching that page and all linking templates for any instances of that image, as I did to catch that particular template vandal. --Jmax- 12:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

From Anthony cfc - hope you enjoy the Christmas holidays and have a relaxing break! Tis the season to be jolly! - cheers and regards, Anthony cfc (talk • email) 19:52, Friday December 22 2006 (UTC)

Tellegen's theorem[edit]

You wanted a link to Tellegen's theorem on Electrical networks? I'd be happy to put in a link, but I can't find much about Tellegen's theorem on the Internet. Send me a link, and I'll write the Wiki article and put in the link.--Cbdorsett 12:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

AWB Request for Use[edit]

Good evening (GMT time); there is currently a build-up of users requesting registration to use AutoWikiBrowser. Taking into account the fact that you are a trusted sysop, I (on behalf of the 4 users currently waiting approval) request that you approve or decline each of us as you see fit.

The list of users awaiting approval is located at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Requests_for_registration; if you could find the time to tackle the list, it would be greatly appreciated and you would be doing the community a great favour.

Hoping to be given notice of my postponement or approval to the AWB approved user list soon :)

Cheers and regards,
Anthony cfc 19:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:101_1048.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:101_1048.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 16:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

RfC on editing on Scientific Revolution[edit]

An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus on the editing of User:Logicus on Kepler and Scientific Revolution.

Since you have been an active editor on Scientific Revolution you may have something to add to the discussion. --SteveMcCluskey 15:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mexico City and the Federal District[edit]

About 8 months ago somebody had proposed to merge Mexican Federal District into Mexico City. The proposal was opposed by almost all participants. After a similar debate in the Spanish wiki, in which many important legal aspects of the relation of both entities came out, they decided to merge both, not simply based on personal opinion, but with the fact that both the constitution of Mexico and the Statute of Government of the Federal District, clearly stipulate that they are the same entity. (La ciudad de México es el Distrito Federal...). I decided to reopen the discussion here on the English wiki on Jan. 12 (in Talk:Mexico City), justifying the merge on their constitutional definition, and so far, all but one editors have agreed to the merge (the other one initially opposed it, and now its "indifferent").

Since its been over a month, I had already decided to do the merge, however, I decided to contact all active editors who participated in the previous discussion (namely you and User:Rune.welsh; the rest contribute rather sporadically), to let you know about the reopening of the merging discussion, should you decide to participate.

--theDúnadan 18:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Happy New Year[edit]

Thanks! :D Happy year of the pig to you too. And no, it seems like a terrible mangling of the greeting to me - but then again, I can't read or write Chinese, so what would I know? Heh. Johnleemk | Talk 09:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

An edit you made to History of scientific method[edit]

Hi. A couple of weeks ago, after I had disambiguated a link to Danish in the referenced article, you moved some content around and removed my disambiguation in the process; I've just had to restore it. Please try not to do this again without a very good reason. Thanks. --Tkynerd 21:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

hi there ancheta....[edit]

And I'm very pleased to meet you. I've actually come to ask your advice - I've been concerned that essjay has been behaving unethically, and will be causing damage to wikipedia's reputation. As an editor whose background, contributions, and experience around the place i respect enormously, I wondered if you might have any comment.

Essjay claimed for a long time to be a tenured professor, which he has now said was simply 'misinformation' [8], but what i thought was far more serious was that he repeated these lies to the New Yorker, and allowed a story to be published [9] which I feel directly bolstered wiki's reputation based on his fictional qualifications.

He also wrote to another college professor [[10]] compounding the dishonesty. I'm really concerned that without recognising this behaviour as a mistake at some point this could do serious damage to wikipedia's reputation, essjay being such a high powered user - this level of dishonesty is just plain wrong.

He's made it clear now he doesn't want to talk about it to me [11] but I feel he's dismissing a very serious situation in a very cavalier fashion.

I'd really value your thoughts, I suppose i was thinking that a quiet word from you might go a long way on this issue.

Many thanks for your time.

Purples 02:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your wonderful reply! I hope you don't mind, but I copied it to [[12]] where I was also chatting about this one. I found yours and Geogre's comments very insightful - thanks again. Purples 23:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

btw. it's now been picked up by others at jimbo's talk page, and I'm going to take a step back.

Survey Invitation[edit]

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Response[edit]

I responded to you comment at Talk:Assistens Cemetery. --Ysangkok 21:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Stevenson-Perez[edit]

I notice you have also encountered the edits of User:Stevenson-Perez. I've posted some comments on the user's Talk page. - David Oberst 18:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Gravitation[edit]

Hi Ancheta, there is a problem with "Gravitation" page which is that it is a lot of popular (mostly Newtonian and some quantum) misconceptions instead of contemproary science (Einstein's theory). Recently I tried to create page "Gravitational attraction" trying to explain why there is no such thing according to Einstein and "Gravitational force" trying to explain how it works in Einstein's physics. Unfortunately they didn't last long and both got deleted. You may read Talk:gravitational attraction to see the problem. Jim 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ancheta Wis .. I tried to move this Image:Wegener.jpg to Commons but they ask me for the Source of the Picture ... Please if you have the source send me it so we can keep t in commons .. Regards --Chaos 21:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007[edit]

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 03:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Projects by type[edit]

Thank you for your contribution to the Category:Project management category in the past. This now links to Category:Projects by type for examples of projects in different domains. However, there is currently a Call for Deletion for this category. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 03:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy (belated?) Earth Day![edit]

=) __earth ^(Talk) 02:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007[edit]

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 05:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:ApiWith3Clients.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ApiWith3Clients.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DEC,VT52.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DEC,VT52.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:ShopsmithV,Model520.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:ShopsmithV,model520.JPG. The copy called Image:ShopsmithV,model520.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 14:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Buddha,Closeup.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Buddha,Closeup.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 12:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

History of physics[edit]

Hi,

A lot of material was added to History of physics and I just finished integrating it. Can I ask you to take a look and make sure everything checks out? JFD 08:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I was not able to incorporate your suggestion about the relationship between condensed matter and atomic clocks (I don't feel comfortable enough with the subject matter) but was able to do the others. JFD 17:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dated cleanup tags

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 19:29 15 August 2007 (GMT).

Chicago Area Wikipedians Meetup[edit]

Hey, it was nice meeting you at the wikipedians' meetup! I enjoyed swapping esoteric entries with you. I'll keep an eye out for any Ebu Gogo.—Cnadolski 04:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming out. I was looking at your user page. What happened to #2? If you get a chance, take a look at WP:CHIASSESS#Current_Top-importance_Candidates and vote.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Saturday was a great day. Good weather, good people. That definitely constitutes a great day. Managed to spend the day prior the Meetup just over at Millenium Park. KyuuA4 16:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Perl GA[edit]

Hi Ancheta Wis,

Apologies for not replying sooner; I've been wiki-vacationing.

The Good Article nominee link in the ArticleHistory box on the Perl discussion page should point to a Good Article review, such as what transpires on the Veganism discussion page or the Ajax discussion page; people interested in such matters could follow the link to the review and form an opinion on whether the review itself was well done, or lacking, and, if lacking, whether the article itself should be reviewed again by another individual.

This is not the case with the Perl article; no review was ever made. Perl received its marque prior to May 2006, when editors awarded Good Article marques simply because they liked articles; they were under no obligation to publish their reasoning or state their standards. Since that time the Good Article project team has adopted a more transparent review process, somewhat resembling the Featured Article review. The gist of the process is, a (presumably dispassionate) reviewer, who has spent little or no time in developing a particular article, compares the article against a recognized good article guideline, publishes the results of the comparison on the article talk page, and, if the reviewer thinks that the article compares favorably with respect to the standards, applies the Good Article marque. This differs from the earlier process in that the reviewer must form his or her opinion with respect to a standard guideline and publish the review on the article talk page. The current process is, by no stretch of the imagination, objective, but the thinking of the reviewer, and the standards that the reviewer applies, has been made somewhat more transparent than in earlier practices, which encourages reviewers to strive to be objective. If an article has gone though this process, there is a written review, composed with respect to a standard, that allows other people to judge if the review was reasonably well carried out and if the article comes by its marque fairly.

In contrast, the notice I posted to the Good article nominee link is not the review one normally expects to find when following such a link. Instead, the notice calls attention to the absence of a review. By current Good Article standards, this lack of a review places the status of the article in some doubt, exposing it to a delisting review. A delisting review is not that extraordinary. Any article bearing the Good Article marque is subject to delisting review the moment it receives the marque, but the Perl article is rather more likely to fall into the cross-hairs of editors intent on delisting than others: it never was subject to the kind of third-party appraisal that many articles bearing the marque have gone through. In posting the notice, I did wish to make clear the rules of delisting, to wit: that a delisting editor is really obliged to do a full good article review in order to fairly state reasons why a particular article should be delisted — to make clear that the delisting process is more-or-less symmetric with the listing process: the published article review is fundamental to both state transitions. This is to combat the tendency among some editors to delist articles in a summary fashion — without explanation or published remarks. This tends to upset people and damages the reputation of the Good Article Review process.

At some juncture, there will be a follow-on review of all articles that were awarded the Good Article marque when gentler, but less transparent, reviews were the standard. This will arise for no other reason than to normalize the basis under which articles have been ranked. There are not many good Good Article reviewers, however, so the follow-on reviews will not occur rapidly, but eventually. This affords those editors who like particular articles enough to support them in material ways a good bit of time to bring articles up to standards, should that need to be done. Take care. Apologies for the time it took for me to reply. Gosgood 23:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Top Importance vote and images[edit]

Feel free to add more images to the meetup gallery. Also, I should make you aware that you only cast 1 of the 4 Top Importance votes you are entitled to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 10:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hypothesis vandalism[edit]

Please revert vandalism fully. The article's first section begins with 'headline text', so you must have missed at least some of it. It's extremely frustrating to see an article that seems to be hit by drive by anonymous idiots every day, have no idea if anyone even watches it, and then see people removing or reverting vandalism in such a way that leaves half of the mess not dealt with. Most of my frustration here is directed at the vandals and the 'system' here of course; I've seen this article hit like this before and it's annoying to see the same thing happening over and over. Just make sure you check the recent history carefully when doing a revert and have a quick glance at the page to see you didn't miss anything obvious. Richard001 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientific method additions[edit]

I appreciate your taking the incentive at scientific method. Thank you. Since there is now a section entitled "Introduction to scientific method", it enables the next steps towards considering a separate "main article" such as Introduction to scientific method. Such an article would make easier the task of the many youngsters that come in trying to get an idea. I have no verifiable evidence of this, but rather it's a supposition based on the repeated vandalism of the article in ways that I personally surmise are expressions of frustration for not coming away with an easy read that those readers can use to do whatever assignment happens to confront them. Note that the vandalism rate picks up significantly around the beginning of September.

I'll leave a note on the article talk page as well. You have my gratitude for the investment of time and energy into these recent talk-page discussion and the just-implemented article edits. ... Kenosis 02:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Physics/wip[edit]

Hi. Well, what shall we do with it? I think practically everyone has given up on it. I'm of the inclination that we should just move all of it back to the physics talk page. What do you think? Krea 04:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how many of us editors there are left. At this rate, it will take a very long time for the article to be in a state that we are happy with. My thinking was that we move things over to the physics page proper so that other contributors could get involved: with very few of us still doing any editing, it makes sense for us not to divert the focus of any active editors between two pages, right? I don't know. What do you suggest? Krea 04:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Great. The only important thing is that we get more people involved. If you and others still see a use for the wip page, then thats fine. Personally, I want to move on from the lead section, so I'll see if I can get people to contribute to that and finish it off by putting something on the physics talk page. Hopefully, this will attract some interest in the project as a whole also. Krea 02:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really want to be a nuisance. I just don't want some people to work on the wip page, and then have others ignore it. We all want to make the article better, and we should all work together. All I'm going to do is to put some posts on the physics talk page now and again so that people won't feel we at the wip page being isolationist. Krea 15:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007[edit]

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 00:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Method[edit]

Hi. I like what you added regarding the work and ideas of Polya. --Uncle Ed 13:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Physics[edit]

Hi, Ancheta. Thanks for responding to my comments at physics. I haven't had a chance to read them yet, but I wanted to say first that I hope my comments aren't so critical they'll put you off. I haven't had much time to work constructively on the recent changes, so I'm doing the easier thing---pointing out problems. If anything I say comes off rudely, please assume that wasn't my intention, and accept my apologies. Cheers, Gnixon 03:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure I understood all of your message. In case you're worried that I'm trying to defend and preserve my previous edits to Physics, that's certainly not my intention. I did a good bit of work, but others have improved it significantly. I'm certainly not trying to WP:OWN it. Again, sorry if I've been more critical than constructive---it's only a time thing. Can you be more specific about which of Krea's arguments we should respect? (Not that any of them don't deserve respect.) Gnixon 04:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

History of Computing[edit]

"To this day" doesn't fix the problem. That sentence will be read in 2008, .... 2020 ... etc. and will always say that punched cards are still being manufactured and used. We don't know that. tooold 14:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:FranklinMountains6k.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:FranklinMountains6k.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Voting for the Tambayan Philippines Collaboration #1 is ongoing[edit]

Hi! The voting for the article to be the first target of Tambayan Philippines Collaboration Department is ongoing. Please vote even if it is abstain. Thanks! --seav 14:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:ManunggulJarLid.JPG[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:ManunggulJarLid.JPG. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Classification of admins[edit]

Hi Ancheta Wis. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 22:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:LandForms.jpg[edit]

Hey, I was wondering, is this a photo of some model or map that was on display? If so, it could be a derivative of that map's copyrighted design and since we have free SVG maps of nearly everything there shouldn't be a problem replacing it with an image we're sure is free. Yonatan ^talk 20:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:FranklinMountains,ElPaso,asSeenFromFtBliss.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:FranklinMountains,ElPaso,asSeenFromFtBliss.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Top-importance Chicago articles[edit]

We are going to go through another round of consideration for Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. Last August your votes helped us decide our last round of promotions. Please consider the articles at WT:CHIASSESS and voice your opinion on whether they should be on the ballot near the end of January when we are considering our next round of promotions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

History Of Computer Hardware[edit]

In the interests of keeping this article a featured article, might we move the latest contribution on 2nd generation computers to the talk page and work on the English prose before re-instating it to the article page? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thats my work! What is wrong with it? 92.1.67.188 (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Trinity test GA Sweeps Review: On Hold[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I have reviewed Trinity test and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and a few related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Dalís Dream a stub?[edit]

Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bee around a Pomegranate a Second Before Awakening has been marked as a stub since 7 February 2006.[13] Much has been added since, and I believe it's no longer stub class. However, as I've made most of the recent edits, I feel uncomfortable "destubifying" it myself. I noticed that you are both an Administator and member of WikiProject Arts. Could you either remove the stub, or let me know why it should remain? I'd appreciate your help. Thanks! Wakedream (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the stub tag from Dalí's Dream! Wakedream (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Grrrlriot (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Speedy deletion of Template:ExpertAstronomy[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:ExpertAstronomy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.