User talk:Anville/Archive3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

==Photosynthesis==

Some time ago you helped improve the article Photosynthetic reaction centre to bring it to featured article standard. The article never became featured, probably because it's too obscure, so now I want to merge it with photosynthesis and then eventually rewrite that whole article. Few people have heard of reaction centres, but the majority of people have heard of photosynthesis, so this is probably a better candidate for a featured article. I just wondered if you would like to help merge the two articles appropriately. Thanks. --Miller 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to do big stuff right now (the next month or so looks busy as heck). However, I will try to keep an eye on Photosynthesis and help with the details—checking grammar and style, citing sources, etc. I agree that the main photosynthesis article is a better candidate for FA, but given the limits on article size (people on FAC tend to get more hissy than necessary when articles exceed 32Kb), it might be a good idea to keep photosynthetic reaction centre separate. The main article could have a summary of the biochemical structures involved, with a notice saying "For details, see the article photosynthetic reaction centre." This is how lots of articles handle that sort of thing. Anville 09:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

LSD

In case you didn't know - LSD is a Chemical_compounds <-- Organic compounds <-- Biochemicals <-- Monoamines <-- Tryptamines <-- Lysergamides and as such its infobox (as the info box of any chemical compound, when available of course) goes on the top of the page where it is suposed to go. As for the images - they should go to that part of the text which is relevant to them. -- Boris 02:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't aware there was actually a style rule about chemical infoboxes. Somewhere, back on the horrendously long talk page for that article, I'd read something about having the initial focus on the history and social importance, and thus keeping the chemistry infobox down in the chemistry section. I suppose that makes a sort of sense, but if there's a better way to do it, there's a better way to do it.

By the way, it's really underwhelming to title a comment "LSD" in big, bold letters and then talk about image placement and style guides. (-: Anville 09:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment from 129.105.35.146, Esq.

What are u talking about? I dont' think I've vandalized anything! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.35.146 (talk • contribs)

If you are not the person who has repeatedly removed the image of Thomas Pynchon from his article ([1], [2], [3]) and then replaced its caption with nonsense, but are instead someone who happens to share this person's IP address, you have my profound apologies. If you are this individual, then your actions on that article—particularly the most recent one—constitute vandalism, plain and simple. Anville 10:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice call

Nice call on the disambig page for The Giver If you haven't noticed, I enjoy "pushing the envelope" when it comes to a lot of my contributions. :) I thought for sure that the self appointed WikiPolice would have reverted my edit.

Anyhow, my 2cents. Again good call. Oarias 10:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Anville 10:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Pynchon

I see this article has been awarded feature article status. Cool! Metamagician3000 01:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Great user page

Your user page is quite entertaining. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 06:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! (smiles) Anville 12:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

It should be looking for test4, I wonder if its a minute change to the template thats broken the regex -- Tawker 23:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the goth reference

I had a nice break, by the way. If you check out my blog you'll see some of the amusement over the Easter weekend. Metamagician3000 07:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

mary prankster

You must be from bay country. I used to go to Prankster shows back in the day, probably bumped into you if you saw them.--Josh Rocchio 03:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was up in the Northeast and only saw her when she was on tour (twice in Boston and once in New York). Anville 09:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't even say I really liked her band, but she was a cool chick, and the shows were fun for someone as young as I was for sure.--Josh Rocchio 04:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Three laws of robotics

I thought you would like to know, as both the listed maintainer of the article and original FAC nominator, that I'm voicing some serious issues with Three laws of robotics. I think it's a cool article, but the references are severely lacking and without some heavy additions it may warrant a WP:FARC. I understand you say you are on Wikibreak, but you also say to expect you back around right about now, so I felt I should at least leave you the warning. Staxringold 11:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My comments live at Talk:Three Laws of Robotics. Anville 21:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you reference movies and other books that incorporated the 3 Laws WITHOUT referencing '''''Star Trek's'' The New Generation's''' Lt. Data? He even has a positronic brain! Swervinn 20:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Because Data doesn't obey the Three Laws. He just has a positronic brain. What's so complicated about that? I could see adding a sentence somewhere which says, "In Star Trek: The Next Generation, the android Data has a positronic brain, an intentional homage to Asimov's robots; although his programming includes various moral and ethical "subroutines", he does not obey the Three Laws." This sentence might go better in References to the Three Laws of Robotics, which we made expressly so that the main Three Laws article doesn't get impossibly cluttered. Anville 18:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Banning

Hi Anville. Is it possible to ban anyone from editing Wikipedia who deletes or otherwise vandalizes an article? I'm thinking of a "one strike and you're out" policy.--StN 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume you've read the Vandalism Policy. Usually, people are given at least one warning, although if the edits they make are clearly intended to be disruptive, the normal escalation from "use the sandbox if you'd like to make further tests" to "you're out of the game" can be shortened. As far as I know, the only place where a "one strike and you're out" policy has been implemented is with the article Bogdanov Affair. That was a deliberate choice by the Arbitration Committee, and I don't think it will happen again very easily. That situation involved the people who started the Affair itself promoting their viewpoint on the Wikipedia and disguising their aims with sockpuppets and jargon. (They or their supporters are still at it, too.) It was an extreme case which has led to indefinite semi-protection and immediate blocking of violators — just a nasty situation. Anville 16:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hicks at MySpace

All the recent changes to the Hicks page you made.. fine, but why did you remove the line that mentions the Hicks page at MySpace which offers four of his track to hear. I often get told that some of these tracks are available at billhicks.com but not the same tracks that are offered at Hicks' myspace. Also hicks.com frequently has connections problems of one kind or another in my experience, maybe they'll get resolved one day.. but personally I wouldnt hold my breath. So can you please re-add the myspace mention and the internal link to wiki's myspace page and also the external link to hicks at myspace. I'm happy with lots of the changes you made, I'm tolerant of others but the myspace thing is something I must insist is re-added. thanking you in advance. Dirk Diggler Jnr 01:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I might have been overzealous in zapping things, or perhaps I removed it from a place where I thought it didn't fit and forgot to add it later. . . . It seems like a reasonable thing to have, so I'll see what I can do. Anville 13:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Dirk Diggler Jnr 15:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Earth in fiction (regarding Star Wars)

I'm not following your reasoning for removing my post. If the reason you removed it was because it's an "unproved theory", then I say that it's no more of a theory than the Star Wars post that you left on there: "However, the opening line to each film of "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" reveals that the story is being told from the perspective of someone who had witnessed these events. The line implies that the Star Wars galaxy exists far away from our own, therefore making Earth an actual planet within the fictional Star Wars universe."

For reference, my post:

And then there is the well-known quote from Han Solo: "You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon? It's the ship that made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs." A parsec is defined to be the distance from which the Earth and Sun appear to be separated from one another by 1 second of an arc. Therefore, since a parsec is a unit of measurement derived from Earth, the Star Wars universe must currently have or once had a knowledge of Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.115.189 (talk • contribs)

I'm not trying to be harsh here, but I have to ask: "So what?" Like the majority of the things the Wikipedia says about Star Wars, it is Original Research. In a better world, we could expunge still more and actually have articles which are useful and readable. Read the policy: Wikipedia:No original research. Now, I'm going to go trim that section further, since it looks like I didn't trim enough. Anville 15:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. I was just curious why my post was being removed, but not the other since they were similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.115.189 (talk • contribs)

No worries. By the way, if you intend to be a long-term contributor (or if you'd just like to make Wikipedia your hobby), I highly recommend getting a user account. Anville 18:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs U.S. Robots and Mechanical Men Isaac Asimov's Utopia The Chronicle of Higher Education The Best Science Fiction of Isaac Asimov Black Widowers Scott Innes James Gunn (author) 5020 Asimov Redshift survey Gold (Asimov short story) QED (book) Stonewall (UK) C-Chute Hanna-Barbera Superstars 10 Calvin (name) Roger MacBride Allen Jim Borgman R. Talsorian Games Yahoo! Groups

Cleanup Quantum teleportation Manele Wave packet Merge Ghost in the Shell (manga) Chicken Little (2005 film) Jean Vertut Add Sources Alex Rodriguez Francesca Annis ESPN2 Wikify Jacqueline Chinese Super League 2004 Hubert Expand Mars 2011 Hober Mallow Astrobiology Field Laboratory

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comma Johanneum for GA

Hi, I am in the middle of reviewing Comma Johanneum for GA status. It is an excellent article, but I wanted to ask you to address one thing: The phrase near the opening of the article reading "In readings containing the clause, 1 John 5:7–8 reads as follows (from the King James Version; the Comma is rendered with emphasis):" is confusing. I actually had to read the opening paragraph several times before I understood what the article is about.

Do you mean to say that 1 John 5:7–8 is a definitive example of the Comma Johanneum? Or that the Comma Johanneum appearing in that passage appears verbatim in all examples of Comma Johanneum? Can you re-write to make it more clear? Maybe:

An example of a passage that contains the clause, 1 John 5:7–8, reads as follows (from the King James Version; the Comma is rendered with emphasis):

Let me know what you think. Aguerriero (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That sentence has actually bothered me before, though I had read it as more awkward than unclear. This is why it helps to bring in new editing eyes! I have edited that passage, hopefully making the meaning more transparent. Anville 17:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tranhumanism

Any comments on my plea on the talk page? You always seem to have a cool head, so any thoughts from you would be appreciated. Metamagician3000 03:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with your sentiments, broadly speaking. Recently, I have come to feel that I've been watching a tempest in a teapot — one which to the people in the teapot looks like a tsunami. I believe the article has improved since it made FA (though of course edits made since the last time I looked at "Criticisms" may have deranged everything). One reason I had thought of suggesting for splitting off a Criticisms of Transhumanism article was to get the arguments into a different place: if everybody could agree that the current revision of the main article was at least factually accurate and based upon verifiable sources, then we could go split hairs, chop logic and engrave tombstones on some other page. Meanwhile, the main article itself could stay nice and stable, serving its purpose for the people who aren't already flashing with heat lightning.

I have grown more sensitive over this past year to what constitutes Original Research; I believe I think about the subtleties more than lots of other Wikipedians I've run into. Maybe that's because I like to play in areas where the sort of OR I might do here would use exactly the same type and quality of reasoning as it would in any other venue — Science Fiction Studies or a paperback from MIT Press, say. I think I stayed on the legitimate side of the line with Three Laws of Robotics, for example, but I know many places where I could've crossed that line. (One reason I'm writing less new material now than I was last fall is that, hey, a big part of me wants to do Original things.) I get the distinct feeling that the heavy hitters on Transhumanism may all be capable of slipping in the same way.

Maybe everyone should just back off, read something new and work on different articles for a while. The sound and the fury need to go somewhere else, and I'm trying to think of a good place to take them. Anville 04:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)