User talk:Ancheta Wis/Archive 1

Special:Statistics articles  (UTC) Monday, July 29, 2024    Intensive definition Ostensive definition  Extensional definition related changes meta-wiki



Welcome. Please select a letter from the , and click [edit] to add your message to this talk page.

A
Re: Hollerith/paraphrase: I don't want to paraphrase because that text demonstrates that Hollerith 1st conceived/invented the idea of recording on a machine readable medium and only then began looking for a suitable medium, eventually choosing punched cards. The less that text is altered, the better. And thanks for your help, it's appreciated. 69.106.242.20 (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

B
I chose section "B" for no apparent reason other than it is close to the top :>). I have a question. What is your Flowstream all about? It looks interesting, but I am curious why you put this together. It looks like a "stream" of knowledge. Ti-30X (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:COMPUTING
I think you are deeply interested in the computers and computing area and the project. I welcome your comments for this discussion --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 11:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

History of computing hardware
I'm afraid its been delisted, because there's still plenty of work to do. If you want, I can help you fix the references and I can start copyediting the article. I want it to be a featured article again. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 18:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ancheta,

When I replied to you on the perception page, I did not know who you are here. Now I realised that my references to little egos were probably needless. Thank you for taking an interest.

I am writing you here because I integrated the story about Jacques de Vaucanson’s The Duck – an artificial duck made of gilded copper, which drank, ate, quacked, splashed about in the water and digested its food like a living duck. I integrated it in my book and I think that you might be interested in it.

Thank you again.

Kind regards, 09:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dibrisim (talk • contribs)

Dear Ancheta,

I think that I have found a solution for your dilemma: “But what about the poor guy for whom the rewrite is just words?” I was just about to answer you, but found instead that a little ego simply removed my proposal for rewrite, your replies and incoherent mumbling of a religious man who claims that he is not religious...

I think that Wikipedia has much bigger issue with little egos (or “poor guys for whom the rewrite is just words”) than I thought. And I think that I have a solution for this also, but for this some things need to be changed. And this takes time...

I will therefore suggest an experiment as a temporary solution. Let us have a second page associated to the Perception article open to users to discuss the article and exemplify, but not to delete each other’s thoughts. This might need occasional filtering, but would provide plenty to think about.

I might be able to restore the discussion page, but I do not wish to impose. I will therefore leave the matter in your hands and suspend my involvement. Would you, please, notify me about a solution at damir@zip.com.au? Thank you.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

semi-protection of Portal:Contents/Quick index
Hi there. Please excuse my edit summary at Portal:Contents/Quick index but I (wrongly) assumed you weren't an admin because although you put up the template, the page wasn't actually protected. I'm guessing you simply forgot. I've left the template off for now until it is protected. Sorry again! &mdash;Ashanda (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Contents/Categorical index
Hi. You added the sprotect template, but according to the logs the page has yet to be actually protected. (hence the bot removed the template ;) -- Quiddity 17:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin: I don't have those tabs, or know how it works! All I know, is the logs are empty, and if I log-out, I can edit the page. Hope that helps :) -- Quiddity 17:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to add to it, but: Could you protect Portal:Contents/Quick index whilst you're in the neighbourhood? Much thanks :) -- Quiddity 17:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. There seems to be some problem with the page protections here. [I'm as concerned for your blocking software, as I am for the pages in question!]

To summarize all I know: both those pages (Portal:Contents/Categorical index and Portal:Contents/Quick index) are editable if I log-out, and neither of them have any protection-level changes in their logs. ( and )

However... the logs for Portal:Contents also appear empty, yet it was protected back on March 21/22, 2007, and it is correctly-uneditable by anon.

I'm not sure who should be informed about this, or if I'm just missing some key datum? (Feel free to reply here) -- Quiddity 18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is definitely a gap in the process. If an anon cannot edit it but the template is not up, and the logs are blank, since there needs to be a template with a message informing the anons that the page is protected from their edits, perhaps this situation was an interim change to procedures and software back in 2007. If the anon's cannot edit, then that is all I was seeking back in 2007. I hope that protection can continue. It would be just as well if the log could be updated with the correct information. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There appear to be some confusion. Three clarifications:
 * The anons can edit the two subpages (.../Cat Index and .../Quick Index), right now – and have been doing vandalism/tests at both, in the last 24 hours, so that's easily proven/checked. [This is the only problem so far. The rest is all details I've dug up whilst trying to determine what is causing the problem.]
 * According to the page history - You (unsuccessfully) tried to semi-protect (Cat Index) on 2 May 2008 diff and 9 August 2008 diff, and tried to semi-protect (Quick Index) on 9 August 2008 diff. None of that worked, in database terms, hence your sprotect-template-additions were all reverted. The logs are empty.
 * According to the page history - Portal:Contents was (successfully) semi-protected back in March 2007, by User:Ruud Koot (March 22 diff) and User:Cbrown1023 (March 21 diff) - anons cannot edit this page, but the logs are also empty here.
 * [The logs seem to be spotty/erratic, but in case it is relevant...] According to Special:Log/protect for your username (Ancheta Wis), you've only ever protected 1 page - [Portal:Contents/Categorical index/Intro] on 13 February 2008.
 * Sorry if my poor explanations have contributed to the confusion! I'm not sure which facts are relevant, so I'm just noting down what I have discovered whilst poking around. Hopefully this clears some of the details up!
 * I'm guessing this should be reported somewhere, but because I'm not an admin or developer, I have no experience with page protection, and hence I'm not sure which discussion-forum is most appropriate. Possibly it is just a problem with one of your userscripts or gadgets or somesuch?
 * Would you like me to take this conundrum elsewhere (I'd hesitantly start at WP:Village pump (technical) or WP:AN (upon your advice?)), or, can I delegate it all to you from henceforth? :-) -- Quiddity 23:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you mind if I posted this issue at WP:Village pump (technical)? And, do you have any non-standard userscripts that you were using to "protect", that might be involved? I'd like to get it all cleared up, if possible. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Quiddity, I have no problem with your escalating this to Village Pump. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, posted at Village pump (technical), just fyi. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ancheta: I suggest you take a look at Village pump (technical). We are talking about you and it seems you have misunderstood how page protection works. (Or you perhaps had a bad day? We all mess things up some days.) If after reading that discussion you have any questions what happened and how it works feel free to ask on my talk page and I'll explain.
 * One tip is that the best way to check what protection a page has is to click the [unprotect] tab and see what protection the "Edit" and "Move" boxes there show. That is, don't look in the logs since they are sometimes empty due to for instance a page has been moved.
 * I hope you don't feel offended, I just want to avoid any misunderstandings and there is so much to know about how Wikipedia works that we all learn new things every day.
 * --David Göthberg (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

D
Dear Ancheta, In fact I did knit that hat. That's not a great ever picture of it, though, as it hadn't yet been blocked to shape. It was cold in Brussels that day, so I put it on. Thanks for wondering. Danese (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (See Talk:Danese Cooper 15:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC) for the initial query)

re: Happy Earth Day
I'm unsure how to reply on your talk page but HAPPY ME DAY nonetheless! __earth (Talk) 09:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

History of Science Edits
Hi Ancheta,

Could you check your recent edits to History of Science. The notes you added seem unusually fragmented; the first set reads as if they should have been a single note (or at most two), since the later notes refer back to the first. The reference to Homer's Odyssey seems very vague, could you cite specific passages from Homer?

Also, I'm a bit surprised to see Science and Civilisation in China cited as an authority on Maya practices. I don't want to make changes myself without having the sources in front of me. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ibn al-Haytham
Hi Ancheta Wis. I came across one of your comments from February (here) which was in relation to a discussion. Well, whatever happened then, the image is up for deletion again at the Commons. I believe that it may be because there was an error with the image and so it had to be reuploaded, and now there's this deletion discussion here. In that discussion back in February, I am interested to hear from you about why you believed the image was up for deletion incorrectly in the past, and/or explain why it was kept the last time? If you can explain why Image:Ibn haithem portrait.jpg was kept or should be kept, I would appreciate your reply, particularly with the article Ibn al-Haytham undergoing a GAN review, and this problem is obviously causing a hindrance to that. The relevant Commons discussion is. Hope you can help clear this up! Deamon138 (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Meetup
Ancheta - you've previously expressed interest in a Chicago wiki-meet. If you're interested in coming to another one, take a look at Meetup/Chicago 3 and let us know your thoughts. best &mdash; Dan | talk 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

P
&mdash; Jewish (Persian) proverb I am that I am

S
Scientific Method

LOL - I don't know whether to be proud or embarrassed about my "crusty old timer" status. However for the sake of veracity, let me state that regardless of what the history logs say, I was NOT the creator of Scientific Method. That honour goes to Lee Daniel Crocker. Cheers Manning (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Science

Debate has started anew to get science to GA or FA status. Join in the fun at Talk:Science and scroll down...we'll try not to reinvent the wheel Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks from Robert Steele
I am going to do precisely as you have suggested once this settles down. The big problem is that there are over two thousand links at www.oss.net to works by OTHERS, but everytime I post a link someone thinks that because it goes to oss.net, the Central Bank of OSINT, it is self-promotion. Easiest way to understand is to view www.oss.net/LIBRARY, and look at, for example, all the wonderful Law Enforcement or Training links I could post but have been loath to do so.

Two big improvements we can make if we can settle this "self-promotion" thing:

1) All the good links for each of the eight tribes under each tribe for direct reference

2) Get the internationals to create their own sections, e.g. Eastern Europe, every single one of them now has a vibrant OSINT capability in aftermath of breakup of the USSR, similarly in Africa and Latin America, OSINT is doing GREAT.

RobertDavidSteeleVivas (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

T
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)

Thank you so much for looking over our TBR1 article. We appreciate it. Do you have any further suggestions on how to improve it? Our goal is to make it a Good Article! Also On Wisconsin!!! Grant.vandervoort (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

browse by Topic
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|


 * Steve Bayne (2001) "Toulmin, Explanation and History"
 * Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1807) The Phenomenolgy of the Spirit: "Spirit knows itself"
 * Dante Alighieri  (1265-1321)  The Divine Comedy: Purgatory XXI "any spirit feels itself"

W
w

5.101 in sorted order
--Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Proposition 5.101 (in sorted order) is: The truth-functions of every number of elementary propositions can be written in a scheme of the following kind:

b:1 1 0 0 Hexadecimal a:1 0 1 0 relation R  0 (0 0 0 0)(a 0 b) Contradiction (a and not a; and b and not b.) [a. ~a. b. ~b] 1 (0 0 0 1)(a 1 b)   Neither a nor b. [(a . ~b) or (a | b) ] 2 (0 0 1 0)(a 2 b)   a and not b. [a. ~b] 3 (0 0 1 1)(a 3 b)   Not b. [~b] 4 (0 1 0 0)(a 4 b)   b and not a. [b. ~a] 5 (0 1 0 1)(a 5 b)   Not a. [~a] 6 (0 1 1 0)(a 6 b)   a or b, but not both. [a. ~b :v: b. ~a] 7 (0 1 1 1)(a 7 b)   Not both a and b. [~(a . b)] 8 (1 0 0 0)(a 8 b)   a and b. [a. b] 9 (1 0 0 1)(a 9 b)   If a, then b; and if b, then a. [a  ==  b] a (1 0 1 0)(a A b)    a b (1 0 1 1)(a B b)    If b then a. [b  → a] c (1 1 0 0)(a C b)    b d (1 1 0 1)(a D b)    If a then b. [a  → b] e (1 1 1 0)(a E b)    a or b. [a v b] f (1 1 1 1)(a F b) Tautology (if a then a, and if b then b) [a  → a. b → b]  b:1 1 0 0  Hexadecimal a:1 0 1 0 relation R between a,b : an English sentence is very similar to infix notation: a R b.
 * 1)  = = = =  a R b           In words