User talk:Wmahan

Welcome to my talk page! Thanks, criticism, and other comments are welcome.

Archived versions of this page

Archive 1 (through April 2004)
Archive 2 (through August 2004)

Comments related to the list of misspellings

-> User talk:Wmahan/Articles with common misspellings

Hi Wmahan, do you use a bot to find the common misspellings? The altho spelling in Robert Brent is a common misspelling, but it's intentional, part of a quote from a letter from the early 1800s. Carter 13:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Wil. Edits from your IP (152.3.70.246) have now been reattributed to you. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 01:09, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Computer network security

No, not now I have seen how the article is now... Greets Belgian man 11:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Security

I happened across one of your edits on Wikipedia. I started looking at your contributions, and liked the edits you made to the information security related articles. I was wondering if you wanted to participate in a project I've started. If you have a few minutes take a look at http://www.infosecpedia.org. --Chris Brown 21:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. It's important to know, even if you choose to do anything so I don't keep asking. -- Ram-Man 16:24, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Sustainability category/project/series

Hi. I noticed you have worked on the Sustainability page. There has been, as you might expect, a little heat recently at the Hubbert Peak page, and some of us are discussing ways we might better organize the information about energy sources and developments. Articles/subjects that we are discussing the organization/hierarchy of include Hubbert Peak, Energy development, Sustainability, Future energy development, Alternatives to oil. It occurred to me that you might have some fresh ideas about how to go about organizing a rational hierarchy, whether it be a project, a system of categories, a series, or simply an informal vision. Please give your input at the bottom of Talk:Hubbert Peak. Tom - Talk 17:23, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Recursive, yup

FYI, you're correct that recursive sets rather than recursive enumerable sets are decidable. Good catch. Deco 05:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that info on home page is incorect.

This what i would change, and then ADHD and other, thanks for message

How i can change home page?

Or instead of deleting change so it would be as unsure as comet falling on earth.

Becouse all thoes ADHD and other stuff was made up, same for ego, sickmanfreud sexual thouts and interpretations, and other.

And if Wikipedians serves interpretations and theories as facts (did you know) then they making a fool of a lot of people and more bad they may help young people to belive that theories, its like That Johns that made other belive that they'll go to some paradise or sotmthi if they comit suicide, so if it is theory "mark IT" write that this only interpretatnion, and NOT did you know. did you know that there is Wikipedians_Realism_Deficyt_disorder? NO becaus there isn't somthing like that, i made it up but many who would read it from WIKIPEDIA would say: hey there is new disorder of being wikipedian, they gotting ill from writing this encyclopedia. You got it?

So so first how home page can be changed?

Adbefore something like: this is speculation only and theory and can be wrong, plese.

Thomas Carlyle

I deleted the image myself and uploaded the correct one to commons as commons:Image:Thomas Carlyle 2.jpg. --Magnus Manske 17:26, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Neural Networks and their software counterparts

Thank you for putting the move-template to the talk page. Ben (talk) 10:25, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Wil! I just did checked out your contributions. Pretty impressive. In case you don't know it, you have more than 6,000 edits, to be exact, 6212! Most of it spellings, sometimes links. And you were keeping lists of mispelled words, before you blanked it. Are/were you using them in some sort of research or is it/was it your personal interest? Ben (talk) 11:08, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page. Regarding the spelling fixes, I wrote a program that uses the database dump of Wikipedia articles, makes a list of the articles that contain mispellings, and corrects them. It was mainly a way for me to learn about the database layout, because I also did some work on the MediaWiki software.

By the way, if you have information to add about biological neural networks, you could always start on that article. Regardless of whether the move you requested takes place, more information about the topic would be a good thing. It might even convince people like me that you are right. Thanks. Wmahan. 16:07, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Hi again, Wil. So, I can understand you that you are supportive under the condition that somebody will write an article by Monday? I want that you understand me right, I want to contribute to an article about neural networks, but I will not have imposed any time limits on me for that. I think a reason that people haven't already written about neural networks is that there is already an article by that name and they get confused. Meanwhile, I suggest you take back your "oppose". Ben (talk) 16:25, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never said anything about a time limit or deadline. I simply do not think that the choice of name blocks work on the subject, and I would welcome more information from you or anyone else. Best, Wmahan. 16:56, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC).

Ok, see the talk page again. Ben (talk) 17:15, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, that's great! As for the new article, I will try my personal best. I am far from being an expert in the field, but I think it's really interesting. Ben (talk) 17:48, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

pyramid

Could we move the page history from My_Pyramid to MyPyramid? Do you know how to do that? 64.59.209.89 17:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-- thanks for the tip... was trying to figure out how to do that. is it fixable?

Yes, it's fixable by an administrator, although it's kind of a pain because right now there is a bug sometimes making it impossible to merge the article histories. Don't worry about it though. Wmahan . 17:29, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Thanks, so are you ! 64.59.209.89 18:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

McDonald's Corporation

Thanks for giving the correct link at McDonald's Corporation. Wmahan . 14:31, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Ben talk contr 06:18, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) June 28, 2005 13:43 (UTC)

Thrupp's War

I was part of it so, yes, it did happen. Or, well, I was part of a 16th century reinactment thingy anyway but I was only 10/11 so my memory mayn't serve too well. As to google, well, Thrupp's a very small place you know...

I do apologise profusely for my automatic reversion of it, I should know better and thank you very much for the reminder! Again, "Sorry" - I hope no hard feelings were envoked. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 20:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings at all, I was just a little confused about the revert. That's interesting about the reinactment. And you're right, google is no substitute for first-hand knowledge like that. Thanks for replying. -- Wmahan . 20:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Yes - It was quite fun really. I was on the drum! Anyway, about that user you mentioned, what sort of articles is he vandalising? Are all his edits vandalism? --Celestianpower ^hablamé 20:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The user (Mirad) added an obscure holiday in Algeria, a bogus term to position independent code (at least as far as I could tell, and I have some knowledge of the subject), and a clearly wrong constitutional section number to Supreme Court of India. Then he or she promptly disappeared (or switched to a different account). It seemed bizarre and suspicious, and I concluded that he or she was going to random pages and adding made-up information. I guess I was wrong about the Thrupp article. Thanks for catching it. Wmahan . 20:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Green flash

Hi. Just to let you know that I have added two pictures of Green flashes on commons, and added one in the Green flash page. In the discussion page, you asked for one. Here we go! I am the author of the images (and I usually contribute on fr.wikipedia.org me. Cedric.

Shock and Awe

Hello Wmahan, I don't want to cause any trouble because I'm new here (at least as an editor), so I'd like to talk off the record to a few good contributors about a problem I see on an article that you've edited. Your contributions seem solid, so maybe you can help me. I've been using the Wikipedia definition of "Shock and Awe" for several months because I like how it described the type of warfare that "Shock and Awe" is and also how it gave a link to a definition of "rapid dominance" (of which it claims to be a subset).

In the last couple of days, however, a user called JW1805 edited the article and I think he made the definition much worse.[1] It now says that "Shock and Awe is a military doctrine," whereas is used to say exactly what type of military doctrine it falls into: "Shock and Awe is a method of unconventional warfare." Isn't the old definition more informative? According to the definition of Conventional warfare, I don't think anyone could call it that. So, I think it's safe and informative to say that "Shock and Awe" fits into the definition of unconventional warfare, don't you?

Also JW1805 removed the link to "Rapid dominance," deleted the "Rapid dominance" article and redirected it to "Shock and Awe." Yet the "Shock and Awe" article still says, "Its authors label [shock and awe] a subset of Rapid Dominance." Does that make any sense to you? According to RUSI Journal 141:8-12 Oct '96, "Rapid dominance" is an "intellectual construct" whereas "Shock and awe" is one "method" of implementing that construct. Obviously they are not the same thing. So, why would JW1805 redirect "Rapid dominance" to "Shock and Awe?" Why would he delete the "Rapid dominance" article and the link to it?

I went to JW1805's talk page to speak directly to him, but I read what others have said to him, and it seems to be the same story: if you are only one person complaining, JW1805 considers you a troublemaker and has his friends ban you, but if more than one person gets together and says the same thing, he listens. If you feel the same way as I about his edits to "Shock and Awe" and "Rapid dominance," I'm sure we can work together to get the best definition back in place. Are you up for something like that? --Larnue the dormouse 22:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]