User talk:Ohms law/Archive 2

DYK for Treadmill with Vibration Isolation System

 * heh, cool. I'm honored. Smiley.png — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 05:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn’t want to say anything until it went through. Thought you may want to show it to Dr. Cash.  Again, nice work on the article. ShoesssS Talk 17:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision reconstruction
Hello Ohms law. You have expressed support for a new article structure of circumcision from the Requested moves dialog. I have decided to try and create this on my talk pages and was hoping for any help and input you would care to give. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: letting it get to you
FWIW, my reaction on skimming the talk page of WP:NCON was "run away, run away". Some arguments are less tractable than others. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked
I've since repaired the two things wrong with requestedmoves.php that have been haunting me for quite a while now. Page blankings should no longer happen, as far as I know; but the real big thing is that spreading movereq across multiple lines no longer makes the bot go batshit insane. For whatever reason, with the old code, whenever movereq was spread across multiple lines, the bot interpreted it as part of the section name. Therefore, whenever that talk page section was "linked to", really it was making a botched link that transcluded the template onto Requested moves/current, Requested moves/current-oldstyle, and Coordination/reqmoves. This, in turn, leads to those pages being listed as move requests, and therefore requiring a moveheader. But all that is behind us now. @harej 04:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense, thanks for the details! I've been working on building up a wikitext "interpreter" to avoid similar types of issues, myself. There's obviously no need to replicate complete page rendering, but being aware of all the main formatting tags seems important. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 04:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming conflicts
What happened is that a small clique of =er= intensely focused users took some generally ignored language, and insist that it justifies their content position. Their views would have large implications if adopted, so some of us have been pruning.

There are four chief classes of articles, in decreasing order of size.
 * The subject doesn't or can't self-identify. No problem.
 * The subject has a self-identifying name, and it's the normal usage in English. No problem on the content, possibly on phrasing.
 * The subject has a self-identifying name, it's common in English, but not most common. Consensus may be in reach to give some unspecified weight to self-identification.
 * The subject has several self-identifying names, or one which is not common usage. Our actual practice here is WP:UCN. There is widespread consensus on this outside the page, and I think the clique will eventually have to yield.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can basically agree with all of that, as far as I can see. What I don't understand is... what the fuss is about, I guess. I mean, we do have to work with everyone, but a few people simply saying "we have consensus" isn't going to really change anything. Consensus isn't something that can be decreed, after all.
 * I guess that I don't understand why we're allowing essentially one user to hold us all hostage. I already basically ignore him, and I don't see any reason why everyone else shouldn't either. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 15:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because nobody has taken him to dispute resolution, and the process of rewriting, combined with reversion until he goes away, will have to wait until unprotection. I am replying to him sufficiently now to consolidate the discussion for, if I can put it thus, any relevant body considering other measures. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point about the page protection. Waiting kind of sucks but... I'm a fairly patient guy, so I can wait. I really think that we should strive to cut out a whole bunch from all of these Naming conventions guidelines. As much as possible, we should seriously consider merging them back into the policy page. I really think that "Less is more", in this area. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 16:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Less is more". Can we agree, for a while, on pruning guideline pages, without smudging the distinction, which some think useful, between guideline and policy? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 04:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Aragua FC
I noticed you moved Aragua Futbol Club to Aragua FC. Why didn't you move it to Aragua F.C.? That's what it looks like on the badge. --MicroX (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See reply at Talk:Aragua FC for the primary reasons. He mentioned that most other clubs article titles don't use the periods, but the reason most others don't is because of Manual of Style (abbreviations). The periods are just normally not used in most places on Wikipedia. Nobody can actually force any decisions to be made here though, so if it really bothers you then you could always create another movereq. —  V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 04:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. It doesn't really bother me. I didn't know the MoS recommended that though. Just leave it as it is then. --MicroX (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

green links
Thank you for joining the discussion about the orange and green links proposal. I have started a more modest proposal. Any comments would be greatly appreciated there. GeometryGirl (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Skype?
Hi Ohms law. I would very much like to have a real discussion (voice, or instant chat if you prefer) with you regarding orange links and such. Wikipedia is really contrived for discussions. Can we plan something on Skype? I will be free from 17:00 UTC to 22:00 UTC. GeometryGirl (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense but... no. I'd be more then happy to talk about anything here, but I'd really rather not go to external communications. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 13:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins
Re the photo - you might run into a problem re copyright unless you can substantiate a claim that as a publicity photo it is in the public domain. Flicker licence is not compatible with Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought that they were... oh well. I don't really care about images, so I just ignore wheter or not their deleted. All of the licensing issues are just not something that I'm particularly interested in (as a matter of fact, I'm a proponent for getting rid of copyright altogether, but this isn't the place to be arguing about that issue). I just saw that someone else posted a link to the photo, so I figured that I woudl put it into the article rather then loose it in the AFD. I could have sword that flickr photos were somehow "automatically OK" here on Wikipedia, but maybe I'm thinking of something else... — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 13:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Flickr photos are not all automatically useable. See Commons guide as to what we can use. You might be better off asking for the image to be deleted yourself. Mjroots (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, someone who actually cares about licenses and whatnot will come along and ask for it to be deleted at some point. You can do so yourself if you'd like. I think that the image should be able to remain regardless, but it's not something that I'm willing to fight for. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 13:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, my feeling is that as it is tagged as a "publicity photo" that should override any copyright issue. You can't have publicity if you can't see the photo, can you. I'm not going to do owt about the picture either. If it gets flagged up/deleted then so be it. Mjroots (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi-- it seems to me that casting suspicion on somebody's motivations for mentioning the OTRS ticket is not exactly in the spirit of WP:AGF, nor does it do anything to advance the discussion. You've been editing the Jim Hawkins AFD a whole lot, and things appear to be going your way anyway. (As it happens, I agree with your position.) Do you think maybe it would be a good idea to take a break? -Pete (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT
Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yay! Thanks Kingpin. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 08:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Jim Hawkins publicity.jpg listed for deletion
I listed it for deletion since it is copyrighted, and not released for free use. It does not pass a fair use either. I"m sorry about that. Perhaps maybe someone could seek permission for the file via flickr?  But for now, I fear it should be deleted without that permission.  Respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, no problem... as I was saying above though, I could have sworn that flickr images were importable to Wikipedia, but it seems obvious that I was thinking of something else. Does anyone have any idea of what I was really thinking about? — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 08:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, some flickr images are licensed with a compatible license. A best bet would be to check the commons guideline, upload the image to commons using the instructions, and then link it in our article here.  Each flickr image has the licensing information in the bottom right, under Additional information.  We can use the Jim image as an example.  This one is tagged as "All rights reserved", as in fully copyrighted.  Some are tagged as CCbySA... these may be compatable with commons (and thus linkable here).  Check the guide. :)  I hope this helps.  NonvocalScream (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wake-up calls
It's an interesting issue. You're right that quite a few articles do have it, but I note that STS-8 didn't have such a section at all before I started expanding the article in July - it got added quite recently, and I remember wondering what to do with it at the time. If we look at the history of some of the other "old" missions with it, the section was added at about the same time. The newer ones, it seems to have been added as the mission progressed, which is more understandable.

Being systematic among articles is a benefit - the crew template, for example, makes many individual articles a bit messy, but it's definitely an advantage for overall comparison purposes - but it's not an end in itself; we shouldn't feel obliged to keep excess information in just because it's (currently) in other articles as well, and information that is debatable in one article doesn't become more encyclopedic by being in a hundred.

On the content itself... I think it's quite undeniable NASA have this tradition; it's well documented, and it's often reported. However... NASA have a long-running tradition of complicated meanings for flight patches, which we don't usually include for STS missions; it has a long-running tradition of CAPCOMS being named and designated astronauts, people we already have articles on, and yet we usually only mention them incidentally if they're mentioned at all. Are wake-up calls actually important?

If anything, having it only in some articles seems a good reason to ask - do we want it at all? To my mind, the wake-up calls are really pretty trivial information; it might occasionally be interesting to note a specific incidence of it, but when that happens we can easily do it as an incidental comment in the day-by-day sections. ("Flight day seven began, appropriately, with...") This is the way other spaceflight histories seem to do it, in my experience. Shimgray | talk | 18:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I should clarify, incidentally - I agree entirely that the concept of "wake-up calls" is notable, verifiable, and so on, and I think we could have a very good article about it, with examples and so on; I just don't think individual sets of them are de facto significant enough to include in the context of a specific spaceflight. Shimgray | talk | 18:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Jim_Hawkins_publicity.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Jim_Hawkins_publicity.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Rockfang (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Defying Gravity
Just to let you know as of this morning on the CTV website Defying Gravity is scheduled to air on September 18th, but not scheduled in the week after that (the time slot is given to Flashpoint). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadienhits (talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

RabbitEars
21:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

responded
I responded to your question at Village_pump_(technical). &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

AN/I
Regarding your replacement of the post I'd removed... it seemed to be worded in a way that encouraged those interested in deletion to participate. I doubt that was Mask's intent, but it's how it ended up. As someone who is voting for deletion, it is actually against my interests to remove that posting, so your edit summary is particularly bizarre. I removed it because canvassing isn't allowed--whether intended or no--and out of fairness to the discussion. Despite what you or anybody else may believe, I am very firmly a man of principles and in favour of equal treatment; I would have removed a similar posting slanted towards asking people to vote keep. → ROUX   ₪  20:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I would suggest talking to User:Mask about it, and/or stating something in the section. The appearance that you're creating for yourself of being a partisan ideologue is more of an issue then the possible appearance of canvassing, I would think. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 20:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, at least now it's not just you removing it. You're welcome — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 20:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Learn to read edit summaries. → ROUX   ₪  21:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Make another uncivil comment to me, and see where that get's you. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 21:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You had clearly not read the edit summary. If you had, you wouldn't have insulted me by calling me a partisan ideologue--sorry, I forget, which one of us was being uncivil? → ROUX   ₪  21:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I had read the summary, which is how I noticed that the entry on AN/I was removed at all. Assuming things makes you look like an ass. Just because you try sounding like you have good intentions doesn't alleviate the implications of your actions, especially when they can appear to be a component of a partisan tactic. Maybe you don't realize this, but you're reputation tends to precede you, and it's not that great of a reputation. Aside from that, I'd like to remind you that you came to me here, to my talk page, so protesting about me asking you to remain civil is just childish. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, I wasn't protesting. I was making a point along the lines of motes and beams; you insulted me and then complained when I gave it right back--which you have nicely compounded by saying things like I was 'trying' to sound like I had good intentions (implying that I didn't have such intentions) and in a roundabout way calling me an ass. And now you're lecturing me on assuming... instead of taking the edit summary at face value, indicating I was removing it because it looked like canvassing, you assumed I was somehow trying to do something underhanded? Which one of us is making the assumptions here? → ROUX   ₪  21:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're history makes it perfectly clear what your intentions are, and you're empty protestations of innocence are just laughable. Keep on replying though... it's always good to have more grist for the grind. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 21:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, what the fuck are you talking about? What exactly are my intentions? What exactly gives you the right to decide I'm making 'empty protestations of innocence'? Good lord man.. you started this with accusations that I'm not doing exactly what I say I'm doing.. what the hell is your problem? → ROUX   ₪  02:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I got the same bizarre comments off him the other day so I would not take it personally. Sadly his mind-reading powers do not extend to lottery numbers. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we keep cool heads while others are losing theirs, we may yet learn something here. That elevated punctuation symbol the English apostrophe is a wonderful thing. But we don't write "that get's you" we write "that gets you". We don't write "you're reputation" (unless we actually want to say "you are reputation" which is what it means) we write "your reputation". We don't write "you're history" (unless we actually want to say "you are history" which is what it means, and might be thought rude) we write "your history". We don't write "you're empty protestations" (unless we actually want to say "you are empty protestations" which would be rude) we write "your empty protestations". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Requested mergers
In case you have not noticed I withdrew my proposal so the Village pump may not have been the best place to make that last comment. By the way WP:PM does have a backlog. -- allen四names 00:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I didn't even know about WP:PM. Anyway, I saw that you "withdrew" the proposal, but I don't see why that should prevent any other discussion from occurring. Of course, the fact that WP:PM exists changes the relevence of my reply significantly, but that's slightly different from suggesting that my action in replying was somehow inappropriate. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 00:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you see my watchlist in the upper right corner of your screen you should be able to guess why. I could have deleted Village pump (proposals) from my watchlist and I would not have seen your post. -- allen四names 01:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction: Insert Wikipedia: just before Village pump (proposals) -- allen四names 02:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see from looking at your user name that you've only been using this username for a couple of days. Based on that fact and you're replies here, I'm assuming that you're Wikipedia\online experience is limited, and you should be aware that anything you post on the Village Pump or just about anywhere else on Wikipedia is not in the least bit private or controllable in any fashion. The fact that anyone can say just about anything, anywhere, is actually inherent in the five pillars of Wikipedia.
 * Basically, the point is that once you make a proposal it's no longer really "yours" to "withdraw". As soon as you post it there's really no way to control it's destiny any longer. You certainly can and did "withdraw" your implicit support for that proposal, but you can't force everyone else to stop considering it. You were respectful in your post above, but there seems to be an undercurrent of... resentment(?) in it, and that is mostly what I was reacting to with my replies.
 * By the way, something just occured to me. YOu do know that you can remove pages from your watchlist, correct? There is either a tab or a drop down menu (depending on your skin) with an item that says "unwatch". If you go to the page that you're watching and click that item, then the page will no longer show up on your watchlist. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 02:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tonnes measurements
See Template talk:Convert 123 t. The key to help the "lay person" is "lk=on". Peter Horn User talk 15:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Signature
Can you remove the line break from your signature? Thanks, — Jake   Wartenberg  02:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

New maintenance template
Please pay attention to my edits on Template:Tone-inline. I guess this is what you had in mind? Debresser (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wondering if your interested
Two others have already signed on as supporters of my "primitive party" idea, and since you do seem to share similar libertarian ideals but also belief that structure is needed, I was wondering if you'd sign on as well, or at least discuss on the related talk page about any changes that may make it more amenable to you. Here is where it resides for now.Camelbinky (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I welcome your comments and understand that your not intereste. However I think you misunderstood what led me to start that group- it most definitely wasnt anything you wrote, this was set up before your comments at the Village Pump, it actually was inspired by my own views and those of User:Kim Bruning and User:Equazcion. Since your post was mostly along the lines of the understanding that you inspired my sandbox, I thought it best to undo your comment as it may discourage further cooperation and supporters, I hope you take no offence. Since this is in a sandbox off my user page and not a Wikipedia mainspace page I didnt think it too big a deal. If you have further ideas to improve it and make it more mainstream I would love to work with you if you are interested.Camelbinky (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's your page, in your user space, so I can hardly object to you removing something from it!
 * I do feel compelled to point out that I did start that discussion on the Village Pump, though. You seemingly replied directly to me earlier in the thread, and then also replied to Kim and Equazcion later on (after which you started that user page). So, I understand that you didn't create the page directly due to anything that I said, but the impression of starting the whole conversation going is still there for me. Regardless, none of this is a big deal. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 21:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * True, I didnt think about it that way, you are right, in a way you are the "grandfather" of my idea as your beginning post was the catalyst to get me to write it. I had actually been thinking along these lines for a long time however. If you are interested in fixing the dogmatic problems you pointed out to make it more likely others, even if not you yourself, would like to join I would be interested in your ideas. Thank you for your time!Camelbinky (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)