User talk:Oicumayberight/Archive 4

Clocks
In what way, exactly does a clock driven by an electronic oscillator qualify as a purely analogue device? The electronic divider eventually drives a stepper motor which mocves in very discrete digital steps (as the article stated before youn corrected it incorrectly. 86.133.11.175 (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because a clock uses a digital signal at some point doesn't make it a digital clock. What designates a clock as "digital" is changing digits, not a digital signal. Look it up in the dictionary . What next, are you going to call your car a "digital car?" Oicumayberight (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the opening paragraph at the top of the article.


 * An analog or analogue signal is any continuous signal for which the time varying feature (variable) of the signal is a representation of some other time varying quantity...
 * To be an analog device, 3 criteria have to be met.
 * 1. The time varying signal has to be continuous.
 * 2. It has to represent some other time varying quantity.
 * 3. That other time varying quantity also has to be continuous.
 * Most types of clock fail on the first criterion in that they do not move in a continuous movement but move in discrete steps. This makes the movement digital.  A note was added that for practical purposes such clock can be considered analogue even though they are not in reality.
 * Your car argument is not relevant. What makes you believe that I would consider my car to be digital (other than your failure to grasp the fundamental concepts)?  My car moves in a smoth continuous movement so why would I consider it to be digital.  Virtually every mechanical clock since the invention of the foliot balance does not move in a continous movement.
 * You dictionary entry has picked up on the fact that most people erroneously refer to clock faces with hands as analog, but a dictionary is not a technical work which the article in question is intended to be. Editing common usage rather that technically correct information is the sort of editing that has brought Wikipedia into so much disrepute.  Your dictionary reference can't even spell 'analogue' correctly. 86.133.11.175 (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was suggested by an administrator that this controversial material was removed (although his reversion failed to actually remove it). Why must you insist on putting it back?  I B Wright (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not the same material the Administrator suggested be removed. It was actually me that suggested no mention of clocks. After realizing that the dispute was about displays, which are broader than clocks, I made it a separate section which linked both clocks and test equipment as examples. Oicumayberight (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The information that you are trying to reintroduce is based on the same erroneous principle. Display systems have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the article.  You have been reported for deliberately trying to restart an edit war. 86.143.182.140 (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Tags
You can't just replace the tag on the guideline; you have to demonstrate there is still an outstanding discussion to be had in talk. It doesn't look like there is, which is why I removed it. If you disagree, maybe consider dispute resolution? --John (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I know of no policy that states I "have to demonstrate there is still an outstanding discussion." There is no expiration date on disputes. Since I'm part of that discussion, I know that it has yet to be resolved. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * One month without discussion qualifies as stale. Edit-warring to restore the tags will only get you into trouble. If you have something new to say there, please share it. If not, I'd say we are finished now and the tags can safely be removed. --John (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, there is no wikipedia policy for "stalemates." Are you inventing your own policy? Your removing the tags before the dispute is resolved is edit warring. If you have something to add to the dispute, it's up to you to say it. I've made the case, and I have yet to hear a logical rebuttal. By your reasoning, I could consider a month without a rebuttal a concession. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:CONSENSUS. --John (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you also please be very careful about refactoring another user's comments as you did here? Thanks. --John (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:CONSENSUS applies to including or removing content. There is no rule that says I must have consensus to dispute the inclusion or removal of content. There is no disputing the fact that there is a dispute. All it takes is one user to have a dispute. Disputing is not including or removing content. Disputing is discussing. See WP:POLLING. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Now if there was a strong consensus that any particular content should be included or removed, I would respect that consensus. But that guide was expanded by less than a half dozen users with a weak consensus when nobody else was looking. And that guide is now being used and misinterpreted as policy on numerous other wikipedia articles as a way around both WP:CONSENSUS and having to develop a real WP:POLICY, which would require a stronger consensus. That's Gaming the system. The WP:CREEP was a violation of the WP:BURO policy by attempting to use a guide as a policy. The expansion of that guide should have been given more time to develop a stronger consensus even by the admission of some who supported the expansion. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

AN discussion
Hi. As procedure requires I am informing you that I have raised your conduct at the Manual of Style (icons) on the Administrators' noticeboard. --John (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And again here. Garion96 (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Software development methodology
Hi Oicumayberight, there are two proposals concerning the Software development methodology article: You could you comment on both items. Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To change the term methodology into method, see here
 * To merge the article ito the Software development process article.

Disputed tag
I've removed the tag you added to the MOS Icons page since there doesn't appear to have been any discussion within the last two months. Please do not re-add the tag unless there is some ongoing dispute or you have initiated a request for comment in an attempt to draw more attention. Tags shouldn't sit indefinitely on a page just for the sake of being there. -- auburn pilot  talk  22:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
You have almost violated the the three revert rule on Manual of Style (icons). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. I also warned the IP editor. Also, to warn someone else about edit warring in an edit summary when you yourself are edit warring is interesting. Garion96 (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)
As you requested, I will continue the conversation here.It is not an ad hominem observation to state that, from a review of your contributions, nearly all for a good while now have been around the flag policy, where you seem to be beating a dead horse. This must be dispiriting to you, and I was trying to see if I could tempt you into some article improvement work. No offense intended, just trying to help you have a better time here. --John (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you're willingness to advise. Actually my interest in the guide is been mainly generic icons, not flags. I've reserved my comments about flags until I recently notice some of the same personal taste WP:DONTLIKEIT arguments being made against flags. My contribution to wikipedia has been mostly positive. That's why I find myself defending article content more than I find myself defending guides for removing article content. My "better time here" was diminished by the misuse of that guide on articles that I contributed to, not by my involvement in the guide. When I see more reasonable arguments being made from both sides of the issue, I will probably take another break from the issue. And we've made progress, so I don't consider it a dead horse. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Bash
Go WP:BASH someone else. 86.42.86.114 (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Flag icons
Hi - there is another discussion on flag icons, particularly in infoboxes. As you know there is a zealous push to remove these with little justification in WP:MOS. Until last year it was universal that all infoboxes had a flagicon and it is the intention of a small group of users to remove them universally now. Based on some of your thoughts previously, I would appreciate your input on this topic. Please seee the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons). |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 11:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Large format (film)
Please see my question on the talk page of this recently moved article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMindsEye (talk • contribs)


 * Sorry. I didn't anticipate any conflict. I should have discussed. I replied on the talk page. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Manual of Style (Images)/draftGnevin (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)