User talk:Omegatron/Archive/April, 2008

hCarding and vCarding . . . ?
for the time being. Thanks. Hello O,

Can you help ? You seem to be a participant in the "dead" (?) micro formating project ?

I am a rather new editor, and am about to put a new template in place, depricating a few others at the same time, and thought I would "card it up" before I did so. However, please see my question on the help desk, looking at the project's front page, and the founding user's user page, leaves me wondering, a bit about a few things !?

Peet Ern (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well you can always put the template up first and worry about the metadata tags later. — Omegatron 18:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I probably will. Is the project active though ?   What might be the time frame to get some advice on how best to do it ? Peet Ern (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's active, since I haven't been active on it. :)
 * Ah. It looks like the guy who held the WikiProject together got himself banned.  I guess I saw that coming.  But that doesn't mean the project itself is shut down.  We can "reactivate" it simply by starting a discussion about your template on the talk page.  I personally am only familiar with COinS tags, though. — Omegatron 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I might leave it for the moment though.  As a relative newbie I am still spending most of my time learning the ropes, and have enough on my plate.
 * Would you be the best experienced person to get back to if and when I get the time ?  Peet Ern (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You should leave a comment on the talk page of the WikiProject. — Omegatron 00:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do, but it will not be a few weeks I think. Peet Ern (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do, but it will not be a few weeks I think. Peet Ern (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets be a bit responsible...
Come on, this is a fun holiday and all but lets be a bit responsible and not vandalize the mainspace, like you did here. Thanks.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't ever do anything like that again. That tagline is not only incredibly visible, it also shows up in the printable version of pages. I had to restrain myself not to block you until April 2. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's supposed to be incredibly visible. :) Relax; it's not hurting anything, even if it gets printed. — Omegatron 12:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your nonchalant, unapologetic attitude is quite troubling. Wikipedia is a website with major credibility issues, and such nonsense contributes to the perception that we're a joke.  I don't know why this amuses you, but I hope that you take similar pleasure in being blocked; that's what will happen the next time that you pull a stunt like this.  —David Levy 12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see that you vandalised the tagline again as I was typing the above. Very well then.  —David Levy 12:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done, I say. Well done.—DCGeist (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. What is the point? It doesn't serve much of a purpose. Rudget . 12:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's an April Fools' Day joke. See the Main Page for more.  Other high visibility websites do the same.
 * Wikipedia is a website that is often represented as having major credibility issues, or being run by petty administrators who abuse their power and can't take a joke. This is supposed to point out that we're aware of the accusations, and that they don't bother us.  We're still confident enough in the project that we can joke about it publicly, and yes, some of us have a sense of humor.
 * And please don't accuse me of vandalism. Vandalism is a "change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia".  I haven't compromised the integrity of anything, and haven't affected the article content in any way. — Omegatron 12:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. The above is written as though you're our official spokesperson. Well, you aren't.  It's you who abused the power with which you've been entrusted by the community.  The failure to condone disruptive edits that alter millions of pages is not indicative of the lack of a sense of humor, and it's rather absurd to suggest that of anyone who isn't amused by your jokes.
 * 2. Transforming Wikipedia into Uncyclopedia absolutely compromises its integrity. —David Levy 13:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And if you're worried about printing, we can always add CSS to hide it in the printable version. — Omegatron 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Or we could simply not insert nonsense in the first place. —David Levy 13:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the blocks of Viridae and Omegatron on David's talk page. I support these blocks as a way to try and knock sense into people. The only other way to stop the edit warring at MediaWiki:Tagline (or any other MediaWiki page) is to seek emergency desysopping and/or an arbitration case. If someone gets desysopped over using admin tools to play April Fools jokes, then that should put an end to it next year. David, I would make a statement like this at arbitration if you chose to take it there. Carcharoth (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread
Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, an ANI thread I started involving actions taken by you. Carcharoth (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You are hereby bollocked for 9 hours for having a sense of humour. How dare you. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * :'( — Omegatron 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Barstar

 * Thanks. :) — Omegatron 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

addLink alert
Please see Village pump (technical)/Archive 134. Imho, if you desperately wanted people to migrate to addPortletLink, you could use jsMsg with some simple and easy to follow explanation what to do. —AlexSm 19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ooooops. :) — Omegatron 22:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

New user experience
See WikiProject Usability/Reducing interface complexity. Your comments and edits would be appreciated. (I'm willing - and able - to fill in a lot of the missing information, but I thought I'd do a reality check first.)

Also, I've gone through User:Omegatron/Most needed software features, and added those things that I think would really help new editors. If you see something you think I missed, let's talk. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yr vote is needed
If you have the time and still have the interest you might record yr opinion on the hybrid proposal for MOSNUM on Binary Prefixes Tom94022 (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Vote? — Omegatron 03:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Voting or not, I'm glad you're still active in that discussion. Jeh (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not glad. Everyone's just saying the same things they've been saying on that talk page for years.  It's tiring and ridiculous.  How many days of our lives have been wasted on this? — Omegatron 06:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

monobook.css bizarre acting
Hi Omegatron,

I'm using a little bit lighted version of your monobook.css file in my personal wiki Socialopedia. It works nicely, but I have something bizarre : an additional box appears in the mytabs div (bottom copied tabs), showing an empty box similar to a navigation box behind these lines.

It is near to invisible, but still I don't know where this comes from. I thought the pBody, but didn't find out... Any idea ? You can reply on. Thanks in advance ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.68.85 (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah. I have that too.  :)  I just ignore it.  It's a pBody div surrounding the copied bottom tabs.  Maybe it's always been there and my script just uncovers it? — Omegatron 13:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Add this to monobook.css:

border:none; background-color: transparent; }
 * 1) mytabs .pBody {

It's in the latest version of WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Duplicate tabs at bottom — Omegatron 02:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice job, Thanks Omegatron --Rmatt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.32.240 (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad it works. :) — Omegatron 23:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Laser_plasma_volumetric_display.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Laser_plasma_volumetric_display.jpeg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 11:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Was this your edit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29&diff=204710116&oldid=204705337


 * I thought the edit might have been you editing his own comment but now I check the edit comment and IP it is a Tor exit node. Fnagaton 18:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course it wasn't me. Why would I make an edit like that?  — Omegatron (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NFCC 8 revisited
You were involved in this discussion, so I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.  howcheng  {chat} 21:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Your dispute in Posting Style:Other variants
Unless I am misreading things, it appears that you posted a dispute of the "Other variants" section of "Posting Style".

Please describe on the talk page for "Posting Style" just what is your problem with the current entry.

Paul Wakfer (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What? — Omegatron 23:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

See fuller and corrected text above. Paul Wakfer (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand. Yes, I have contributed to that article.  I don't know what you mean by "posted a dispute". — Omegatron (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on no-break spaces at bugzilla
The requested surveys are near the end of WT:MoS and WT:WGA. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style — Omegatron (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:L124.png
Thanks for uploading Image:L124.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shell   babelfish 00:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Icon
Re your question about "Removing the icon to the left of the six tabs at the upper right", this should read six links at the upper right. Sorry for the typo.

The icon can be removed via CSS - see, for example, User:John Broughton/monobook.css. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The icon isn't a big deal, except that some people seem to think its presence is a big deal (racist/sexist). Removing it has the advantages of eliminating this debate and eliminating something that has absolutely no functionality.  But it certainly isn't worth a big fight to do so.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 19:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hilarious the things people can find to be "offended" by. I don't think this really fits in with the other objectives of this WikiProject, though.  It's about making the interface easier to use and more discoverable, whereas this icon is just an aesthetic dispute about a decorative element. — Omegatron (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problem with removing this item; it's pretty trivial, and taking it out would help focus the project. (Sorry I'm moving so slowly on this, but it's important, and I do plan to do more in the near future.)  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 12:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Floating sidebar
Replied on meta talk page. Harryboyles 00:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been out of the loop on FU
As someone who doesn't edit much but rather uses wikipedia for what it was intended, I don't understand what is going on here with the mass removal of so many fair-use images from our biographies. I read your essay, but what I want to know is when the entire community agreed to this fair-use pogrom. It is very frustrating to not be able to see what the person looks like that I'm reading about. Or for that matter, being able to see the thing the article is talking about. I feel that this wonderful resource is under attack by so-called "purity trolls" who are using FSF polemics to prove a point. Yes, that is harsh rhetoric, but I have seen what this kind of "free" zealotry has done to other open source projects, like Debian. What you get is a an adequate, but not very good thing. What should be stressed is that sometimes we need to have shims, even seemingly shallow ones, to allow the house to be built. I don't know what to do, but I know there are tons of editors who feel the same way, and they are not wikisloths/wikileeches like myself. Please, can you tell me what the current state of the fight is? Is there hope for reverting to common sense policies or is it just going to get worse? --Dragon695 (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the community ever did agree to it. It was mandated from above without much thought. Several attempts have been made to undo the damage, with strong support, but when someone says "this is the the Will of the Foundation, which is non-negotiable", there's not much you can do; rational argument doesn't work at that point. Obviously this violates the consensus-based spirit of Wikipedia, but the Foundation can rewrite the rules about that, too, if it suits their personal agendas.

I'm also pretty much out of the loop. The attitudes of the people involved are very frustrating, and I have been trying to avoid conflict lately for the sake of my own sanity. But on anarchist Wikipedia, persistence always wins out over rational thought, so when you let people bully you into avoiding a conflict, you lose the conflict. I wish I had the patience to keep it up, because there is hope. We can certainly get the rules changed to not be asinine, but it would take a dedicated effort of a significant number of people, and we're not organized or steadfast enough.

Quotations, images, and sound clips are fundamentally different from written encyclopedia content. If someone isn't willing to freely license their text, we can just paraphrase it and keep the facts intact. (Even when people willfully release text under free licenses, we usually don't use it directly, anyway, because it's not written in an encyclopedic style.) But when someone refuses to freely license an image, we can't just paraphrase it. Fair use is a great right, but it's also a legally dangerous thing to rely solely on. If someone is generous enough to give us limited permission, we should take it. Refusing their gift because it's "not free enough" is just stupid. Our encyclopedia content should always remain non-negotiably free, but the aggregated content does not have to be. The fact that downstream users can't modify and republish pictures of a famous politician doesn't mean we should remove the pictures altogether. It's our duty as a reference work - as collectors of human knowledge - to include it, and we should include it in the most legally-safe way we can, which is not fair use.

(And I, for one, can't fathom why people with such an interest in copyright law are so eager to roll over and let the record companies and corporations destroy our right to fair use.  You would think people interested in freedom of thought and opposed to restrictive "intellectual property" would be defending such rights; not aggressively giving them up.) — Omegatron (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Your RegExp fixer vandalized an equation
What's up with that? Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the math tags weren't on the same line as the equation, so I missed it in my manual review of the diff. — Omegatron (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Uploading non-free images from a specific time period
Hi there, I'm currently editing this article,and would like to add this picture.The original location of the picture is in this site.The image is non-free,but indicates the old campus in 1985.Is there any way this can be uploaded onto wiki?

Amog (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you asking me? :)  It looks like you already uploaded it anyway. — Omegatron (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah,I managed it a couple of minutes after i asked you.Thanks anyway! - Amog (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have another issue though.in the article SSNCE,I found that it's logo is marked under the GNU Free Documentation License.Isn't this wrong?..can't anything be done about it? Amog (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe the person who uploaded it is the copyright holder? — Omegatron (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No,the website says that the college is owned by Shiv Nadar,therefore the logo is obviously owned by the the trust/the college.Further,since a non-replaceable logo has to be used to illustrate an organization,permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the logo is copyright violation,isn't it? — Amog (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should tag it as a possibly unfree image. — Omegatron (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Will do,Thank you. - Amog |T a l k 13:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple small edits and other issues
I'm having some trouble with a user known as Nseidm1. I noticed that you were one of the last users to deal with him. He is currently pushing questionable to fradualent material on oxyhydrogen, hydrogen fuel enhancement, and electrolysis of water. He uses many many small edits which makes it very difficult to check the material he has added or changed. I believe he is editing the material in an attempt promote a commercial interest. I am very well versed in the phenomenon related to the scam he is promoting and can supply reliable information as needed. Just wondering if you knew the best way to proceed. Thanks.--OMCV (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know all about it. He's reasonable, though.  Talk to him and tell him not to use so many small edits.  (Also you might want to try this to collapse multiple edits from the same person.)  Any help you can give to oxyhydrogen would be greatly appreciated.  Eventually we're going to fork the Brown's Gas and HHO stuff back into their own articles, but they need to be high quality before that happens (debunking all the crap surrounding them with reliable sources), or they will just be listed for deletion yet again, and people will continue to be mislead by these scams.  — Omegatron (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion
Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked  "Should the addition of this box [example right] ''be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" '' (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.