User talk:Omegatron/Archive/August, 2008

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Windows XP C partition properties.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Windows XP C partition properties.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I rearranged the pictures. There are several other pictures of Windows XP that use the same hard drive as each other, which is more striking. This one is very similar to one of the images already there, but doesn't use the same hard drive. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Using ISO 8601 at en-wiki for the fact-template
You may be interested in this Village_pump_(technical). Nsaa (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Binary prefixes
Hiya! I was recently wandering around Wikipedia again and noticed that the whole binary prefix debacle, replete with its never-ending circuitous and borderline ad-hominem arguments, has struck up again in full force. I'm surprised you're still able to deal with this sort of mess; this situation was one of the things which convinced me that Wikipedia's dispute resolution "system" is completely defunct and not worth participating in any further. The repeated arguments which invariably reduce to familiar squabble and the mass of incomprehensible rhetoric fairly effectively annihilate any hope for progress. There are obvious attempts on both sides to exploit the flawed notion of consensus in order to stagnate the discussion. It's like watching the failures of direct democracy being melodramatically played out in a nerd forum.

However, I did find it interesting that the German Wikipedia managed to settle this issue somewhat with a big public vote. Perhaps something similar could be arranged here? It should be painfully obvious by now that no amount of dialog between the concerned parties will ever yield anything more than both sides claiming that their position is the consensus position. This will most likely continue to cause nothing more than page after page of unproductive argument. I would think that at this point it would be far better to just put the thing to rest for some predetermined period (say, a year or two) with a big vote.

Then again, I have the luxury of no longer caring much about what happens to Wikipedia (at least, I think that's the case). Anyway, take care and stay sane. :) -- mattb 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic
Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come! You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Cite-book in Bibliography
Hello again. Long time no...

Did anything ever come of Cite-book in Bibliography?

Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 23:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)