User talk:Omegatron/Archive/December, 2006

NIF comments
Are you the author who left the first two comments in the National Ignition Facility article? The first of the two was anon. If you are the author, the mention of the density is now missing from the article and I think it should be added back in. Do you recall what version this appeared in? Maury 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't leave the comment (though their email is ironic...) and I don't know what version it was in. — Omegatron 23:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Unwaranted Block
Omega: You block be unjustly I believe. You might just have been too quick to act. Ya had the wrong guy, officer.DocEss 20:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) It was just a day.
 * 2) Have you looked at your contributions lately?  Or your talk page?  You need to chill out.  This isn't a discussion board; it's an encyclopedia.  When you piss people off, it slows down the project and makes everything less efficient.  Wastes time, poisons the atmosphere, and all that.  There are other places to troll/vent/whatever, like IRC.  From my interactions with you, I think you and I have similar feelings about a lot of things; animal rights, religion, whatever...  but if you keep interacting with others like this, it doesn't matter; you have to go. — Omegatron 02:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Alas, was there ever a man more misunderstood? I am chilled out - I just seem to have an inate ability to irritate stubborn people. And I do think that most of my contibutions lately have been in the spirit you suggest. Gosh, I am only trying to keep things focused, something I thought would be appreciated. Oh well. Ok...ok I'll re-adujst again. Thanks for the advice.DocEss 16:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being cooperative. You're not all bad.  ;-) — Omegatron 19:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hee hee - I'm only 1% bad! Hey if you're not too busy, perhaps you could weigh in on an issue I know you could help direct. This section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy#Assessment_of_the_lecture.27s_purpose of the Pope's Controversy article looks like pure speculation to a few of us. I would even guess some would call it Original Reseacrh. I call it something we should delete. Also, another section ("Factual Errors") keeps getting itself added and I think it's completely ancillary. If you could provide some input or any help, I'd appreciate it; if noy, that's OK too. Have a nice day.DocEss 16:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear section
Hi, i see you are putting a lot of time and effort in the article, so just go on, some points need more consensus, my guess is we both want a better article. Cheers. Mion 03:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course we both want a better article. :-)  Too bad everyone can't agree on what "better" means...
 * Can you return the nuclear section to the original version? Those quotes were mistakenly moved to the Sustainable energy article, but they don't belong there, since they're about "renewable" energy. — Omegatron 04:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, stupid action from me, i'll put it back. reg.09:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the revert was more a reflex, second check made me clear that the discussion is going on a long time, and I should step into the discussion myself before i do actions like that, i also agree on not removing opinions, and i see the point, the definition of "renewable energy".....
 * I suggest making a page Nuclear Economy, do the discussion there, and ask people not to discuss on Nuclear Energy and Nuclear fuel cycle, renewable energy, etc. ? reg Mion 12:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (Our capitalization style would make them Nuclear economy and Nuclear energy.)
 * I'm not sure I understand what would be in the Nuclear economy article, thuogh. — Omegatron 13:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, we have Hydrogen economy, zinc economy, methanol economy, ethanol economy, lithium economy and liquid nitrogen economy, i am missing here Nuclear economy.
 * If i have a look at the Nuclear fuel cycle than you can see that almost al elements should be transferred from Nuclear Energy to Nuclear economy, Nuclear Energy itself is just an output product in the cycle. reg. Mion 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. I'm not sure where the content belongs.  Nuclear power and Nuclear energy contain different content. — Omegatron 13:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Best start is maybe just starting the article, moving the economy sections from both into the article and merge it, in the articles, a link to main Nuclear economy and backlink see details, by doing so the section economy can be centratred into 1 place. as a result in the other pages, the section economy will decline to four lines or so. reg. Mion 13:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I ment Nuclear power, maybe we just have to change the title of the article to Nuclear economy, would that fit ? reg. Mion 13:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On second view, the both articles are in the right cat, handle the right subject, it seems the page Nuclear economy is just a nonexising issue/page., reg.Mion 14:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Give it some time and thought, suggestions are welcome, i will create the page myself, setup a bit conform hydrogen economy, the community can respond on it after the creation. reg.Mion 14:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

NIF comments
Are you the author who left the first two comments in the National Ignition Facility article? The first of the two was anon. If you are the author, the mention of the density is now missing from the article and I think it should be added back in. Do you recall what version this appeared in? Maury 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't leave the comment (though their email is ironic...) and I don't know what version it was in. — Omegatron 23:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Unwaranted Block
Omega: You block be unjustly I believe. You might just have been too quick to act. Ya had the wrong guy, officer.DocEss 20:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) It was just a day.
 * 2) Have you looked at your contributions lately?  Or your talk page?  You need to chill out.  This isn't a discussion board; it's an encyclopedia.  When you piss people off, it slows down the project and makes everything less efficient.  Wastes time, poisons the atmosphere, and all that.  There are other places to troll/vent/whatever, like IRC.  From my interactions with you, I think you and I have similar feelings about a lot of things; animal rights, religion, whatever...  but if you keep interacting with others like this, it doesn't matter; you have to go. — Omegatron 02:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Alas, was there ever a man more misunderstood? I am chilled out - I just seem to have an inate ability to irritate stubborn people. And I do think that most of my contibutions lately have been in the spirit you suggest. Gosh, I am only trying to keep things focused, something I thought would be appreciated. Oh well. Ok...ok I'll re-adujst again. Thanks for the advice.DocEss 16:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being cooperative. You're not all bad.  ;-) — Omegatron 19:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hee hee - I'm only 1% bad! Hey if you're not too busy, perhaps you could weigh in on an issue I know you could help direct. This section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy#Assessment_of_the_lecture.27s_purpose of the Pope's Controversy article looks like pure speculation to a few of us. I would even guess some would call it Original Reseacrh. I call it something we should delete. Also, another section ("Factual Errors") keeps getting itself added and I think it's completely ancillary. If you could provide some input or any help, I'd appreciate it; if noy, that's OK too. Have a nice day.DocEss 16:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear section
Hi, i see you are putting a lot of time and effort in the article, so just go on, some points need more consensus, my guess is we both want a better article. Cheers. Mion 03:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course we both want a better article. :-)  Too bad everyone can't agree on what "better" means...
 * Can you return the nuclear section to the original version? Those quotes were mistakenly moved to the Sustainable energy article, but they don't belong there, since they're about "renewable" energy. — Omegatron 04:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, stupid action from me, i'll put it back. reg.09:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the revert was more a reflex, second check made me clear that the discussion is going on a long time, and I should step into the discussion myself before i do actions like that, i also agree on not removing opinions, and i see the point, the definition of "renewable energy".....
 * I suggest making a page Nuclear Economy, do the discussion there, and ask people not to discuss on Nuclear Energy and Nuclear fuel cycle, renewable energy, etc. ? reg Mion 12:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (Our capitalization style would make them Nuclear economy and Nuclear energy.)
 * I'm not sure I understand what would be in the Nuclear economy article, thuogh. — Omegatron 13:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, we have Hydrogen economy, zinc economy, methanol economy, ethanol economy, lithium economy and liquid nitrogen economy, i am missing here Nuclear economy.
 * If i have a look at the Nuclear fuel cycle than you can see that almost al elements should be transferred from Nuclear Energy to Nuclear economy, Nuclear Energy itself is just an output product in the cycle. reg. Mion 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. I'm not sure where the content belongs.  Nuclear power and Nuclear energy contain different content. — Omegatron 13:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Best start is maybe just starting the article, moving the economy sections from both into the article and merge it, in the articles, a link to main Nuclear economy and backlink see details, by doing so the section economy can be centratred into 1 place. as a result in the other pages, the section economy will decline to four lines or so. reg. Mion 13:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I ment Nuclear power, maybe we just have to change the title of the article to Nuclear economy, would that fit ? reg. Mion 13:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On second view, the both articles are in the right cat, handle the right subject, it seems the page Nuclear economy is just a nonexising issue/page., reg.Mion 14:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Give it some time and thought, suggestions are welcome, i will create the page myself, setup a bit conform hydrogen economy, the community can respond on it after the creation. reg.Mion 14:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Audio link popup
Hi Omegatron and sorry for the *very* late reply. I have just tried your idea now. It looks nice. Though I'm not a big fan of being paternalistic with users (assuming they aren't even able to play an audio file) your solution seems an acceptable compromise. I only notice problems with the timings (the popup comes out immediately, so it tends to appear when you don't intend to; analogously it takes a bit too long to disappear when the mouse cursor isn't over it). I had abandoned all this discussion as it seemed really impossible to reach a consensus (the "wall" you hint at). &mdash; Gennaro Prota &#8226;Talk 01:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. As I said, the functionality would need some tweaking.  A plugin has been developed to play audio and video files right in the browser, so i was kind of waiting for that to finish, but maybe this should be made a part of that discussion; the player could be inside the pop-up.— Omegatron 14:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

MOSFET drawings
O, I modified a couple of your MOSFET drawings on wikimedia (the simplified ones). See if you like. However, I don't see the change propagating to wikipedia. Is there something that needs to be done? Or just wait? Dicklyon 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Which ones? There might be more than one copy, but most likely you just need to bypass your cache. — Omegatron 22:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirect/DeletionReasons
I have reverted you again. Please see my prior comments at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion and engage in discussion before making such a unilateral change. The DeletionReasons listing predates Cross-namespace redirects. The later page was more than just a pro & con list. It also included a proposal to ban cross-namespace redirects and change the way the Wikipedia search engine works. Both of those proposals did not reach consensus and that is what caused it to be marked historical. There was no agreement to remove XNR from DeletionReasons as part of that. Since that clause pre-dates the Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects, you can not take it being marked as historical as consensus for your change. There was no discussion about removing that clause. If you want to propose removing it, then please suggest it at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion and let it be debated. This has been a thorny subject in the past and unilateral action should not be taken by either proponents or opponents of XNR. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 17:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

why you mark a POV without an explanation on the discussion page?
please detail your arguments here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FreeJ - you are welcome to propose solutions, thanks jaromil 11:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The explanation is in the tag itself; it read like an ad when i tagged it.— Omegatron 14:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * you are stating it reads like an ad, another person stated it isn't so and detailed why. when requested about your arguments, you don't answer anything else than the above. Strange thing is that on your user page you state "Don't defend your beliefs; test them". jaromil 10:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're one of the developers of FreeJ, aren't you? Not only does it read like an advertisement, it is an advertisement; taken from your own website, as I pointed out on the talk page.  Just tweak it so it sounds like an encyclopedia article instead of an ad. — Omegatron 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Flying spaghetti monster emblem 2.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Flying spaghetti monster emblem 2.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 11:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Schematic Editor
I've used this a few times in the past to kludge together schematics, check it out: http://musicfromouterspace.com/SchematicEditorPromo/schematicpubwebpage.html 70.241.16.85 15:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Your seeming accusation
You wrote:


 * Then discuss it there. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point — Omegatron 23:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I replied. I don't know if you ever read my reply. But I remain puzzled. It is as if you were accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia. You also seem to think I was trying to illustrate some particular point. I don't understand what makes you think that. I edited that article in order to improve the article. My edit did improve the article. What point is it that you think I was trying to illustrate? And what makes you think so? And in what way could that particular improvement to that particular article have been "disruptive"? Michael Hardy 01:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your seeming accusation
You wrote:


 * Then discuss it there. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point — Omegatron 23:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I replied. I don't know if you ever read my reply. But I remain puzzled. It is as if you were accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia. You also seem to think I was trying to illustrate some particular point. I don't understand what makes you think that. I edited that article in order to improve the article. My edit did improve the article. What point is it that you think I was trying to illustrate? And what makes you think so? And in what way could that particular improvement to that particular article have been "disruptive"? Michael Hardy 01:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

otheruses
Could you please participate in the discussion on the talk page of this template, instead of editing without discussion or attempt to gain consensus support? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there something wrong with my changes? — Omegatron 02:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several people on the talk page who disagree with them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Who? — Omegatron 03:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

...have you read Template_talk:Otheruses? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. That's where the new wording came from.  If you have a problem with the new wording, say so in that section.  We can discuss it. — Omegatron 03:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I did, as did several other people, but you didn't give any response. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)