User talk:Omegatron/Archive/January, 2007

Mains hum
Hi,

You were not sure, what kind of 50Hz main hum was put there by user CoolKoon. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk%3A50Hz.ogg&diff=84873618&oldid=47460010 and use, if you want

Julo 18:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice
Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources: Revision as of 17:25, 16 October 2006 --Philip Baird Shearer 00:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. Thanks for cooperating.  Maybe you didn't see my comments on the talk page as they are not at the bottom of the page?  That page needs archiving badly. — Omegatron 01:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

3rr
I think your on your 3rd or 4th revert now. Might want to cool it and move onto some of the dispute resolution stuff... perhaps a structured poll on the talk page can help find consensus? ---J.S (t|c) 00:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was aware when I did it. The two templates are mutually exclusive, though.  A guideline is something for which a consensus exists.  You can't say "this is a guideline" while simultaneously saying "there is no consensus for this to be a guideline".


 * I would be glad to discuss it. There is a discussion already ongoing about the status of the page, which neither of the other reverters have participated in.


 * A poll is not consensus. — Omegatron 01:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop the rhetoric with me. I don't care. Having two contrary hatnotes is better then an edit war. ---J.S (t|c) 06:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Writing an encyclopedia comes first.  That page is being misrepresented as a guideline and affecting the way articles are written all over, but does not have consensus.  In this case it's necessary to step to the edge of WP:3RR (though I didn't break it, as you're apparently accusing).
 * Are you aware of what the word "guideline" means? — Omegatron 13:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that I'm not really taking a position on what tags should be there? I'd simply prefer to see an inappropriate tag on the page then to have an administrator demean himself by engaging in a revert-a-thon. ---J.S (t|c) 16:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Demean? What should I have done differently? Blocked them? — Omegatron 17:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The first time I reverted, I explained my reasons for reverting on the talk page.
 * 2) The other two users reverted me without any discussion at all, apparently without even reading the talk page, even after I explicitly reminded them to.
 * 3) I stopped after my third revert

Guidelines
Perhaps I mispoke... The thing is, I disagree with your contention that there is a consensus to get rid of the guideline. Look through the talk pages and you will see that a LOT of people think that this guideline should stay. Some like it as it is, and others (like me) agree that it needs work, but think it is basicly a sound concept that should be kept. As I read the comments, there is a small but ardent group who want to trash it completely, and a very large but less strident group who want to keep it (and continue to work on it). The way I see it, that means that there is consensus to keep it as a quideline. That is what I mean when I say that there is no consenus to demote. Blueboar 01:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Consensus is an agreement among everyone, though; not a majority forcing the minority into submission. The guideline tag should not be placed on the page unless everyone agrees with it.  When the page loses consensus, it is no longer a guideline, and needs to be worked on and revised until everyone can agree on it again, and then the tag goes back up (unless they can't reach agreement, at which point it becomes rejected).


 * In the meantime, a disputed guideline tag is fine, but it makes no sense to have both a guideline tag and a disputed guideline tag on the same page.


 * To clarify what the word "guideline" means:


 * Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus. If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline, to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over. — Consensus — Omegatron 01:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Surly you meant to say "This is done through revert wars and typing in all caps" right? ---J.S (t|c) 06:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently. Wouldn't it be nice if users discussed things on the talk page instead of knee-jerk reverting? — Omegatron 13:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And when "polite discussion and negotiation" fails to convince an admin, he can just revert and protect a proposal he doesn't like. You are acting hypocritically. -- Netoholic @ 07:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hypocritically? Explain yourself. — Omegatron 05:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Commenting
I provide inline comments so that my responses can be easily matched up on long, multi-pointed discussions like the one you referred to. It's 6 of this, a half-dozen of that, purely preferences on the part of the editor based on the situation at hand. Skyemoor 19:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming NYC Meetup
You wanted to know when the next meetup was being organized in New York City. Plan for Saturday, 9 December 2006. While you're at it. Come help us decide on a restaurant. See: Meetup/NYC. Spread the word. Thanks. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 22:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Windpower comments
Don't change my comments; they are perfectly understandable the way they are. Treat them like the threads they are. Skyemoor 00:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

wikEd


Hi Omegatron, I thought you might be interested in this. I am the author of the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus: • syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • more fixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages • convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjust the font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage.

Cacycle 22:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Holy crap. I'll try it. — Omegatron 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotation mark, non-English usage
Hi, I would like to comment on your suggestion to merge (obviously) but I cannot see where to do so. Have you set up a location for this? Reply here to keep the thread if you like.Abtract 22:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be discussed at Talk:Quotation_mark. Always try to keep discussion centralized. — Omegatron 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But, with respect, the question is no longer, "Should the split be made?" This has already been actioned after a month when no-one spoke against it. The question you are now asking is, "Should the two pages be merged?". Discussion on this should take place in a new section which you should set up (as I understand it but I may well be wrong). Abtract 22:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No. They should be discussed in the same place, so both the before and after can be seen, commented on, etc. — Omegatron 01:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't quite see it that way but OK. Since there were no objections, in over a month, to my initial suggestion to split (indeed there were previous similar suggestions), I doubt there will be much interest in merging but we will see. I will make an appropriate comment.Abtract 08:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Icons
Can you show a screenshot of Mediawiki with your icons? commons:Category:Nuvola-inspired File Icons for MediaWiki — Omegatron 21:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done!--michael180 22:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it. We were discussing using tiny versions for file type icons.  See Template_talk:PDFlink, Template talk:DOClink and 1578 — Omegatron 02:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Zero-order hold and First-order hold
hi O,

i dunno if it's a good idea to merge the articles or not. they used to be merged in an article called Zero and first order holds but i didn't think it was well written, rewrote into two, and lobbied the admins to delete the other one (they did). the principle is the same, but the output of the two is clearly different. probably the FOH is not really used anywhere in reality. r b-j 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a big deal. We should also mention second and higher -order holds, too, somewhere, though.    I thought higher-order holds were used in linear predictive coding? — Omegatron 21:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * it's possible that something like higher order holds (used for bandlimited reconstruction of sampled signals) can be used for LPC under the assumption that the spectrum of the signal being LPCed is flat up to nyquist (or that the autocorrelation is a sinc function). otherwise, the LPC "impulse response" is different.  not that this is something i had thought much about.  also, just as there are different first-order holds (that "predictive" FOH is one i hadn't known about until i started investigating the earlier merged article (that has since been deleted).  i've always considered the FOH to be the simple linear interpolation (delayed a little if you want it to be realizable), until i saw some other references to that predictive FOH.  i dunno who uses any FOH for D/A conversion, but you never know.  the concept is used in discussion of the effect of linear interpolation of uniformly sampled data for the purposes of resampling, sample rate conversion, or even a fractional-sample precision delay.  anyway there are a zillion different ways to do higher order piecewise-polnomial interpolation (which is essentially what the higher order "holds" are, in fact "hold" becomes a less elucidating term as you get to higher order interpolators).  also, since there are a zillion different ways to do it, on way of extending order will get you to an ideal sinc function in the limit, not a gaussian (as that cnx page suggests).  if you are interpolating using B-splines (which has a certain advantage that i and Duane Wise have written about in the AES) then the higher order interpolation kernals look like what's in that cnx page and the limit at N=&inf; is gaussian.
 * if it's okay with you, i'm gonna take down the merge notes. perhaps a separate article on Nth-order polynomial interpolation would be good and relate that to the 0th and 1st-order holds would be good.  i dunno. r b-j 04:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. We should move this discussion to the talk page. — Omegatron 05:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Order holds
Long time no run across. Why do you think Zero-order hold and First-order hold should be merged? They seem sufficient to stand on their own... Cburnett 07:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just an idea. Thought we could cover nth-order holds all at once. — Omegatron 19:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Zero-order hold and First-order hold
hi O,

i dunno if it's a good idea to merge the articles or not. they used to be merged in an article called Zero and first order holds but i didn't think it was well written, rewrote into two, and lobbied the admins to delete the other one (they did). the principle is the same, but the output of the two is clearly different. probably the FOH is not really used anywhere in reality. r b-j 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a big deal. We should also mention second and higher -order holds, too, somewhere, though.    I thought higher-order holds were used in linear predictive coding? — Omegatron 21:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * it's possible that something like higher order holds (used for bandlimited reconstruction of sampled signals) can be used for LPC under the assumption that the spectrum of the signal being LPCed is flat up to nyquist (or that the autocorrelation is a sinc function). otherwise, the LPC "impulse response" is different.  not that this is something i had thought much about.  also, just as there are different first-order holds (that "predictive" FOH is one i hadn't known about until i started investigating the earlier merged article (that has since been deleted).  i've always considered the FOH to be the simple linear interpolation (delayed a little if you want it to be realizable), until i saw some other references to that predictive FOH.  i dunno who uses any FOH for D/A conversion, but you never know.  the concept is used in discussion of the effect of linear interpolation of uniformly sampled data for the purposes of resampling, sample rate conversion, or even a fractional-sample precision delay.  anyway there are a zillion different ways to do higher order piecewise-polnomial interpolation (which is essentially what the higher order "holds" are, in fact "hold" becomes a less elucidating term as you get to higher order interpolators).  also, since there are a zillion different ways to do it, on way of extending order will get you to an ideal sinc function in the limit, not a gaussian (as that cnx page suggests).  if you are interpolating using B-splines (which has a certain advantage that i and Duane Wise have written about in the AES) then the higher order interpolation kernals look like what's in that cnx page and the limit at N=&inf; is gaussian.
 * if it's okay with you, i'm gonna take down the merge notes. perhaps a separate article on Nth-order polynomial interpolation would be good and relate that to the 0th and 1st-order holds would be good.  i dunno. r b-j 04:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. We should move this discussion to the talk page. — Omegatron 05:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Order holds
Long time no run across. Why do you think Zero-order hold and First-order hold should be merged? They seem sufficient to stand on their own... Cburnett 07:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just an idea. Thought we could cover nth-order holds all at once. — Omegatron 19:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A remark about Template:PDFlink
Hi Ωtron,

I've been absent for a while so my apologies if this has already been discussed. Did you notice how close to text the PDF icon is in the template rendering? Could we do anything for that? Also, would it be possible to use the same icon as the TargetAlert Firefox extension? That's much clearer! :-) &mdash; Gennaro Prota &#8226;Talk 13:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

''Did you notice how close to text the PDF icon is in the template rendering? Could we do anything for that?''


 * It looks good to me, but we can change it if desired. Can you take a screenshot of how it looks on your screen?


 * Hmm, I've uploaded a screenshot to http://gennaro-prota.50webs.com/WinZipArticleNotesSection.png. Taken with Mozilla Firefox 2.0 (release candidate).


 * Hmm... It looks fine to me.  What don't you like about it?  It's four pixels away from the text, just like the external link icon below it. — Omegatron 19:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the left side looks fine to me too. What I don't like is the extreme closeness of the text "PDF", on the right. Perhaps that's just me (I guess it may depend on whether one focuses on the rectangular grey area of the image or pays attention to that little red curl popping out of it).

Also, would it be possible to use the same icon as the TargetAlert Firefox extension?


 * I'm not sure. There's some qualms about it being a trademarked logo.  I showed several alternative icons on that page. — Omegatron 15:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's why I asked. I'll try documenting myself a bit on this. Thanks for your reply :-) &mdash; Gennaro Prota &#8226;Talk 16:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here I am after a Google trip. IIUC, the page at http://www.adobe.com/misc/linking.html says that one can't modify in any way the PDF file icon *if* he/she downloads it from there. *However* I don't see any restriction about creating your own image, which is what the Nuvola author has done, as far as I know. If there are restrictions about creation, then it's possible that the very same images you show on the template talk page can't actually be used freely (not all of them, at least) and that Nuvola is itself violating some legal rule. &mdash; Gennaro Prota &#8226;Talk 17:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the rule is. There's copyright to worry about when copying their icon exactly, and there's trademark to worry about when using it in a custom icon.  I think it's fine to use it, but I thought this one was better and more visible at the small size.  I showed seven different icons on the talk page before implementing it, and no one has ever commented on them at all, so I just picked the one I thought looked best. — Omegatron 19:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't know either... I'm just trying to reason about the issue. I find the icon used by TargetAlert clearer but again that may be just me. No big deal, anyway. &mdash; Gennaro Prota &#8226;Talk 19:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Chemical element templates
Hi. I noticed that you have left several comments on the Category_talk:Chemical_element_symbol_templates page, so I'd hope that you as a user familiar with the use of these templates could look at the suggestion I put there. Nihiltres 17:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Micro move
Hi there, Can you please (briefly) mention the rationale behind your proposal to move Micro on the talk:Micro page. Thanks! Fourohfour 10:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Partial support of CSS border-collapse proerty
Hi Omegatron, I've posted also in Meta-wiki at css talk. Firefox1.5 seems to have an instability with the vertical lines in large "wikitables" (see 2005 in film). The problem element is the css property border-collapse, for which Mozilla has partial support. Every time the page is reloaded it either shows all or some or few vertical borders. I've checked with more computers using Firefox and it's persistent. Support is partial also in Safari Konq2.2 OW4.5 NN7 (although I don't have these browsers to check). Opera is fine, IE6 has also partial support, but I get no problems there. I like wikitable as CSS class. What happens if the property border-collapse is simply omitted? I could also raise up the issue in Mozilla, but it's easier to tackle it here, if possible. I do some simple web-design, but I'm using broadly supported style properties only, so I never came across this one. I would appreciate your comments. Hoverfish 13:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Musical acoustics
I've noticed that you've made several amendments to Musical acoustics, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to comment on the discussion at Talk:Musical acoustics. Specifically I was attempting to remove a segment of the article which I feel is irrelevant and misleading. I also find that the user who initially added this section, and is currently engaged in the argument, has been inserting material from his own research into many wikipedia articles, including this one. (Searching wikipedia for "greenwych.ca" and checking changes history will find a plethora of links added by the author to his own website.) There is a lot of text on the talk page right now, but I think the most relevant comments are under the heading: Talk:Musical acoustics. I would greatly appreciate another voice in this discussion. - Rainwarrior 20:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really know what's going on there, but keep telling him he can't post original research. If it's not original, I can't help you. — Omegatron 23:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's material from his own self-published research (he has readily volunteered this information in his lengthy "defenses" of his own notability), and I have mentioned OR, NPOV, and other policies, but he continues to post argument. I have only made one edit to remove his material, but as I'm sure you understand, a two-man revert war is a futile endeavour. I think both of us are willing to abide by consensus, whichever it may be, but there is no agreement on our own. - Rainwarrior 06:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Forced thumbnail sizes
If you are interested, please comment on the issue of "forced image sizes" at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. I'm contacting you because you seem to be the one who added the text to WP:IUP. Mike Dillon 19:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Nasal Irrigation Revert
I noticed you reverted and edit of mine on the Nasal irrigation page without leaving a comment. I invite you to do so, as I believe that the material is a "how-to," and therefore against WP:NOT. Pyrogen 21:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You saw that I reverted it, but you didn't read my edit summary? "rv - it should be reworded to not use the second person, but it's appropriate" — Omegatron 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sinc integral
Hi Omegatron, I'm searching for a proof of the sinc integral $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty \begin{matrix}\frac{\sin(\pi x)}{\pi x} \end{matrix}\, dx = 1$$. Maybe you know a source that shows a proof? Thank you, --Abdull 19:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

wrongtitle template
Re the css hack, I can't find the template-discussion that I recall seeing somewhere concerning all this, so thought I'd ask you instead, does this WikiProject User Page Help/Do-It-Yourself/Title Headers need to be removed/dealt with, or are user-pages free to use the hack? --Quiddity 03:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't think CSS hacks should be used anywhere, including user space, but you'll have to ask somewhere else. — Omegatron 04:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Ok, asked at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions %28technical restrictions%29. --Quiddity 04:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)