User talk:Omegatron/Archive/May, 2008

Follow current literature on MOSNUM
Omegatron: I think your recent post of a {disputed} tag on MOSNUM amounts to the improper actions of an involved administrator. I’ve posted a complain on Wikiquette_alerts. Greg L (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts). This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Red rain in Kerala GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed Red rain in Kerala and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's pretty good, but it reads as though some parts were written very early on, and other parts were written after DNA tests, and the older parts were never updated. — Omegatron (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a witch hunt
I assure you I know neither User:Classicaio nor User:Wittiams. I have nothing to do with them. I, User:NotSarenne, was blocked under the false assumption of being a sockpuppet of User:Sarenne. I only picked the account name after repeatedly being accused of sockpuppetry by User:Fnagaton when I was making anonymous edits. I never used Tor. I never used multiple accounts. I don't know User:Sarenne at all. Since then I've noticed quite a few accounts getting blocked as "sockpuppet of User:NotSarenne". The truth is, a few of these were accounts that I created one after another - after getting blocked again to be precise. I wouldn't have created any other accounts but blocking the complete sub-network of my ISP leaves me with only a few options. Many of the blocked so-called sockpuppets, like the two above mentioned accounts, have nothing to do with me. I don't know who they are. Many of them were blocked for very little, things which clearly didn't justify indefinite blocks. Several other involved accounts behave exactly the same, if not worse, but they are not even admonished. The point isn't that it's unfair. The point is, this behaviour of the involved admins doesn't make any sense whatsoever. See also []. --202.120.139.211 (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * They're obviously socks of someone. Are you just objecting that your blocked username is associated with them? — Omegatron (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My definition of sockpuppet requires two accounts at minimum. Otherwise it may be a vandal or whatever but not a sockpuppet. A sockpuppet itself isn't the definition of evil. The guidelines themselves provide examples of using sockpuppets without negative intentions. Quite obviously "check user" cannot prove that someone is a sockpuppet of another account and it's less than useful to prove that someone is not a sockpuppet. As I have witnessed people being blocked as sockpuppet of NotSarenne who provably were not him or associated with him in anyway, I can testify that "check user" doesn't work or isn't used correctly. Sarenne and NotSarenne have become useful tools to get rid of annoying people without the need to provide credible evidence. --217.87.63.197 (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, sockpuppets are not inherently evil (I even have one), but it is bad to use sockpuppets "for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists". The two accounts you mentioned were created to jump immediately into a specific discussion and repeat the same things being repeated by other users.  It's obvious that they're controlled by another user, either as sockpuppets (to make it look like there is more support for something than actually exists), or as strawpuppets (to discredit the opposition and make it easy to block real users with the same opinions), or, more likely, just to sow confusion and distract users from other issues.  Checkuser is not used in these cases, since the behavior of the sock is obviously inappropriate.  The association with NotSarenne is just due to the behavior, not to any specific evidence proving they are the same user. — Omegatron (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay but I disagree that they show behavior similar to that of NotSarenne. They were no more disruptive than several, heavily disruptive, unblocked users whose behavior is much more similar than that of NotSarenne. Also it's just your interpretation that they were blocked without any evidence. You know as well as I do that several users here would claim that there was absolute undeniable proof. Especially those kind of users who had been convincted of sockpuppetry with check user and by matching behavior but who weren't blocked. --217.87.60.244 (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You're talking about NotSarenne in the third person, but aren't you NotSarenne? You're pretty much going to be ignored as long as you keep playing games like this.  It would be really really helpful if all of you anons would just register accounts and talk in your own voices about your own identities. — Omegatron (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * NotSarenne already has an account. The account is blocked indefinitely - which isn't the same as "banned for life" but rather "as long as we see it fit" and cannot even edit his own talk page anymore. Later created accounts have been blocked as well, often for no other reason than "sockpuppet of NotSarenne" or sometime "sockpuppet of Sarenne". That's really really funny isn't? So you ask me to create another "sockpuppet" in order to be taken seriously? --217.87.58.139 (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Create a new account and then don't use it to do stupid stuff that's going to get you blocked. — Omegatron (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Audio Barnstar

 * Thank you! :) — Omegatron (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. It's a new star and I felt it was long overdue. Feel free to hand some out yourself. The description is "The Audio Barnstar may be awarded to editors who make a significant contribution to the wiki by creating and/or adding original or rare audio files. Historical recordings, self-made music, self-made examples of sound effects or musical styles, natural sounds, etc. (Adding excerpts of commercially available CDs does not fall into this category.)" Seeing your background, I assume you're more in tune (no pun intended) with editors like that. To use the star, add to the talk page of the user you wish to award it to. Channel &reg;  12:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hexadecimal notation; my image
Hello, and thank you for resurrecting my ancient proposal regarding hex notation.

Since the image is mine (and since I did not give away any rights to its use, when I sent my letter to CACM), I would like to do whatever is necessary to change the Wiki permission status, and make the image freely available (but with attribution requested). Can you advise me on how to do this?

Alternatively, I might be able to locate the original in my files, and scan it in. Or, I could simply redraw it (possibly including a notation as to where it was published), then make that new image available.

Either way, I need advice on how to do this.

My previous attempts to supply images to Wikipedia have all met with inordinate frustration, and I have just about given up trying! Even when I obtained permission from the persons who actually took the photographs, they were still flagged for deletion! I finally decided, last year, that I simply could no longer afford the wasted time trying to submit images to Wikipedia!

Even if I make a new image, myself, I really don't know how to avoid having it "flagged for speedy deletion".)

Feel free to email me directly, if you wish.

Tripodics (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Bruce A. Martin bam [at] tripodics [dot] com


 * It's always amusing when Wikipedia and the real world intersect. :)  If you can scan a better-quality version of the original, that would be helpful.  You can upload it over top of the other image.  Since you're licensing it freely, please upload it to Wikimedia Commons instead, so it can be used on all projects.  I can then delete the local version that I uploaded.


 * I'm sorry about the image licensing rigmarole. I'd love to reform it, but there are some really adamantly disagreeable people on this project.


 * For the hex image, all you have to do is select a license from Image copyright tags/Free licenses and place the template on the image description page.  If you're having trouble, tell me what license you've selected and I can do it.  For other images that you've created, getting them to stick is the same.


 * For images created by other people, they either need to be released by the author under one of these licenses, or you have to claim fair use. Even  when claiming fair use there's a good chance someone will delete it anyway. — Omegatron (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wind power capacity factor
I listed a source on the Talk:Wind power page. You can derive the capacity factor for 2001 from this source. Mrshaba (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Thanks! — Omegatron (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I left a note on the Talk:Wind power page. I think this paper has the capacity info you are looking for but the TWh/year info is poorly laid out using bar graphs. March 2008 This report has some values for TWh/year from 2000-2002. Mrshaba (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets/Fnagaton
I offered my opinion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty surprised at your opinion, but thanks. I'll see what other evidence I can present.  I thought it was an open-and-shut case, but maybe it's not as obvious to people who haven't interacted with Fnagaton daily.


 * Did you look through Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers), by the way? — Omegatron (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No I didn't. I'll try to look at it after I finish working on my current task. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also I pointed out an IP autoblock of DavidPaulHamilton, which I am not sure the significance of. You may not have noticed it buried in the discussion on Suspected sock puppets/Fnagaton. — Omegatron (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And according to the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), Sarenne is from France and NotSarenne is from Germany. I'm not an expert on digging through IPs and such, but it seems to me like DavidPaulHamilton has made edits from a mobile phone in the UK, which would at least put him in the same country as Fnagaton, and make it unlikely that he is a sock of Sarenne or NotSarenne.  (It's pretty obvious to most that he is a sock of someone.)  I'm not sure if that mobile phone IP could be faked, however. — Omegatron (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The autoblock is due to this ISP enforcing a virus scan of all web traffic which goes through the same server and so the IP address is shared. Please respect my privacy and don't make public my IP or ISP.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (It was already public; I was just pointing it out so that others didn't have to go digging.) — Omegatron (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And when I ask others who have accused him of being a sockpuppet to try to help me find more evidence, a Tor user reverts me. I am so sick of the sockpuppetry and Tor use and anonymous accounts disrupting everything and making the discussions impossible to follow. Is there anything we can do about this? — Omegatron (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)