Jump to content

User talk:Ohms law/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Congratulations!

I think you may have just created the universe's largest typo, on my user page. Rothorpe (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Official name"

I forgot to mention an important point about the naming, I've posted more at the thread in question. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:101p Chernykh oct 2005.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:101p Chernykh oct 2005.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of NASA 515

The article NASA 515 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to be notable enough for a stand-alone article just needs a mention in the Museum of Flight and NASA articles

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4

We meet outside by the trees at 5:00 PM.

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sesame Street lead

Hi Ohms, we've run into each other before somewhere, although specifically where in the project I'm not sure. Please know that I appreciated your feedback about this article's lead and that I didn't take anything personally at all. You could probably literally count the editors working on Sesame Street articles on one hand, so I appreciate anyone's assistance. I'm the main editor for the mommy article and a few other ones that I've created and/or expanded. I have to admit, I took it on with some trepidation, for two reasons. The first was that I knew that I was taking on a potentially huge project, with the huge amount of material that's been written about The Show, and I was correct. It's been so much fun becoming an expert about it, though. The second reason was that I assumed that I was wading into controversy, and my tendency as a content editor is to gravitate towards articles with little of it. I also also assumed that Sesame Street is something that almost everyone under the age of fifty feels some kind of ownership towards, so I was worried about what I was getting myself into. Surprisingly, I was wrong about that, and the consequence was that I've been pretty much on my own.

There are positives and negatives with being the only editor in all of Wikipedia interested in a topic or a group of articles. The positive is that I get to avoid conflict with others and I get almost complete control, both of which demonstrate things about my personality in general. The negative is that it's hard to get help with copyediting and other assistance. All that to say: how would you like to help? My most pressing need is a copyedit of History of Sesame Street, which I'd like before submitting it to FAC. Would you mind? I'd really appreciate it, and let me know how I can reciprocate. Christine (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:REQMERGE

Hi. I noticed that you once proposed a WP:AFD restructuring, which you intended to contain all discussions relating to deletions, merges, etc. That proposal was mentioned at this proposal.

I hope to see you there and work together is implementing the proposal. Kind regards. Rehman 10:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Ohm,

I have done quite a bit of work on some templates for spaceflight. I was wondering if I could inquire about receving a barnstar.  :) I have not ever received one and find myself looking a little enviously at others'.

Here is a comment you made on my talk page: [1]

Note: I switched from Jonverve to NASA-Verve, because I like the name better.

Click on my user page below to see the templates I've worked on that are space related....quite a few.

Nasa-verve (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Archived

I've archived my talk page. Thanks for the suggestion! Rothorpe (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"Anonymous"

its not minotr, it was added to the protests in Tunisia and i beleive Egypt and actually carried out their warnings. thats notable. but if you think otherwise open a discussion on the page.Lihaas (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

this is also hossrribly pov. i changed that during the day byd ay cleaningLihaas (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that I understand your meaning when you state: "and actually carried out their warnings." Are you saying that the former (or current) governments of either or both of Tunisia or Egypt responded to some message released by "Anonymous"?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
no, see that page. the attacked and took down several govt websites in the early days of te tunisia protezsts which was part of an intl solidarity campagin.Lihaas (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty following this, with all of the typos and whatnot. Regardless, I can guarantee that the Libyan government (or, at least, what's left of it) and the Libyan people could give a rat's ass what a bunch of pimply faced American teens are doing with daddy's computer in the basement. "Anonymous" is nothing more then a group of attention seeking social misfits, fucking around on the internet. I ought to know, there was a time when I was one of them...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this, using "non sequitur" there is simply incorrect. I can, however, understand "POV" accusations to the change to "typically idiosyncratic", but I'm not the one to level that charge at Ghadaffi. I'll add a reference there, happily. I'm thinking that I'll wait until the morning though, and simply revert back to a version without all of this drama (with the addition of the reference talked about here, of course.) At the moment, the speed of your edits is doing more harm then good, unfortunately.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thats fine, but tats the opinion of the post, we dont lean towards what american OR libyan media says. we leave the reader to decide theres some WP guidelines about letting the facts speak for themselves but i dont remember it.Lihaas (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The Post quote was just one of many examples, it was simply immediately handy for use in the above reply. I actually pulled the "idiosyncratic" idea from another source... I'm pretty sure that it was The Guardian, actually. Using "idiosyncratic" is actually more neutral, and therefore better for our purposes, then what the Post and most others are saying. Most external media doesn't treat Ghadaffi's regime well, for the obvious reason that his regime doesn't allow them any access... they all seem hate each other. We shouldn't gloss that over (but we probably shouldn't fall prey to it, either).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Ohms Law Bot/Cleanup/Martian Successor Nadesico

User:Ohms Law Bot/Cleanup/Martian Successor Nadesico, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ohms Law Bot/Cleanup/Martian Successor Nadesico and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Ohms Law Bot/Cleanup/Martian Successor Nadesico during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 11:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ad hominem attack

I find you to be a very resistant fellow, Ohms law. :p Btw, you mind if I put that tag back up top on the talk page for 2011 Libyan Uprising when the next move discussion opens? I think it has helpful links in it and I can't think of any better way to put the relevant wikirules in place (short of posting them on everyones' talk pages) as well as shortcut to the topic than that. Of course I did make it in the first place, so that's a wee bit of bias. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

*grin*
I thought about leaving the tag at the top of the talk page, but it didn't make much sense with that RM archived, so... *shrug*. Anyway, yea, feel free to re-add it when a new discussion is opened. I fully expect one to be re-opened withing 24 hours, regardless; if that's not obvious by my comments on the talk page there.
btw, how the heck did WP:DUCK become an issue with an RM?!? that was like.. "wha?!?", you know?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Well it would be directing to a massive box of fail if it were left there after that. Hell, I should actually go copy the formatting, and put it in a wee text file. I expect to see two new ones by the time I wake up.
I honestly haven't the foggiest, but I learned a lot about the rules from this whole thing, and that you can get a similar sort of satisfaction from quoting rules when you disagree with someone's assessments as you do from trolling (former mid-level troll here). I think people used it because it fit with what they were trying to do. At least in their eyes. It was so vague about what it actually dealt with that people thought it applied to anything here including titles and content. It got changed now after I decided to whine about it on the policy board: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:DUCK_used_in_a_way_that_contradicts_WP:SYNTH (yay, I contributed to Wikipedia policy). One thing that struck me the most though was no matter how many times you put the rules right there for people to see (even, as you saw, up in the notification), people didn't pay any attention to them. Not even protesting, but I don't think they many of them even took notice of the links, much less read. A few people did, but it was still odd seeing person after person comment even when you told them five times it contradicts WP:SYNTH (which usually applies to content, yeah, but it worked for title here too). Someone should do an anthropology study of Wikipedia imo. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
In general, our policy, guideline, and essay pages are in pretty terrible shape. Aside from the most obviously needed changes (such as the changes made to DUCK because of this), it's like trying to amend the friggin' Constitution just to do some simple copy editing on most policy pages. The good news, however, is that such problems generally have negligible effects. People who have been around for a while know that the basic ideas embodied in policy and guideline pages are what counts; it's not so much the specific details of what those documents say that matters. So... I just go with the flow, in that regard, any more. *shrug*
Oh, and there have been sociological studies which have used Wikipedia's "community" (what there is of it). If you do some digging I'm sure that you could find a few papers.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Did you add the |R to the Robotics categories as a result of my request for help on the Projects talk page?

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

yup :) fyi see Help:category for more info.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Copying in Wikipedia

Hi. I noticed your conversation with User:Yoenit. I don't have any great opinion on whether the page should be promoted to guideline or not, but I wanted to speak to you about copying from one page to another. I'm afraid that content on Wikipedia is not public domain, but liberally licensed for reuse. You can't copy content from one page to another without attributing it, or you are violating the license of the person whose content you've taken. Some contributors don't care much about this, but many do. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. I have provided the necessary attribution at Wikipedia:Fait accompli, but please make sure to note the source when copying text from one Wikipedia page to another in the future. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's my question (and a bit of an explaination, actually). Whom exactly are you going to attribute the paragraph to? At some point or another, seemingly every drafter has used almost exactly that same paragraph. Additionally, as Yoenit pointed out, that statement is a compilation of points from other policy and guideline pages. So... I'm sort of eager to see how you'll attribute this, actually.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I've already attributed it. You said it came from arbcom, and a search for the text found only one match, so.... That's what I went with. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Search for "Fait accompli", and you'll see what I'm referring to. :) You might be correct that the exact paragraph that I copied was that particular one (I don't remember). However, the point remains, that particular instance is hardly the first use of the paragraph (individual words may change from use to use, but you know better then I do how that does not change the content's status...).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I ran it through one of my handy-dandy little plagiarism checkers and got different results than I did with my google search, so I see what you mean. Arbcom has reused that text with minor variations quite a bit. Perhaps they've stored it somewhere off line. This one includes the last sentence, while the one I found earlier did not, but some of the other verbiage has changed. I'll do a tailor-tweak to the template on the talk page just to cover the bases. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, wherever they first used it, attribution is hopefully complete for the text as you placed it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Cool, glad to see that's sorted out. Turned out to be a somewhat interesting exercise. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

RM for the Libyan Conflict/Civil War/Uprising etc

It is going awfully slow. I noticed there is no RM notice on the article page itself. It could also be most are tired of the whole title process, but I think it is mostly the former. I am not sure how to add it and while it would net supports, there is no reason for one to want to net them as it ain't a competition. Still I think some see it that way and might complain and consider it unscrupulous to not have it put there (not that it is hard for someone to add the page to their watchlist and occasionally check the ToC, but still). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 02:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not worried, people will comment soon. I've seen this sort of thing happen quite often, and fatigue seems to be the largest factor. I wouldn't worry too much about the notices and whatnot. Someone else is likely to add one in a day or so. With the general backlog at WP:RM, and the volume of discussion, I don't see the latest RM being closed anytime soon.
I'm just slightly disappointed that I didn't start this latest one myself, as I had planned on "doing it right". You can list an RM using a "?" as the target, and it's a perfectly legit move request. I was going to do that, and set up a more general survey with several options for people to discuss (including the year, using "Civil War" or "Conflict", capitalization, and probably one or two other items. Oh well, maybe i'll get to it next time (or you will?).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Meh, fair enough. Good thing about this place is while .0005% of people are here to screw things up (by which I mean vandals, not people who do stuff without meaning harm), the rest are here to fill in the holes other people missed. Does seem to be a bit of backlog, though that "great drive" is over. What are those barnstars for? I asked someone before (though I asked what they were worth in Jew Gold, and didn't make my background apparent) and didn't get an answer (it didn't go over too well).
Well, you know the old saying about the early getting the worm, I think it applies here. You did have ample time after all, but presumably life got in the way. I am against captialisation for reasons I stated in Talk:2011_Libyan_civil_war#Capitalize_Letters_on_Title.21, that being that most of the sources calling it a civil war, afaik, are not calling it the Libyan Civil War as a proper title, rather they're talking about a civil war that is taking place in Libya, just saying that right now. =p Nah, I doubt I would, I am what the Germans call faul (lazy, as opposed to fleißig, active), and would probably use the minute or two it would take to figure out how to do that for chatting with my gf or playing Red Dead Redemption. You probably will get another chance though, if we manage to finally wipe out enough of Gadaffi's military. If you look in the military intervention article, you will see they have brought in both the A-10 Warthogs and the AC-130 Spooky, so there is no reason that shouldn't be on the horizon. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
gotta go for the night, but I agree about capitalization. Also... maybe I shouldn't mention this on here, but I've got a buddy onboard the USS Kearsarge... the A-10's and AC-130's are only half the story. ;) Night!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Lol, night. Yep, caps for proper nouns only, this isn't German after all. I think you can mention where your buddy is stationed, just nothing secret he might have told you (that get dishonourable discharges and such). She's a fine ship, but argh, Ospreys, bloody death traps, just waiting to toss a rotor off. My gf is in the IAF, but I can't say what she does. :p Now sir, I must take offense at this possible assertion that there is anything more awesome than an A-10's GAU-8 ripping through an enemy tank brigade (though I feel sorry for the tankers) or an AC-130 (the true Grim Reaper) bringing a whole new meaning to the term no-man's land (yes I fell in love with it after the CoD:MW level). Though if we are bringing in more equipment, I hope we'll find out about it soon in more public sources, still you can't out-GAU the GAU-8 and 12. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC) P.S. Now this right here is cause for concern: [2]

Mars Article

I'm not sure what you had intended with the Mars article. I'm assuming you had possibly intended to be editing the Commons page for Mars but be more careful in the future. --Xession (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That's odd, I didn't try to edit the Mars article yesterday...
Don't assume things though, please. And kindly watch your tone.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I have assumed nothing in a hastened tone and only meant to bring attention to the matter. This edit is clearly attributed to you, where most of the article content has been removed. If you are not the one who performed the edit, I would suggest changing your password or conversing with others you live with regarding the matter. Such actions are generally considered vandalism. --Xession (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Email

I sent an email to your toolserver address just to follow up on the WP 1.0 bot. If it doesn't arrive, please let me know and I'll send it another way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carl, I received your e-mail. Things are rather busy right now, but I'm definitely willing to make some time for wp10bot. I took a look at the source visualization tool, which is sure nice. I've been having some issues accessing things on the toolserver itself though, and I'm having trouble staying connected to the IRC channel as well, but hopefully I can get that stuff worked out quick. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page Drama

There appears to be a increasingly high-concentration of drama (for Wikipedia) in this topic: Talk:2011_Libyan_civil_war#This_war_is_a_heavily_orchestrated_racket. You seem like a level-headed fellow, think you could help diffuse it? =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Signatures on move requests

Request for review

Heya,

I just went through this article which has been ravished by fans and angry players and cleaned some stuff up in a few edits. I guess this is how you ask for review, so anything else that needs doing for this? :p

Also, what is this bot of yours? What does he do? O_O Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ohms law. You have new messages at Flinders Petrie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"If I have posted a reply on your page you can be assured that I am watching your talk page, so please reply there in order to keep our conversation in one location." - I think not, good sir. =p — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flinders Petrie (talk • contribs) 10:54, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Research

Hey, thanks for your comments on the Signpost this week. They were all really thoughtful. If you're interested in taking a look at more research projects like this, there's a list updated on Meta at Research/Projects. In addition to work by Foundation folks that often needs community input, there are also outside researchers who need comments and more hands on help from smart editors. Thanks again, Steven Walling at work 04:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You're more then welcome Steve. I'll take a look ASAP. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ohms_law/Archive_6&oldid=1066860571"