User talk:Omegatron/Archive/April, 2007

Boston Aqua Teen ad campaign security scare

If you're going to move the article to a new title, could you at least fix the double redirects. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post the same thing (if perhaps a bit more politely). I fixed them myself. - furrykef (Talk at me) 16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly? I expect it will be changed again soon, so why waste our time? :-) — Omegatron 16:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's such a mess that I'm surprised people can even find the article anymore. We really need to come to some sort of consensus for the title, maybe through ol' fashioned voting. At this point I'm fine with anything with "Boston" in the title :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

now nonexistant Browns gas article - perhaps a redirect is in order.

there is no Wikipedia article for Browns Gas, not even a redirect. You've obviously been involved in the oxyhydrogen HHO aquagas David Klien whatever so you must be familure with what is what. Because of this familurarity - could you please look into the Browns Gas article, and create a redirect or whatever is needed so that browns gas has SOME mention on Wikipedia. It seems a seperate Browns Gas article is unwanted and/or at least controversial, so it seems a redirect should be the fallback. However i am unsure where to redirect it to. That's where you come in, if you would be so kind to accurately tie off the loose ends, thx. Roidroid 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't involved in the deletion of all of these articles, and object to it. There is an article Denny Klein, though, where I've redirected Brown's gas. I can undelete the content from HHO gas, Brown's gas and the like and we can put it in Denny's article instead if you want. — Omegatron 05:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think undeleting the pages is ok, that sounds the best option to me too. Although i can't see what's stopping them from being instantly re-deleted again though. Surely their's some important reason or drama behind it's deletion in the first place. i mean, atm i don't care what that reason is lol, but i'm sure someone has some reason. Drama will ensue Roidroid 15:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just undelete them temporarily so we can copy the content to Denny Klein's article. They were not deleted apppropriately, from what I can tell, though, so we could also put them up for deletion review. — Omegatron 18:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notepad++

I changed what you had said to be a little less critising and added citation needed because I can not find anywhere any critism on Notepad++, or the font being critisied, also as it is simply a default and easy to change, i dont think it should be critisised.

"AND JUST NOTICED NOW THE DEFAULT FONT IS COURIER NEW, "Courier is a monospaced square serif typeface" (so removing your edit) --A dam1213 Talk + 12:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just look through the discussion board. It comes up every month or so.

The default font for most text is Courier New, but the default font for comments is Comic Sans MS, which everyone hates and is not a monospace font. Also the default font setup uses differently sized fonts for different elements, which ruins the monospacedness. — Omegatron 18:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent changes to references in Cladistics

Hello Omegatron. I note with interest that the citation templates have been recently enhanced to take ISBN, PMID etc as fields. However I'm not yet convinced that any existing reference templates should be changed. Just two problems for starters:

'What links here' currently works for {{ISSN}} and similar templates. In citation templates you probably can't get the same effect.
SmackBot probably will not check ISBNs for validity that are in named fields, rather than free-standing after the ISBN keyword. (And will not do the other things it can do, like supply proper hyphenation).

Can you think of any benefits that are enough to justify these disadvantages? EdJohnston 03:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the What links here should work correctly for conditionally-transcluded templates. That's what Bugzilla:8446 is for. If this were fixed we could put the ISSN template inside the cite journal template and What links here would only list instances that actually specified an ISSN. What is this really needed for, though? There's also no equivalent for ISBNs or PMIDs.
See #COinS_tag

The main benefit is that the new explicit tags contain only the actual identifier, making it possible to put them in the machine-readable COinS tags so that people can more easily access references, like generating direct links to their institution's copy of journal articles. Also it's just a better idea to have the information provided in separate pieces like this. That's why we have separate last, first, author, and authorlink fields instead of just a single author field that you can put anything into. — Omegatron 04:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating circuits in Inkscape

Hi, I have been thinking about creating electrical diagrams for Wikimedia Commons and I decided to create a single vector image with prepared electrical symbols. It should make vector diagramming as fast and flexible as possible, although there is no other tool in Inkscape than grid snapping. (I have written about it at the pages [1] and [2].) I have already made several images (and some in my computer yet). What do you think about this way of drawing diagrams? --FDominec 15:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already started to do the same thing: 1 2 3 :-) It would be great if we could figure out a single great-looking style to use consistently across all our articles, that can be produced easily. The central discussion point for this stuff is here. Xcircuit makes a nice output, but it has a weird interface, doesn't output SVG directly, and I haven't been able to get it working in Windows, so I doubt it's a great solution for the majority of people.

I think there are enough of us interested in this that we should just create our own javascript circuit drawing program. User:Poccil started working on a modification of Klunky to output SVGs. Since SVGs are just XML code, we should be able to write a program to directly output a complete SVG image from a grid of components like Klunky. [3] [4] If we really wanted to, in addition to a standalone script, we could probably even make a "plugin" for mononook.js that would allow creation (and editing?) of SVG circuit diagrams right on the Image description page. — Omegatron 16:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can say, drawing circuits only with Inkscape and prepared symbols is the easiest way of creating circuits I have tried. Except for "flexible" connections it satisfies all drawing needs, it is multiplatform and enables the user to add coloury arrows, texts, graphs etc. (And it is possible to add new symbols.)

Maybe it would be most effective to just add some functionality to the connector object in Inkscape. But I support any other approach, too. BTW I uploaded a new version of the library. --FDominec 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

I like your most recent additions to the Denny Klein page. I think were working positively here.24.193.218.207 21:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't expecting that, but... good. :-) Positive cooperation is the ideal. Have you considered getting an account yet? — Omegatron 21:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finance Portal

I saw your work on interest, I have been doing a lot of work on the structured finance end of wikipedia structured finance, asset-backed securities securitization etc. I am interested in creating a Finance portal to start organizing the financial links in wikipedia. There is one user so far who has also been very active who is going to start work on this but were looking for some more. Would you be interested?

If you are can you email me from my user page drewwiki --DrewWiki 19:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image source

Image:Tooltip.png has no source. Please add. --Ysangkok 21:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-phob-

Congrats with Telephone Phobia catch! I also wanted to brag about the venustraphobia and stuff. `'mikka 04:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Denny Klein

An editor has nominated Denny Klein, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denny Klein and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at the Denny Klein AfD

Hi there. Please try to remain calm over at the AfD. What I meant when I made this adjustment to your recent comment is that altering your previous comments without making it clear that you have done so is bad form. Best practice is to strike through your original comment and put your revised opinion afterwards. Please familiarise yourself with WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable for the general guideline.

Specifically, in this instance, you posted an opinion on Tuesday; other users responded to your opinion. Then today, you substantially edited that opinion to take account of other users' arguments. Whether you intend it to or not, such alterations after the fact have the effect of confusing, and not clarifying, the discussion. Please consider amending your own comments in line with my edit (which you've reverted) - my markup of your edits was both clearer and within guidelines. Thank you. — mholland 20:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I changed my argument, I would cross out the old and add in the new, but I didn't change it; I just added more detail. No one had commented on my argument so I wasn't modifying anyone else's comments indirectly, and I made it clear that I had updated it with today's timestamp. I don't see anything wrong with this at all. Editing other's comments, however, is strongly discouraged and often disruptive, as you should know from the page you are citing.

Please see the AfD process:

Please make only one recommendation; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one.

Did I delete anything from my original comment or change its meaning in any way? — Omegatron 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You added several links to sections of the Deletion Policy which are quite distinct from the arguments you initially put forward. Frankly, between your following up on the nominator, the nom's responses and User:24.193.218.207's posting of a 750-word comment only tangentally related to the AfD, the matter has been quite successfully turned into a bunfight, the outcome of which will assuredly be No Consensus. I don't think any uninvolved user will have the temerity to step into this one, which is a shame, because this AfD badly needs outside perspectives. — mholland 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You added several links to sections of the Deletion Policy which are quite distinct from the arguments you initially put forward.

You must have misunderstood my original arguments, then. Good thing I clarified them, eh? :-)

a bunfight, the outcome of which will assuredly be No Consensus.

And then we'll end up moving the content to a re-created HHO gas anyway, since there isn't enough information about the guy himself to have a biography...

because this AfD badly needs outside perspectives.

Yep.

I think I'm going to do a deletion review of all the other articles after some more research, though. We need to cover this stuff one way or another. Maybe an all-encompassing article about fringe electrolyzers would be the best way. — Omegatron 22:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I find it rather perverse that you would !vote Keep on this AfD when you freely admit, "there isn't enough information about the guy himself to have a biography", but I don't really care all that much, and I agree that your next course of action is to DRV a different article. With that in mind, I'm going to keep well away from this matter, at least until the present AfD is closed. Thank you for your time. — mholland 22:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it rather perverse that you would !vote Keep on this AfD when you freely admit, "there isn't enough information about the guy himself to have a biography"

AfD isn't for editorial issues, as I have pointed out a few times. — Omegatron 00:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Re: Talk:Smartphone: I should have known how to do that, but didn't. Thank you for the cleanup :) Hypnotist uk 22:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

HHO/Brown's Gas

Are we going to do anything about the information, because Denny Klein and Dennis Klein have been deleted. If anything we should at least talk about the peer review journal article, and the claims make in the patents. We can leave out the television broadcast, ect.... 24.193.218.207 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you register an account? You don't need to give an email address or anything. To regular users, all IP addresses look the same; like vandals. I have to stare at it for a second to figure out that you're the water fuel cell person.

I still have access to all the deleted articles, and I can copy the content into a new one. It is just going to be deleted again if we don't get it into good shape, though. It needs to not make any dubious claims and needs to be referenced to the reliable sources we were listing.

Idea:

HHO gas could also cover:
- Aquygen
- Denny Klein
- Common Ducted Electrolysis?
- Magnecular bond? Or does it deserve its own article?
Brown's gas is said to be distinctly different from HHO gas. Could also cover:
- Information about Yull Brown since we probably don't know enough for a biography
- Common Ducted Electrolysis?
Ruggero Santilli could also cover:
- Magnecular bond

Another idea:

Electrolysis welder
- Contains information about both Brown's patents and Aquygen
Water-fuelled car could contain the claims about cars
Ruggero Santilli could also cover:
- Magnecular bond

I'm not sure how we want to arrange this. — Omegatron 01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous treatments of HHO and Brown's Gas gave no hint of the opinion of mainstream scientists on these matters. I'd be receptive to a recreated article if it could give at least a tiny effort to reconcile this material with standard science. The term 'magnecular bond' sounds like phlogiston or the ether. It's possible that mainstream scientists could be wrong, but at least their views should be cited in some fashion. If no citations can be mustered, I'd most likely be against re-creation. EdJohnston 03:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'magnecular bond' sounds like phlogiston or the ether.

That Magnecule stuff by Santilli is a stupid trademark. It is the exact same thing as a theory proposed by Yull Brown in the 60's dealing with gaseous crystal formations. The Brown theory at least use scientific terms and did not resort to create a novel trademark that does not represent the underlying scienific proposition. Obviously it is a bold theory, but there is very little that can explain the very heavy molecules clearly shown in the chromatography graphs. Noah Seidman 06:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, this technology is simple electrolysis. This isnt that Stan Meyers water fuel car stuff. This is 100% the same thing as Oxy-Hydrogen production except instead of separating the product hydrogen and oxygen they are "Common Ducted". Noah Seidman 07:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what?

This recent trend of fanatic deletionism of anything that isn't mainstream science is really irritating me. Just because something isn't true doesn't mean we should exclude it from our encyclopedia. We have a duty to include this stuff in our encyclopedia if it has any significant notability. I wish these people would direct their unquenchable zeal towards researching and writing high-quality articles instead of fighting all day to get them deleted. I understand that the articles are difficult to maintain and tend to turn into crackpottery festivals, but that doesn't mean we should just give up and pretend the topics don't exist. — Omegatron 06:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omegatron, I am 24.193.218.207. I will use this name in future posts. I think we should not make many articles. We should simply do a page titled "Common Ducted Electrolysis". Everything and anything under the sun that someone claims is different than Oxy-Hydrogen falls under the category of common ducted electrolysis. HHO is common ducted, Brown's Gas is common ducted, ect..... Although if you do indeed want to create separate pages, so be it, but I do feel that there is not enough information on any single topic to prevent the article from being a "stub". Within the "Common Ducted Electrolysis" page we can have a section "Brand Names (ie. HHO, Brown's Gas). Then subsections about proposed claims supported by the Santilli article. I'm not quite sure what to do with Brown's Gas because the Santilli article says that HHO is different than Brown's Gas, but in the article it does not clearly define Brown's Gas nor the proposed molecular difference. It is clear though that HHO is produced in a common ducted electrolyzer, and I actually contacted HTA to verify this! We can use the abstract of the Yull Brown patent that says Brown's Gas is common ducted Oxy-Hydrogen, but I dont know how some other administrators will feel about using a patent as a citation. Because there are no peer review journal articles dealing with Brown's Gas obviously we cannot say anything more than it being common ducted Oxy-Hydrogen; we cannot get into the proposed molecular structure, and its likely equivalent properties to HHO. Although we can conclusively mention that upon visual inspection HHO is indistinguishable from Brown's Gas as there are countless videos online that show no visual means of distinction. These are just some preliminary thoughts, we'll see how things develop. We should start with a stub to work from the ground up creating a perfectly cited encyclopedic work line by line. Noah Seidman 06:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think we should get into biographies at this time as there is practically no biographical information available for sourcing!! Noah Seidman 06:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think breaking things down into independent articles will be too difficult to maintain and prevent crackpottery. As for citation there really is only the Santilli article, and one article from a peer review journal in Korea that briefly mentions the implosive property of Brown's Gas (I will track down the article as I have university access to peer review journals). We should carefully choose the sources of citation to prevent other administrators from getting their feathers flustered. What other than peer review articles is considers an appropriate source? Since the technology is something that can be visually observed what can be done with videos? I think we should avoid linking to any company involved with the technology to make sure no other administrator gets flustered. I guess we can mention the names of companies, but we should not provide a hyperlink to them. Noah Seidman 07:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please lets not get too much into that Magnecule stuff, even I consider that fringe and speculative!!!! Noah Seidman 07:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electrolysis Welder is also ok. I do think its important to note on the Oxy-Hydrogen page that it can only be produced in an independently ducted electrolyzer and is completely impossible to produce it via common ducted systems. Noah Seidman 08:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness of tone

Omegatron, Not sure if you noticed but I got to it first. :-) I asked the same question right above your post about 16 hours earlier. Funny... We may want to merge the discussion as I agree. Morphh ^(talk) 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analog sound vs. digital sound

Moved to Talk:Analog sound vs. digital sound#Exact_reproduction.2Ferror_correction. — Omegatron 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]