User talk:Omegatron/Archive/May, 2007

Aquygen / HHO

The individual trying to delete the page is now vandalizing (with the assistance of a probable sockpuppet) and making insulting remarks in his edit captions such as "you would never make it as lawyers". An attempt to make HHO look like an actual science is also being made. Your intervention would be appreciated.Majestic Lizard 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "actual science"? The only thing we can do here is present who is claiming what, and what the scientific implications of those claims would be, if true. The article needs to be neutral and verifiable. — Omegatron 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ban me I hate Wikipedia. Every god dam line another editor puts on the article is something skeptical. Its rediculous. On the Ether page this shit dousnt happen, and even on the cold fusion page this shit dousnt happen. Wikipedia has malfunctioning editors. I seriously, and greatly appreciate your efforts Omegatron. I thank you for your consideration, and due dilligence, but I recommend that this article be abandonded as the contributions from other editors are simple bullshit. Noah Seidman 19:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If people are behaving that badly, get them banned. I'll do it if you show me unacceptable behavior. If the article is being assaulted in an unbearable fashion, get it protected. I'll do it if you can show me it's out of control. (I don't know if I have much time to follow everything myself in the next week or so.)

We are not abandoning these articles, though, and proposing it for deletion because you disagree with its current state is disruptive and a waste of everyone's time. — Omegatron 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and I will try and bite my lower lip. It seems that my most recent edits are being considered as netural, as I am retaining stances both for and against the topic. If anything gets out of hand I will let you know, otherwise I hope other editors will become less opinionated and actually help me create an article that represents the Santilli peer review pulication, the prior art, Klein's competition, and criticism. Noah Seidman 01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Omegatron, all my edits have been revered. Its not like the guy reverted a couple, he reverted all of them. Help please, why cant other editors talk things out instead of posting BS and reverting everything. OMG, help. Noah Seidman 01:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. I told him to not do that on his talk page. Please be patient and we'll all figure out a way to work together on this. But remember that you have to write in a neutral way without depending on your own research, too. — Omegatron 02:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Without a doubt I understand. I have never mentioned my Brown's Gas chromatography because it is not peer review published. I understand the Wikipedia policies to enough of an extent to attempt 100% compliance, and obviously anything that is not 100% compliant can be worked out with the help of other "reasonable" editors, such as yourself, via talking and debating. Its a shame to see that soooo many editors want to simply state their opinions only, the prevailing criticism and stereotypes, and not do even a small amount of due diligence. The article in its current state is disturbing in my opinion, but I will refrain from doing edits for some time until things calm down a little.

This is essentially why I created my website. I publicly convey the real information about this technology. While its not proper to state opinions on Wikipedia, obviously my website is the perfect place to clarify the situation, and the context of the technology. There is soooooooooo sooooooooo much bullshit out there, and when I was in College I saw this, and I wanted to change it. I wanted to break the technology down, understand it, and make it simple to understand for the general public. While my website is achieving this, and does have a remarkable ranking on Alexa and Google, Wikipedia links always show up on the top 10 of google searchers. Because of this it hurts my heart that such stereotypical information is aggressively being disseminated via Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with criticism, but the current state of the article portrays the technology as a complete fraud. I hope that this is not your belief, and I cannot forcibly convince anyone otherwise, but hopefully the information that I provide on my website, in consideration of my attempted edits to the various Wikipedia articles, shows you the effort that I am making, at such a young age, to clarify this simple, straight forward, electrolysis technology. Best Regards, Noah Seidman Noah Seidman 04:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

dBFS

Dear Sir, Those links that you continue to undelete are a violation of Wikipedia terms because they point at a commercial website and also to an engineer.

If you'd like me to raise this issue to the administrators , I will have no recourse but to suggest that there is vandalism on your part. I would prefer not to go there with you. Evinatea 05:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am an administrator. Please stop removing the links. If someone reverts something that you've done, you should discuss it with them on the article's talk page instead of revert warring. See WP:3RR. — Omegatron 05:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Video

Greetings. Back in September you contacted me about video support. We still have not gotten the native mediawiki support for video finished and integrated. But I've gone ahead and provided a video player applet via the same hack that I used for audio. The video templates have been adjusted to make use of this player. Any feedback in appreciated. --Gmaxwell 06:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Overturn

Yes, and even if you don't boldface it it is assumed that you want it overturned because you wouldn't have nominated it otherwise. >Radiant< 15:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You're assuming that people actually read things before voting on them.  :-) — Omegatron 15:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

(Bot, please archive this.) :-) — Omegatron 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Nofollow rule

External links use rel="nofollow", meaning they have no effect on Google's search results. Attempting to get a better Google pagerank by spamming Wikipedia is futile. — Omegatron 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is not true. While, Wikipedia does use nofollow on external links, many of the mirrors do not. For example consider the link to "Harry McCracken's Scrappyland" on Scrappy here and on Answers.com. The link text on this site is:

<a href="http://www.scrappyland.com/" class="external text" 
 title="http://www.scrappyland.com/" rel="nofollow">Harry McCracken's Scrappyland</a>

But on Answers.com it's:

<a href="http://www.scrappyland.com/" class="external text"
target="wpext">Harry McCracken's Scrappyland</a>

-- Selket ^Talk 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Omegatron, believe it. It does help the rank positions and in a big way. Otherwise, why am I am being harassed by a group of people in California that can't wait to see me being blocked and done away with? Because, I took away their money making link. The audio mastering page ALSO ranked first in other keywords such as "audio mastering". If you have an external link at the Wikipedia audio mastering page, then your site is bound to receive thousands of hits. I am sure that the spamming site (Promoted by Sorensen, Biggy P and all their other socket puppet IP addresses) will be dropped from Google very soon. Evinatea 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputedtag req. for input

Your participation in {{Disputedtag}} suggests that you might be able to help mediate a misunderstanding about it at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Merge and policy tags. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of Cite book in Bibliography

Please see Cite book in Bibliography which may be of interest; if the solution to my issue is a new template, you'll want to ensure that it includes COinS. Andy Mabbett 16:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If your proposed template uses all the same fields and just outputs them in a different order, then you can just copy and paste the COinS tag from cite book and it will work the same way. — Omegatron 16:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm not confident editing such a complex tamplate, and I'm not clear whether the template need to include (but not display) the author, for inclusion in COinS (and what about co-authored books?). Andy Mabbett 17:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be best if the author were still included. Maybe what you really want is an option in cite book to display the information differently. — Omegatron 17:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I first envisaged, certainly. Can you assist, please? Andy Mabbett 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For another example/ test case, please see George Edward Lodge#Bibliography. Andy Mabbett 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a polite nudge about this. Andy Mabbett 12:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Need to finish the job on the audio mastering talk page

I don't know why you have ignored all the evidence of socket puppetry and spam by the "artmastering" studio, but I am not concerned. However clean up the audio mastering talk page now if you are going to do clean up at all. Take out all the other accusations of spam and socket puppetry against me and others or it's going to look like you just like "Sorensen" are against me and that you are not coming from a NPOV. As an administrator, you could have done more. Evinatea 15:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Omegatron, I am sure I can edit out irrelevant text from the page you assigned for my so called "rants" User:Evinatea/Sockpuppetry. It's that correct?

I need to bring a few administrators and members of the Wikiproject Sound Production members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_sound_production) to read it in a few days, but the text seems to me chaotic at best and it doesn't help to make the case if it can't be more concise. So, can I delete the irrelevant stuff? Evinatea 12:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. If you were the only person who wrote it, you could, but it contains defenses of the people you are accusing, too, so I would say editing their comments or changing your comments around to invalidate theirs wouldn't be good. You might want to just put a summary section at the top before reporting it at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. — Omegatron 13:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Omegatron, you wrote: "Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people."

How come you don't tell "Mike Sorensen" and "Biggy P" to stop posting lies about me spamming, or at least say the same thing you are warning about?

Also, don't forget: When blocking may not be used:

Admins must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. Also consider filing a Request for comment on use of admin privileges.

Why can't i edit my own talk page especially if all they write in there is garbage? If you don't know , I will soon find out anywayEvinatea 15:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Omegatron, I thought I will drop you a line as it looks like someone is accusing you of conflict of interest. If it wasn't for your action we probably still couldn't have any rational discussion on Talk:Audio mastering page. But just for the record, you may want to know that when I was researching the subject of Audio mastering in other languages I just found this Spam in Spanish Wikipedia and it points to the same person that is accusing you of conflict of interest. My final comments here: [1] --Mike Sorensen 15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I helped cleaning audio mastering talk page

I fixed formatting and improved readibility and attributed some unsigned comments. No change in content. The only section that still needs work is Artmasterng [2]. I didn't touch it because I don't want to be accused of bias :-). Maybe you or some other editor can finish cleaning it up.--Mike Sorensen 07:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Article quality?

Can you give me an opinion of the quality of the article Nyquist plot, please? RJFJR 15:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I've ever actually used one, but I'll look. — Omegatron 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bistability image

I found an image on commons for bistability. If that's not sufficient please let me know on my talk page and I can whip something up. Cburnett 03:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly what I wanted. A little weird-looking? But it's fine for now. Maybe I'll modify it myself sometime. — Omegatron 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Microformats

You might like to be aware of, or even join, WikiProject Microformats. Andy Mabbett 11:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. — Omegatron 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)