User talk:Omegatron/Archive/November, 2007

Whitespace

What do you think of Bugzilla:11498? — Omegatron 02:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for any particular article having consistent internal formatting, but I really don't care what style that is, as long as it is consistent. So, if the software was to fix up an article's internal consistency, then it would first have to determine what the dominant style was already in place for that article, and just fix-up the inconsistent parts, if it does what I sometimes try to do for an article. That sounds like it would be hard to explain to a programmer in such a way that it could be automated. For example, if I can't find a dominant existing style in an article, I just leave it alone until one develops. - Bevo 12:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would defeat the purpose and be counterproductive if we let each article be a different style. The idea is to make all articles consistent with each other. — Omegatron 13:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that idea (of absolute consistency) will go over well. I might be wrong. Good luck! - Bevo 03:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? That's the whole point. Why would anyone want one article to be formatted different from another? — Omegatron 15:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that there is no consensus as to what that "one-true-formatting-style" should be. - Bevo 23:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

You are violating the spirit and the letter of the mediation process that is under way. Please participate in the proper place, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and refrain from making controversial edits in the face of both the process and the specific request of the mediator himself. Thank you. -- Avi 01:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in any mediation process. There is dispute about the translation of that statement on the talk page, so I changed it to a neutral phrasing. My edit is not controversial. — Omegatron 02:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Firstly, it is one of the key points under discussion. Secondly, it against most of the sources, which discuss condemnation of Ahmadinejad the man and not the statement. -- Avi 02:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources discuss condemnation of the man for the statement he made, no? I don't understand what this has to do with my edit. — Omegatron 02:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am speaking about this edit. The sources condemn the man, not the statement. Saying "but it is for the statement" firstly is a violation of original synthesis, secondly is a substantive edit to a section of an article under current mediation, and thirdly is a misrepresentation of the sources listed. Thank you. -- Avi 02:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of making edits that have been under debate and discussion for months, would you please join the mediation process at the link I supplied above? -- Avi 03:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What edits? — Omegatron 03:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one in particular. -- Avi 03:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you pointed that out already. I don't understand what you think is wrong with that edit. — Omegatron 03:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is discussed at more length at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and I gave you three reasons at 02:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC) a few lines up. -- Avi 04:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "but it is for the statement" firstly is a violation of original synthesis
- That's what the sentence is about. He was criticized for a statement that he made. 'He was condemned internationally, for calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map."' I'm sorry, but I don't know how else you could interpret this sentence. Condemning the man? How is that different? What do you mean?
secondly is a substantive edit to a section of an article under current mediation
- So what? I'm not involved in your conflict and I'm editing neutrally.
thirdly is a misrepresentation of the sources listed.
- I see ridiculously long laundry lists of references talking about him being criticized for making that statement. What do you see? — Omegatron 04:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly responding to each point in turn:

It changes the focus of the world's opinion, and is unsupported by the references.
You are, by virtue of your choosing to edit the article.
The long list was a result of consensus over two years of editing this article; removing any source is completely inappropriate.

Regardless, I have escalated the matter as described below. -- Avi 04:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confused by your comments. Which of these statement(s) do you disagree with?

Ahmadinejad has been internationally condemned for his statements about Israel.
One of his comments was translated as a call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".
This statement was internationally condemned.
Controversy exists over the exact meaning and translation of this statement.

I have not "removed any sources" or "declared interest in paring down those sources". Why are you making things up about me and "reporting" them on ANI? — Omegatron 23:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

WP:ANI#Mahmoud Ahmadinejad mediation and unilateral edits by Omegatron (talk · contribs) -- Avi 04:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there. — Omegatron 23:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - edits to protected page and accidental abuse of sysop rights

You have just made a substantive content edit to a page protected for dispute and mediation reasons—most probably unknowingly. That is an (accidental) use of sysop powers to gain advantage in a dispute. I recommend you self revert quickly, as Arbcom has removed admin privs for such actions. Thank you. -- Avi 07:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Avi's note above. I have reverted to the last (uncontroversial) edit. Regardless of whether you wish to participate in the mediation case, please do not use your administrative abilities to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on Riana's talk. — Omegatron 23:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Development of the New Testament canon

You placed a NPOV tag on Development of the New Testament canon. However, part of the requirement of placing that tag on an article is to create a talk page entry explaining in detail, specifically what are the NPOV issues (and maybe even make some suggestions to improve). Without an accompanying talk page explanation, NPOV tags can simply be removed. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? — Omegatron 15:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template itself says that. It says "Please see the discussion on the talk page." and if you don't start a section on the talk page, then the template is useless. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a note in the edit summary is often adequate. You shouldn't remove a template just because the person leaving it didn't explain why. If they haven't explained why and you think it's neutral, then you can remove it. I've started a section, though. — Omegatron 22:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guest starring in...

Hi!

Your sandbox 'cite book' is appearing in Category:Citation templates and looks to have been implemented pretty much "as is" sometime in the near past. (Perhaps blank the page???)
- {{cite book/doc}} Aside -- imho, The explanation of the 'ref' parameter is unclear.
  (What field [built link] is #{{{ref}}} appending?
  Is the description of THAT sufficient to make clear the option, and that it builds any link at all?)

There is a related discussion and proposal that would refactor some of that format here in order to build a common template compendium page. (rough mock up trial here) [Ironically, until the last few weeks, the only cite template I was familiar with was cite book and cite web—hence the idea of spearheading an aid to those in similar plight.]
Conversely, the sectionalized /docNN subpage scheme could be extended to guarantee WP:CITET has current displays as well.
Alternatively, WP:CITET which has its best use if you are already familiar with a template could be cross linked the section of the proposed (admittedly parrallel) aid, and if broken into sections, cross linked back.

Your input appreciated! // FrankB 16:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked that test page. It's old and was implemented a while ago. — Omegatron 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read through that right now, but I support anything that makes citations easier to use.

Really, though, all this citation template stuff is just putting frosting on a dead horse. We should really be devoting effort to a complete redo of the citation system and implement something better, maybe kind of like meta:wikicite, and completely wipe out cite.php and all its clutter and confusing code. I wish I could program... :-/ — Omegatron 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Cite newspaper

Template:Cite newspaper has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Conrad T. Pino 08:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Nuclear power in France

Excellent idea to add a graph. Thanks. — Omegatron 17:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement! It means a lot. I was just looking over EIA data on world generation and I thought "why don't we have graphs of some one these on the internets?" so I cooked up a few of amature quality. Some are rather interesting. For instance, I didn't know France's electricity production was so low to start out with. I heard once or twice that they don't have many energy resources, but apparently they used to be a huge importer of electricity. Things have certainly changed. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments?

Given you comment at the Village Pump, I'd be interested in your thoughts on User:John Broughton/Cite.php version 2. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some similar proposals on the Cite.php talk page on meta a while ago, and they were largely ignored. But I wonder if there's a solution that doesn't involve any code in the article at all. :-) I'm imagining something like:

Press a tab to see a display of all the text in the article (and maybe this would be available in preview mode, too?)
Select one or more facts by highlighting them.
A balloon with a search box pops up. Start typing something about the reference into it, like the title, ISBN, URL, SICI, etc. If what you are typing matches things already in our database, they are provided in a dynamic list, and you can pick one that matches.

Now the fact(s) you selected are attributed to that unique source (and probably shown as a colored highlight or something in the "reference editing" view).

When an article is rendered, it draws the citation information directly from the database for display instead of storing the same references multiple times within the article's source and re-doing the same formatting work over again for each. So if five articles cite The Art of Electronics, and someone fixes a misspelled author name in the database, that fix applies to all five articles at once. For books that are commonly cited, you only need to begin typing the title and the rest of the information is already entered for you.

If your source has never been used before, or if the citation provided is incomplete or erroneous, you can add or update it in the centralized database with a dedicated editor with fields like Genre: "newspaper article" Author: "John Smith" and so on.

This would also allow the references to be formatted in CMS style, Harvard style, or something more befitting the web, like javascript pop-ups, depending on user preferences.

Certainly this wouldn't work exactly as described, since the article text would then be edited "out from under it", and the citations wouldn't match the text, but I like to think of an "ideal" interface first, and then try to aim for it as much as possible.

By the way, have you used Zotero? — Omegatron 15:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, haven't used Zotero, though I was aware of it (I think I bookmarked it a while ago); not doing much research these days.

Whey you say a solution that doesn't involve any code in the article at all, I'm a bit puzzled - your solution looks like it involves a lot of new code, which is always a big challenge when it comes to changing Wikipedia.

It's an interesting idea to have a separate mode of editing for citations (you mentioned m:Wikicite, which I think does this), and similarly interesting to think about a database for citations rather than standalone entries. Both are real challenges, I think. Asking the user to input a URL for web sources, an ISBN for books, and a PubMed number for citations in that database might be a good way to minimize the amount of typing needed (easy computerized match to anything in the database, plus the system could obtain cite info automatically in many cases, for new entries), as well as minimizing input errors.

I really think an incremental approach is more likely to be successful at Wikipedia, which was the underlying concept of my draft. Do you have a link to what you put up at meta, so I could look at that? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not doing much research these days

Well, it acts as the "centralized database", letting you add a reference once, and then outputting Wikipedia citation templates automatically when you drag a reference into the edit window. Of course it's only "centralized" for yourself, but it lets you easily add references to multiple articles without hunting for the code or retyping it, at least.

I'm a bit puzzled - your solution looks like it involves a lot of new code, which is always a big challenge when it comes to changing Wikipedia.

A lot of new Mediawiki code, yes, which means it will never happen because of our developer situation...

But no code in the article is what I meant. No HTML-esque parser hooks, no cryptic unique identifiers, no templates. Wikis are supposed to be simple, with a clean markup that non-technical people can edit and that uses sane assumptions to save humans time and work. This appears to have been entirely forgotten over the past few years.

(you mentioned m:Wikicite, which I think does this)

Yeah, it has minimal tags in the article itself but is otherwise similar. Something like that would probably be necessary, as I mentioned above with the article changing out from under the reference identifiers, though my lack of imagination on the subject should not be considered the final word on the subject. There's always a better way.

similarly interesting to think about a database for citations rather than standalone entries

This is really important on its own, whether we add those to the articles with crappy unique identifier wikicodes or with a nice separate citation editor. When a book is cited in 100 articles, there is absolutely no reason why 100 different people should do the same work of researching the detailed citation information and formatting the reference for each one.

Both are real challenges, I think.

Which means our developers will never even consider touching them? That seems to be the attitude on bugzilla.

Where are all the people who design software like Flickr and Digg and Facebook apps? What do they work on in their free time? There are volunteers who are really good at this stuff putting together other sites, including free software blogging tools and whatever. They all use Wikipedia. Do they just not realize that we need their help? Is our code too convoluted for others to jump into? Why are we still manually adding categories into the article source code??

Asking the user to input a URL for web sources, an ISBN for books, and a PubMed number for citations in that database might be a good way to minimize the amount of typing needed

Type anything. It's just a search window. Enter the title, the author, the ISBN, etc. Whatever you have handy. The rest will likely already have been filled in by someone else using the citation in another article. You could also use this as a "What links here" to find all articles that cite the same reference.

I really think an incremental approach is more likely to be successful at Wikipedia

Heh. I've said that before.

Do you have a link to what you put up at meta, so I could look at that?

It's become kind of scrambled, and moved here: [1] Way too much noise on that page for any of the signal to get through to the developers.
- This looks to be the same thing, without everyone interrupting: User:Omegatron/Sandbox/Cite
And I started writing something here but abandoned it: User:Omegatron/Cite — Omegatron 00:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to the Zotero article and found the link about Zotero outputing Wikipedia citations; I'd missed that. Thanks.

Thanks also for the links you provided; I'll mull those over. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slanderous clown

your nothing more than a slanderous clown. fuck you . fuck all your efforts. goof. loser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.70.223 (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Did you have something specific in mind? — Omegatron 05:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning:Javascript security issue

Hi! I need to inform you that I've protected Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Unwatch because it allows users to add code to the javascript of other users. If you are an admin, you are still able to edit it, but if you are not an admin, please copy and paste it into your userspace to continue modifying it. We can set up a message at the old javascript page telling users to change their links. If you need help, please contact me or User:Eagle_101. Thanks, --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 00:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice 2

WP:ANI#Admin edit rights privilege abuse -- Avi 12:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]