User talk:Lomn

Old talk topics headquartered at User talk:Lomn/Archive

Blastolene Special

I think I have the answer to your question on the talk page.

Comment 'bout pride

Hey, you took it personally? I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, just informing Belchman. But if you don't like it, I'll remove it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

grammar

Michael,

I recently boxed one of your comments at WP:RD/H. As you may be aware, the Ref Desks have been wrestling with the issue of whether and when it's appropriate to correct grammar for some months now. A general consensus has emerged that correction for correction's sake, particularly when there's no room for misinterpretation, is to be avoided. A gentle note of correction to the poster's talk page should be fine, but I hid your comment largely to prevent it being a flash point for yet another dramafest on this issue. — Lomn 13:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why some people are so touchy about grammatical things like that, even though they can disagree about politics or religion or education without suffering any spiritual bruises. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

On Judge Judy

Hi Lomn - I saw your warning to NIM about his 'legal threat' to bring in Judge Judy. While it seems readily apparent that NIM is unable or unwilling to participate constructively in building Wikipedia, I would hesitate to treat his grandstanding as a legal threat. Judge Judy is a syndicated daytime television show (and its eponymous star) which purports to arbitrate trivial disputes between bickering and obnoxious complainants. While it has some of the trappings of a courtroom, it is assuredly not any part of the legal system. Threatening to call Judge Judy is more like threatening to call Jerry Springer or Oprah Winfrey than threatening to call a lawyer.

That's not to say that I don't think NIM should remain blocked indefinitely. Either the account is being used by a particularly dedicated troll, or the well-meaning individual behind it simply lacks the maturity to work with others in this environment — but I would hate to see a good block overturned because someone got confused about it being primarily due to a 'legal threat'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ten,

I was just about to get something posted on the ANI thread (perhaps it should have gone up first). Anyway, agreed on the nature of JJ as entertainment rather than the legal system. My understanding of NLT, though, is that it's closely tied with the notion of chilling effects -- it's not whether the threat is credible or sustainable but simply that it is made (granted, this is quite borderline). I think it's important that retraction be part of any unblock, in conjunction with the other terms at NIM's page.

I agree entirely on the wisdom of the present block; I'm considering the wisdom of also locking the talk page. Given that much of the concern at ANI is tied to the repeated use of real names, I don't know that a standard block-with-talk-access fully addresses the problem (perhaps NOINDEX is sufficient? I'm not sure). Conflating that action with a borderline NLT issue may be a mistake. — Lomn 15:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen the AN/I thread; I was keeping an eye on NIM's talk page because I regularly work the Ref Desk and he had been making a nuisance of himself there. I agree that the purpose of NIM's silly threat was to have a chilling effect, but I am of two minds about whether or not that should be a major factor in deciding whether or not NLT should be applied. Suppose NIM had instead threatened to report his side of the dispute on a different television program (on Oprah, or public access cable, or what have you) or through some other public outlet (newspaper column, Twitter feed, etc.). The point of his Judge Judy threat was not (I think) to instil fear of legal proceedings, but rather to threaten some manner of public exposure, embarrassment, or humiliation. I note that since Judge Judy takes the form of an arbitration, the participation of any party is – as with any television program – entirely voluntary. (Indeed, unless another Wikipedia editor agreed to appear on Judge Judy, the threat is entirely moot; the show won't go on without two parties.) The distinction I would be inclined to draw is that 'real' legal proceedings can begin without the defendant's consent, and have added power as a chilling threat primarily for that reason.

As to locking his talk page (or at least pulling his ability to edit it), I can certainly see no harm in that approach, and much to recommend it. Looking at the AN/I thread and the talk page, it seems like we're getting into situations where NIM is going to be demanding that his young teenage friends and acquaintances start identifying themselves to OTRS and giving consent for the disclosure of their real names...it's looking less and less like a road we want to go down. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ten has it right on Judge Judy, both "sides" have to agree to participate, her "rulings" have no legal force or effect (the show pays her "damage" awards) - it was just the last TV show they had on before they came back to keyboard. A legasl threat has to indicate an entity capable of taking legal action. I was really hoping to get a name-change through, even though the u & t pages are already noindexed before going to full lock-down. I hadn't spotted an age issue with the target of their name but now it doesn't matter anyway as they are a minor, so can't give consent. Franamax (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I followed up on Swatjesters suggestion and sent an email to info-en for clarification, just for my own curiosity. I'll let you know the results. Franamax (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing useful to contribute here. I just wanted to register my amusement that a threat to contact Judge Judy's web site is being considered a "Legal Threat".

More seriously, it really indicates how completely NIM's life revolves around the TV, that the scariest legal threat he could muster was to a TV judge. APL (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think going on Judge Judy would be great. First of all, we all would have to go 'cause no 'pedian would ever let someone else speak for them. Then when it came time for our side to tell their story, whoever spoke would constantly have their grammar tweaked or their words rearranged for better flow. Partway through someone else would say "wait a minute, that's a massive copyright violation, now we have to go back over every single word you've spoken". Every so often the story would be changed to "my firend Alison is teh coolest". And when Judge Judy turned around and said "didn't you just say that you wanted X to happen?" we would be saying "no, check the tape, that was completely rewritten six minutes ago". They would likely close the show down after that case. :) Franamax (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I just hope they don't tape the show during the month of December. I'd hate to have to hold up a banner the whole time. APL (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's unfortunate that "legal threat" is the terminology that I used, because no, it's not really a legal threat. However, it's a threat made to try to influence the community, and it's a threat made with the intent/belief/hope/something that legalese (the presence of "court", "judge", "case", etc) will make the threat more valid. As I noted above, NLT doesn't ask the community to judge the credibility of a threat; it's a bright-line test for Things Users Ought Not Do -- and petty threats easily fall into such a category. But, as I'm realizing after posting, it's a lousy premise for action here (though I think such action -- locking talk page access -- will prove worthwhile). I'll go edit the post at NIM's talk page to that effect. — Lomn 19:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Midway-1991-cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Midway-1991-cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Relative fatality rate between seat belt wearers and abstainers

Regarding your:

Only 15% of people in the US aren't wearing a seat belt as of 2010, but they account for 27% of fatalities in accidents. That means they're about 3 times more likely to die on a per-wreck basis than those properly restrained.

Are you sure about your math? I get ( 0.27 / 0.73 ) / ( 0.15 / 0.85 ) = 2.1. Am I doing something wrong? (Do we have an article on such calculations?) -- ToE 09:44, 22 January 2012

Doesn't look like it (and no, I'm not sure about mine). I ballparked things on the Windows calculator (which I despise, but I haven't found a good post-XP replacement for PowerCalc that'll show history, respect order of operations, and such). I was going on memory about relative ratios and it looks like I guessed wrong about which side of 2.5 the calculation would end up on. — Lomn 20:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)