User talk:Omegatron

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.

Note that this is the English Wikipedia; you may have been redirected from Wikibooks, Meta or Commons.

Click here to start a new discussion.

Wikipedia:Babel

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

fr-1Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.

Search user languages

Wireless Power

Moved to Talk:Wireless energy transfer

Bot, archive this. — Omegatron 17:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Zotero integration in Wikipedia

I was wondering if you'd obtained any result in producing an export that is compatible with wikipedia templates? I'm relatively experienced (with fitting references in templates, that is), so I can try to help if you want me to. Circeus 20:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but I'd love to help. I ended up spending my time putting COinS tags in our citation templates instead, which is kind of in the opposite direction. But it would be very convenient if Zotero generated ref tags. Did you see the thread on the zotero forums from a while ago? — Omegatron 20:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw it, and it's what prompted me to ask you about it. I do think you forgot to add COinS tags to {{cite encyclopedia}}, though. Circeus 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just did book and journal for now. I want to look around for complaints or praise before going further. Most people don't even seem to notice it, though. — Omegatron 21:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect if word got around that Zotero can export in Wiki-format, it would create more use of it in the community, and hence, more demand for use of zotero-comaptible templates. Circeus 22:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely.

Ok, so I keep staring at [1] and [2] and [3] and [4] and I can't figure out where to start. Do you know?

I did add COinS to the bottom of the "Cite this article" page, though.  :-) See this, for example. — Omegatron 01:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They already added it to the new beta![5] You can currently export citations to a text file with citation templates, and in the next version you should be able to copy and paste them directly. — Omegatron 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, many fixes are needed (for example, the dates in cite journal show up as 1984-11, and it ignores the presence of a URL), but it's certainly a good start we can build upon. Circeus 19:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. And there are fields missing and patents should be {{US patent reference}} instead of {{cite}}, and so on. I think we could either ask for trac logins or just start a new thread in the forums to report all our bugs in. — Omegatron 21:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I just started a thread on the dev mailing list. — Omegatron 14:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

CC Attribution-ShareAlike License

Hi, Omegatron. I've used a png image of yours as the basis for an svg version of the same subject. How would you like to be attributed? As Omegatron? With a link to your User page? Thanks. -RCS ^talk 03:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, yes.  :-) Which image? — Omegatron 03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Just Image:Resistor_symbol.png at the moment. Nothing too amazing. :-) -RCS ^talk 07:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I don't think something like that can be copyrighted anyway. You could release it under whatever license you want, and don't need to attribute me.

A lot of schematic symbols already exist; see commons:Category:Electrical_symbols, especially commons:Category:Resistor symbols.

We're also trying to create a standard set of symbols to use for drawing schematics in Inkscape. See commons:Image:Electrical symbols library.svg and commons:Category:Created with electrical symbols library. Maybe you could help us draw more symbols for that? — Omegatron 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Zotero

So anyway, you seem to be the go-to guy for things involving Zotero and Wikipedia. I've just started trying it out (saw an interesting blog post on it, and a few minutes into using it, it caught a messed up citation of mine), but I can't seem to pull references from some articles where I know I heavily used references and templates in and should be able to; for example, Medici bank#References. Investigating, it seems the Harvard references template breaks Zotero because there's no Coin thing? Or is it my installation? If the former, I'd appreciate it if you could do whatever is needed to make it work. --Gwern (contribs) 04:32 18 April 2007 (GMT)

It's not "breaking" Zotero. The COinS tags have only been added to the templates listed on User:Omegatron#COinS, unless other people have been adding them. So only those templates will be readable by Zotero. I'm not a huge expert on the subject or anything; I just seem to be the only person adding them to templates. If you want to read up on them and start putting them in other ones go right ahead. I plan to eventually. — Omegatron 04:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. So it's not a matter of breaking, just Zotero doesn't understand it. Guess I'll see how difficult it is to add this COinS stuff. --Gwern (contribs) 15:40 18 April 2007 (GMT)

Exactly. I see that {{Harvard reference}} is deprecated and replaced with {{Citation}}, which I was going to add COinS to eventually, but which is more difficult because it can be used for different types of documents, and the COinS needs to know if it's a journal, book, etc. So... Hmm.... — Omegatron 15:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Microformats#COinS_work — Omegatron 16:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Microformats#COinS_work. — Omegatron 06:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the integration of Wikipedia and Zotero, but it works only for the english Wikipedia. How can I add COinS in another Wikipedia (es.wikipedia.org)? -- Patora13 Patora13 12:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is controlled by the COinS tag in the bottom of the citation templates. For instance, {{cite book}} has a COinS at the bottom with the reference information. To make this template work on es, you would edit es:Plantilla:Cita libro, copy and paste the COinS tag in the equivalent place, and change all the fields, like {{{title}}} to {{{título}}}, and so on. — Omegatron 16:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It works! Thank you very much! Patora13Patora13 12:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent.  :-) — Omegatron 13:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ajuk's move of Muse to Muse (Greek mythology)

Your call for a disambiguation page for Muse has been answered by User:Ajuk's move of Muse to Muse (Greek mythology). I posted the following note; perhaps you'd pitch in too:

"Now that you have created the dozens of redirects for Muse links that intend Muse (Greek mythology), you might help rectify this disservice to the Wikipedia reader and the trouble caused for other Wikipedians by helping revise the double redirects that you have created. You will find them at Muse by selecting "What links here" in the left-hand table. This is part-and-parcel of a page title move. I have also posted this note at Talk:Muse (Greek mythology). Thank you." ...and thank you, Omegatron. --Wetman 18:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Taner Akçam

The page was protected because it has been "subject to vandalism which had severe legal consequences." You can read about this at Taner Akçam#Persecution and Talk:Taner Akçam#Arrest in Canada. I'm assuming DragonflySixtyseven did this on request by Mr. Akçam himself via OTRS. Is there any chance you can reconsider? Khoikhoi 18:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the incident, but I don't think the reason given is sufficient to protect the article. The vandalism occurred four months ago. If it's from OTRS, it should be re-protected with that cited as the reason. — Omegatron 18:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ref patent template

Just been looking over this COingS thingy (or letters to that effect) that you were going to try to add to {{Ref patent}}. Looked good and I think you had it right. If you don't think it's worth carrying on when the template isn't used much, I won't mind. But it's a pretty new template so hasn't sunk into Wikipedia consciousness yet! GDallimore (Talk) 22:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No I'm going to put it back in; just need to make each field optional, like the one in Cite Book. We should probably merge that with {{US patent application}}, though. — Omegatron 22:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The USPTO and espacenet databases have quite a few differences so merging could easily end up being messy. GDallimore (Talk) 23:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Audio sample help

Hi. I saw you had a few disgussions at Template_talk:Audio. I made a few audio samples for Icelandic movie titles. But I think it's a bit ugly how it's put up. See When the Raven Flies. Would you mind giving me a few tips how to make it neat? I would prefere having a link to a javascript player. --Steinninn 08:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gennaro_Prota has replied and he suggested I ask you. But, well, it looks like you have left too. --Steinninn 22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Rename of I-mate SP5m

Awhile ago you tried to nominate I-mate SP5m to be renamed. I've officially started a vote, so I welcome your vote on Talk:I-mate SP5m. -- Bovineone 08:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

COinS in Template:cite whatever

Given the number of places that COinSes are now popping up, wouldn't it make sense to generate them in a templated manner? I see you've updated several {{cite whatever}} templates and included a lot of explanatory text (a Very Good Thing!) which can expand a reference list quite a bit (a Bad Thing unfortunately). Perhaps we would be better served by something in {{cite encyclopedia}} less like the current:

<!--

This is a COinS tag (http://ocoins.info), which allows automated tools to parse the citation information:
  --><span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004<!--
  -->&rft_val_fmt={{urlencode:info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dc}}<!--                     Field descriptions: http://www.openurl.info/registry/docs/mtx/info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dc
  -->&rft.type=encyclopediaArticle<!--                                          The nature or genre of the content of the resource.  (encyclopediaArticle chosen purely because it is recognized by Zotero.)
  -->{{#if: {{{first|}}}        | &rft.aufirst={{urlencode:{{{first}}}}}       }}<!-- First author's given name or names or initials... may contain multiple words and punctuation, i.e. "Fred F", "Fred James"
  -->{{#if: {{{last|}}}         | &rft.aulast={{urlencode:{{{last}}}}}         }}<!-- First author's family name. This may be more than one word ... i.e. Smith, Fred James is recorded as "aulast=smith"
  -->{{#if: {{{author|}}}       | &rft.au={{urlencode:{{{author}}}}}           }}<!-- This data element contains the full name of a single author, i. e. "Smith, Fred M", "Harry S. Truman".
  -->{{#if: {{{editor|}}}       | &rft.contributor={{urlencode:{{{editor}}}}}  }}<!-- An entity responsible for making contributions to the content of the resource. Examples of Contributor include a person, an organization, or a service.
  -->&rft.title={{urlencode:{{{title|}}}}}<!--                                     A name given to the resource.
  -->{{#if: {{{url|}}}          | &rft.identifier={{urlencode:{{{url}}}}}      }}<!-- URL 
  -->{{#if: {{{format|}}}       | &rft.format={{urlencode:{{{format}}}}}       }}<!-- The physical or digital manifestation of the resource... may include the media-type or dimensions of the resource.
  -->{{#if: {{{encyclopedia|}}} | &rft.source={{urlencode:{{{encyclopedia}}}}} }}<!-- A Reference to a resource from which the present resource is derived.
  -->{{#if: {{{edition|}}}      | &rft.edition={{urlencode:{{{edition}}}}}     }}<!-- Statement of the edition of the book. This will usually be a phrase, with or without numbers, but may be a single number, e.g. "First edition", "4th ed." 
  -->{{#if: {{{volume|}}}       | &rft.volume={{urlencode:{{{volume}}}}}       }}<!-- Volume designation usually expressed as a number but could be roman numerals or non-numeric, i.e. "124", or "VI".
  -->{{#if: {{{publisher|}}}    | &rft.publisher={{urlencode:{{{publisher}}}}} }}<!-- An entity responsbile for making the resource available... person, an organization, or a service.
  -->{{#if: {{{location|}}}     | &rft.place={{urlencode:{{{location}}}}}      }}<!-- Place of publication. "New York"
  -->{{#if: {{{pages|}}}        | &rft.pages={{urlencode:{{{pages}}}}}         }}<!-- Start and end pages for parts (of a book), i.e. "124-147"
  -->{{#if: {{{date|}}} 
       | &rft.date={{urlencode:{{{date}}}}}
       | {{#if: {{{year|}}}     | &rft.date={{urlencode:{{{year}}}}} }}        }}<!-- A date of an event in the lifecycle of the resource... typically the creation or availability of the resource. (ISO 8601)
  -->{{#if: {{{language|}}}     | &rft.language={{urlencode:{{{language}}}}}   }}<!-- A language of the intellectual content of the resource. Recommended best practice is to use RFC 3066... in conjunction with ISO639
  -->{{#if: {{{doi|}}}       | &rft_id=info:doi/{{urlencode:{{{doi}}}}}  }}<!-- DOI
  -->"> </span>

and more like:

{{COinS
   |rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dc
   |rft.type=encyclopediaArticle
   |rft.aufirst={{{first|}}}
   |rft.aulast={{{last|}}}
   |rft.au={{{author|}}}
   |rft.contributor={{{editor|}}}
   |rft.title={{{title|}}}
   |rft.identifier={{{url|}}}
   |rft.format={{{format|}}}
   |rft.source={{{encyclopedia|}}}
   |rft.edition={{{edition|}}}
   |rft.volume={{{volume|}}}
   |rft.publisher={{{publisher|}}}
   |rft.place={{{location|}}}
   |rft.pages={{{pages|}}}
   |rft.language={{{language|}}}
   |date={{{date|}}}
   |year={{{year|}}}
   |doi={{{doi|}}}
}}

where date=, year=, and doi= have their reformulations etc. done inside {{COinS}}, as does all the uuencoding, and anything else that turns out to be necessary later. I'm not so sure about rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dc — from what I've read I think it might be better generated by {{COinS}} than specified by its callers, as it describes the format of the COinS. RossPatterson 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of templating the COinS, as it would save a lot of work and be easier to read, but all the fields are different from one template and OpenURL format to the next... :-/

Also, the comments don't appear in the final output of the article, so it's not adding to anything. The only time they appear is when you're viewing the source of the template. — Omegatron 20:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The comments unfortunately contribute to the pre-expand include size limit. We went through several rounds of reducing the included size of the various {{cite whatever}} templates about six months ago and I'd hate to see that work go all for nought. There's pretty much no way to have them not count.

Too bad also about the OpenURL format being so unfriendly :-( RossPatterson 04:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh. Well you can remove them. Not a big deal. — Omegatron 04:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Messed up news citation

I noticed when I stuck a {{cite news}} in Alfred W. McCoy and then did a import into Zotero and a C-M-c copy into The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia, the page= parameter was discarded and the copied one had a | pages = {{{pages}}}. Any idea what's up? --Gwern (contribs) 02:39 1 May 2007 (GMT)

HTC Wizard

I'm going to remove this content again. Please note that if you revert it again you will be in violation of the WP:3RR. The content is not appropriate for wikipedia, as I explained in the talk page. You've not added anything to the talk page to explain why this content is not covered by WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. If you do not intend to participate in discussion you should not participate in edit warring. Please participate in the discussion on the talk page before reverting my edit again. Wibbble 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

IBM 33FD v Shugart 901 FDD Capacity

Regarding your recent edit to the [Floppy Disk Drive] page, you have to be very careful in researching the capacity of these FDD's for two reasons. First, IBM discounts to net usable capacity whereas OEM's such as Shugart specify net capacity. There are also formatting differences. The first distinction is alternate (spare) tracks. This is an OS distinction and has nothing to do with the medium, drive or even the controller. The 8" SSSD product physically had 77 tracks, not just 73 as in the Engh quote. The difference is alternate tracks supported in certain IBM environments such as the IBM 3740 and S/34. Only IBM would have so much sparing. If you look at the Shugart 800 spec it gives the capacity with an IBM track format as "2.0 megabits" This is a rounded number, the actual gross user capacity with the IBM track format is 26 sectors/track * 128 user bytes/sector * 77 tracks/disk = 256,256 user bytes/disk or 2,050,048 user bits/disk. Shugart, all the other FDD OEM's and the controller OEMS's also supported other formats, for example, 8 x 512 byte sectors per track for gross user capacity of 315,392 bytes per disk. So what number do you want to put up there:

26 sectors of 128 bytes on 73 tracks = 242,944 bytes [IBM 3740 or System 34 Compatible]

26 sectors of 128 bytes on 77 tracks = 256,256 bytes [most common OEM standard, used by most OS's and advertised as such]

8 sectors of 512 bytes on 77 tracks = 315,392 bytes [another, higher capacity, OEM standard]

A SSSD 8" drive and has an unformatted capacity of 6.2 Mbits and can and did generate any of the above formats. It just depends upon the controller and OS.

Personally I prefer the middle one, since that is the way the industry went and represented the product. The other two could be footnotes. BTW, to the best of my knowledge, the capacity of these products was never represent by IBM or the OEM's with binary SI prefixes, so it is a bit inapposite to so list them that way - I think bytes or bits is more appropriate. I'll update the page if you don't object. Tom94022 06:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are a variety of numbers for the formatted capacity, with anywhere from 73 to 75 to 77 tracks (77 total, but only 75 used at one time). See Table of 8-inch floppy formats, which shows three such configurations. I haven't found anything that agrees with the 250.25 number, though. We might want to include the range of values, though?

I found 400 "K" for the unformatted capacity, including a document within 5 years, but not written by IBM, and I'm not sure what the K means in that context, so I didn't touch the marketed capacity column.

I'm not sure what you're referring to about binary prefixes. I updated the Memorex 650, for instance, to match the original literature. I couldn't find any for the 33FD. Later disks were advertised as "720K", though, and we need to write it exactly as they stated it; not with a lowercase k, and not with "KB" if they just wrote "K".

The formatted capacity column is for comparison purposes, though, so we should convert the typical, formatted, usable capacity into KiB. — Omegatron 15:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

77 tracks were always formatted - not every OS made them all available to the user! The [| Shugart SA800] OEM manual states:

"Capacity

Unformatted

Per Disk 3.2 megabits

Per Track 41.7 kilobits

Formatted

Per Disk 2.0 megabits

Per Track 26.6 kilobits"

26.6 * 77 / 8 = 256.03 which has rounding error. The 26.6 is actually 26 * 128 * 8 / 1000 = 26.624. Using the precise number gets you to 256,256 bytes. Note the SI usage of kilo and mega.

BTW, the 256.256 number appears at the bottom of Table of 8-inch floppy formats as a the DEC RX01 format. DEC and all the rest of the world adopted this format and I suggest this is the one value for the table.

Since the formatted capacity is for comparison purposes and since we all agree that when disk drive and media suppliers use SI prefixes, they do so in their conventional sense, then the column should be in units with or without k and M not Ki and Mi.Tom94022 16:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

DEC and all the rest of the world adopted this format and I suggest this is the one value for the table.

But that's for the DEC RX01 and not the IBM 33FD, right? For the 33FD row, we should either use the most popular format or specify the range of different values that were available ("237.25 to 296 KiB").

since we all agree that when disk drive and media suppliers use SI prefixes, they do so in their conventional sense

I don't think you'll find anyone who agrees with that.  :-) The field of floppy disks is the most inconsistent in their usage of units. Compare the 1.5 Mbit Memorex 650, the 360 KB floppy, and the 1.44 MB floppy.

then the column should be in units with or without k and M

Writing out the values without units is ok, but a little harder to compare. — Omegatron 18:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the questions:

1) From what perspective is both the marketed capacity and the user capacity to be stated, the medium, the disk drive, the controller or the system.

2) Do you have to be consistent over the time span of the table.

Depending upon where you stand and when you look you will get different answers for the same disk drive and medium.

To answer your question, the RX01/ Digital Diskette like the Shugart SA900/SA100 Diskette are all specified to be media compatible the 33FD/IBM Diskette Type 1, yet the available user data varies as reported at the OS level. We don't take away file system overhead from user capacity statements (boot sector and FAT in FD case) so why should we take away alternate track capacity as IBM chooses to do. If you looked at the 33FD/IBM Diskette Type 1 at its controller interface you would find 256,256 gross user bytes.

The same problem exists in the 5 1/4" art. Apple using Shugart drives and media with a unique controller and format achieved higher gross user capacity than all other users typically achieved on the same drive and medium (the "famous" Integrated Wozniak Machine). But in either case the specification is gross user capacity with no allowance for alternates or system overhead. In this particular case, the SA400, both capacities should be shown, or alternatively, we could list the Apple drive as different than the Shugart drive even though the mechanics and media were identical!

The confusion goes away with 3.5" mainly due to the standardization of IC controller chips. Again no allowance for alternates or system overhead in specified gross user capacity at any level below the OS. The OS of course reports net user capacity, net of spares, file system, etc.

So my answer to the questions is we should make both columns consistent across time but with different but consistent perspectives, that is:

The user capacity column should be gross user capacity as determined at the controller level, without allowance for alternates, spares or system overhead.

The marketed capacity should be the unformatted number published by the media or drive manufacturer, or in its absence, the same number reversed engineered out of the medium.

In the case of the 33FD, neither number is published by IBM but can be reverse engineered from the compatible OEM's published numbers. At some point, when I have the time I am going to change the whole table into such a consistent format. I had it that way for the 33FD and am going to change it back, but I thought I would hear what u have to say before I proceed.Tom94022 01:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you move this to the article talk page? — Omegatron 01:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fromowner

That isn't the upload page. CC is explained on the next page. Please remove the text you have added the page is meant to keep text down to a minium.Geni 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What? — Omegatron 23:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

this. Exact lisenceing issues are delt with on the upload page. Wikipedia:Fromowner is mostly there as a kind of prescreening and should be as short as posible. Therefore will you please revert your edit.Geni 23:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I can't fathom why you would want to remove that text. — Omegatron 23:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it is redundant and fails the "do we really really need this" test for use on what is in effect an interface page. Fill the page with text and people will not read it. Keep it to a minimum and they may do so. The only task text on that page should be fulfilling is to try and make sure that only users who hold the copyright on the work click the link. Anything else should not be there since it reduces the effectiveness of the page (don't believe me how many EULAs have you read?). Additionally try looking at the page on a low res monitor. Note how much your edit has increased the level of suck for users with low res monitors.Geni 23:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, the whole page is redundant to the upload form. If you want to make the page smaller that badly, reduce the font size or remove something inconsequential. — Omegatron 01:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The inconsequential bit would be the text you just added since it is delt with rather better on the upload form a detracts from the primary perpose of the wikipedia:fromowner page.Geni 01:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. How in the world does it detract from it? What's the primary purpose of the page then? — Omegatron 01:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"This is silly" you made the edit. "How in the world does it detract from it?" already covered in some detial above for further detials see KISS principle. The primary purpose of the page is to try and discorage people from useing the upload form to upload images they do not hold the copyright on.Geni 02:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why I added it. — Omegatron 02:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your claim isn't logicaly posible.Geni 11:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote

link please? >Radiant< 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[6] Was that not your comment and you were just reverting to it?

Ah. I see that it was. I will fix my comment. — Omegatron 17:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

{{criticism-section}}

Just so you know, I've listed this at the 11 May log of templates for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

k. :-) — Omegatron 19:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I think those sections are awful as well, nice work creating the template. Of course I think they make the article more negative actually. But either way good work creating the template. Aaron Bowen 05:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lightning Switch

I saw your comment on Lightning Switch. I tried to follow the rules as I understand them in writing the article. As I re-read the article after your comment, I cannot find subjective, qualitative or commericial statements. All of the technology overviews described and linked are from third party, non-commercial, arms-length sources. In short, I did my best to give some objective information on an interesting technology.Ruedetocqueville 15:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. It just needs some work. — Omegatron 15:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Wikitexschem.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Wikitexschem.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MER-C 05:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiling window manager

Thanks for your comment. My view was that in this particular case, the link to the disambiguation page tiling was sufficiently a "general meaning of the word, for which there is no relevant article" (in the words of Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links), that it made sense to remove it rather than linking to tessellation or tile. But link to tessellation if you think it's useful for that article, I haven't been entirely consistent in these corner cases. Joseph Myers 15:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. — Omegatron 15:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Note

Why did you remove commas from the US patent template? — Omegatron 06:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the commas from the US patent template because they were unnecessary with the introduction of {{formatnum:}} in the wikimarkup which places the commas in automatically. And if the commas are removed from the input then we can use services like Google patent (and others) without creating our own parser. —Dispenser 13:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! You should say that in your edit summaries. — Omegatron 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

PMID in cite journal template

Hi Omegatron,

I'm just coming to grips with citing in the wikipedia and started using citation templates. {{cite journal}} caught my eye since it includes PMIDs which I consider one of the best ways to quickly track an article online. Names and titles are often not specific enough in a search. PMIDs are also easier to copy/paste.

So, I got started with the template only to note that the PMID field I specified in the in-line citations was then ignored in the generation of the end-of-article reference section??? What's the point of having that field if it is not used? How can I make the PMID show up as a link in the references?

Hope you have some advice for me.

Best,

Jasu 14:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It should show up. Maybe it broke. I'll look at it. Ask on Template talk:Cite journal too. — Omegatron 14:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've answered Jasu. The variable is "pmid", not "PMID".Circeus 14:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, for the help. Jasu 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

MOSNUM/your question

"Are you implying that Sarenne is continuing the disruption from IP accounts? If so, can you list some examples of such edits? — Omegatron 14:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)"; on my talk page.

No proof, but the behavior on Atari ST resembles the modus operandus Sarenne has employed in the past. -- Metahacker 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, now, since I last checked it appears he's gone and started editing the article under his own name, reproducing the edits, and using similar arguments in the edit summary, to those used by a handful of IPs in a revert war that waged for chunks of the past few days. -- Metahacker 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to block, but Centrx already did. I'll unblank the talk page. — Omegatron 19:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: your comment about talk pages, you're quite right; a longer explanation is on my talk page. -- Metahacker 02:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC CSS and MOSNUM

Since you are active on MediaWiki talk:Common.css and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) I would appreciate your opinion regarding this suggestion I made at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Template with CSS proposition. Thanks - Shmget 10:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a very bad idea? — Omegatron 17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

HTC Wizard discussion

I'm taking this to your talk page rather than the talk page on the article, since I don't want to debate around the issue there, as it were, and this is just mostly for my own curiosity.

Both yourself and 59.144.161.143 obviously feel that the content is appropriate, but neither of you have said why. I've cited various wikipedia policies, such as WP:NOT, WP:OR, and for the newest additions I would refer to WP:EL. In your comment, you said 'The content could be appropriate if worded correctly' - but I don't see how you can reword a guide on fixing a fault to be anything other than userguide content, and then it would still need adequate references from reliable sources. Why do you think that this isn't userguide content, or that WP:NOT et al don't apply?

It's really frustrating to be opposed by people who don't explain their rationale, and it makes it impossible to reach a meaningful compromise.

So I just thought I'd ask here, aside from the discussion on the article talk page, mostly for my own personal knowledge. Thanks. Wibbble 17:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Balanced audio

Much better, thanks for your work. There's a link to Differential (disambig page) that doesn't make any sense in context, but it's in a section marked Disputed. Jer ome 19:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested changes to Electrical impedance

Hi there Omegatron, I am interested in making some changes to the article on impedance and noticed that you have been an active editor for a long time. I have explained my thoughts on the talk page, including a link to my user subpage where i'm trying out ideas.

The reason why i'm not immediately editing the article is that i'd like to make some wholesale changes, so I feel it's worth getting input from others before going ahead. Feel free to reply here, on the article talk page or on my talk page.

Thanks,

--DJIndica 00:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

COinS in Citation template

Someone has removed the COinS markup from {{Citation}}; I'm about to revert, but you may wish to join the discussion.. Andy Mabbett 10:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would you revert? — Omegatron 17:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting my revert of a Tor exit node

In this change here you reverted my revert. The revert I did was done because the change was made by a known Tor exit node IP. You may not be aware but any edits by known Tor exit nodes are not allowed on Wikipedia and can be reverted without breaking WP:3RR. In future you may find this list of Tor exit node IPs helpful. Also based on previous experience I suspect the IP is another one of Sarenne's anonymous edits, you may be aware that Sarenne is banned from editing, hence any anonymous edits by Sarenne are also allowed to be reverted without breaking WP:3RR. Lastly, your change does not have broad consensus, as demonstrated by the three different editors who have reverted the text. Fnagaton 18:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm well aware that Sarenne is blocked. I tried to block him myself.
• Just because an edit is from a Tor node doesn't mean it should automatically be reverted, though. Only if it is a bad edit. If there is a policy that demands that all such edits be reverted, please show it to me.

WP:NOP "Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies." and "Open proxies are banned from editing Wikimedia projects." Note the word ban, this is important because here it says "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users." Those two policies therefore mean that I am correct in reverting those edits and that you are not correct to reinstate the edit by the known Tor exit node. Fnagaton 10:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• You're probably right that these are his edits, so I've semi-protected the page.
• Your edits to the page are disruptive, however. Please revert to the version that represents consensus. — Omegatron 00:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Again you are wrong on two counts. My edits are made to revert the bad edits made by the open proxy (Sarenne's efits) and the bad edits by you that do not have consensus. I did actually revert to the version that has consensus, the fact is you don't agree but you are in the minority. Your edits are disruptive, not mine, the proof of that is not only me telling you that you are wrong but the majority of everybody else on the talk page. Do not push your point of view by repeating those disruptive edits on the project page. Your edits are disruptive because you made a change here without consultation and rightly so it was reverted. Then the Tor exit node reverts the edit. I then revert the banned user here. You then revert my revert of the Tor exit node to place back the text that you added in the first place, that is revert warring and is disruptive. All of my edits are made to revert the open proxy edits. You still owe me an apology for your misrepresentation, here and on WT:MOSNUM. I also think your actions demonstrate you should stop making changes related to binary prefixes on all project pages for at least a week until you cool down. This is because your changes are meeting with a lot of editors who disagree with them and you should step back to actually think about your actions. Fnagaton 10:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So you could make an edit you didn't like from a Tor exit node and then revert it from your regular account, and I would automatically be in the wrong for reverting you, no matter what the merits of the edit?

Sorry, but that's not how it works, even if it says so in some policy.

You're wrong because you seem to have missed the bit where it says anonymous proxy users are banned so that is how it works. You were adding back your text that was already previously reverted, you are edit warring. Fnagaton 16:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please show me some edits of mine on articles related to binary prefixes that were wrong or biased, so that I may consider taking a break from them. — Omegatron 15:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I already have done in the links above. Fnagaton 16:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong because you seem to have missed the bit where it says anonymous proxy users are banned so that is how it works.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If it was, you could make good edits from a Tor node yourself, revert them with your user account, and claim that the rules prevent anyone else from changing back to the good version. But the most important rules are WP:ENC and WP:IAR. If it hurts the encyclopedia, it's bad. If it helps, it's good. All the other rules are just clarifications of this principle.

You were adding back your text that was already previously reverted, you are edit warring.

Yes, I reverted to my version of the previous consensus once. You created a new version without consensus and then reverted to it how many times?

Again you are missing the point. The point is you were edit warring to replace your text you knew had already been reverted and you reverted an edit of a Tor exit node. Fnagaton 17:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You created a new version without consensus and then reverted to it how many times? — Omegatron 17:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not true, I demand you retract your lie immediately. Fnagaton 17:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I already have done in the links above.

Please show me, in a list, below this comment, some edits of mine on articles related to binary prefixes that were wrong, disruptive, or biased, so that I may consider taking a break from them. — Omegatron 17:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Binary prefix
• Binary prefix
• Binary prefix
• WP:MOSNUM
• WP:MOSNUM

The fact is your edits have been consistently reverted in whoe or in part and you keep on trying to put them back. Fnagaton 17:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like pretty normal editing to me. If you think I'm being disruptive, please file a Requests for comment about me. — Omegatron 18:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You would say that, but the fact is the majority of others have disagreed with your actions and I have already shown this in the links provided above. Fnagaton 19:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think I'm being disruptive or acting inappropriately, please file a Requests for comment about me. — Omegatron 20:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I will do if you continue to make those disruptive edits in WP:MOSNUM or continue to misrepresent what I write on other people's talk pages. That's why I gave you the chace of not editing for a while and to consider your actions. Fnagaton 20:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed list of aims for the Microformats Project

Please see this discussion of a proposed list of aims for the Microformats Project. Andy Mabbett 22:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Bit rates

If you wish to merge them in a different fashion than I did, please proceed. >Radiant< 15:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

POV in HDD Capacity Section

On 3 Jun u undid, thereby adding POV, to the Hard Disk Drive#Capacity measurements section. This section appears factual and unbiased to me, and based upon yr previous statements I would have expected u to agree. So would u mind saying why u think it is POV (or at least point me to yr discussion about this section - please, not the overly long an way too many discussions about binary prefixes)? Tom94022 16:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I discussed it here:

• Talk:Hard_disk_drive#Bias_in_measurements
• User_talk:Centrx#Hard_drives

There's no reason to even mention IEC prefixes, is there? — Omegatron 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Posting styles

Are you going to comment on Posting styles or shall I re-revert you revertion?

I can understand that you might be busy, I just want to know if you are going to answer my questions. -- Felipec 19:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not from being too busy; I saw your comments and stopped caring. Go ahead and fill our encyclopedia up with dumb newsgroup sigs. It'll fit in perfectly with our "Trivia" and "In popular culture" sections. — Omegatron 23:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but that's the way things are: you cannot talk about posting styles without hearing about this "popular" argument. I share that concern with the TOFU joke. To me it's funny, but I wonder if it is notable enough to be included. -- Felipec 12:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say neither belong. — Omegatron 23:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of HHO gas

An article that you have been involved in editing, HHO gas, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (4th nomination). Thank you. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks for helping us write a neutral, scientific article. — Omegatron 13:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that your sarcasm was recognised for what it was by Nescio who should read his own motto, in my opinion ("know thyself"). But he/she/it won't; it is more fun telling other people to do that than to do it yourself. It is almost incomprehensible to me that those articles have been deleted except that I think there are people out there who get a power-trip out of deleting content and don't stop to think of the broader issue of what is useful to people who read Wikipedia instead of editing it. And far too many of those are administrators. Even if your article had been poor, which it wasn't, it would have been worth keeping for the day it got better. Rather a lot of articles lack references while having usable content and it is precisely because this subject is notable that it got noticed and deleted. Your good work has been wantonly vandalised by Wikicontrolfreaks. Better luck next time Man with two legs 21:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait what? There was no consensus for deletion. — Omegatron 23:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So you were able to bring them back just like that. Good. Man with two legs 23:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But I am getting a stern talking-to about that.  :-/ — Omegatron 23:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tricky one: I suppose because your action as a not-dispassionate party might be a precedent for someone in a similar position who turns out to be a loony. As I see it, the deletion was demonstrably premature and at least some people agree with me, so you will probably not be hung, drawn and quartered this time. Good luck though! Man with two legs 00:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  :-) — Omegatron 00:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you noticed how your desire to publicise the scammy nature of this sort of thing is being interpreted as a sign that you are promoting it? Please do not bang your head on too many walls because you might damage them. And don't go into politics. Man with two legs 21:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that Nomen has made me out to be a promoter, though I said the same about him for trying to censor the articles until I looked through his other contributions. I don't know what you're referring to with the other two sentences. — Omegatron 21:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

They were not entirely serious:

1. perhaps you don't bang your head on walls when frustrated. It may be just we Europeans who do that.
2. politics would need some skill in not being portrayed as precisely the opposite of what you would wish

Man with two legs 21:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. No, I am definitely not good at the politics.

Wall-banging, eh? Perhaps that's a hobby I should take up. Does it numb the Wikipain? — Omegatron 22:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So the scientists lost came second on that one. Roughly quoting Life of Brian:

1. one complete and utter disaster is only the beginning!
2. always look on the bright side of life...

Man with two legs 17:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Brown's Gas

I apologize if my comments might have seemed a little contradictory, let me try and clarify. I do believe that there is a high possibility of a neutral article documenting the (largely pseudoscientific) phenomenon, as it has appeared in the news and clearly is notable. However the article as presented in the AfD was not acceptable. I double checked some of the changes you have since made, and it is quite an improvement, and I may have to reconsider my recommendation. But again, to clarify, my comments were to be taken as recommending deletion of the article as shown, while supporting the notion that a proper article could likely be written. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 17:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I know that. Please see my updated comments on the deletion discussion. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The article has been disputed between promoters and debunkers, but the promoters seem to be winning, in the editing wars. As I said in the AFD, NPOV in an article about pseudoscience does not mean 50% pseudoscience claims and spamlinks about patents and TV news programs promoting the claims, then 50% some basic science refuting it. The net result is too much of a promotion. I have not been an active editor of the article, because my chemistry is way weaker than my electrical background, but those editing the article do not seem to have been able to effectively enough knock down the use of the article to promote dubious claims. It is left up in the air, as Mr X says he has developed a wonderful new product with miraculous properties which cannot be explained by the accepted rules of science and then a balancng section which says "Some scientists disagree with Mr X." The reader could reasonably conclude, "Well, it surely looks like there may be something to Mr X's new invention. I'd better go buy some stock in the company." I would like to see nothing more than a paragraph in the Oxyhydrogen article which mentions the claim and debunks it. The article does not adequately discuss the loss of energy in using electricity to break down water into the two gases, although it is in a reference. I pulled out an old high school chemistry book to review the process of electrolysis of water. In "Modern Chemistry'"by Dull et all (appropropriately named) 1962 p 129-130 they note that Langmuier found hydrogen molecules can be broken into atoms by an electric arc, breaking down the strongest covalent bond, so that when the monatomic hydrogen is burned with oxygen a 4000C flame can be achieved. On p 130 is the "atomic hydrogen torch." The claims of HHO and Brown's gas sound like some claims are being made for such forms, but reliable published articles seem to be lacking. Articles by the promoters of the claims are less convincing than would be independent article in refereed journals. Edison 17:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the main promoter has been driven off. The only people contributing to the article right now are skeptics and one pseudoskeptic who keeps adding crap like "Some scientists disagree with Mr X."

Neutrality means leaving it up in the air until reliable facts can be added. But we need real, reliable refutations, not weasel words. We'll get it done if he stops interfering and nominating it for deletion.

If you agree that the article needs work, but is about a notable subject, then you shouldn't be trying to delete it. It will just be resurrected again by the crackpots someday and we'll have to start all over again from scratch.

"Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted" — Omegatron 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Then make the article state it is a hoax and use reputable sources. Unfortunately there are no non-promotional sources therefore any article will fail WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:SPAM. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

By what logic? You're the one adding empty, factually incorrect criticism with absolutely no sources whatsoever.

Again, if you're not going to contribute constructively, go find another article to work on. We'll do fine without you. — Omegatron 22:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi - problem is that, every time an article is created, it's vandalised to claim that it's a legitimate scientific theory. There's only two answers to this (1) don't have an article (2) create an NPOV article and protect it. To be honest, (1) looks like a better bet to me. The alternative, that I'd go for, is to salt HHO gas, and have an article called something like HHO gas controversy ... what do you think? EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

When articles are repeatedly recreated by different people, it means that there is a need for an article. That the article is currently in a bad state does not mean that it should be deleted. Deletion is not the answer, and protection is not the answer. HHO gas controversy is also a bad idea.

Just keep the article and fix it up, like any other controversial article (and there are a lot worse and more insanely disputed articles than this). Do we delete Palestine just because people constantly try to bias it? — Omegatron 18:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• hey, just responding to your inquiry. I didn't mean anybody specific; there was an earlier comment that stated that someone was commenting on the discussion who had also edited the article heavily. i can't remember now whether that was you or somebody else, but regardless, if an editor of the article, and the nominator are the principle people engaged in the discussion about deletion, i don't see a consensus being reached because other people aren't weighing in. personally, i'd vote to keep the article, but i'm just going to stay out of it because the discussion just seems very heated and i'm not sure who to believe. i meant no disrespect to anybody, including you. i'm sorry if you felt otherwise. Respectfully, Barsportsunlimited 00:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

someone was commenting on the discussion who had also edited the article heavily

Isn't that what's supposed to happen? :-)

I just wanted to know why you thought I had a conflict of interest, if you did think that. — Omegatron 00:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on my talk page

You asked me a couple questions on my talk page concerning HHO Gas] and Brown's Gas. I checked the edit histories of both, and have yet to find an instance in which I edited, nor even suggested deleting them. May I ask how I came into the conversation? Please reply on my talk page. Jmlk17 07:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to remove my vote, as well as I believe they should be deleted. Jmlk17 09:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Brown's gas / HHO gas

There seems to be no consensus to keep these articles, and much of the content you have added in Brown's gas describes oxyhydrogen welding and would better belong in oxyhydrogen or one of the articles I proposed merging with it. In addition, as you know, the pseudoscientific claims for the two gases are very similar. How about merging both to an article called Claims for anomalous properties in oxyhydrogen or some similar title? The way, the truth, and the light 01:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

??? "If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate."

If I had to choose between deleting the article and creating a merged "controversy" article, I'd obviously choose not to delete, but, obviously, both of those options are inappropriate. The people fighting for this to be deleted are only doing so because it's pseudoscience, which is not even close to a criteria for deletion. — Omegatron 02:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not even pseudoscience; more like 'very far-out proposals never studied in mainstream labs.' It's closer to scientific limbo, since the proponents of the mystical theories seem to have no interest in getting their stuff reviewed by real experts. So it's hard to find any peer-reviewed debunking. (e.g. HHO Gas has no mainstream critics of Santilli's work listed among the references.). EdJohnston 03:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does a critic have to be "mainstream", and why don't you think that James Randi fits this criteria? — Omegatron 03:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Added two more "mainstream" critics, though they're only criticizing the water-fuelled car concept, even though this isn't really one of HTA's claims in the first place, and is already covered in its own article. — Omegatron 04:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• The article has already changed to reflect the subject of that sentence. What I meant was that a citation that claims to be something by omission is not a citation, and therefore unverified. I can claim that something was published in the Wall Street Journal, citing you section and page number. If I fail to mention that it's a paid advertisement, that fundamentally changes the nature of the reference. If I claim that something has worldwide attention, yet fail to mention that the attention is centered only in Ajo, Arizona and Henley Harbor, Newfoundland, you have every right to wonder just how worldwide it is. If a subject is cited as having been on "Fox and NBC," and going to the sources shows minor reports from NBC and Fox local station affiliates (which I read as being more about the person than the science,) why should I give any credit that it has garnered national-press level attention? What meets "extraordinary" documentation to back an "extraordinary" claim? I'm not implying that the subject is untrue, or assuming that the sources are deliberately misleading, just that they (the references) were false to fact and therefore I wonder about the article's veracity.

And, especially in an article that's been deleted more than once, I wonder if I should bother investigating any further. However, I do see that apparently great steps have been made in trying to edit the article, and I understand why G4 doesn't apply in this case. My apologies for suggesting it does. But (trying to be honest,) that still doesn't mean that I think this is something that should be in WP. LaughingVulcan 05:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Where is the paid advertisement?

I was using that as an example where a reference omission creates a citation problem. Another example: Say I link to a newspaper's blog, and then represent that as a newspaper article. Do I credit a reporter's blog with the same veracity as the paper? Has it been through the same editorial review process before it's been posted? An opposite example - I notice that the Snopes reference in the article says that it comes from the Snopes forum. OK, so now I know that it's a forum thread, and not the Mikkelsons writing that information. Good. I can check out the reference, but I already know that it's a forum source.

This has been covered by news organizations in Florida, Texas, Illinois, Kentucky, and California, at least, but I don't know why the geography of the attention is at all relevant.

Because there's a big difference, to me, if it's been covered by national-level news sources. CNN, Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, and to some degree Reuters and AP have far stricter standards about what is published, how it's documented, and receive far more public scrutiny is given to what it reports. It also avoids (mostly) the "lazy reporter sees something in another local paper, and writes his own story on it, yet neither get questioned about it" syndrome.

What extraordinary claims? We're not saying "HHO gas disproves conventional laws of physics" and attributing it to Tampa Tribune. We're saying "Some guy claims to have invented a process that, if true, would defy conventional laws of physics". This is not an extraordinary claim at all, and is covered quite well by the numerous news sources.

Then the article is about the person making the claims, and should be titled as such. If it's about the subject (the gas,) then the the subject needs to back its extraordinary claims in an extraordinary fashion.

Parts of it are perfectly legit, and parts of it are clearly bogus.

OK, but the article still reads in format like it's legitimate. But you're obviously working fast to address concerns, and the disputed parts are becoming more clear.

I doubt the news sources are deliberately misleading, especially since they contain both promotion and criticism. The wild claims are just your standard journalists-writing-about-things-they-don't-understand. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

I like that; and as I said I don't think the sources are deliberately misleading (while allowing for the fact that this has happened in journalism.)

As for HTA themselves, though, I don't see how they could not be deliberately misleading.

Dunno, it might be people who simply don't understand what they're proposing flies in the face of what's known about physics and thermodynamics.

What references were false to what facts? I don't understand what you think is wrong with these references.

The prior problems above with sourcing and misrepresentation of a national source by omission.

And, especially in an article that's been deleted more than once

How is that relevant? When an article is repeatedly recreated by different people you should reconsider whether the original deletions were in fact appropriate.

Hmm.... I think it's upon the recreator to justify how the article is different now (which has been done.) Otherwise it's the same old and warrants a speedy (not true in this case.) And I'm very comfortable with endorsing prior deletion opinions if the concerns of those prior deletions remain the same - anything else does not respect prior consensus. Which, I do understand, is modifiable over time. (I have no way to look back at the prior history of the article, and Talk pages can be hard to understand as justification for changes. But it's only that and prior AfDs I have to evaluate on.)

By what logic? What do you think WP is for?

It's for being an encyclopedia.  :) So, obviously, I've had problems with this being a subject for an encyclopedia and the entry being encyclopedic. LaughingVulcan 12:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• New Reponse:

We did that before. We had an article on Denny Klein, but it was rightfully moved to HHO gas because the topic is the gas itself, Denny isn't notable for any other reason, and there's no accessible biographical information about him. This isn't a biography, it's an article about a hoax.

I'd suggest, then, that the article topic reflect that it's a hoax. (But I can already see that this won't get past it's proponents, and having two articles would be a POV fork...) So nevermind - I can see that this is a reasonable compromise. I think I'm expecting that a WP article's title should truthfully reflect the subject (and if the subject is a hoax, the title should say so...) But WP is about verified fact, not Truth... ;)

No it doesn't. It needs to explain what extraordinary claims are being made, attribute the extraordinary claims to the people who are making them, and then attribute criticism of those claims to the people who are criticizing them. It can also explain how these extraordinary claims violate known laws of physics.

Presuming that the claims are labeled as such, which they are currently. I think I've misunderstood something fundamental in your perspective. The back and forth between you and Nescio led me to believe (initially) that you were in a "belief in HHO" POV. Am I correct in believing that you're just looking for how to document this accurately (which includes the 'hoax' aspects,) and Nescio is in the 'This is a hoax and nothing more' camp? Not that this affects the AfD per se, but it does help me to see that we're not talking at cross purposes here.

Where?? Why do people keep saying this? You're talking about HHO gas, right?

Yes. With the (I presume) edit warring going on, it's a very hard article to keep following. Tags go up, tags go down, phrasing changes back and forth. It's just normal editing practice, but when it changes so radically during AfD, it's hard to recognize what was there yesterday and what wasn't. (This version I'm pretty sure is the first one I came to during the AfD and started writing my opinion off it. You reverted it like 4 minutes later, but it's the version that stuck with me as "the" version of the article... even though I know many have contributed and revised it since then. I usually take quite awhile writing and editing my opinions before posting... usually. ;) At first this seemed like a pretty straightforward it's been deleted - the same concerns are raised, standard G4. Which is now obviously untrue to me.

It also makes me think that there are those who would be more than happy letting this be presented as "real".) And I don't know how many of us editors keep following an AfD, instead of just voicing an opinion and moving on.... The other concern I'd have (even though this is outside the scope of an AfD) is how long you (and others) will keep fighting on the accuracy side? If it falls off the radar, there's little to keep an editor of the other camp to come in and "factualize doublespeak" the article. But I shouldn't worry about that.

I'm sure they're just deliberately misleading the public to sell more welding equipment. We need to explain this and explain why their claims are invalid.

OK. I'm going to change my opinion over to something like "Keep, protect, keep cleaning up." Not that I'm god of WP. And I'm sorry that my comments may have been part of the sudden (reversed) speedy close, even though I already backed off that opinion before it was done.

Why would you have problems with this being a subject for an encyclopedia article? Do you think we should also delete Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, Cloudbuster, The Turk, Dean drive, and Hydrino? Wikipedia is meant to cover everything that is notable, in a neutral, verifiable way. That includes bad science, hoaxes, disputed theories, and cons. See User:Omegatron#Memory holes and Wikipedia:Replies to common_objections#Cranks.

If they can be covered correctly (whatever that means as it's unpacked,) I see your point. I'm still, I'm afraid, more used to thinking of encyclopedia's in "World Book" terms (which AFAIK doesn't treat hoaxes as appropriate encyclopedia topics, just from my own experience in using paper encyclopedias.) I haven't clicked your userpage links yet, but I shall.

You might as well say we should delete the article about the 9/11 attacks because some people on the Internet make conspiracy theory claims about them.

No, what I'm suggesting is that if an article goes through a long edit war ultimately says that CNN and the BBC said the 9/11 attacks occurred because George Bush commanded the little green Martians (channeling Lee Harvey Oswald,) to persuade Saddam Hussein to hire out Osama as a patsy, presented as documented fact - such an article should be cleaned up as you suggest or deleted. (And sorry for my hyperbole - I know my example would be WP:NONSENSE and WP:BOLLOCKS.)

And, let me say, it's a good piece of editing you're doing. I wish I were more familiar with the subjects concerned to help in the editing. It sounds like you've got your hands full. LaughingVulcan 01:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HHO gas 5 amu.png

Thanks for uploading Image:HHO gas 5 amu.png. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

ISO codes for music, audio visual, etc.

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#ISO_codes and comment there if you have any views, or expertise, to share. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 16:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

HHO gas

Your undeletion of an article to which you had made significant contributions, during a deletion review, and accusing others of repeated "disruptive" deletion nominations when all three previous debates closed as delete, is a matter of sone concern to me, and I have raised this on the administrators' noticeboard. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It was speedy deleted for inapplicable reasons, despite the fact that a large AfD was in progress with no consensus for deletion.

The "recreation of a deleted article" aspect is irrelevant and not a criteria for speedy deletion; the previous deletion was reviewed and closed specifically stating that a new article could be created with proper sourcing. Nominator is fully aware of this, and is only repeatedly nominating the article to be disruptive.

You'll also see complaints about Nescio's improper nomination in the past ("the the last AfD skipped my attention because it wasnt delsorted and User:Nescio didnt notify anyone involved about the Afd"), and similar complaints in the current AfD for slipping Brown's gas into the discussion without most voters being aware of it. (You'll see several votes for deletion of "the article", as if there's only one article being considered, the box at the top right of the page only shows previous AfDs for HHO gas, but doesn't show the previous AfDs for Brown's gas.) One of the votes for deletion was apparently a mistake, etc. etc. — Omegatron 12:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

table namespace/table editor

I read this section on you main page. I find the idea appealing. What is the status, how can I help ? -- Shmget 08:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There's not really any "status" since I'm not a developer and am therefore powerless to get anything done. I made a road map of steps that could be taken, and someone implemented the first half of the first step by adding a Table: namespace to the English Wikipedia, but without the special functionality that is also specified in step 1, it's pretty pointless. Apparently it has since been removed. — Omegatron 15:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you know about this extention ? -- Shmget 05:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not. That looks very cool. Maybe it could be folded into the Table: namespace idea somehow? — Omegatron 23:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

According to what is said here :"The content is controlled by an external mysql database, but the tables are saved back to the wiki in normal wikitext surrounded by HTML comments with the id number of the table in the database.", looks to me that the folding in the Table: namespace would be pretty natural. the Table: namespace page would contain the native representation of the extention. It should be possible to hook at parseBeforeStrip to substitute [Table:xxx] with the appropriate wikitext (that means that the table name itself would not be parametrized, so [[Table:{{MyNameGeneratingTemplate|foo}}]] would not work (well, there may be a way, I'm just to that familiar with the code yet).

Then you'd need to hook on EditPage::showEditForm:initial to show the list of Table used in the page edited, the same way you have the list of template used (so that you can click to go edit them)... and last but not least, you need to intercept completely edit on Table::xxx pages to present a nice gui-based editor inpired by the one presented in the above mentioned extension, for example. (Note: I still have a very superficial understanding of the code, so I may be significantly off base.) -- Shmget 14:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this.  :-) You should discuss it on Bugzilla:2194 and Wikipedia_talk:Table:_namespace_and_editor. If the table namespace has since been removed, the bug should be reopened. — Omegatron 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

floating quickbar

I just installed the Help:User style/floating quickbar into my monobook.css and .js files and it works just fine. My problem is that I would like the personal links (user page, talk page, prefs etc.) in the ordinary place on top of any page. Can that be done and if so, how? I played around a bit, but to no positive effect. —AldeBaer 04:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I must have been too tired yesterday. It works just as I imagined now. —AldeBaer 13:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Can you add your changes to the page so others can use it without changing the personal links? — Omegatron 13:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

See the talk page at meta. —AldeBaer 03:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, I didn't actually edit the code, I just included the original main.css p-personal code. That's why I didn't make a new section on the main page, but only a see also link pointing to the talk page section. Please feel free to edit my explanation. —AldeBaer 15:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. It would be better if it were on the main page, though. Show people who to do it either way, in other words. — Omegatron 23:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look. I also refactored the sections for clarity. —AldeBaer 16:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Good. See also Bugzilla:287. — Omegatron 23:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it: Do you know of a way to include other links in the sidebar? I gather it'd include defining a section like "p-navigation" and filling it with links, is that possible? —AldeBaer 23:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

;)

:)

;-) — Omegatron 23:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

HHO/Brown's Gas

User:Kurykh has recently deleted the Brown's Gas and HHO Gas articles stating it was the general consensus of the deletion debate. I would argue that there was many votes for and against deletion, which isn't a reasonable general consensus; if anything is was an ongoing debate in need of additional participants! Noah Seidman 03:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am aware. It was not at all the general consensus to delete. Without a consensus for deletion, the default action is to keep the article, so this deletion was out of process. (Just like the others.)

As for your return... how do I say this? Please be very careful what you edit and try very hard to stay within Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. We all know that you have a commercial interest in these gases, though you also certainly seem to be a rational person who will not cling to bogosity when evidence to the contrary is presented.  ;-)

You would stay out of trouble if you made only trivial edits to these articles, and kept the bulk of your contributions to the talk page, where we could all discuss them and find proper references before adding them to the articles.

In other words, getting these articles kept on Wikipedia is enough trouble without proponents involved. I'm afraid your presence will make it much much more difficult. — Omegatron 00:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The most recent version of the Brown's Gas and HHO articles utilized WP:RS and WP:CITE. If such practice continues there can be no contention for the existence of the articles. Most edits that lacked WP:RS and WP:CITE appeared to be WP:OR such as the claim that Brown's Gas and HHO are the same as Oxyhydrogen; There was not a single source referenced that made such a specific allegation. Independent of personal opinions, which are obviously not WP:RS, it is not appropriate for any statement to exist that cannot be directly sourced, or indirectly construed from a credible third party. It seems to be that many editors have STRONG OPINIONS, but these articles must be generated in strict accordance with the parameters of an encyclopedic work; meaning all direct statements must have WP:CITE, and all indirect statements must be reasonable in consideration of the cited WP:RS. Noah Seidman 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words are opinions tacked on to a direct statement attempting to provide an antithesis or shadow of a doubt without utilizing proper citation; therefore weasel words can be considered a form of WP:OR. Frankly it is disconcerting that when, in the past, I was making opinionated edits they were reverted or deleted by opinionated editors, and now that editors are adding weasel words and making opinionated statements they feel its appropriate and attempt substantiation of their position. If an non-editor, such as myself, has come around to appreciate a true encyclopedic work that properly utilizes WP:RS and WP:CITE, it is also possible for other stubborn editors, independent of their opinions, to come together to achieve Wikipedias intent. Noah Seidman 18:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Brown's gas and HHO gas are the same as oxyhydrogen. Even Brown's patents and Santilli's papers agree. — Omegatron 00:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Common ducted oxyhydrogen!!! Noah Seidman 01:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Omegatron,

Nothwithstanding my personal opinion that the articles should better be deleted, I must say that the whold AfD/DR/AfD mess was rather unfortunate with unsubstantiated accusations against you (and others) making this a messy (but at least virtiual) bloodshed. Not that I think many people noticed it, but I tried to clarify that you don't sell HHO-stuff and are one of the good guys. IMHO EMS is also one of the good guys, despite the impression this AfD may have given, he is tireless arguing and reverting cranks of all sorts at the Theory of Relativity related articles.

On German Wikipedia, with its limited geographical base, there would have been an easy solution (or at least attempt of it) by selecting one of the several Wikipedia meetups and discuss this over some food and drink. But I assume that wouldn't be practical in our case.

Back the articles, I only want to emphasize the point of my last post on the AfD: Some investigative journalism would be great. But who will do it? I've asked Peter Woit, if he would like to pick up the case of Santilli (who still amazingly has posting rights at arXiv) on his widely read Blog, but he wasn't interested (making the argument that it would give Santilli only free publicity).

Pjacobi 19:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Oh, what a mess.
2. I saw that you thought the articles should be deleted, and didn't really get a change to read your reasoning, but I had hoped to convince you to change your mind.  :-) But I guess getting them undeleted is now the first priority. We should talk about your opinions on pseudoscience articles when other things are not as urgent, though.
3. Meeting in person would be sooooooooooooooooooo much better than all of this incivility and nonsense. People are much more rational and agreeable in face-to-face discussions. (Although when they're not, I guess RfCs are better than fistfights...)
4. I've found quite a few references and leads to more references on the talk pages of the two articles. It's a lot of work, and it's infuriating that people keep getting the articles deleted for dubious reasons and forcing us to start all over from scratch. I'm glad we were smart enough to move the references to the talk page where they aren't deleted by every other revert. There's a lot we can say on this subject while keeping entirely within WP:CITE and WP:NOR. — Omegatron 00:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I voted 'Keep' in the AfD, I perceive that those two articles have the problem that, to an editor unfamiliar with those topics, they sound like they might be commercial spam. I helped out with another pseudoscience-related article called Retrocausality, which turned out well and was not deleted. The difference might be the apparent spamminess to someone who hasn't yet carefully read the article. You must be frustrated that people seemed to misjudge the article content, or the motives in writing them. Clearly, adding this same material to Oxyhydrogen welding might escape all criticism, or even detection :-). After all, people know there is such a thing as welding. EdJohnston 02:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A thing called welding? I don't believe you. You're obviously using Wikipedia to promote this "welding" fraud and I won't stand for it. Unless you provide 234,854 peer-reviewed references in the next five minutes, I'm putting this article up for deletion, deleting it despite a consensus to keep, and violating as many policies as I want to prevent a legitimate deletion review. — Omegatron 00:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw your note on my talk page regarding this. I certainly don't want to overstate Brown's gas, and the HHO stuff is bunk. It's discussed some in welding, and a bit in chemistry here and there (which is where I first heard it). I don't want to allow spammage, but complete deletion seemed like a mistake as well. Georgewilliamherbert 04:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Writing a neutral article about a hoax is not "spammage" or "advertisement" or any of the other ridiculous accusations made about this topic. — Omegatron 01:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, Brown's gas and HHO gas are equally nonsense; Brown's gas is simply more known. They are both very similar claims of anomalous behavior observed in oxyhydrogen. The way, the truth, and the light 04:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, Brown's gas and HHO gas are equal mixtures of legitimate welding device, pseudoscience/hoax nonsense, and unverified but notable fringe claims. — Omegatron 01:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the Brown's gas talk page into my userspace to not lose the references presented there:

• User talk:Pjacobi/Hydrogen quackery

User:Pjacobi/Hydrogen quackery is a brainstorming page for getting an overview, it is not intended as a draft for new Brown's gas article. --Pjacobi 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hydrogen quackery sounds like the right general approach, though someone is sure to ask for that title to be toned down. Take a look at WP:FRINGE#Examples for four pseudoscience or hoax topics that have been judged sufficiently notable to deserve articles. I think next time around a closer look at notability is needed. Not all hoaxes are notable enough for an article, even those mentioned in the press. EdJohnston 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a hell of a lot more than four pseudoscience or hoax topics sufficiently notable to deserve articles. See Category:Hoaxes, Category:Fringe_science, Category:Pseudoscience, Category:Protoscience, and so on.

If you think these are non-notable, you've got a long road of deletion ahead of you... — Omegatron 01:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

@Ed: I'm with the not notable enough approach here. The guys who can and should debunk these things haven't been seen to publish about this. And we can't debunk it ourselves due to WP:NOR. I'm just trying to cover all bases and save some references already found, in case a new article gets created. So that not everything must be re-researched from scratch. --Pjacobi 22:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:CITE and WP:NOR is way too narrow, and there are many many articles worse off than these ones that survive AfD every day. That an article is not yet finished is not a criteria for deletion. — Omegatron 01:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not totally opposed to merging the two articles together, as many of the same claims and properties are attributed to both. The claims made in Santilli's paper, though, are unrelated to Brown's gas, and the transmutation claims are unrelated to HHO gas. And I really don't think this stuff belongs in oxyhydrogen (anymore than I think Bigfoot should be merged into Great apes, anyway...) — Omegatron 00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Outrage

For the record, this is the most infuriating thing I have encountered in my 4 years of editing Wikipedia. Kurykh's deletion in spite of consensus and Radiant's attempts to undermine deletion review are outrageous. — Omegatron 00:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The consensus was to delete. Radiant did not attempt what you accuse him of. Why are you misrepresenting these two admins on your talk page? Fnagaton 12:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be clear enough by now that there was disagreement about consensus. (By definition, no consensus.) I for one am largely uninvolved with the whole topic. I've participated in the previous review, and far as I remember haven't even edited any of these pages. But yes, I do have an opinion about these articles, and about this AfD.

I don't have to like Kurykh's action, but can understand that administrators make errors. That's what the review system is for. (I can also understand that many people now will endorse deletion just to make this whole thing stop.) I believe that due process was violated, and I took it to the appropriate forum. Radiant unilaterally discarded these concerns and closed my deletion review on grounds that the topic exhausted the community's patience.

No fellow Wikipedian shall have such powers over me.

I believe this so strongly that I would hinge my further contributions to this community on it. If these events are considered to have been in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, dammit, then the whole process is broken beyond repair. Even when later undone by another admin (now accused of acting inappropriately himself), something like this simply must not happen.

This is outrageous. Femto 15:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Query

Considering I have made nor unmade any blocks, deletions or protections with respect to the HHO issue, I fail to see any wheel warring here. Do you really expect the fourteenth debate to have a different outcome than the previous thirteen? I am not familiar with the controversy surrounding this alleged gas, yet it is my opinion that after everybody has stated their opinion several times, there is no use in asking everybody to repeat themselves once more; this only results in polarization, further inflamed tempers, and does not resolve anything. After a certain threshold, people should simply agree to disagree. >Radiant< 16:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It does not need a sysop-action to abuse authority. And it's not as if you didn't make any references to your status when you announced the early closing of the review.

Are you saying that once people agree to disagree there never can and will be any progress? All that matters is that the 13th debate has a different outcome than the 12th. I maintain it does. (Debates are not cardinal numbers, how do you add those up anyway?).

You didn't see any wheel warring because I am not a rogue admin and have enough decency not to intervene in procedures where I'm directly involved. Nevertheless, you did notice that a third admin stepped in?

This action of yours is threatening to the integrity of Wikipedia's process, more than any faulty AfD, and more than any 'true' rogue admin could ever be. If you cannot understand this as an administrator, maybe you should resign. Femto 19:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that asking the same question over and over again because of a dislike of the previous answers, is not a productive approach. Other than that you appear to be unfamiliar with WP:ROUGE, because calling myself rouge is hardly an attempt to "pull rank". Also, by the generally accepted definition, it's not wheel warring unless admin powers are involved. I fully disagree with the unsubstantiated assertion that my action threatens the integrity of process, and I suspect we would also disagree with respect to the importance of said process. >Radiant< 07:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't the same question, and it wasn't the same answer. The previous answer was that re-creation was allowed. The current answer was that there is no consensus to delete the pages that have since developed.

It remains my conviction that the closure of this AfD disrespected the wishes of the community. I know you don't agree. I also know that others do agree. I don't go open a review just for the fun of it, without believing there's a realistic chance that enough people agree to overturn. If they don't, fine with me, but at least I could try.

You compromised my ability to settle this, in a neutral environment, at the most basic level. Honestly, you flat out refuse to see the threat here?

Is it also your definition that an administrative action, such as when you assume authority to early close a deletion review, can not be considered plainly inacceptable until wheel warring and sysop powers got involved?

The importance of said process is that I will not let you decide for me what is important. Femto 16:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering I have made nor unmade any blocks, deletions or protections with respect to the HHO issue, I fail to see any wheel warring here.

Seems pretty clear to me. Closing a DRV is an administrative action. You closed one, another admin re-opened it, and you re-closed it. "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it."

You, of all users, should know better.

Do you really expect the fourteenth debate to have a different outcome than the previous thirteen?

What thirteen? You really think the AfD for magnecular bond is applicable to the HHO gas article? The article on Denny Klein was appropriately deleted because he isn't notable outside of these claims and there isn't enough information about him out there to write a biography. How does that argument apply to this article?

I am not familiar with the controversy surrounding this alleged gas, yet it is my opinion that after everybody has stated their opinion several times, there is no use in asking everybody to repeat themselves once more; this only results in polarization, further inflamed tempers, and does not resolve anything.

1. A new version of an article is created, then edited with a strong intent to fix the problems that resulted in the deletion of the last one.
2. The article is put up for deletion after an editorial dispute.
3. A majority of competent editors agrees that the new article solves the problems with the old one, and should be kept.
4. An admin decides to overrule the majority opinion and close according to their own personal viewpoint, ignoring the discussion on the AfD.

You really don't think this constitutes an abuse of process? This isn't a case for deletion review? "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or a speedy deletion. ... Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." — Omegatron 14:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

See also my rant at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Administrative decision-making. Femto 12:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded there. (My absence from the 12th to the 16th was also a sanity-sparing mini wikibreak, by the way. First time I've been this stressed by Wikipedia in four years.)  :-)

I'm glad that a sane admin finally closed this. Let's take a break, gather up more sources, and figure out the structure of the article before restoring the content, to avoid more stupid trouble.

If there's one thing I've learned from this, it's to assume that people aren't going to judge you based on your contributions, or an article based on its merits; they're going to make their decisions based purely on hearsay and knee-jerk reactions. If someone claims that you're the exact opposite of what you actually are, you'd better spell it out immediately or everyone who disagrees with you will be parroting it within the hour. — Omegatron 00:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV

If you are frustrated with the DRV process, you might want to chime in here, where another user has complained about alleged DRV process violations... ATren 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The DRV process is fine. I'm frustrated with the users who are abusing it. — Omegatron 13:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

But that's precisely one of the arguments being brought up in that case - the alleged abuse of DRV process (mainly quick closures that may not reflect consensus). I'm not involved at all, I just happened to pass by the HHO debate and thought you might like to know about that case. BTW, I would have voted keep on HHO if it were allowed to proceed - I think many misunderstood your role in that dispute and voted based on that misconception. ATren 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. They also just had knee-jerk reactions without actually reading the article or talk page. The deletion review was re-opened, thankfully. — Omegatron 02:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

User Nomen Nescio

User:Nescio has on his talk page "Medicine on the Web my medical site" with a link to a website dealing with medical information. Given that the details to the link contain the word "my" leads the viewer to believe that this website is his website. This may constitute a breach of conflict of interest on the part of this user pertaining to his direct authoring of Medical_literature article. Noah Seidman 14:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And your point is? Anyway stop posting this everywhere. You have already been warned. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Asking for third party involvement is the proper procedure to make a determination on the degree of your COI. To be warned about making a legitimate policy inquiry is an abuse of Sysop powers attempting to inducee fear and cause me to recuse the proposed Wikipedia policy violation. Noah Seidman 14:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Nescio's not a sysop. What abuse of sysop powers are you talking about?
2. I don't give a rat's ass about the Medical literature article or his involvement on it. I'm not going to follow him around and harass him on other articles just because we disagree about the oxhydrogen articles. Bring it up somewhere besides my talk page.
3. At a cursory glance, I don't see a COI anyway. There's no prohibition against editing articles you're interested in. The prohibition is against "contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups". A good example of an unacceptable COI edit would be adding links to your own Water Fuel business in articles about water as a fuel, for instance...

If you have a more detailed description of why his edits are a conflict of interest, by all means mention it. But not here. — Omegatron 22:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry

You were acting in good faith and I was not. Anyhow, I wasn't making a delete argument, just expressing my belief the AfD was correct. -N 01:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. — Omegatron 13:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Omegatron,

I'm using your fixed sidebar script and it works great. But I was looking at the screenshot and wondering how you added more pages to the user box in the sidebar? I would like to add links to my sandbox and to-do list if possible. If you have time to just point out code I can copy from your css or js pages, that would be awesome! Thanks! Sheep81 04:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have so much crap in my user js I can't keep track of it. You're probably looking for this?:

    /* Adds some links to my ''personal tools'' section ("My monobook.js", "My monobook.css", "My sandbox") */

    addLink('p-personal', '/wiki/User:Omegatron/monobook.js', 'My monobook.js', 'pt-monobookjs', 'monobook.js is used for storing user javascripts', '', 'pt-logout');
    addLink('p-personal', '/wiki/User:Omegatron/monobook.css', 'My monobook.css', 'pt-monobookcss', 'monobook.css is used for storing user CSS styles', '', 'pt-logout');
    addLink('p-personal', '/wiki/User:Omegatron/Sandbox', 'My sandbox', 'pt-sandbox', 'My sandbox is used for testing things', '', 'pt-logout');
    addLink('p-personal', '/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=Omegatron&namespace=2', 'My subpages', 'pt-subpages', 'Subpages of my userspace', '', 'pt-logout');

— Omegatron 22:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on WP Policy

Skeptics utilize opinion to say claims of proponents are BS. The same standard of WP:RS should be required to both support/discredit claims. Lack of reliable sources to discredit a claim cannot by default allow for opinions to be used to substantiate a position. The default should be, in good faith, that people have honorable intentions; not that people have malicious/devious intent. Noah Seidman 17:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? — Omegatron 18:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe to too much opinion is flying around, including allegation of malicious/devious intent. Is this typical for AfDs and deletion reviews? Noah Seidman 20:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's certainly typical.

DRV is supposed to be explicitly about the AfD process itself. ("Admin x closed the AfD as delete despite a consensus to keep".) But this is just the same stupid arguments that were made in the AfD being repeated over again, completely ignoring the previous discussion. — Omegatron 20:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

HHO

I'm not going to get into a finger-pointing exercise, because I'm sure you're aware yourself of what was happening with that article. There is one very particular POV-pusher - I'm sure you know who I mean - with what amounts to a low-level edit war going on above that. You only have to look at the article, though - on 31 March it looked like this [7] - hardly any reference to the controversy, and many dubious statements given as fact. By 23 April it looked like this [8] - far too much weight given to Santilli's claims, a state it stayed in for a month, then by 4 June we had this version [9] with even the parts casting doubt on the claims given {fact} tags. Given that, I'm sure you can see why I made that statement in DRV. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)