User talk:Ohms law/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ohms law. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

You've got mail.

Check please. Reply by e-mail or my talk page.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 17:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Quotation essay

Hi, within seconds of your message, I'd pressed the save button on a copy-edit. I don't think it's yet finished. I'd like to get input from a few other people, too. Please see the inline queries. Tony (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN comment

FWIW, I thought that this was gratuitously offensive. I'd have been a lot more pissed off than MRG appeared to be by her response. I mean, way to go; that's the way to show support for people who put ridiculous amounts of effort into WP. Very poor indeed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your affirmation on the Arbcom noticeboard. There are plenty of pragmatists on Wikipedia, but remarkably few idealists. I'm an idealist, and I'm completely unapologetic about it. Any time there is a choice between acting in the spirit of Wikipedia or relying on bureaucratic process, I'm probably going to go with the former. Wikipedia was created with the intent that it would never have a rigid set of rules, yet every day there are those that work toward the exact opposite. Trusilver 02:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, it's strange because I actually supported (and, largely, still do support) ArbCom's motion itself. I'm not sure that they made any sort of mistake. On the other hand, as I said in that thread, I support you, what you did to land at Arbitration, and what you've said since, 100%. Go figure.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's just how the system works sometimes, I suppose. I said since early on that I was taking full responsibility for what I did, now the extent that they decided to take that to is a matter of debate for those who care about it more than I do. All I can do is keep doing what I do. Trusilver 07:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token e68c141811c0323df843e7161ecccf25

I am now the proud owner of a TUSC account! 21:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

FYI

You recently participated in a discussion here. This issue has been raised again here, where you may wish to comment. Best regards, –xeno^talk 15:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Responding to your question at WT:MOS

Steven Pinker is great on both the "evolutionary" trend in the social sciences and especially on language issues. Very readable. - Dank (push to talk) 03:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice, thank you. Trip to the library this weekend!

— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

My favorite is How the Mind Works, but he's also written a lot of books on language that are very accessible. - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, good deal. I was thinking of getting The Language Instinct, since that was published first, but How the mind works would likely be just as good of a starting point.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Starting new articles

Re your comment at ANI, I've found it useful to create a sandbox (or three) and work on articles there. I've been left in peace to work on articles, and when they are released they are generally at least of C class, if not higher. Maybe you might try this method and create a few new articles? Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

bot

One too many files.[1] -Atmoz (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah... well, that's the kind of thing that happens when you shoehorn an artificial "stop at X" check into thing like this!

Thanks for pointing that out though, I appreciate it!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving subthread from WT:MOS

It was date autoformatting that went to ArbCom, not the matter of which format should be used in which article; until early 2008, we had no guideline on that at all. Then one was developed at MOSNUM, based largely on engvar. BTW, DA was preventing logged-in editors from realising that there was an unholy mess of within-article inconsistency and inappropriate choices (e.g., dmy for NASA and even one of the 9/11 sibling articles, I discovered; I even switched one yesterday, for a US TV show—at least now we can see the faults that our readers see). Anyway, that issue is resolved. Do you perceive that engvar still causes trouble? Tony (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
See though, this is exactly the problem with having ArbCom dragged into issues such as this. Of course you're correct that the actual case involved autoformatting. The reality though is that ArbCom decisions have far reaching impact, and so their "limited" decisions are hardly limited at all (something which even ArbCom has a tough time grasping, it seems). Their formatting decision is seen as a general prescription regarding date formatting, to most.

The real problem here is that we need to understand that the MOS, and most policy in general, are seen as being useful for last resort appeals to authority, to most editors. For better or worse, the vast majority of editors simply ignore the MOS and policy, and do what comes naturally to them. Wikipedia was actually set up to encourage that sort of behavior, and despite the problems that it does cause it actually pays dividends. So, the problem that things such as adding RETAIN to ENGVAR cause is that we end up with situations where people blithely make contributions, in good faith that their actually helping, and end up being sideswiped by unusually forceful policy. I hope that it's apparent that I don't necessarily disagree with the principles behind these issues, it's simply the manner in which their being implemented which is problematic.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 10:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC) [Copied and continued on Ohms's talk page, since the dialogue seems to have strayed from WT:MOS's scope]

My responses are:

It is ultimately very difficult for ArbCom to draw a black line between editor behaviour and content. In the Dates Case, the outcome was entirely limited to the former. I think that case saw ArbCom at its worst—some aspects were appallingly handled, and I think there was a lesson learnt about writing proposed judgements that overtly go beyond the behavioural. Fortunately, these proposals did not pass.
I have to catch myself, too, in referring to style-guide matters as "policy"; there's a big difference in status.
"the vast majority of editors simply ignore the MOS and policy, and do what comes naturally to them"—I don't think it's possible to say what combination of reasons lead to non-compliance. All I can say is that many editors are pleased that WP has a house style they can learn and follow. I learnt a lot from reading the MoS and MOSNUM, even years ago when they were by comparison a shambolic mess. What we have now approaches a professional outfit, despite a few problems. Tony (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring this or anything, and it's fine having it moved here. You caught me in the middle of copy editing an article is all, and I need to run off and take care of some things at the moment, so... "I'll Be Back".

— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, some replies for your consideration: I understand exactly what you're referring to in regards to ArbCom. I understand that it can be a frustrating realization, and this is an issue which the arbitrators themselves seem unwilling to comprehend in it's full scope (although they certainly acknowledge that Arbitration is "a blunt instrument", as they often put it), but the simple mention that there was an arbitration decision related to the subject has a definite, and profound, effect on the application of policy and guidance on Wikipedia. They don't like it, and work to actively rebut the view, but the "average editor" sees arbitration as the sole authority figure on Wikipedia.

While the MOS itself is certainly a style guide, portions of it, such as RETAIN and pretty much the entirety of MOSDATE now, are actual policy on Wikipedia, for all intents and purposes. Proof of this is easy to find on hundreds of talk pages, if you're willing to look.

I definitely agree with your view of the utility of the MOS, and I share your experience of having learned quite a bit from it. I'm hardly attempting to deny such points. The thing is, that's not really related to what I'm attempting to bring into focus here, in my view. The average editor is only aware of the MOS either when they need specific guidance, or it "gets into their way" during a dispute. That doesn't lessen it's significance, but it should guide our development of it. People want to contribute, but they don't want to have to "read the manual" prior to doing so. More importantly, I tend to reject the notion that deviating from the MOS is "non-compliance". Most of the MOS is not, and should not be, absolutely authoritative, and so "non-compliance" is a misnomer on it's face.

We obviously have slightly different views on the MOS, but I'm confident that we can each be happy with it's state. For myself, I'm not really unhappy with any aspect of the MOS, although as you can see I am motivated to challenge specific portions of it. The main thing, to me, is preventing it from becoming "The Tome of Rules".
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 09:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

MoS thread

Sorry my words stung you in that MoS thread! Perhaps how I put it was clumsy. It was never meant to be personal. Perhaps if you re-read and wp:agf you will see that, and also maybe see through to the concerns I tried to express. I've often been impressed with your views, including on documentation, but we seem to differ on this one. Anyway, I'll stop there before I piss you off further! Cheers... PL290 (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Blazon et al.

Sorry, I don't mean to cast any negative meaning on your transclusion. In fact, I'm rather heartened that people are keen to do something about the MoS mess. Can you please provide feedback on my recent proposal (Take II)? Tony (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Structure

Could you explain why a G6 speedy is appropriate here? I can't see why this page needs to be deleted. Please leave me a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Publisher-Work debate

hi ohms law, i'm spencer, I've put together an api that can figure out a wikipedia reference's 'publisher' field unambiguously, given a url, and am trying to have it worked into a citation bot. There is some confusion though about what sort of things we want to have in the publisher field. Can you comment over here? I'd like to know what you think. cheers Spencerk (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Caption page

Hi, just added a supporting comment at WP:CAPTIONS. How do you think this matter should proceed? Should a sandbox for a merged new section at MoS main page be created? Is there scope for trimming, rationalising the texts on a micro-level? Tony (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I've had a bit of a failure, but I should be back in business tommorow, or maybe Wednesday.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 13:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:International_Space_Station#Proper_Noun_.22International_Space_Station_Program.22

Thought this discussion might be of interest to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalox (talk • contribs) 10:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xeno^talk 14:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request Ohms Law Bot 2

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ohms Law Bot 2 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cambodia Portal

Template:Cambodia Portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ecuador portal

Template:Ecuador portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:China portal

Template:China portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WOSlinker (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert to neutral in Circumcision

Click on view history and select a version you agree with ([[2]]) and then click undo and click save to maintain the honest neutral concensus text. Just don't do it more than twice per 24 hrs. Trying to discuss anything with Jakew, Coppertwin, jayg, and Avi is a huge waste of time. They are a cabal, and discussion a sham designed to waste time with false statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.234.191 (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That vs. which

NASA Integrated Services Network -- Hi, I fixed a grammatical error you introduced on the NISN page. You might want

to look at "that versus which" here: http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaThat_Versus_Which.htm MithrasPriest (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Clark – Vancouver Television

Hi. I've deleted the Programming section of Clark – Vancouver Television as a copyvio of http://www.cityofvancouver.us/cvtv/cvtvindex.asp?section=25635. Feel free to rewrite it in your own words. Regards, Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Their website says nothing about them not claiming copyright. Also, the way you incorporated the text into the article without quotations marks or attribution is plagiarism. Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Misnumbered references

Could you please look at the Cape Verde article. From work of yours on references I think you might know how to handle the problem. The automatic wiki numbering of references goes wrong as described on Talk:Cape Verde. --Fartherred (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

New General Catalogue

Greetings,

I appreciate your efforts to perfect the article about the New General Catalogue, but it is indeed spelled “Catalogue” (the British way) and not “Catalog” (the American way), so please DO NOT CHANGE THE SPELLING OF CATALOGUE ANYWHERE! Do your other changes if you want, but NOT THE SPELLING. A consequence of your change would be that the links to article pages in, for example, German and Italian, would lead to “This page does not exist” messages (obviously in the respective languages) — a few others would be redirects, for example the French link.

I have looked at your other changes, and I find them minor. If you want to do them, it’s fine with me, but once again, please DO NOT CHANGE THE SPELLING OF CATALOGUE ANYWHERE in the “New General Catalogue” article.

Best regards,

Pierre Paquette
Vice-president, Laval Amateur Astronomers Club
Secretary, Quebec Federation of Amateur Astronomers
http://cielprofond.info
CielProfond (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Phil Konstantine

Congrats! to you and especially your daughter! Face-smile.svg You really should avoid editing your own article here, though. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

How do I get someone to update the page about me? The person who created the page says she will no longer edit things on Wikipedia because of the way some people treated her. I no longer work at KUSI. I moved over to KGTV (also in San Diego). My info on KUSI could be moved to "former employees." Then, I needed to be added to KGTV as their helicopter reporter doing traffic & breaking news. The move took effect June 7, 2010

Thanks, Phil 07:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to edit

I see you eliminated the invitation to edit trial. The trial was a result of a lot of discussion, on the village pump, the invitation to edit talk page, and on Wikiproject medicine. As nobody put forth any indication of previous consensus against this kind of thing, all throughout the months of discussion, I am very doubtful that such consensus exists. Also, judging from your comment on the invitation to edit talk page, it seems as though you misunderstood the plan in the first place. (Am I correct in thinking that you didn't read through the various discussions leading up to this, and only found out about the experiment through following Jimbo's contribs?) Seeing as this appears to have been a misunderstanding, could you revert your removal of the template? If you have some objection, please discuss it first, before simply ending the trial. Thanks. --Yair rand (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Earlier I restored the invitation to edit to pain. The objection of one editor does not override a consensus built over several months as Yair rand describes. I would ask you not to unilaterally remove any more instances of this template but please do continue the discussion if you wish. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)