User talk:Omegatron/Archive05

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This archive page covers approximately the dates between December 2005 and April 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)


Wiki for Engineering[edit]

Engineering Wiki is a wiki entirely dedicated to collecting information about Engineering. The Engineering Wiki is in early development stages at the moment. We invite you to help devlope this wiki.

Image copyright problem RE: Image:Wikitexschem.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Wikitexschem.png. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law. We need you to specify two things on the image description page:

  • The copyright holder, and
  • The copyright status

The copyright holder is usually the creator. If the creator was paid to make this image, then their employer may be the copyright holder. If several people collaborated, then there may be more than one copyright holder. If you created this image, then you are the copyright holder.

Because of the large number of images on Wikipedia, we've sorted them using image copyright tags. Just find the right tag corresponding to the copyright status of this image, and paste it onto the image description page like this: {{TAGHERE}}.

There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Wikipedia:

  • The copyright holder can also release their work into the public domain. See here for examples.
  • Images from certain sources are automatically released into the public domain. This is true for the United States, where the Wikimedia servers are located. (See here for images from the government of the USA and here for other governments.) However, not all governments release their work into the public domain. One exception is the UK (see here for images from the UK government). Non-free licence governments are listed here.
  • Also, in some cases, an image is copyrighted but allowed on Wikipedia because of fair use. To see a) if this image qualifies, and b) if so, how to tag it, see Wikipedia:Fair use.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Please remember that untagged images are likely to be deleted.

If you have uploaded other images without including copyright tags, please go back and tag them. Also, please tag all images that you upload in the future.

If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again. --Romeo Bravo 06:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Im not sure either, their site lacks a (c) notice... I will tag it {{GFDL-presumed}} --Romeo Bravo 18:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Image help[edit]

I uploaded a cleaned-up version of Image:Wildbluelogo.gif, replacing a 304x69 image with a 176x38 image. All I did was trim some white space and irrelevant pixels from the image, leaving the logo at the original scale. Now, when I view WildBlue, I see the old graphic resized to the dimensions of the new graphic. Utterly bizarre. I think it's a bug in the Wiki database software. Deleting the older file might fix the problem, but I need an administrator to do it for me. Please help. -QuicksilverT @ 11:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Refresh your cache. (Ctrl+F5) :-) — Omegatron 14:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I did flush the browser cache, multiple times. I even shut down the browser and restarted it, to no avail. Anyhow, it looks OK now, some six hours later. I guess the Wikipedia database just has these strange quirks. I've noticed an editing latency of hours with text-only edits on occasion. Thanks, anyway. -QuicksilverT @ 17:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Weird. That's exactly the effect I see every time I upload an image over top of another version, and it is always fixed by refreshing my cache once. I don't know why it wouldn't work the same way for you. — Omegatron 22:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Regular expressions/math symbols[edit]

Hi. Your negative signs, that you've changed "-"s into in some articles, show up as question marks in my browser. Most websites seem to just use dashes; are you sure that this minor typesetting improvement is worth a loss of accessibility? --Graue 22:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh oh. Which browser? Do − and − show up differently? — Omegatron 22:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
w3m. Those both look like question marks. --Graue 04:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Never heard of it. It looks like there are plugins to give it support for Unicode, though that was a while ago. Maybe you need to install a font or something.
Note that your browser also mangles pages containing Unicode characters during saves (it stripped them from your edit to this page, for instance), which shouldn't happen anymore. It should be on the workaround blacklist. I'll write to the developers about that. — Omegatron 04:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm going through your edits and your browser is stripping any special characters that it comes across (which are necessary for international accessibility).[1][2][3] Can I ask that you use a different browser to edit Wikipedia until your browser is added to the blacklist? You can also have it identify itself as one of the old browsers that's already in the list, and you'll be presented with the Unicode characters in their HTML named entity form, if you know how to do that. — Omegatron 05:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Crap, sorry about that. I changed my UA string to "Lynx (compatible; w3m/0.5.1)" and now get the workaround -- an exclusive rather than inclusive list for getting the workaround might be a better idea, if you happen to be chatting with the developers.

Regardless, my original question about negative signs remains unanswered, you having responded to it with another question. So I'll ask again: are you sure this minor typesetting improvement is worth a loss of accessibility? --Graue 00:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Maximum power & Maximum power theorem[edit]

As I understand it they are talking about different applications of the same thing. I had this confirmed by Dr. C.A.S.Hall, an expert in systems ecology, however I have had trouble talking about "electronic applications of ecology" because that area does not exist and many believe it OR so it is blocked. I've removed the merge proposal. It looks like we will have to wait for some time to clarify this matter up...which may be beneficial. Regards Sholto Maud 04:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If they are related at all, they certainly aren't similar enough to merge the two articles. I don't know much about "energetics", but at a casual glance it looks like borderline pseudoscience "borrowing" real theorems (like the MPT) to make itself look more legit. (Only because I've seen the same thing happen countless times with other "new" theories; I don't have time to look into energetics right now, but it tastes like pseudoscience.) Anyway, it even says in the Maximum power article that their definition of power isn't the one used in physics. — Omegatron 05:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Luton flashover[edit]

Hi, happy new year. I think as you are from the electronics world that you might be able to help out on sometime which I started today. At the electrical substation page I have started a subsection on protection systems and design.

I am looking for details of an event which occured many years ago, it is known to some as the luton flashover. A serious flashover occured at a major substation in Luton (england) and this caused a nation wide outage. Do you know anything about this event ?Cadmium 16:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry. I don't know anything about it. — Omegatron 16:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi Omegatron, I liked your unwatch script that adds "un" links on the watchlist. I modified yours to use AJAX, i.e. asynchronously unwatch the page without opening a new window, and cross out the entry from the watchlist. See User:Quarl/unwatch.js. Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 08:29Z

Wow, cool! I wish I knew more about javascript. My scripts are just clunky modified versions of others'. I'll have to study yours and figure out how it works. Thanks, though, this is much better! — Omegatron 16:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Misnomer at WP:AUM[edit]

Hi. You wrote "If another admin agrees". Do you imply with this that admin votes count more than non-admin votes on this matter? --Adrian Buehlmann 23:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The page is protected, so only an admin could move it. That's all. — Omegatron 00:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah ok. Your are right. I didn't notice that David protected it against moves. So the unprotect he did was not a complete one. Thanks! --Adrian Buehlmann 09:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Did either of you notice that he unprotected it right after? I still see a Move tab, and can get to the move screen. -- Netoholic @ 09:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
As usual, I'm puzzled in my dumbness. I was only looking into the protection log and from that deduced that the page is still move-protected. Do move protections not appear in that log? Confused, --Adrian Buehlmann 10:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Hello; I am very interested in your unverified.js script but when I install it at User:Admrboltz/monobook.js/unverified.js I cant get it to work. I would like it to actualy add {{no source|month={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|day={{CURRENTDAY}}|year={{CURRENTYEAR}}} eventualy, but would be satisifed with it working in general :) Thanks --Admrboltz (T | C) 04:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I bet you're missing the addLink() function. I don't see it on your monobook.js. Adding the date is a good idea. Update the Wikiproject version if you add it. — Omegatron 04:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, and good cheer[edit]

Hi Omegatron, I just noticed your monitoring of Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates; thanks for keeping that policy and its discussions sane. :) +sj + 04:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*Sigh* I'm not so sure my monitoring of that page is a reliable indicator of sanity... — Omegatron 05:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

JavaScript editing enhancer[edit]

Hi Omegatron,

please have a look at User:Cacycle/editor for my editor script that adds extended editing functions to the Wikipedia edit pages. Currently it works only for Mozilla Firefox, Mozilla, and Mozilla SeaMonkey browsers. Features include regular expression search and replace, server-independent Show preview and Show changes, one-click fixing of common mistakes, and undo/redo. Some fixing routines have been taken from your scripts.

Cacycle 12:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

So it's kind of like a lot of different scripts rolled into one...
Note that my fixer scripts are a bit kludgy in places, have false positives and false negatives, etc. If you make any improvements to them, let me know.
I am constantly working on the functions and have already sorted out most flaws. Cacycle 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The unit formatter, for instance, could be re-written in a much simpler way without the regular expressions. Just an array of valid prefixes and an array of valid unit symbols (with correct capitalization) and then the script would find anywhere the two were together and fix the capitalization and spacing (and maybe use a  , but I'm hesitant to start filling up articles with those).

Note that
// changes 10^3 to 103
// change x^3 to x3
are redundant.
They should also not be used in text with the <math></math> tags. I have not yet worked on this function yet.
Yeah, I kludged around that by converting "<sup>" inside math tags back into "^" afterwards. :-)
The dashes and such should also not be fixed inside math tags, so a better solution needs to be written for this. — Omegatron 01:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I would not add &nbsp; even if it gives a better output as long as we don't have a markup for it. It is simply too confusing in the source text. Cacycle 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. — Omegatron 01:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you using the diff algorithm from [4]? I was thinking of using that script to implement an automatic diff feature like here
Yes , use that one, it is at the very end of my code. I have taken that algorithm without any changes (beside char-entititizing < and >). Everytime a text contains certain words the code fails and doesn't generate any result - without an error message in the JavaScript console. I have localized three of these words: 'sort', 'watch', 'shift' (only in lowercase form). Do you have an idea why??? Cacycle 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea why. My knowledge of javascript is limited. I wonder if it would be possible to write an automatic diff thing... — Omegatron 01:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Have you been to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts? They're using addOnloadHook(myFunction); instead of main.onload... I think it's better at not conflicting with pre-existing functions? — Omegatron 14:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
When I use the addOnloadHook for my script everything loads twice. That may usually not matter - but if you get twice as many buttons, the user interface gets a bit crowded... Cacycle 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I wish I understood it better. I've seen scripts running twice before, too, when there was an error in one. I don't know why it does that. — Omegatron 01:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thumbnail size[edit]

Ahh I didnt realise that everyone could set his own thumbnail size. Thanks. So everyone may see the page differently and its not worth lining up pictures to look right on my monitor? ( because other monitors are different) Am I correct?--Light current 15:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Partially. For instance, the size setting on the microphone pattern diagrams is ok, since they are supposed to be small and all the same size, fit in a table, etc. In general, thumbnails can just get the thumb tag with no size, and everyone can set it to as big as they want. The default is pretty small so that people with small screens or dialup are happy. I just added a note to the image markup page to make this more obvious. — Omegatron 19:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice!--Light current 19:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"standard and consistent internal and/or external formatting"[edit]

Why are you removing spaces from after headers and list markup? This makes the wikitext harder to read and can break formatting of definition lists, etc. — Omegatron 20:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The format I edit towards is a standard format that is used in most featured status articles. It is a form that to me, seems easier to read, although that may be an aspect in the eye of each user. It keeps the heading unseparated from the first paragraph of the content for that subject. How does it break formatting for the external links lists? I've found that allowing the space after the "*" in the external links lists causes the link to become separated from the "*" while editting links with lengthy URLs, while removing the space allows the external link to be editted on the same line, no matter how many characters it takes to compose it. Can you give me an example of where removing the space breaks the presentation? Whenever anyone reverts my changes back to a consistent style other than the one I prefer, I let it be. See for example, Hubble Space Telescope. - Bevo 01:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition lists require the spaces to be parsed correctly:

word one 
definition one
word two 
definition two

Likewise with bulleted text with an asterisk:

  • First item
  • Second item
  • *Third* item

and so on:

  1.  ! (1 key)
  2. @ (2 key)
  3. # (3 key)
  4. $ (4 key)
  5.  % (5 key)
  6. * (8 key)
  7. ( (9 key)
  • Unordered list item
    Indented unordered list item
  •  :-) Smiley
     :-) Indented smiley

It's hard to think of things that would conflict, but there are a few. The spaced format is guaranteed to always work.

Also, you'll notice that if you press the + button on a talk page to create a new section, (or use the &section=new function in the URL), the Mediawiki software generates headings with the following spacing:

== Heading 1 ==

Text 1

== Heading 2 ==

Text 2

I think it's logical and more readable to leave these spaces in the markup where possible. I've been converting articles to this format with a javascript function, so if you're doing the opposite, we either need to both stop what we're doing, or agree on a format that is best. — Omegatron 01:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the need for a single, consistent format. I'll start up a discussion at to try to get a community concensus as to which style is best. Please join in there to share your experience. - Bevo 16:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the examples and rationale in your entries over at . I hope we get some some others to contribute ideas to set the baseline. - Bevo 17:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi, you in edit summary said that there is a new speaker icon, but the template renders like this: About this soundlisten . Is this what you intended? Renata 06:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it works correctly for me and others who have tried it. What browser are you using? Have you refreshed your cache? (Shift+Reload, Ctrl+F5, or something similar) — Omegatron 13:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Aghrgh... Cache was the problem. Now everything is good, sorry for disturbing. And it should have been done a long time ago! ;) Renata 14:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Phew! :-) I can imagine some older browsers don't support the css background element completely. I'm thinking we might want to combine both versions, and have the css hide the text triangle thing at the same time as it adds the speaker icon. — Omegatron 14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what you just said :) But I think now it is PERFECT. I asked you this question because I saw no icon, just the word listen would by hyperlinked to the sound file. But even in that case, I think, it works. If not your edit summary saying something about a non-image icon I wouldn't have bothered. In short, thank you very much! Renata 01:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

re: WP:AUM[edit]

If you think that this page should start by referring to itself as a guideline, then why do you object to categorizing this as a guideline? The terms policy and guideline are special terms on wikipedia, as you apparently appreciate. Personally, I think this should be a guideline, along the lines of {{style-guideline}} perhaps. I agree with everyone who thinks it should not be a policy, but believe there is merit to not using meta templates if there is an easier way to code something, without loosing functionality. I also think that it should only be labled according to consensus, and that there is much disagreement on what that page should end up being at this time. What I really disagree with is a page contradicting itself, thus my attempt to categorize this based on it's text. I don't think it's worth getting in to an edit war with you about though. What do you think? xaosflux Talk/CVU 23:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be marked {{historical}}, as it's completely inappropriate and wrong. Definitely not guideline or style guideline. Until there's a consensus on what it should be, though (which will never happen), it should not be elevated to guideline, policy, or demoted to historical. That guideline tag can be changed so that it doesn't conflict with itself, but for now I'm leaving it the way Raul put it, because... I don't know, actually. I don't understand his reasoning for reverting to that version, but maybe he can enlighten us. It should really be left the way lead developer Brion left it, actually, but it's been revert warred way too much already. I'm just taking a break from modifying the page for a bit. Please leave it yourself, and discuss changes on the talk page, so there's not another edit war. — Omegatron 23:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not editing that section again withouth consensus, as edit warring is always a bad thing. I have opened a new section on the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_using_meta-templates#Classification in hopes of gaining a civil decision. If you have the time, your comments there would be appreciated. Thanks, xaosflux Talk/CVU 00:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for posting, I'm going to step away from this for at least a day or two now, with any luck it will settle down, hainvg something semi-stable and referenable is where I'd like it to end up, even if the end result is not what I propose. xaosflux Talk/CVU 00:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You realize this has been the opposite of "settled down" for more than a year, right? :-)
Speaking of which... — Omegatron 00:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Unwatch links[edit]

See User talk:Quarl Quarl (talk) 2006-02-04 05:11Z

Whitespace on the audio templates[edit]

Re this edit - can you also take a look at them multi-listen template and do the same there? (See the medie section at Beethoven for an example) Raul654 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't even understand how that template works. How does the heading get inside the template when it's written after the template? The visual formatting for both of these shouldn't be done with tables, anyway. I started working on a css replacement for {{listen}} at User:Omegatron/Sandbox#ListenOmegatron 21:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Klunky Schematic Editor[edit]

Thank you very much for the Klunky Schematic Editor! It is just what I have been looking for for a long while! But could you please add symbols for light bulb (a circle with an "X" filling it), or, if it already exists, tell me what symbol to use for it (– I am used to the circle with the "X")? --Erkekjetter 01:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not meant to have a symbol for everything; just to act as a base that you can then edit in a graphics editor like The GIMP. :-)
You mean something like this? Just use one of the vacuum tube or meter symbols and then draw an X when you edit it. I'm used to symbols like [5], [6], and [7]Omegatron 02:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks! Quarl (talk) 2006-02-07 19:33Z

Of course! :-) — Omegatron 20:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You should also have a look at User:Cacycle/diff (User:Cacycle/diff.js), a more powerful implementation of the same algorithm. Cacycle 09:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Now if only you too worked together on Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts, you wouldn't have to write the same things twice, and we wouldn't be forced to choose between you. :-) — Omegatron 13:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Page name for temperature articles[edit]

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

For once, I don't have an opinion. — Omegatron 02:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: A440[edit]

I just wanted to thank you personally for putting the sinewave A440 on the page. As a musician stuck without a tuner in a bind, Wikipedia was my first stop. I thought, "I bet somebody's got a tone up at A440," and I was in luck. That fit my needs perfectly. Infinity Squared 01:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. We seem to have everything here; it's kind of bizarre. — Omegatron 02:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


You just added an unnecessary span to Template:SI prefixes with reference to a bug in the Wikimedia software. This is definitely a thing that should be corrected in the software, not in articles (or templates for that matter). I will not revert it for now, but I request that you do so whereever you made such a change—when the bug is corrected at last. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crissov (talkcontribs)

Until the bug is fixed, there's nothing wrong with a harmless workaround. It will be removed when no longer needed. Its use in {{SI prefixes}} may not be a big deal, but it was appreciated for things like {{Listen}}. — Omegatron 01:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


It is my understanding that the inclusion of a template on a page puts a tiny extra bit of strain on the Wikipedia servers (see WP:SUBST#Reasons to substitute) - generally not much to complain of, but this particular template is used on over 6,000 pages, so that load seems unnecessary. BD2412 T 13:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I had not noticed that Brion VIBBER had weighed in on it. I do not think the concern about possible changes to the template is valid, as we probably want an "unsigned" notice to stay the same after it is posted, and not change if the template is changed; however, if the server load problem is not a problem, I'll put my time to better uses. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The point may be moot - I note that someone has set a bot to the task! BD2412 T 15:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs userboxes[edit]

I've put it up for discussion at - I wanted to try and get a census before I did anything with respect to them. Tawker 04:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


I substed all isntances of your old template signature. I also unprotected it since it's no longer being transcluded (if you want it deleted, drop me a note at my talk) -- ( drini's page ) 05:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I got it. Thanks. — Omegatron 06:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Date links[edit]

Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 20:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary[edit]

Edit summary usage for Omegatron: 76% for major edits and 84% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

And don't rely too much on the AWB framework to do the edit summary work for you; it does poor job at edit summaries except for trivial edits.

Also, the AWB framework is a stupid bot, just like me, it can't say why a two-legged human made a change. So, more effort in putting edit summaries, and more meaningful edit summaries, please. Mathbot 03:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot's talk page[edit]

No worries, I check the bots talk too (its one of my homepages) - its just the userpage gives a fancy little new messages box :) Thanks for the heads up though! -- Tawker 07:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


It's that guy you are.

User:Adrian/zap2.js 08:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey! You're that other guy. — Omegatron 23:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
No! I'm that one guy. You're that other guy! >:o
User:Adrian/zap2.js 20:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


I was under the impression that templated were to be 'subst'ed wherever possible, and had noticed this being done to many pages on my watchlist with justifications in terms of server load. I was doing it more as a test for WP:AWB while trying to do something useful. I apologise if this was innapropriate, or incorrect; I was not trying to antagonise. |→ Spaully°τ 00:00, 1 March 2006

Nowhere specific I believe. As I say it was in several edit comments where a user was substing templates in the User_talk namespace. I'm afraid it seems to have fallen off my watchlist, but I can let you know if it turns up again. :I have just found WP:SUBST, I notice the unsigned template is under discussion. |→ Spaully°τ 00:17, 1 March 2006


Then I learned something today- Thanks-

(Opes 05:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

Renaming on wikibooks[edit]

Hey ive been renaming some pages in a wikibook to match the new naming convention, i was wondering if there was anyway to see all the pages in the module? Is this something only administrators can do? Is there a better way to clear all the orphaned redirects than proding them? Can I ask an admin to speedy them? Discordance 13:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Discordance 22:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


Spam - You might want to comment on this: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration. —Locke Coletc 03:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2's reply[edit]

Reply is indented...

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Electric current and Bandwidth. I'm glad someone's finally gotten around to an automated method of dealing with simple, obvious vandalism. Some suggestions:

1. Err on the side of caution. It's much better to miss some vandalism than revert good edits.

It's ultra conservative, we're QA'ing anything we add to the filter set before we run it but mistakes can happen hence it normally runs in calm mode in which it won't revert if challenged. (we only normally activate angry or revert as many times.

2. Don't mark reversions as minor if you're not watching them

We do watch them to an extent, I'd say 80% of the edits get reviewed, I'm throwing the flag out for consideration though, that might be a good idea.

3. Change the edit summary to something like "Suspected vandalism automatically reverted", so people realize at a glance that no human is observing the revert. As you can see on this talk page, some people don't even realize it's a bot after coming here.

True, I would have thought the name tawkerbot2 would clue most people in, but evidently not, I'll add it in.

4. It would be really nice if the edit summaries were specific. Instead of a generic message, use

  • reverting page blanking by
  • reverting addition of "Wikipedia sucks"
  • reverting addition of "'''Bold text'''[[Link title]]"

That would reduce the number of bot edits that people have to check up on

We thought about giving out the filter that the bot was reverting on but I had a few requests that I dont mostly due to the fact that if vandals know the criteria they can try and evade the filters. I do have a list of what triggers it and I will release it to trusted users, I'm not trying to be as secretive as Curps about the bots working but I also don't want it to be rendered useless by vandals figuring out how to beat the bot.

5. Could it add {it {test}} templates to the user talks of people who vandalize? Is it worth it?

Its in the works, we're having some issues with creating new user pages as the framework only allows for appendment right now, we're also working on an IRC reporting bot for when the bot gets reverted to consider blocks etc.

Reverting "X is gay" and "can I really edit this?" wastes way too much of our valuable time, even with vandal fighting software and the rollback tool. Thanks for saving us all some work, so we can focus on writing an encyclopedia.

(Not enough praise on this page.) :-) — Omegatron 16:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the praise. We'll see what we an do to improve the bot :) -- Tawker 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


I wanted to address your suggestions.

  1. Err on the side of caution. It's much better to miss some vandalism than revert good edits.
    I agree, and that is the current plan. We have only had one false positive (against Jimbo Wales) since I rewrote the bot.
  2. Don't mark reversions as minor if you're not watching them
    That is a possibility.
  3. Change the edit summary to something like "Suspected vandalism automatically reverted", so people realize at a glance that no human is observing the revert. As you can see on this talk page, some people don't even realize it's a bot after coming here.
    I think thats a good idea.
  4. It would be really nice if the edit summaries were specific. Instead of a generic message, use
    • reverting page blanking by
    • reverting addition of "Wikipedia sucks"
    • reverting addition of "'''Bold text'''[[Link title]]"
    That would reduce the number of bot edits that people have to check up on
    The comments are deliberately vague in line with WP:BEANS
    • I don't understand. — Omegatron 22:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The edit summary is vague to disguise what exactly the filters are, I'm not totally sure how BEANS applies but some people claim it does. We did put in the reasons before but then we had some requests via email to remove the summaries as it was probally going to spark a cat and mouse to try and outsmart the bot. -- Tawker 10:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Could it add {{test}} templates to the user talks of people who vandalize? Is it worth it?
    Yes, this feature is coming.

Thank you for your positive comments. Any other suggestions, please let us know. :) joshbuddytalk 22:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

On another note, we finished the autowarn v1.0, its still a generic message but it goes on every page new or not -- Tawker 10:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The reasons / filters list is on the bots status page (a non WP access restricted webspage that shows every edit the bots made / links to every edit of a user the bots reverted and a few other options) which I'm willing to give access to trusted users, if you want access let me know and I can send you a login.

Tawkerbot2 2[edit]

The auto warn feature is now implemented and it seems to be working ok. It is a generic warning but its better than no warning. -- Tawker 18:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Flying_spaghetti_monster_emblem_2.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Flying_spaghetti_monster_emblem_2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 18:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain your latest edit?[edit]

Saw this on my watchlist, can not make head or tail of it :)

00:38:33 MediaWiki talk:Tagline (diff; hist) . . Omegatron (Talk) (→=Comment= - «" =Comment= " → "=Comment="»)

AzaToth 00:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Changed "== =Comment= ==" into "===Comment===" (you can't add the extra equals inside the new section dialog, i guess) — Omegatron 00:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Omegatron, thanks for answering my question about javascript at the Village Pump -- and even taking the time to look at my monobook.js page! I really appreciate it!Herostratus 13:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Hi. Are you using something to automatically create edit summaries? A summary like this one might be somewhat worse than nothing at all, which, of course, is bad. It's just a bunch of gobbledygook which doesn't summarize the edit—I looked at the edit, and I still can't tell how that edit summary relates to it. If enough people enter edit summaries like this, it will take me all day just to get through my watchlist. Please, just harness the awesome power of writing. Michael Z. 2006-03-02 05:58 Z

Are you using something to automatically create edit summaries?

Of course. :-) Sorry, I was in a hurry. I'll try to do better. — Omegatron 15:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to be complainy. I've just been seeing a few like this (the double guillemets are a good marker to set them off), and they tend to be puzzling. Michael Z. 2006-03-02 15:45 Z
Agreed. They are sometimes not any more helpful than viewing the actual diff. Sometimes they are, though. I'm notoriously bad at leaving them at all, though, so they're usually an improvement for me. :-) Maybe we should start Wikipedia:Edit summary rehab. — Omegatron 15:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


I didn't see any indication of a previous discussion, but given there were about 20 articles, it would have been hard to find it had there been one. It was in a bit of a mess, with some articles linking to "binary", but with the majority simply having one paragraph and then referring to byte or bit. The real problem was that now and again people were adding info which was relevant to all of them, so it badly needed to be centralised, especially given that the total amount of information was just right for the size of one article. megawatt and gigawatt link to watt, so this appears to be the standard method. --Rebroad 15:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. The discussion was on Talk:Binary prefix, where we decided not to merge them, but to use the navigation template to tie them together. We should probably link each talk page to there. You should really get consensus before making sweeping changes to lots of articles like that, especially since many of them have info relevant to that particular unit that you didn't merge. I'm going to revert for now. — Omegatron 15:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


You should STOP REVERTING MY CHANGES TO Megabyte. Look, the fact is that MB is VERY widely used to mean 1,048,576 bytes. Therefore, saying that it doesn't mean that is tilting at windmills. FACT: Operating systems allocate and report disk and files sizes in binary units, and present them using abbreviations (e.g GB, MB, KB). FACT: that's where most people most often see the abbreviation MB. Sheesh. Rational, popular use trumps standards body declarations. This was all clear in the article. I shouldn't have to drive the point home here. Elvey 17:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh?? — Omegatron 22:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
one megabyte (MB) = 1,048,576 bytes. one mebibyte (MiB) = 1,000,000 bytes. so yeah, elvey is right in terms of computer science, although to a layman such as myself, there is so little difference, they are practically the same. it only matters significantly when you get up to TB/TiB. mastodon 13:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I know the difference, and it's important, but I'm not reverting his edits or claiming the things he's claiming. — Omegatron 15:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

RISUG → STDs[edit]

Your addition to RISUG is just speculation as it's currently written. Can you provide a reference of someone who says that? — Omegatron 00:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, i suppose it is just speculation, so i can't provide a source. although it may be just speculation; i feel it is a logical assumption. what with me being a male, and a lot of my friends being male, i know that if an easy, convenient method was avaidable that only needed thinking about once a decade, i would not find myself to be the biggest condom-fan the world has ever seen. the prospect of a reliable method such as this that does not "interrupt the thowes of passion" would be a much more convincing argument at the time than "condoms protect against diseases". it may be my opinion, but i know i am not alone in thinking it. on the other hand, if your quarrel is just with the wording, feel free to edit away! mastodon 13:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, it shouldn't be there if it's just opinion. — Omegatron 15:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Panspermia/exogenesis/alien invasion theory[edit]

Hi - great work you've been doing on Red rain in Kerala! Once the results of Wainwright's testing are known and we know whether the alien theory was just a curiousity or really true, I think this article has great potential for featured status. Just a quibble though - you say that 'exogenesis' is the correct term for 'panspermia', but I think you're wrong there. The word exogenesis does not appear in the astronomical literature at all - panspermia is the only term in common usage for the phenomenon in question. If you don't object strongly, I'd like to change 'exogenesis' back to 'panspermia'. Worldtraveller 11:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to change the word, you'll have to change the sentence, too. Exogenesis ("outside origin") is the idea that life originated from outside the Earth, which is what the sentence says. Panspermia ("seeds everywhere") is the more broad idea that life is abundant in the universe in the form of small (probably single-celled) organisms. If the red rain is really an extraterrestrial organism, it's sort of circumstantial evidence for both. — Omegatron 15:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


You can add literal em dashes: — instead of HTML entities: — to avoid cluttering up the markup. — Omegatron 14:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly dertainly I am happy with the UTF-8 creaminess. Up until now I have concentrated on getting the content nice. I suppose just entering the HTML entity, then doing "preview" and then pasting from the representation ought to do it nicely. Duckbill 21:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

LaTeX rendered as HTML[edit]

Continuing the discussion from the Village Pump Proposals page: Is there any way to find out who developed the LaTeX rendering engine, so we can figure out why they had LaTeX code rendered as HTML in a different font than the rest of Wikipedia? Maybe then we can work something out. --mets501 01:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As a followup: I contacted the creator of the LaTeX rendering engine (Taw) about this problem. This was his response:

Math it rendered as either HTML (CSS class "texhtml"), or PNG (CSS class "tex"). The rules controlling their display are:

img.tex {

       vertical-align: middle;

} span.texhtml {

       font-family: serif;


I didn't write that CSS, but serif is probably more like the font used to typeset math in paper math books, and someone thought it would look ugly to use sans serif for it or something like that.

From his response I think it would be fine to change it to render in sans-serif. --Mets501talk 02:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I figured. I don't see why it should be changed. — Omegatron 03:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
It should be changed because it looks smaller and different than the rest of whatever article it's in. --Mets501talk 03:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
But it is different. It should be serifed to match the PNGs.
I'm confused as to why this bothers you. Does your browser render the serif text wildly different from the sans? It looks fine on mine. — Omegatron 03:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's what it looks like on my computer (IE 6) Xvsx.png, with the codes <math>x</math> and ''x'', respectively. Does it not look like that on yours?
Serif math.png More math HTML.png
The sans-serif looks worse to me. Maybe what we should be doing is finding a serif font that looks good in IE? — Omegatron 04:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps that's what we should do. However, it appears to be an IE only thing, because I just downloaded Firefox to test it and it looks fine. Maybe include a piece of script which tests for the browser the user has and then chooses a font?
That sounds like an excellent idea. I know the Unicode class in MediaWiki:Common.css sets a lot of different fonts for IE, and then another statement reset them for other browsers, so it can be done. We should be discussing this somewhere where other people can contribute. — Omegatron 15:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. I proposed this idea at the Village Pump here. --Mets501talk 15:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Double redirects[edit]

Ugh, would you care to handle this? Talk:MB/s I just am not up to it at the moment. Cburnett 00:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole[edit]


An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip[edit]

Hi, thanks on your advise on commons:User_talk:Renata3/samples. I modified the template but I almost missed your comment because I don't check commons pages that often. Cheers, Renata 20:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't check them much, either. :-) Not a big deal; I figured you'd see it eventually. — Omegatron 20:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wilson current source article.[edit]

Hello Omegatron,

I have added a new article Wilson current source. Please proof-read it. Thanks!! Rohitbd 10:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another date links proposal[edit]

Hi, I do not know if you noticed it, but there is another proposal about date links. This time it is not about me getting a bot flag, it is about making it very clear that the Manual of style permits removal of unnecessary links. You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates and vote whichever way you think is best. Thanks. bobblewik 15:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Floating Quickbar problem[edit]


I really like the floating quickbar idea, but I am running into a problem on my browser (Firefox When implemented, the "my talk/my preferences"/etc. bar seems to be shoved all the way over to the left, under the icon. I'm not sure why this is happening. Any thoughts? —Chowbok 02:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, I don't have any logos in mine, so that might be the problem. Can you post a screenshot? — Omegatron 02:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm having the same problem with FireFox Here's the screenshot:

The file above's purpose is being discussed and/or is being considered for deletion. See files for discussion to help reach a consensus on what to do.

Ohhhhhhhhhhh. I use code to move that nav bar into the sidebar. I will add it to the page. — Omegatron 04:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Added that, I'm all set now. —Chowbok 15:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

blahtexwiki CSS suggestion[edit]

thanks mate! Dmharvey 01:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion on the Cite extension[edit]

I read your suggestion on meta and I agree whole-heartedly in principle. In fact, if you look further up the page, you will see that your idea is almost the same as mineFace-grin.svg. I think we need to band together to bribe Ævar with huge amounts of chocolate or something to implement these suggestions ASAP. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm chocolate. I moved my reply to meta. — Omegatron 15:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


There's a vote at Talk:Ohm (unit) to reinstate as the primary topic after a move from Ohm. Have an opinion to share? Femto 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Negative pressure: what is this big empty table for?[edit]

It's waiting for you to fill it in. (or someone who has access or time to do so) njh 22:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. Don't leave unfinished stuff in articles. — Omegatron 05:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Face-crying.svg My RfA
Thank you for supporting/opposing/commenting on my request of adminship, sadly the result was 54/20/7 an thus only 73% support votes, resulting in that the nomination failed. As many of you commenting that I have to few main-space edits, I'll try to better my self on that part. If you have any ideas on what kind of articles I could edit, pleas send me a line. :) AzaToth

09:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Sorry... could... not... resist... (73% isn't bad. Don't see it as failed, see it as not quite succeeded yet. Like, some say the bucket is half-full, and some say it's half-empty.) :-P Femto 12:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Distortion measurement[edit]

Moved to Talk:Audio system measurements

Branchlists - whats happening?[edit]

Dear 'O'. I see you have deleted all the branchlists from the noise series. Could you say why? Also someone has nominated the branchlist template for deletion (rather hastily I might add). Can you shed any light?--Light current 14:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Lindos marked it for speedy deletion, saying that it wasn't used anywhere and there was a new replacement version. It was in use, and the speedy template was making Colors of noise, etc. look like they were up for deletion. Now it is no longer in use. — Omegatron 14:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

OK Im going to leave this for Lindosland to make his mind up and then tell us what his plans are.--Light current 15:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. — Omegatron 15:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear 'O', I notice you have been removing branchlist templates from the electroics articles. Could we have a discussion about how to implement and test Lindoslands ideas before getting into an edit war? --Light current 16:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I replied on Wikipedia_talk:Root_page#New_format_for_Branchlist_templates and said they should be created in mock-up articles in subpages of the Sandbox. — Omegatron 05:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

class e/f[edit]

i'm the class e/f guy. i'm not interested in opening an account. my ip changed because i'm using a different computer. i'm ready to chat about class e/f topic or other RF topics. i hope my changes will remain as i have worked on them some time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

It would make it a lot easier to discuss your changes with you. I only reverted because you left comments in the middle of the article. Those go on the talk page. Also, all of your work is still there in the history. — Omegatron 22:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

well then leave a way to chat with you...

This is it. I meant that using an anon account and changing your IP makes it difficult to chat with you. — Omegatron

concerning changes, I've done my part and recommended to delete most of the rest. feel free to do this. this article still needs alot of work on other areas, but i hope other ppl can do this. class e/f is understood by very few ppl so took the pain to fix it myself

Yeah. I don't know which version is correct, but you need to cite verifiable sources for your additions, so whoever wrote the original version has reason to believe you. — Omegatron 23:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Linkify for Gaim[edit]

Hi! I've been having some problems with the linkify plugin for Gaim found at Wikipedia:IRC_channel_scripts#Gaim, and was hoping you might be able to help me out. I'm not sure what kind of information you would need to help me troubleshoot this, so I'll try to give you a brief history of what I've tried. I'm using Windows XP Professional. I originally downloaded Gaim 1.5, then tried to implement the linkify plugin. I realized that I did not have activeperl 5.8, so I downloaded that, then reinstalled Gaim. That didn't work, so I completely uninstalled Gaim and reinstalled. When that didn't work, I figured maybe it was an older version issue, so I uninstalled 1.5 and downloaded Gaim 2.0 beta 3. Unfortunately that didn't work either. I have in C:\Program Files\Gaim\plugins and that file was changed so that my $CfgFile points to C:\Documents and Settings\Eric\Application Data\.gaim, which is where linkify.cfg is (I haven't changed linkify.cfg since I downloaded it, since it now contains Wikipedia links by default). Are there any known problems/solutions I should try in order to fix this? Thanks in advance for all your time. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 22:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh.... I don't know. It's not working for me, either. I remember I started looking at it one day and gave up. I think two or three components have changed at the same time. :-) I can't even run 2.0betaanything without it screwing up my router, and I'm just kind of waiting around for 2.0forreal to come out before I settle into it. For instance, I get an error every time I start gaim since downgrading back to 1.5, and I just ignore it. — Omegatron 05:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Just wondering if anything else happened with Changing next/previous to earlier/later? if not, aybe we should add a copy of the proposal to the wikiproject-usability archive? thanks. 8) -Quiddity 07:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What happened to it? I totally forgot about it. :-) I should be extra bold and try changing for a few seconds and see if it affects the category views, etc. — Omegatron 05:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggested taking it to policy proposals, i didnt know if you had or not. It fell into archives. I'll leave it up to you (my hands over full wit' stuff!), as i have no mediawiki knowledge. I just liked the idea and offered a cpl alternatives. Tell me if you take it onwards :) -Quiddity 06:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I just tested, and the Mediawiki message affects Categories, too. (It says (later 200) (earlier 200), when it should say next/previous) So it needs a proper bugfix; not just a change to the Mediawiki message. Unfortunately, bugfixes take forever... — Omegatron 01:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Still, shorter than feature requests ;)
I think i have a mediawiki account (just so i can add votes to bugs), so keep me informed if you take it onward there too :) --Quiddity 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I filed it before even bringing it up on the Village pump: bugzilla:5310. Leave a comment explaining that it's a real bug. — Omegatron 02:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Couple new articles of possible interest[edit]

I was kind of surprised that Transient response and Steady-state response didn't exist until about a half-hour ago when I created them. They could definitely use some work and I'd keep chugging away at them but it's time for bed. FYI. Cburnett 05:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Soooo... much... editing.... to dooooo.... — Omegatron 06:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hah, indeed. Cburnett 04:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


I'm afraid I don't know enough about the subject to know whether the Wikipedia content that Peter is adding is elevating his methods above others or not. If you are right then it probably is a good idea to start trying to either delete that material or edit it out. AlistairMcMillan 22:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to understand it. Just look atDistortion_measurement#.22Distortion_residue.22_.E2.80.94_a_modern_solution, for instance. — Omegatron 22:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What is so obvious here? The 'modern solution' was incorporated into an International (IEC)Standard. If you think there's wrong tone, or POV, just fix it. I don't always manage to take out the tone when I convert Lindos articles for Wikipedia, and assume that others will fix this if I don't go far enough. I have gone back and done this myself on some articles as you know. But when it comes to merging or deleting, then please read the following, as I really think you are missing something here Omegatron. I've worked on AES and other standards, and played a major part in audio measurement for 30yrs. What might once have been called 'my methods' are now respected and in used worldwide. It's the Audiophiles who think they know better who give the industry a bad name and promote ideas that are without proper foundations.

Lindosland replies - you've got it all wrong![edit]

Moved to Talk:Audio system measurements

alt form of main article reference[edit]

hello. i see you are altering a couple of articles where there is an alternate form of citation of "main article"...i assume you are asserting a wikipedia standard. in any event i would like to make a case for this alternate form to serve the following functions:

  • about 25 % of men are colourblind and cannot readily see the blue in the article referenced unless it is bolded example article name
  • some browsers and computer monitors dont display this light blue from your edits very well.
  • let me know your thoughts. Covalent 14:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand. I'm doing what? — Omegatron 14:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
see for example your edit to noise at 0447 hours on april 5, 2006. Covalent 20:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
You mean this? Yes, I removed an ad-hoc link and replaced it with the {{main}} template. I don't see what this has to do with color blindness. If you don't like the way links are designated on Wikipedia, talk about it on the Wikipedia:Village Pump; don't create your own version of widely used templates or alter our standard link style in only a few articles. Consistency is very important.
For instance, if the links are used consistently, you can make all Wikipedia links display in bold simply by adding
a {font-weight: bold;}
to your User:Covalent/monobook.css. Or make only the red links bold by adding this: {font-weight:bold;}
or underline them with a dotted line instead, to set them apart without color information: {text-decoration:none; border-bottom:1px dashed;}
Putting links inside bold tags arbitrarily breaks this flexibility. — Omegatron 20:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Floating left sidebar[edit]

And by floating, I mean the sidebar doesn't move when you scroll the rest of the page.

Saw you looked for it once- did you find it?

Thomasvoghera AT gmail (sorry new user- don't know this yet, please send mail to notify me onanswer here)

Yes, I found a way to do it. See m:Help:User style/floating quickbar Where did you see that I was looking? It should be updated to have a link. — Omegatron 13:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"dB SPL" is Wrong[edit]

The guidelines given for the National Standards clearly excludes the use of "dB SPL".

ASACOS Rules for Preparation of American National Standards in ACOUSTICS, MECHANICAL VIBRATION AND SHOCK, BIOACOUSTICS, and NOISE, which states:

3.16 Unit symbols

3.16.1 When to use unit symbols

In the text of the standard, the unit symbol for a quantity shall be used only when the unit is preceded by a numeral. When the unit is not preceded by a numeral, spell out the name of the unit. In text, even when a numerical value is given, it is desirable to spell out the name of the unit. Moreover, the name shall be spelled out when it first appears in the text, and more often if the text is lengthy.

Thus, in text write "...a sound pressure level of 73 dB; or "...a sound pressure level of 73 decibels." Do not write "sound pressure level in dB"; the correct form is "sound pressure level in decibels." Do not write "dB levels", "dB readings", or "dB SPL."

Levels or readings are not of decibels; they are of sound pressure levels or some other acoustical quantity. Write out the word "decibel" for such applications, and be sure that the word 'decibel' follows, not precedes the description of the relevant acoustical quantity.

The use of "dB SPL", as shown above by an authoritative source, is wrong. The incorrect use is common in Wikipedia articles, it is a problem. I've been leaving a message in the talk sections of various articles that need to have this fixed. It does not help to have my corrections of a real error reverted to the incorrect state. The articles that need correction include decibel, sound pressure, sound pressure level, and audiogram, but these are just a few of many that include the incorrect usage.

The treatment of sound pressure level is inconsistent with standard reference works across Wikipedia. Both Kinsler and Frey's "Fundamentals of Acoustics" (2nd edition) and Robert Urick's "Principles of Underwater Sound" (3rd edition) indicate that a measured intensity is a level (Urick p.15) or sound pressure level (K&F) relative to a reference effective pressure (K&F pp.125-126). Both of these sources recommend reporting decibels with an explicit listing of the reference effective pressure, like so: "74 dB re 20 micropascals", where the number and units following re is the reference effective pressure. Level or sound pressure level in both these standard texts simply refer to a measurement in the sound field and are not indications of a specific reference pressure upon which the decibel is based. In other words, "dBSPL" is an incorrect means of attempting to refer to the in-air reference effective pressure. In no article thus far have I seen the "dBSPL" usage tied to an authoritative source. By contrast, the "dB re" formalism is common to both standard reference works that I have cited, and is explicitly excluded in the work laying out the format for the national standards.

Other sites using the "dB re" formalism: Oceans of Noise (explicit in defining SPL and SIL in terms of "dB re"), SURTASS LFA, NIST listing SPL in terms of "dB re", and Acoustic Impacts on Marine Mammals. Wesley R. Elsberry 14:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The supposed "better reference" for use of "dB SPL" added to the decibel article ends up being a document that merely includes "dB SPL" in a list of terms. The glossary within the same document does not even list this supposed term, even though weighted decibel terms are defined. The glossary in the file does have an entry for "sound pressure level", which is

Sound pressure level: (1) Ten times the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio of the time-mean-square pressure of a sound, in a stated frequency band, to the square of the reference sound pressure in gases of 20 micropascals (µPa). Unit, dB; symbol, Lp. (2) For sound in media other than gases, unless otherwise specified, reference sound pressure in 1 µPa (ANSI S1.1-1994: sound pressure level).

Notice that the unit is "dB", NOT "dB SPL". The inclusion of "dB SPL" in their list of terms does NOT establish that their usage is correct, and even their own reference of the ANSI standard indicates that their usage is incorrect. SPL refers to a measurement, and is NOT an indication of the reference effective pressure. The ANSI standard referenced makes this clear, as SPL is defined as being used for other reference effective pressures, too. Wesley R. Elsberry 16:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Aircraft[edit]

Omegatron - I have a favor to ask of you. Can you work with me to update {{Infobox Aircraft}}? The template is way to generic and is not being used by any articles. I think this is a prime candidate for creating a detailed infobox. Ideally it would be flexible for both civilian and military aircraft - see (Boeing 737, Pipers, F-15, [C-130 Hercules]] B-2 Spirit. I have left a message about my suggestion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 14:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Lifter (ionic propulsion device)[edit]

Thanks for busy watching and reverting. It's one of those spots in Wikipedia... --Pjacobi 17:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of those... — Omegatron 18:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Page protection (Re:WP:RFI report)[edit]

You say you've started blocking, therefore I'm assuming you're an admin. This looks like a case for semi-protection, which you'll be able to apply. Petros471 17:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok,. I'll read through Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. Thanks. — Omegatron 17:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks like your latest reverts are holding, for now anyway, but I'd use semi-protection (for short periods) in future to stop page history getting clogged up. Cheers, Petros471 17:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Yep. He comes back every few hours. I'll use that next time. Thanks again. — Omegatron 18:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Font size for references in CSS[edit]

Hi! Could you take a look (and possibly write your opinion) at [8] and as an example at [9]? Thanks! --Ligulem 08:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

icon for video list template[edit]

Possible to change the current icon with which I just uploaded?

Spiff 18:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I can change the site-wide CSS if you can show me a few people who want it changed. I like that one better, but it's only changeable by an admin, so let's see if people like it first so we don't have to go back and forth or anything.
Some alternatives:
  • Currently used for single video files:Video icon.png
  • Currently used for list of video files:FilmRoll-small.png
  • Alternative film reels:Tango-video-x-generic.pngCrystal Clear app aktion.png
  • Probably bad, but included for comparison:Crystal Clear app camera.pngCamera-video.svgCrystal Clear filesystem folder video.pngCrystal Clear mimetype video.pngMPlayer movie.png
  • Any others?
Let's post on the village pump and ask for votes? I definitely prefer the Tango film reel (as the other one doesn't have any visible film coming off of it). — Omegatron 18:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. That's clearly better. :-) — Omegatron 05:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there are quite a few icons that could use a Tango overhaul :) — Spiff 17:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to upload more, put them on Commons instead. See Commons:Category:Crystal Clear icons, for example. — Omegatron 17:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Help with dispute[edit]

Hey, you're the only person i know that i know is an admin, so I was wondering if you could help me with a situation I have with User:JzG. He put up the page Personal_rapid_transit/UniModal for deletion, and there was some small discussion involving him, me, and a known vandal and PRT opponent Ken Avidor. I called for a vote, and it was unaniomous 9 votes that voted down the deletion.

After that, JzG cited that "AfD is not a vote", and "merged" the page with PRT. Really he merged one sentence out of the fairly large article SkyTran (links to old article) - and then deleted the rest, instead redirecting that page to Personal rapid transit.

It is my opinion that even a merge needs another proposal and another vote. But JzG doesn't think so, and basically went through with deleting the page. I consider his acts knowing vandalism - but I don't know how to deal with an uncooperative admin.

I was wondering if you could:

  • either help explain to me why the consensus opinion of users doesn't matter
  • or help resolve the dispute with JzG.

Here are links to places where this has been discussed:




Thanks! Fresheneesz 19:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll read through it. For one thing, we don't allow subpages, so it should be at UniModal. — Omegatron 19:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that's an Inductrack system? I'm interested in that, too. :-) — Omegatron 19:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Yea, my main point was that the article is interesting - and should be its own article. Also, JzG and Avidor were the people that moved UniModal to PRT/unimodal. What do you propose I/we do about this? Fresheneesz 20:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
?? Fresheneesz 20:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's kind of borderline. The votes from people who actually count said to delete or merge, and the concept is purely speculative and pretty divorced from reality. On the other hand, the people responsible for deleting it sound like they're trying to "shut up" an idea they don't like instead of simply making the article balanced. Moving it to a subpage demonstrates an ignorance of Wikipedia policy. It probably deserves an article, just like other unrealistic speculative technologies (Freedom ship, space elevator, Project Orion, Utility fog...), but the article would need to be toned down a lot and contain a lot of criticism compared to the version you pointed out. — Omegatron 01:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and I would help do it if the page wansn't protected. I don't quite understand about who counts and who doesn't in a vote, but I'll trust you on that. In any case, can you talk to him or get it unprotected? This seems like so much trouble for a relatively small page. Thanks again. Fresheneesz 03:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I protected it because the two pro-PRT editors kept reverting the redirect. I redirected it because that was what the AfD said to do (I wanted to delete). I also took the action to WP:AN for review. Freshneesz does not want me editing PRT at all, because he perceives me as being biased against it (I have also been accused of being biased the other way - as usual in content disputes). PRT is a largely untried concept, Skytran has no objective reality and arguably the most we can say about it from verifiable reliable sources is that Douglas Malewicki is seeking investors for this hypothetical system. There are no prototypes, there are no installations. This was a very long article many of whose claims and statements could not be substantiated from any external sources, because of precisely that problem. I have no problem with taking it to WP:DRV and no problem with oversight by other admins. I do have a problem with editors inventing ad-hoc processes and inviting their friends along to vote keep on AfD, and I have an especial problem with those editors counting only their friends' input, especially since it now appears to be admitted that solicitation did take place.
The verifiable and substantive content of the Skytran article already exists in personal rapid transit, from which we have recently spent some time and effort removing the more tendentious and unsupportable claims. As such, the Skytran article is essentially a POV fork in that it is an uncritical treatment of a conept which is treated in a more balanced and neutral way in the main article. Just as we have articles on the concept of the freedom ship and the space elevator, so we have an article on the concept of PRT. And that article includes its successes and failures in the real world, the test installations, the arguments in favour and those against. It also includes (or did last time I looked) Malewicki's artist's impression of the Skytran concept, which is listed among the other real and hypothetical systems.
So we are not excluding this concept by not having a separate article, we are merely avoiding giving it undue weight. I would also remind you that Freshneesz has already taken this to WP:AN/I and got no joy. Just zis Guy you know? 08:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
NO. Excuse me, i'm perfectly happy with you *editing* the article. I have NOT ONCE, told you that I don't want you editing. I have told you only *once* that "I thought you were more objective than that JzG". I never said he was biased or anything like that. Of course, in light of recent events I have to change my opinion in that respect. I welcome both JzG and Avidor's edits if they are cooperative.
"inviting their friends along to vote", I don't know about the policy concerning that - but I did *not* invite anyone to that (just for the record). I did not only count their input, I counted number of users that wanted delete, vs those that said otherwise - the vote was unanimous, but consensus was simply "don't delete". Out of curiosity, who admitted to solicitation?
As for undue weight, I have said again and again that I think you're misunderstanding that policy. I believe undue weight is about subjects in a single article - not about articles on wikipedia. Not only that, but SkyTran is not a *viewpoint* therefore undue weight doesn't apply to it.
JzG, do you check what you write? I did *not* take anything up at WP:AN/I. That was someone else entirely.. I listed the UniModal page up for unprotection, and I took it up at Mediation Cabal/Cases/, and at administrator's noticeboard. I'm trying to cover all my bases because I believe you are abusing your power - something I have a serious philosophical issue with.
Fresheneesz 09:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The page shouldn't be protected, in general, but I look at the history for that page and you were revert warring and removing AfD notices, both of which are Very Bad, and will receive a less than pleasant response. Removing an AfD notice is considered vandalism. Inviting non-Wikipedian friends to skew a vote on something is also Bad, and votes from anons or new accounts are usually ignored (see WP:VFD). I am sure you can understand why. I can imagine that the major reason this article was squashed so hard was because of your behavior; it could have survived if you presented your arguments differently and recruited Wikipedians to contribute opinions and votes (like me) instead.
SkyTran is a pretty detailed version of a PRT system proposal, and probably deserves an article, even if it has silly track-building robots, but, like I said, it's a borderline case. I could go either way with that. Considering the bias in the latest version of the article and the way you've behaved about it, I'm swinging more towards the "delete and redirect, merge some details and an external link to the main article" side of things. Linking to their website gets the same info out to people, doesn't it? Why don't you give it up for a while, and maybe we'll unprotect the page later and revisit it? There's no rush, is there? — Omegatron 15:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Looking back at the page - ohh, yea I removed the deletion proposal once prematurely, that wasn't good for me to do. The second time I removed the AfD notice, I did so because I thought the issue of deletion was closed (and it was). But once again.. I did *not* solicit people. Unless... is putting that header "Call for a vote" up considered solicitation?
Also.. revert warring? I reverted JzG redirect 1 time, once only. I tried to be as diplomatic as possible and as patient as possible, but I guess I failed. In any case, I think that the importance of my behavior is second to the importance of have good interesting information on wikipedia - and not squelched by a minority. Fresheneesz 19:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
This ignores the fact that we still have information on this, just not as a separate article. PRT is an untried concept, UniModal is an unimplemented version of an untried concept, for which the creator is actively pitching for investors. It really is quite simple. Just zis Guy you know? 18:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
But we have articles on fanciful untried concepts, unimplemented proposals, and hoaxes that took money from investors. None of those are reasons to delete an article. — Omegatron 18:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Damping Factor Controversy[edit]

Hi! Thanks for reverting some of my contribution to damping factor. I was surprised to find what I thought was gross misinformation on this page, and I attempted to shed some light on the subject, deleting what I believed to be bad information.

I'm an electrical engineer with 20 years of experience in the CD and DVD business, and I know enough about audio to be dangerous. In my experience, you can easily hear the difference between a high quality amplifier with a high damping factor, and a cheap amplifier with a low damping factor. A high damping factor translates to "tight bass". It is easy to describe from a scientific perspective also (objects in motion, such as the cone of a bass driver, tend to stay in motion, or resonate, generating unwanted sound, unless the amplifier forces the voltage to the desired level, and the electromagnetic voice coil resists this unwanted motion).

I'd be interested in your thoughts, as you have obviously contributed a great deal to this page, and you are also an engineer and an audio pro. Tvaughan1 22:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


I am writing you because I note in the History for cite/cite.php that you have been active recently in developing that article and I am hoping that either you can answer my question or you know someone who can.

I am a Wikipedian who has written quite a number of chemical engineering articles. I have been using <ref name=whatever>some reference</ref> to define my references and then <references/> to get them displayed in the References section.

I notice that when I use a reference only one time, the vertical arrow in the Reference section listing is very thin and spindly and hard-to-see. But when I use a reference multiple times, the vertical arrow and the accompanying superscripts (a b c ..) are quite bold and really stand out well. My question is why can't the arrow for a single-use reference look just as bold and well-defined as the arrow for a multiple-use reference?

As an aside, I must say that Cite/cite.php at [10] needs to be completely re-written by a non-computer guru so that we ordinary mortals can understand it. It is virtually incomprehensible at the moment. - mbeychok 17:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me an example of both arrows?
I agree that it needs to be rewritten. I am working on a new version proposal. — Omegatron 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. For an example, go to TA Luft#References and take a look. - mbeychok 20:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Here is a screenshot of how TA Luft#References looks on my Windows XP browser using my flat screen, LCD monitor. ==> image:Footnote arrow screenshot.jpg. - mbeychok 23:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Well that's a difference between browser renderings. The linked arrows are in bold, and the unlinked arrows are plain. (Really, the bold part should be done with CSS. Another improvement to add to the list.) Funny that the bold ones look smaller in your browser. In mine, they both look the same: Image:References example omegatron.pngOmegatron 00:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Your rendering also includes underlines for the arrow and for the superscript letters as well !! I want to stress the fact that my setup is a run-of-the-mill WindowsXP browser and a 17-inch Sony TFT LCD flat screen monitor. So if I am having this problem, I bet that a great many others have the same problem. There must be something that can be done !! I would like to point out that when I was using the Ref Label and Ref Note method, the caret it produced did not have this problem at all. - mbeychok 00:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
You're right; there's no underline in IE. I don't understand why that's a problem, though. Because it doesn't look like a link? — Omegatron 01:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, you misunderstood me. I was just pointing out another difference between the rendering by your browser and my browser. The problem I referred to is the poor clarity of the arrow for the single-use references in my IE browser and that it must be also true for many other IE users. - mbeychok 01:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

More about cite.php's poor rendering of reference arrows[edit]

If we look at the cite.php references in Tourette syndrome, they render as daggers and straight vertical lines, and they are all bold and well defined ... but they are at 80% font size. I changed them to 100% font size and then they looked exactly like the poorly defined vertical arrows I've been seeing on my IE browser. Look at these two screen shots of the Tourette references, one is using regular 100% font size and one is using 80% font size ==> image:Tourette references 100%.jpg and ==> image:Tourette references 80%.jpg

There is no question but that the font size changes the appearance entirely! Cite.php should abandon the arrows and go back to using the caret. - mbeychok 17:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's just an IE rendering bug; it's not a problem with the cite extension. If you press Ctrl and turn your scroll wheel, for instance, they will display in lots of different wrong ways as the font size is increased or decreased. IE is just bad at rendering arrows. We do have some workarounds for major rendering problems on some poor browsers, but I hardly think this one is worth trying to fix. That's a good argument against changing the font size, though, which people are doing for no good reason. — Omegatron 17:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

PRT page - "Exaggerated" POV?[edit]

Omegatron, I noticed you reverted my change to the word "exaggerated" for the PRT skeptic image on the PRT page. How else are we to accurately describe this image, which is an intentionally misleading representation of PRT used in a political campaign? Avidor himself (the creator of the image) admitted he used a guideway from a different PRT system (Raytheon) than was under consideration for Minnesota. And Raytheon's system was MUCH more visually imposing than Taxi2000, the proposed system for Minnesota, so there's no question this is a misrepresentation. I also object to the inclusion of a reference to the "Cyberspace Dream" article, which is basically a light rail advocacy brochure that has been rebutted point-by-point by PRT proponents. JzG has insisted we cannot list individual rebuttals to the Cyberspace Dream article, so doesn't the inclusion of this contentious article without its rebuttals give it undue weight? A Transportation Enthusiast 18:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Does the creator of the image consider it to be "exaggerated"? — Omegatron 19:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
You'd have to ask him (Avidor), but he freely admits that it was intended to show what PRT would look like in Minneapolis when Taxi2000 was proposed for that area. But the image shows a completely different system, not Taxi2000 but Raytheon. Also, on close examination it appears that the proportions, even for Raytheon, are exaggerated. Should it matter whether Avidor himself considers it a misrepresntation, when it can be shown independently that it is? A Transportation Enthusiast 20:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
freely admits that it was intended
"Freely admits"? Who's biased here?
to show what PRT would look like in Minneapolis when Taxi2000 was proposed for that area
I don't see "exaggerated" in there. I see an artist's conception of what he thinks something that doesn't exist would look like.
Should it matter whether Avidor himself considers it a misrepresntation, when it can be shown independently that it is?
How do you intend to "independently show" something that is an opinion?
I can think of several ways to describe the image, convey the idea you're trying to convey, and do it in a neutral way. Surely you can, too. — Omegatron 21:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand how "freely admits" is an indication of bias. Let me take a step back and explain.
Avidor indicated on the talk page (probably archived by now) that this image was created with the intent of showing what PRT in Minnesota would look like. The proposal on the table for Minneapolis was Taxi2000, which would look something like this. Avidor chose instead to use an illustration of a completely different system, Raytheon, which looks like this. Clearly, the Raytheon system is much more visually imposing. Avidor, as an artist, could have represented the Taxi2000 system superimposed on a Minneapolis street, which would have been an accurate representation of the actual Minneapolis proposal. Instead, he chose to display a completely different system, one which has a much larger (and, most would say, uglier) visual profile. This is not a case of an artist creating a representation from scratch and saying "this is what it might look like"; rather, this is an artist who knows what Taxi 2000 is, knows what Raytheon is, and used Raytheon in place of Taxi 2000 for the express purpose of campaigning against PRT in Minnesota.
As an analogy: let's say I'm trying to sell you my green 1997 Pontiac on the Internet, and post a picture of the vehicle. Of course, I'd make sure the car was washed and waxed before I took the picture. I might also take the picture against a backdrop that allows the vehicle to stand out and look attractive. Would you consider any of this a misrepresentation? Probably not. Now, imagine if instead of posting a picture of my green 1997 Pontiac, I posted a picture of a completely different vehicle - say a red, 2005 BMW sports car. Would you consider that a misrepresentation? Is it biased to say that a photo of a 2005 sporty BMW is a misrepresentation of a 1997 Pontiac, even though they're clearly both automobiles and have the same basic functionality? A Transportation Enthusiast 22:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:John Hutchison[edit]

Bizarre, huh? One cannot help suspecting that User:Starski, anon, and John Hutchison are one and the same. I'm not sure I've ever seen an anon register and then threaten to come back and robovandalize the WP! If I read that right, he also claim to have your IP and he seems to threaten you with some kind of personalized retaliation! ARIN gives legal email for Shaw Cablesystems G.P. ( in case that proves handy. ---CH 06:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. I don't know how he could possibly have my IP. His vandalism threats are laughable, since his IP and the time it was assigned to him are a matter of public record simply by editing our website, and I believe website defacement is illegal in Canada. Not to mention we can deal with an attack on a single page very very easily. — Omegatron 13:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, while User:Starski and anon seem to be the same, it seems that a Hutchison supporter called Mel Winfield also lives in Vancouver, and someone linked from this article (and/or Hutchison effect to his [ website]. Go figure, I guess---CH 09:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I went to the discussion forum on american he mentioned that day, and there was a member there named Starski who said "we updated the Hutchison effect page" with more videos and images. So it could either be him or someone who helps him run the site. When I have time I'll read around the forum. You could check it out, too. I'm sure it's really easy to figure out who he is. — Omegatron 13:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)