User talk:Ohms law/Archive 3

Thank you

Thank you very much. Pérez (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Spam?

But why? --TudorTulok (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

WT:POLICY

Our discussion at WT:POLICY seems like a reasonable choice for this Monday's WP:SIGNPOST Policy Review section. If you'd like to add to your comments, or add or subtract to the summary of your or anyone else's comments at WT:POLICY#Interview for Signpost, please feel free. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this Dank. See the notice above for the reasons why you shouldn't expect much further comment from me on the matter, though. I certainly appreciate that you were thinking about me, however.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Work vs. publisher in citation templates

Hi, in your recent edit, you changed work parameters to publisher in some references and you even referred to template documentation in that edit's summary. But the documentation of {{cite web}} specifically states: “The publisher is not usually the name of the website (that is usually the work).″ Please, keep that in mind in your future editing. Thanks. Svick (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Work_and_publisher

Not that I really give a flying... but, it would be nice if the editorial community could maintain some sort of consistency. This type of "my opinion is more important then yours because I think I know more" bullshit is exactly the reason for my message above. Neither one of us is actually correct because there can be no correct answer in this sort of situation, so I probably shouldn't have changed the parameter name, but this is the sort of thing that's just jarring. The vast majority of the time people use the "publisher" parameter, based on what I've seen, but if you want to use the "work" param then I certainly can't stop you (and i certainly won't try).

Anyway, please note that the bit of text which you are referencing is a new addition to the documentation, and can therefore hardly lay claim to strong consensus. If I gave a damn about this sort of thing at all any more then I'd probably say something about it on the talk page. Those of you who actually want to make this change really ought to start changing the parameters used in existing articles, though.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, about how my comment above sounded. I agree that this isn't important and I thought that the documentation is reflecting the consensus, especially when you referred to it. I was changing publisher to works until now, because I thought it was the right way. Thanks that you clarified this for me. Svick (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Svick, thanks for the apology, and now it's my turn to offer one myself. The community here just bothers me, if that's not apparent enough, and I took a little bit of that out on you. I shouldn't have barked at you like I did above.

I keep running into this sort of thing though, and looking around I've come to realize that I'm far from the only person that runs into this sort of conflict. The problems with AFD/PROD/CSD, the craziness that's constantly going on at RFA (such as people panning Hawkey7 because he only wants the mop so that he can clean up after himself. If that's not a great reason to give him the mop then I don't know what is!), let alone the seemingly intentional mess that the policy and guideline documents are constantly in... I'm just sick of it, I guess. I've only been an active editor here for a couple of months really, and I'm perfectly happy to do a little maintenance work, really contribute to a few article, and chat up the community on the village pump, but... there's just too much chaos here, and it drives me crazy. This is actually a perfect example, because I know that both of our actions here were perfectly innocent. Neither one of us was looking to really fight over this, but the fact is that either position on something as simple as which of two relatively synonymous parameters to use is perfectly valid. I guarantee that if someone attempted to fix the root problem (by combining both the publisher and work parameters into a single param, for example) that would turn into a huge brouhaha. I just can't deal with this kind of craziness any more.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Relax

Hey Ohms, relax bro. I refer to every possible error I can find concerning your your tone or style on the discussion page for cite web. Admitting the difficulty of hypocrisy on my part, can we please discuss these quotes of yours? I would be honored if you would.

Format:

• your statement from template talk:cite web#Publisher and work:
  • my comment; my willingness to feedback and discuss with you (or not)

Discussion:

• such a change is actively causing confusion among editors
  • vague source, god-like sink
• This prescriptive advice is not something that I see as being constructive to the encyclopedia
  • the prescriptive/descriptive principle has been deprecated
  • which advise specifically?!
  • It is more honorable to ignore the destructive words and simply and lucidly say what is constructive.
• considering the predominance of existing dissimilar usage patterns
  • Good Doctor God, please help us to understand your great knowledge.
• There have been cases where I wished for at least one more similar field,
  • You cleared that fog later in the discussion, thank you. But Can you see how this is a personal experience statement ("I wished") without a referent (publisher2) for it's good readers?
• I think that somewhat permanently diffusing this potential confusion/conflict would certainly be a good thing.
  • What you say you are thinking is very general, and unrelated to the topic of the discussion. Put your topic-specific statement-focused words where your personal statements have been.
• That's exactly why I'd like to see the two parameters be more deeply structured
  • "That's" could have been made vague. I re-read the referent, and could not get a picture of the misexample.
• This is starting to be really aggravating.
  • Personal statement of your experience in time is not necessary for the other readers, who are here to construct objects in space-time. Who (there) cares about your experiences as you are swept along in time, when they omit the precious picture of an object in spacetime? (You know, the objective thing we are trying to create here together.) I care here, but not there.
• The way that the new text is written completely contradicts this, which in my view is a very standard viewpoint of editors.
  • No need to be so "completely" a "parent figure" in the transactional analysis. We're supposed to pretend to be adults while discussing over there.

It's my shame to have to leave out all the good parts of your conversation there. I come to you here, picking out all the bad parts because I have seen (long ago) how well you contribute, and how well you stay on topic and focused on the issue. — CpiralCpiral 18:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, I appreciate (at least some of) what you're saying, but you might want to look over the "discussion" at User talk:Debresser#Edit to Template:Cite web/doc as well. I'd really rather sit back and really talk about this for a while, especially considering the fact that it seems as though we all agree on the underlying problem at least, but that doesn't seem possible with the attitudes being displayed right now.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! The discussion concerning "Publisher and work" at cite web is all over the possible content map: field purpose, field meaning, add'l fields needed, unrelated (title) fields, and then there is territorial fur flying into the healing ointment. We need only the specifics that will enable a group "hand" to improve cite web publisher and work fields. (I read your swirl with Debresser, and I am not impressed with its potential to progress your objective consciousness, which is my hope concerning this "Relax" assertion and discussion. Take a deeper breath my friend.) — CpiralCpiral 20:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

STS-8

Our discussion a couple of months back on whether or not to include wake-up calls in the article stalled a bit - any chance you could comment at Talk:STS-8? I'm trying to get this decided one way or another. Shimgray | talk | 10:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright on RabbitEars Materials

Hey: I'm sorry I sort of fell off the face of the Earth. I've been buried under schoolwork and whatnot. This morning I got a chance to poke at the licenses. I need some advice on how to post them, but here's what I've decided.

1) The logo I'm unsure about. (I really want to make it CC-BY-NC-SA but I'm worried people could rip off the logo as their own with minor tweaks. Does the "moral rights" clause resolve my concern? If not, then it probably needs to be CC-BY-NC-ND.)

The market ranks will be dual licensed depending on use:

2A) If the READS Rank name is kept, the license is CC-BY-ND. (Basically, this is the "Official" READS Ranks.)
2B) If the READS Rank name is not kept, the license is CC-BY-SA. (This allows people to modify the rankings as they see fit.)

I still don't feel like this is quite what I want for the rankings. I want people to be able to make use of the data and transform it as needed while retaining the READS Rank name. What I'm worried about is people modifying the list itself and still calling it the "READS Rank." Does that make sense? I wonder if that is covered by "moral rights."

I welcome your thoughts on this, as I feel somewhat lost. TripEricson (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Since your archiver ran, I just wanted to make sure you saw my message here. TripEricson (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi. You recently participated in a debate regarding Categories for deletion criteria G6: Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name. Your input would be appreciated at this RFC. Thanks for your time. Hiding T 14:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deleted image

Hi Peripitus. When you have a second, could you please explain what the deal is/was with this image? It's use on Albert S. Ruddy would seem to be a clear-cut NFCC instance to me, so I'm slightly confused as to the reasons for it being speedily deleted is all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, brain failure is why I speedy deleted it. It seems I was in the midst of clearing out this copyright mess, had your image up in a tab and treated it like one from the same editor—sorry about this mistake. I've restored it so there is something to discuss. I don't think that there is any way this can pass the NFCC requirements though and can't see it surviving. Ruddy is still alive and so a free image could be taken of him (falling foul of WP:NFCC#1. Also without knowing the copyright holder (which is a problem as far as WP:NFCC#10 is concerned), we may be hosting a press image that someone is selling (which is a problem as far as WP:NFCC#2 is concerned). - Peripitus (Talk) 05:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I restored the image being displayed on the Albert S. Ruddy page, for the moment. Skimming over the current NFCC points that you're citing I'm certainly not confident that the image will remain, however. All of this being said I'm certainly not willing to make a federal case out of this. The article existed without an image for years before I touched it, and it can certainly continue that way. I don't really have much interest in the article or the image so I don't want to spend much of any time on this, and navigating the Byzantine image usage stuff on Wikipedia is... not something that captures my interest. If it's possible to use a nice headshot like that though, it's probably worth spending a token bit of time to accomplish. I'll see if there's anything I can do to nail down usage.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Page moves

I have reverted your page moves of Foras na Gaeilge to "Institute of Irish", Seachtain na Gaeilge to "Irish week", and Conradh na Gaeilge to "Gaelic League". When discussed in English-language media, the first two of these topics are universally referred to by their Irish names; the English translations are provided in these articles merely to explain the meaning. Regarding the third article, the modern organisation is referred to as "Conradh na Gaeilge" in both Irish- and English-language media. The historical name "Gaelic League" should only be used with reference to the organisation as it existed in its early years. I hope this helps. --Kwekubo (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hey Kedrick (Ohms law, whatever :P )!

I think you stopped visiting EasyUO before I actively joined the community myself, but I've always wondered where you've had gone to. I was just checking old EasyUO legends last visit date and saw you hadn't logged in a year. So, I decided to Google your avatar and stumbled across this page! Pretty funny IMO. Anyway, just saying Hi even though we never actually met (I read alot of your posts though so, to some extent, you talked to me ^^ ).

Regards, Olivier Diotte (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion

Looking over the recent edit histories of the List of House episodes articles it appears that you've taken it upon yourself to maintain them. I don't really have a stake in that or the articles themselves, and you reverted me, so I'll drop the problem in your lap. The issue which you reverted me on (which, incidentally, you should be more careful about. Comments such as "dnt touch code you have no cliue about" aren't helpful and will only lead to larger problems) is exactly the reason that you shouldn't use transclusion within the mainspace. You also reverted more then the removal of the <noinclude> tags, by the way. Use of {{tocleft}} really should be avoided as well, since you should notice how it's "sandwiching" the text on the pages where you're using it.

I did drop a note about this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, so you might wish to start a conversation with them. User:Collectonian seems willing to provide input here. Regardless, I won't interfere with those articles any further. Happy editing!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with peopel editing, the one thing i revert was a accident i was meant ot be udonign a edit with a ip user, but the onlcy i revert because when you removed it it transcluded all the dta from the page to main list which make the main list untidy. this is the way data is transcluded it was agreed to hava sumamry on each season of house for feature lsit staus that wa snot my decisoin--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report

The community gave feedback on a couple of policy pages at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost and WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost, and there will be another one in Monday's Signpost that we're putting together at WT:Username policy#Signpost Policy Report. I'm asking for your participation because you made an edit this month or last month at that talk page. If you have questions, feel free to ask at WT:Username policy#Signpost Policy Report or my talk page. The best guide to what the community is expecting from the surveys is to follow the links above to see what they've already done; we haven't had any complaints. Thanks for your time. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so there's no confusion...

Just wanted to touch base to make sure you know that, as riled up as I may seem about that TfD, none of it is directed at you, personally. I looked over one of my responses and saw that it could be misconstrued... ultimately, I stand by the statement, but I just wanted to make sure you didn't think you were the target of my ire. :)

Cheers. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
(also, it was so tempting to use that smilie template on the end of this post, just for the sheer hilarity of it all. heh.)

lol, no problem. It seems as though we're all fairly cool and collected about this, really. ...I know that I am, at least. (snicker). Honestly, I pretty much equate this to the importance of arguing over color, so my emotional level is nice and manageable. Not that I don't stand by my arguments, but the relative importance of the subject just isn't there.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for List of gestures

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of gestures , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Twin towns or Sister cities?

Hi Ohms law, I though I'd let you know that there is a new discussion open on proposed name modification (Twin towns, Sister cities or both?) on this talk page. Your comments would be very much appreciated -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Your note

I am not trying to stifle comments; I'd like to encourage them. The question is where to do it in a way that everyone can participate. VPP was a good venue, but someone moved it over to the talk page of the petition drive, which is off most people's watchlist. I felt the original venue was better. I have no problem to move it anywhere, as long as it's visible to the community, and not split into two locations. Crum375 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points : If I were the only person concerned then I wouldn't be too worried about it, but Kotinski thought that you were trying to end discussion as well (see the talk page history). As for watchers, I left a pretty clear link to the page on VPPR when I moved the discussion originally. Having the archived discussion to date, with a prominent link, is hardly hiding things. I've noticed recently that VPPR only receives actual attention from a small subset of people anyway, and besides that the Flagged revisions petition appears to have plenty of watchers, with more coming fairly constantly, who are clearly interested in the subject.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As a late-comer to this issue, it seems to me there is paltry visible discussion about it anywhere. I would have expected to see a prominent place where opposers could voice their opinions, but instead all I see is a "pro" petition drive, and nowhere for opposers to go but an obscure talk page. I hope this changes soon. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be plenty of discussion occurring now. I actually think that the petition is working against the interests of those supporting a Flagged Revisions rollout anyway, and the talk page provides a pretty good outlet for opposition. You could start a petition in opposition of course, but... I don't think that would be very helpful at this point.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I hope that people wake up and understand that this proposal will destroy the most fundamental aspect of WP, which made it the success it is: that anyone can edit, any time, and get instant results. When we start setting up "classes" of editors and extra hoops, we lose that egalitarian simplicity and become one more Citizendium or whatever. Crum375 (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

G'day Ohms....

would you mind not changing the text that the folk (including me) have signed under over at the petition page? - I can see where you're coming from, but it's really not on to change things in that way... let's have a discussion here if you'd like to talk further - but please don't just keep making changes - I think it's in danger of being disruptive. Privatemusings (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it back and restored the terminology. You should not be rewriting what people have signed; it is disruptive and unethical. Jack Merridew 21:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to facilitate discussion. Seems kind of pointless though, since neither side agrees no what is being discussed.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

discussion is good - and the other good news is that you haven't really done any harm, because the move and edits were easy to undo. I think it's important they were undone though, because you can't really change the wording of a statement lots of people have signed to support - perhaps the most important bit you may have missed was 'Note: We are asking that this MediaWiki extension be enabled on the English Wikipedia. This is not a request for implementing a new policy here, merely the ability to allow the community to do so, if it so chooses.' - that has pretty specific technical meaning, and is also pretty straight forward to read - no doubt discussion will continue all over the place anywhoo :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

PM's covered what I was going to say. I saw one editor had struck his comment per this rewriting and I'll leave him a note about it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your position, and I don't really dispute it. The problem is, clearly not everyone understands the distinctions that you're drawing. An FPPR implementation is technically impossible without Flagged Revisions being enabled anyway, and a naked Flagged Revisions system has been expressly discarded (apparently) while building the FPPR proposal. William Pietri is working on Flagged Protection, regardless.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

*dons fireproof suit*
Please don't start screaming at me about this... As I said above I have been attempting to facilitate this discussion. There seems to be a significant number of people who have stated various reservations about the petition, which is the only reason for the MFD. Thanks.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)