User talk:Ohms law/Archive 1

Active discussions


Mary_Jones_and_her_BibleEdit

Good job. Rather than a contender for WP:LAME, I actually think the discussion is a model of responsible NPOV Wikipedians arguing civilly, but with passion and with good application of policy/guideline for an appropriate solution. I think all the participants should be proud. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. :)
I agree. It was a long debate, but I hope that we were finally able to do some actual consensus building and have therefore achieved some lasting stability for that article. I think we can all briefly pat ourselves on the back for this.
V = I * R (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Future tag deprecationEdit

Per my suggestion which you can now see here, I've moved the bulk of our long dispute at Deprecating future templates to the talk page. I know you said you weren't planning to participate any further, but since this involved moving your comments I thought you should be notified. I did this because I felt others not involved in the dispute were being put off from sharing their opinions on the issue because of out dispute. I did leave the first few comments on the main page, and posted a link to the continuation on the talk page. If you object in some way let me know. Equazcion (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Kudos for taking care of any potential issue, here. Incidentally, I wanted to clarify that I wasn't leaving that conversation because I was angry or anything. The issue itself is simply not all that important to me. I tend to allow myself to get caught up in those procedural discussions, but I'd really rather spend my time trying to actually develop the encyclopedia itself, is all.
V = I * R (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard C. HoaglandEdit

Hi, I see you have worked on many science related articles in the past. We really need some help over at Richard C. Hoagland. The page is a mess and there are a few users who are really mucking up the article with their own agenda. The fact is that nearly 3/4ths of the references are from Hoagland's website or books, clearly not following the WP:RS policy. Please help! Nasa-verve (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll at least take a look. It's really hot out right now, so my brain isn't exactly functioning at 100%, but maybe something like this will spark my writing verve for today...
V = I * R (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

See also sectionEdit

Hi Ohms - I hope you don't mind terribly, but I've removed the 'See also' section you added to the Campbell R. Bridges article. WP:Layout states that "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in See also". As tsavorite is already linked in the main body of the article, there is no reason to have an entire separate section for it as well. Cheers, ponyo (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind one bit... I had to look at the history in order to see what I had done, anyway. Now that you mention it I do see the link in the body text. I must have missed that earlier (I didn't really read his article, anyway). Regardless, good job on the other changes. I've always thought that WP:LAYOUT was important myself, as it's always jarring to see the order and content of appendices sections being all messed up.
V = I * R (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

KVDP's moveEdit

Hi! I'm going to respond here since this doesn't really concern KVDP at all. Just for future reference: The "mess" here was due to Anthony substing {{movereq}} instead of {{move}}. That could have been fixed by looking at the original version by KVDP and adding subst: to the {{move}} tag and signing the request with {{subst:unsigned}}. I hope you understand why it's important that we fix the issue instead of just removing malformed requests. The move process can be difficult to get right at the first time, and removing a good faith move request just because it's formatted the wrong way would be a case of biting the newcomers. We're supposed to help them out so that they learn to do it correctly, not dismiss their good faith contributions as "a mess". I hope you understand. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  • OK first, I still hadn't known what the actual cause of the problem was until now, so thanks for explaining how that happened at all. More importantly though, User:KVDP is decidedly not a "newbie" (hell, he's "older" than you and I!). aside from that, I don't have rollback tools or anything, so undoing Anthony's revisions wasn't a possibility anyway. I actually considered starting a conversation at WT:RM or even an AN/I about this incident and User:KVDP's behavior because this is far from the first problem that he's caused, but I'm simply not that interested in becoming involved in process issues is all. I would certainly appreciate not being "bitten" over someone else's trolling, however.
    V = I * R (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    Ok, I was wrong about the "newcomer" thing, but I still think it's a good idea to be welcoming for people who are new to the process, even if they've been contributing a long time. I'm sorry if I sounded harsh, I certainly didn't mean it that way. The wikicode was obviously a confusing, and you decided it was better to start over than to try to figure out what went wrong. And I notice that you did leave messages to Anthony Appleyard and KVDP about it. That said, I don't consider the move request "trolling". Misguided, maybe, and very unlikely to pass, but certainly not intentionally disruptive. But then again, maybe I don't know the whole story. Anyway, sorry for sounding like I was making a big deal out of it. Next time you see a malformed move request you can just leave a note on my talk page and I'll try to figure it out, or leave it as is and someone will fix it sooner or later (it's a wiki after all). Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    You may want to look through his history, as this is hardly his first exposure to the movereq process (and it's not the first time that I've had to clean up after him, either). I'm actually surprised that no one else has brought this up before now, but obviously people don't pay much attention to move request histories... anyway, I'm pretty much opposed to taking administrative action against problem users except in the most extreme cases, which is actually the only reason I haven't actually pursued this any further then a message on a couple of user talk pages.
    Anyway, I guess that I was kind of annoyed when I replied earlier, and I probably still sound somewhat annoyed. I assure you though that any annoyance that I'm feeling isn't because of you. I'm happy to have a conversation with you, or anyone really, here on my talk page or anywhere else. I am kind of irked about KVDP's behavior, I guess. It's really more the constant trouble, and the total lack of communication that he displays, then anything else. So, I'm sorry for sounding annoyed.
    V = I * R (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your relisting of the Circumcision RfMEdit

I am uncertain as to why this was relisted. Relisting usually occurs when there are too few responses to indicate anything. Here there were multiple responses, and there was clearly no consensus to move either article. Can you please explain? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohms law, I would appreciate it if you would post a note at the top of the new Talk:Circumcision#Requested move section (which has been moved to be adjacent to the previous thread) stating whether editors are or are not expected to state their opinion in the new section if it's substantially a repeat of their previous comment. Thanks. Coppertwig (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I tried to clarify the statement on the "new" movereq a little bit. The re-listing was purely a housekeeping measure, though. There's also a reason that I only dated the re-list post, rather then signing it normally.
V = I * R (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding what you said about any one of us closing the discussion, unfortuantely, that won't work. Were I to have closed it (when it was 10-4 against any move) there would have been a monumental hue-and-cry claiming that as an involved party (and I have been involved in this dispute for a couple of years now) it would have been an improper use of tools, etc. I'm sure you have heard their opinions already, but in my (and multiple others' opinions) there is a vocal minority who are attempting to use the article to further a particular point of view without regard for NPOV and the preponderance of evidence in medical and other sources. I'm sorry you had to get dragged into this. Certain elements of dispute resolution have been tried before (RfC on Blackworm, for example) and we are still at a similar point, where a vocal minority is trying to overwhelm the majority. -- Avi (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow I keep rereading what you wrote above Avi and must admit I could have written the same exact thing pertaining to your (and Jake's) pro circumcision views and edits. Blackworms RFC as you can see for your self OL was more a civility thing than anything else and caused by his frustrations of dealing with a circumcision article that was not NPOV but read more like a pro circumcision pamphlet. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

reformEdit

There is a pretty lively discussion going on at WP:Areas for Reform (which by the way was announced at the Village Pump several weeks ago) - I hope you will join it and be active on the mainpage for the project! Slrubenstein | Talk 08:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! I've been reading a bunch of what has been posted there for the last 24 hours, or so.
V = I * R (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

UnsignedEdit

Hi! Regarding this: please remember that Template:Unsigned should be substituted. Also, I think the bot can only read dates in the format "hh:mm, dd Month year (UTC)". I'm not sure, maybe it's smarter than I think - but I'm pretty sure the "(UTC)" must be there for the bot to be able to parse it. I've corrected the formatting here (I think). Jafeluv (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I just saw that. I had forgotten to sign one of my own replies there, as well... I must have been tired, or something. Thanks for cleaning it up. And yea, you're correct about the bot needing the "hh:mm, dd Month year (UTC)" format.
V = I * R (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance TreadmillEdit

Hey Ω, I'll give you a hand. Just give me a couple of days to clear som other things off my plate. ShoesssS Talk 22:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Great! Thanks for lending a hand.
    V = I * R (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I'm just wondering why you seem to assume that I hadn't read Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill? I noted at the AfD that notability cannot be temporary; all of the references at the page were published within the past six months, and the only other sources I know of are just as recent. Cnilep (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I understand. I'll answer on the AfD.
V = I * R (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be right backEdit

[copied from User talk:David Levy]

I have to run out for at least an hour, but I just wanted to let you know that I say your post and I was planning on replying. Can I suggest that you break out your replies into separate subsections? It's a good breakdown of the various aspects of the debate, and some courtesy breaks could be helpful in gathering wider participation. See you in a bit!
V = I * R (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to leave my post intact, but I would have no problem with someone (you or anyone else) copying and pasting my comments into new subsections.
FYI, I don't know how much longer I'll be awake, so I might not see your reply until some point tomorrow (my time). —David Levy 01:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
That's cool, there's no real rush here. I don't think either one of us really wants to see the debate just fizzle out due to one or the other not seeing something, is all. :)
V = I * R (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. (: —David Levy 03:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Brief intermissionEdit

[copied from User talk:David Levy]

Hi David!

I just wanted to come here and leave you a note, real quick. For some reason that I can't quite put my finger on, I seem to be slightly... stressed, I guess, today. That being the case, I think that I'm going to "walk away" for at least several hours. I'm not going to forget about the discussion though, which is the main reason that I'm leaving you this note. I'll come back to our debate in a little while.
V = I * R (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the note. I'm sorry that you're experiencing stress, and I hope that you feel better soon. —David Levy 05:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Your signatureEdit

Hi Ω, I just noticed that there's another user under the name User:Ω. They haven't edited for at least a year, but if they ever become active again, your signature might cause confusion with that user. I understand that you've already become instantly recognizable by just that one letter, but do you think you could consider changing your signature, in accordance with WP:CUSTOMSIG? I don't think it's a big problem now, but if the other editor comes back you may have to change the signature anyway. I'm sorry to be telling you this, since I really like your signature (and I understand that I've been bugging you a lot lately). If you prefer to keep it that way, I'm obviously not gonna pursue it further, just wanted to let you know about it. Cheers, Jafeluv (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • damn... I didn't know about him. :( I'll have to figure something out. Regardless, you're not "bugging me" at all! You should feel free to come here and post whatever you might reasonably think you need to.
    V = I * R (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed. Everyone will just have to get used to the new sig, I guess. My bad for not looking before I leapt.
    V = I * R (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Nice! I also note that there's no User:V = I * R (yet?) :P That would be a candidate for creating a doppelgänger account (although it's pretty unlikely that a new user would choose that exact name, and if they do it's their problem anyway). Jafeluv (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Another and possibly simpler solution would be to have two links, as I do, one masked with Ohms law and the other with Ω. That way people will know it's still you, without checking edit histories. FWIW. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks! I did actually think about registering User:V = I * R, hehe. I probably will, it just doesn't seem likely that someone else will use it... of course, I didn't think anyone would use Ω either. Anyway, that's a great idea Septentrionalis, thanks for the suggestion. I'm going to slightly modify it, but as you can see here I'm going to use it.  
    V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    I've registered User:Septentrionalis to keep some imposter from annoying me with it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    Actually, I've got an excellent idea! I can switch my User:Ohms Law Bot over to User:V = I * R! I's always the obivous things that aren't immediately clear, isn't it? Anyway... now I just need to figure the best way to accomplish that.
    V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    Ah, there's no need. I just tried to register V = I * R and it won't let me because it's "too similar to Vir (talk · contribs)". Problems solved!
    V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

BotEdit

Has your bot been approved? I noticed that it hasn't got a bot flag, so it probably hasn't. If it hasn't, you should stop using it immediately and seek approval, or you could end up getting blocked. --GW 08:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, don't need an approval (yet). I'm exempt because the only thing that it (currently) does is update a couple of my own user sub-pages. I will need approval down the road, but you're supposed to wait until you actually need it before submitting a proposal for approval (at least, that's what the BAG policies said a couple of months ago, last I read through them). The current task is a single event thing, and it's only adjusting my own sig. Someone could make a stink about it if they really wanted too, but I'm not overly concerned about it. If anyone has a real problem with me avoiding the appearance of impersonating another user then their free to try to make an issue of it.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
In that case, it has malfunctioned --GW 09:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
*scratches head* How did it malf? I wrote a script to change my old signature, and that's what looks like has happened. I think it's important that I don't look like User:Ω, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered (It did actually take time to develop a script that wouldn't screw all sorts of other things up). It is somewhat annoying to have those edits show up, but that's only going to happen this once (the script is don't by the way, and I don't see why I would ever run it again).
I also noticed a strange edit – see the contribs. I thought approval was needed for automated edits or a user name with "bot" (WP:U). Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
What "strange edit" are you looking at? Bot approvals are needed in order to change content. This was not a change of content. I changed my old signature in order to avoid the appearance of attempting to impersonate another user. (please see the section immediatel above this)
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Your bot has been modifying talk pages on other articles. Please do not do this without approval diff User A1 (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It's my signature! WTH people? If you really have a problem with what I've done, then report me. I'm trying to actually contribute right now, damnit.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I have raised this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unapproved_bot User A1 (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Good.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

From WT:CONSENSUSEdit

I'm not sure if I misunderstood you; let me float some ideas and see what your response is. User:Geogre/Civility has a nice analogy to a cocktail party: the "rules" on appropriate wiki-behavior vary widely, with varying rewards and punishments. There have traditionally been two downsides to saying "There are no rules" on Wikipedia. The first is that in an online environment, more than a few editors get confused and forget that there are real people on the other side of those edits who probably have human reactions (or maybe they just lack the skills to intuit what those responses are), because they can't see the reactions ... so they imagine that they can say anything they want to and it doesn't matter, and then when people don't give them honest feedback or they get reverted, they can't understand why they're being treated that way and they decide that everyone is being very mean to them, for no reason. It's kinder to make sure these people get the message: "There are rules, but there's no big daddy handing out the rules and it's complicated; we'll try to give you some hints to get you started but you're largely responsible for figuring out and following appropriate behavior on your own. Wikipedia is a social setting, not a math problem to solve." The second is that there are people who are going to behave badly no matter what we do, but saying things like "there are no rules" empowers them and makes them more of a pain in the ass than they would otherwise be. That's why some editors get frustrated when people reject the concept of "rules"; that position is technically correct, but it sends the wrong message and causes problems. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I know exactly what you're talking about here. I don't really want to give out specifics, but I have quite a bit of experience on this whole subject. The broad concepts you seem to have down, based on my own experience and knowledge... how we take that and turn it into policy here on Wikipedia is a whole different question, of course. The one thing that I'm still getting used to is just how big of a pond Wikipedia truly is. Those who have come before us were obviously on to something, by developing the "descriptive, not prescriptive" approach underlying pretty much everything here. I don't think that there's really a policy answer to the behavioral issues which you're addressing here, but there is quite a body of WP:BEHAVE policy already.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Btw, the phrase "descriptive not prescriptive" hasn't been in WP:POLICY for the last year except for briefly, recently; a similar phrase was at WP:BURO for a while, but I see it's gone now. The problem with the phrase is along the lines that I said above; it's technically correct and also useful, but it's interpreted by many to mean "these things you're saying are rules aren't rules", so it gets us right back to the "no rules" problem. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, I'm glad we're on the same page. My primary goal here is to enlist your help and the help of everyone else in the discussion towards getting some resolution on this issue next month ... the selfish reason is that having that resolution would make doing the WP:Update a little easier, but it would obviously be good to have this behind us. There's going to be some difficulty with getting resolution because 4 groups of editors may vote against Blueboar's position in an RFC:

  • I've been watching policy pages long enough that I know that no one "cabal" is "ascendant" on any policy page, and anyone can have a reasonable expectation of affecting the outcome of policy they care about, if they put in the work of understanding and addressing all the significant points of view. (I haven't watched guidelines as closely and can't say what's going on with most guidelines.) But some see policy pages as cabal-infested, and they will always, vigorously, oppose any wording that even hints at making it harder to make changes to policy.
  • There are a few people who are not acting in good faith on policy pages and discussions, ranging from vandals to embittered editors to people who enjoy arguing a little too much to people who are being dishonest about what change they're trying to get and why. These people will in general not support any move to make policy page discussions friendlier and more rational.
  • There are people who don't understand that Wikipedia is a society, i.e. a large group of people acting cooperatively and competitively to achieve common goals. Some act, for instance, as if it's a MMORPG with rules and rewards. In general, these folks won't understand, and often won't care, what we're talking about, but that won't stop them from registering a !vote anyway.
  • Some people will use an RFC on how policy works or doesn't work as a proxy to make their point that there was something unfair about a particular policy battle they lost.

With all the opposition, this means that if we're going to have any chance of settling on a consensus position, we'll have to find a way to make sure that you (and others) and Blueboar (and others) completely understand each other's positions, and also understand the need to move forward anyway despite differences. This is what I'm working on. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC) tweaked 19:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that "descriptive not prescriptive" has actually been removed... although, now that you mention it, I do vaguely recall seeing some discussion about doing so. Somehow, I don't see that staying that way for too long. The length that things like this appear "stable" brings up an interesting point, actually. Regardless of what we may try to do with policy, it's effect isn't that widespread. Policy and guideline documents are more about ideas then they are about words, and that's going to continue to be true until the office starts giving out the ability for some to really have an impact. That is likely to happen... never, so I don't really worry about specific changes too much; Policy changes are a marathon, not a sprint, regardless. Most others seems to share similar attitudes as well, aside from the warriors and gamers that you mentioned. A lot of people seem to kind of skim over policy, unless and until it presents an actual roadblock in some manner, and I think that's generally a good thing. It does create it's own problems, but the only alternative that I can imagine is to have a bunch of "super-admins" running around terrorizing the place. Personally, I'm actually in favor of "de-opping" everyone and letting things settle in like that, but I don't see that as being likely. Anyway, I'm getting worn out... you can't really tell since I proof read a lot, but I know I'm getting tired based on the number of typos that I'm making. I'll come back to this later, I'm sure. Feel free to leave another reply though, I don't mind talking about this stuff one bit!
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, they're a little bit about words; Twain said that the difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug, and he was right about most things. Completely agreed with "unless and until it presents an actual roadblock". The effect of a policy change usually isn't immediate or big, but it's also not "no effect", so it's worth working on, and process of working on it brings people together and helps them understand each other. "Not prescriptive" is not precisely right because there are sometimes consequences if you don't follow the rules, but more in the sense of losing the ability to attract attention to what you're saying than in the sense of a trip to Arbcom (usually).
I'll quit watchlisting for now. Meet you at WP:CONSENSUS next month; if we can get everyone to give a summary of their positions, then we can do that RFC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

InterpretingEdit

Would you mind combining your two statements of support in that discussion? I'd like to clean up that section because it seems a mess right now, and I'm afraid possible closing admins may avoid it or misinterpret it. Maybe we could also move our now-moot exchange about the "new discussion" somewhere else or remove it altogether? What do you think? Equazcion (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(note to self: Talk:Interpreting) Feel free to do what you think is needed, and I can always come in and edit afterwords. I can't really tell what's what, at this point. I just didn't want my post-reopen comment hanging around in the middle of the conversation, is all.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I've removed our exchange about the new discussion and some of the db-move debate. I also removed part of your comment on top where you state support for the new name (since it's redundant with your statement further down), but I left the part where you warn the closing admin about the histories. Feel free to tweak or re-insert stuff as you like. My only intent here is to make the discussion more readable. Equazcion (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  The Article Rescue Barnstar
Excellent work in saving the COLBERT piece ShoesssS Talk 04:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Further promoting Wikinews from WikipediaEdit

Don't know if you've seen this discussion over on Wikinews, but this local userpage should show you what I'm interested in doing. There's still one bug (see en.wn description), but your input would be valuable. --Brian McNeil /talk 14:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, Brian! I probably won't actually reply on the discussion until tomorrow/tonight, but I plan on it.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I've tweaked the example further. Cirt (talk · contribs) implemented it on {{Recent death}}, there were some complaints about the initial presentation and it has been reverted for the time being. There's quite a long discussion on Template talk:Recent death (which your input to would be appreciated. The admin who reverted Cirt was one of the people who voted for the template to be deleted on the second VfD. Incidentally, I had to change the talk page because VfD#1 was marked as keep and VfD#2 was marked as no consensus. Clicking through to the archived VfD#2 the posted result was keep. I want to assume good faith, but knowing there are quite a lot of people against this and other templates like {{current}} I find it hard to be charitable about that error. --Brian McNeil /talk 21:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

DurhamEdit

I have requested that your close of the WP:RM discussion for Durham be overturned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bad requested move close. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? uh... you could have just asked me about it. I don't think I closed it anyway. Ah, yea, I see it now. I just cleaned up after whoever actually closed it. I'll post at the AN/I thread.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hiya. I just called in here to say thanks for tidying it up - I didn't know that there was a specific method in the case of moves; I understand, and note it for the future.
Glad I came here though - I had no idea it was on AN/I; nobody mentioned that to me. I will post a comment on there.
Whilst we clearly disagree about the rename, I'm glad we agree about the more important thing - that disagreement is fine and healthy, consensus is the key, and such endless debates are fruitless; my intention in marking it archived was purely because it was clear that no consensus was forming in that discussion, and of course people can open a new one - or, indeed, they could have reverted my edits. Oh well. Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  09:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks on Richard C. HoaglandEdit

  What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thanks for your help on Richard C. Hoagland, your copy editing from the outline format to the narrative format was exactly what the article needed. Nasa-verve (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#ConcernsEdit

Let me add to my latest comment: if we try this experiment, then I think what would work best is to put the list of "what to watch out for if you try this experiment" directly into the text at WP:CON, so that people will be able to recognize when debate is being stifled, and give suggestions for remedial action. The main thing I think is not to have an off-putting "revert, no discussion" in the edit summary or on the talk page, but instead, to have WP:CON encourage people who are reverting "under that section" to link if at all possible to any prior discussion they're aware of, and to link to the section at WP:CON which will hopefully make it clear what's being attempted here. I thought your point that people out there in the wild won't get the nuance of what this discussion is about was an excellent one. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested Move closingsEdit

Hi there Ohms law. Thanks for giving your input in WP:RM discussions. However, RM closures are typically performed by administrators, and closing discussions where one has participated and expressed an opinion is especially discouraged (this is why, of the few administrators who close RMs, at least one of us recuses themselves from participating in the discussion). This is because the person closing the discussion must be an independent evaluator of the discussion, both in actuality and in appearance.

I've decided not to revert the closures of Talk:Konjiki no Gash Bell!! Movie 1: Unlisted Demon 101 and Talk:Konjiki no Gash Bell!! Movie 2: Attack of the Mecha-Vulcan, since the outcome would probably be similar if it were closed properly, but please leave the closures for administrators or at least uninvolved editors in the future. Thanks! -kotra (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: there is currently a discussion on explictly allowing non-admins to close discussions in the RM instructions, and early consensus seems to support it. Therefore, some of what I wrote above may not strictly apply (although closing discussions in which one has participated is still discouraged). -kotra (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

nice!Edit

I kind of like the new article, Treadmill with Vibration Isolation System, which contains information on both the old TVIS treadmill and the new COLBERT. Good choice to put those two together! It's certainly much, much better! Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I was just reading that article (and admiring its quality). Funny coincidence. -kotra (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!   I had actually planned on moving the article to the more generic "TVIS" name all along, or was at least thinking about it, but I didn't want to move it in the middle of an AfD. The points about the name during the AfD echoed some of my own on the title, so when it seemed clear that a "Keep" was forthcoming I went ahead and moved it.
The content still needs copy editing and some expansion though, which I see is starting to take place now. Everyone should feel free to jump in and contribute.
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

YeomanEdit

Ohms, please explain this close. I didn't see anyone object to moving the article. Powers T 12:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • The "main" discussion took place on the linked to talk page (here). I only closed it because User:Juliancolton closed that conversation. It was simply housekeeping... unless I'm overlooking something?
    V = I * R (talk to Ω) 12:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The discussions were separate. The proposed move of Yeoman (disambiguation) failed, but I see the Yeoman move as a separate issue. It was mentioned in the other discussion but I certainly don't see that it was categorically rejected. Powers T 13:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Uh... I'd just go ahead and start a new discussion then. What you're saying (which I believe...) is not what is written in that section of the talk page.
        V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Idle conversation on signaturesEdit

  1. Your signature is implicitly incorrect as a mathematical statement, as a voltage across a resistor generates a current... rather than (as it's sigged), a current through a resistor creates a voltage drop. :(
  2. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA TEXT SHADOW AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >_>

That is all. Thank you for listening. --Izno (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Ohms law/Archive 1".