User talk:Ohms law/Archive 4

fyi

you refer to Sceptre in the flagged revisions petition DRV as "the closing admin" but Sceptre is not an admin, nevar forget that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.183.188 (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Times Of Earth

A tag has been placed on The Times Of Earth requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Kabiru Ibrahim Gaya

See my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nigeria#Update needed. You may want to contribute to this discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

I notice that many of your contributions have been deleted. I can relate. There is a group of editors who help rescue articles from deletion by adding references to the article. I would be happy to see you join.

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Hello, Ohms law. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue. Ikip 07:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Algae fuel

I have undo your recent redirects. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

...why?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 05:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you redirect them? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Algae fuel#Algae fuel by country, now. All of the content fits right in. The histories of both of the nationalist articles, as well as the lack of content, made them appear abandoned anyway.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 06:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the UK article but the US article had a substantial amount of information so it really did deserve its own article. It is inevitable, due to the growth of WP and the interest and research into algae fuel, that the pages will expand. It is best to have standalone pages now rather than having systemic bias issues and having to extricate the country specific info from the main article. At the very least the info should be in a Algae fuel by country article. Having an {{expand}} tag on the UK article will hopefully get editors working on it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I'm just going to be reverted then I'll simply move on and leave it to you. The US article was rather anemic, and full of fluff. As you can see, everything there fits nicely in the main article. I was just passing through though, so I'd rather just move on and work on something else, where my time would be appreciated, then continue discussing this.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 06:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If an article is "anemic, and full of fluff" it may need fixing rather than merging. Put a {{merge}} tag on it if you think it is necessary. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of {{merge}} tags is not mandatory. There's a huge backlog of merge requests already, and this sort of behavior is one huge reason why. But anyway... I've moved on already.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 06:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Subheadings

Hi. Would you consider inserting fewer subheadings? Your latest subheadings at WT:Articles for deletion#Move a disputed merge to AfD, retitled Articles for Discussion break up an existing discussion and don't really describe their contents. I'm fine with starting new sub-discussions with separate headers. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the poor descriptors for sure (I couldn't think of anything better). I've removed them, but it would be good to re-add a couple when you get a chance. It's not immediately apparent to me what was being interrupted. I've found consistently that additional sub-headers allow for increased participation, since it's much easier to jump into an ongoing conversation when they exist, and they help prevent a sense of TL;DR from developing. Regardless, at least we're discussing this here instead of there.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for removing those subheadings. I think the difficulty here is that we're switching among multiple points, and a single issue doesn't last long enough for a dedicated section. Flatscan (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please:)?

Do you mind if I steal the cool shadowing you use on your signature? It's so cool! Saeb(talkjorn) 19:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

lol... go for it. It's not really "mine" anyway!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 20:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC

Thanks! Saeb(talkjorn) 01:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Krzysztof Kieślowski (born in Generalgouvernement für die besetzten polnischen Gebiete)

s. User talk:Bot-iww#Kestutis Ruzgys. --Bot-iww (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oneforanother's "moon men"

Hello. While I appreciate the AGF you have shown on User talk:Oneforanother, the user's past edits (such as this) do not lead me to believe that he or she is interested in working within the system. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Me either honestly, but hey, someone should at least try shouldn't they?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 19:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC

Wikipedia 9th birthday coin

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll

You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Caecilians

Ucucha and I have responded to your queries at Talk:Caecilita iwokramae. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Caecilita

Caecilita and Lundomys are each a species and a genus.

In regards to this page: see the FA Lundomys for a precedent in calling the article by the genus name and starting it with the full species name. See also a lot of articles about people (Björk, for instance) which use a short version of somebody's name as the title and a full one in the lead. Yes, I will be improving all these caecilian articles; I'll try to get DYKs out of them. For Caecilita, I've added the entire literature on the species—the formal description, and a news piece. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Enhancement of Cite.php

As you expressed an interested in the enhancement to Cite.php that I proposed, I would be grateful if you could take a look at a demonstration of the enhancement here.

If you are positive about it, I will post notice of the demonstration on the Cent discussion page. Thanks, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Carlo Viberti

Please paid attention: here you changed the phrase from "the first non-U.S. citizen to take off from the NASA Space Shuttle L.F." to "the first non-U.S. citizen to fly onboard the Space Shuttle." The "NASA Space Shuttle Launch Facility" (probably the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center) is not the Space Shuttle. For sure he was not the first non-U.S. citizen to fly onboard the Space Shuttle. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 23:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's a start at helping. Thanks. In the future, please try to avoid abbreviations as much as possible. As you can tell, they tend to cause confusion. So, the question is, has Viberti actually done anything noteworthy, or was he simply an Italian trainee? What's in the article is really unclear, and I couldn't find any meaningful references to add.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your kind words in response to my suggestion to have "recent events" tag for contemporary series of television or radio programmes at Wikipedia: Village pump - I also think that your comments there about Wikinews were good ones, too. Many thanks for your interest in this issue, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Karkonosze#Poll_II

There has been a new and expanded preferential poll created on Talk:Karkonosze similar to the recent Ireland poll. The votes from the previous poll could unfortunately not be transferred over to the new system and you may need to recast your vote. I apologise for the inconvenience. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Miscategorisation of (mostly) US rocket articles

I've reverted some of your categorisation changes of rockets into the category "NASA space vehicles". NASA is not responsible for or even involved in every US rocketry programme, many are/were operated by other organisations such as the USAF, Orbital Sciences (Minotaur/Taurus/Pegasus), United Space Alliance (Shuttle), ULA (Atlas/Delta), etc, and the launch of NASA payloads is incidental. Historically, NASA did operate a few rockets (some Scouts, many older Deltas, Saturn, and it was heavily involved with the Atlas LV-3B and Titan II GLV), but today it does not operate anything other than souding rockets. It has never had anything to do with some rockets (including payloads), such as the Titan 34D and Minotaur II. --GW… 16:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going go go back through and further sub-categorize some of those, and possibly remove cats for others. The ones that I added the category to today were all on List of rockets used by NASA though, so it was just a first pass. The main goal is/was just to get them into the NASA category tree somehow, for now. Keep in mind that the distinction between NASA, the USAF, Boeing, United Launch, etc.. consists of some very blurry lines, so while I agree that rockets used "exclusively" by e.g: the USAF shouldn't really be in a "pure NASA" category, they should be in the category web which somehow ends up leading back to Category:NASA, eventually. Regardless, I actually hate working alone, so feel free to pass over my contribs and adjust whatever as you see fit.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 21:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:NASA images

Ohms law, I'm well aware of that thank you. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Dangling prepositions

I found this, if you're interested in more background: preposition stranding, which is apparently the more textbook term. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:33, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Heh... interesting. I was looking for an article months ago, but I think I looked for "Dangling prepositions", rather then the more technical term "preposition stranding". Good to know though, thanks!
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeannette Piccard

Your last few changes to Jeannette Piccard appear to have completely trashed the citations. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you figure?
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 17:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The citation style is ridiculous, and I've a mind a to restore it to something sensible. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, but again, how so? I'd appreciate it if we could have a conversation about the issue. There's no reason we can't discuss this.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely it's blindingly obvious? Have you looked at any other articles? Do you understand how Harvard style citations are supposed to work? What would it look like if there were multiple sources listed in the Bibliography? A dog's dinner, that's what. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you've got your head stuck in the sand or something, but whatever. If this is the way you're going to behave then just forget it. You're welcome to have the article all to yourself.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI I have raised this issue here. I'll deal with your personal insults later, elsewhere. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)]

Go for it. I'd note that I didn't accuse you of being "ridiculous" or of "trashing" anything, however. You may want to be careful, but that's completely up to you.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I intend to. Note that I did not call you ridiculous, but your apparently preferred citation style. You on the other hand have called me "a dick" and accused me of "having my head in the sand". Surely even you can see the difference? Your personal remarks better stop right now. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Comments in local time on Wikinews

wikinews:User:Gary King/vector.js Gary King (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Script

I've made some changes so that I can submit the script, so please remove all of the imports for the language scripts and replace with importScript('User:Manishearth/sidebartranslinks.js'); Thx, ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 03:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Ohms law,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

AfDiscussion/Proposal 1

Hi. At WT:Articles for discussion/Proposal 1, it looks like two of your comments were reverted when User:Whitehorse1 removed the previous discussion. Regarding the previous discussion, I suggest that {{Archive top}} be used to keep new comments from being accidentally placed in there, where no one will see them. Flatscan (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. I'm forcing myself to take a break from there, probably for a couple of days. The frustration factor with that has set in, so I'd rather walk away for a bit then actually become upset about it. There's no real rush (on the other hand, it seems as though we're collectively dragging our feet a bit, at this point).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

NASA categorisation

I see you've been categorising the hell out of NASA articles today. Kudos to you, my friend, it is a "very good thing"™. :) — Huntster (t @ c) 00:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been slowly working on it for a while actually, and I'm still not completely satisfied, but the basic structure is there now, I think. That's grueling, thankless work, for sure. FYI: I know that there are other items (including categories) which could go into Category:United States space exploration, so if you know of any (companies, rocket models, other space utilizing organizations, etc...) feel free to add them there. You're also welcome to jump in and help sorting, if you'd like!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If I can clear the backlog of work currently on my watchlist (and if work doesn't bite me in the rear), I'll try to. I really don't do a lot of categorising here...most of that activity is over at Commons. Dunno why. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, you're not alone... I don't usually do much categorizing either, but this is something that I felt familiar enough with the content in order to tackle. You don't really need to worry about it specifically, it's jsut something to keep in the back of your mind, in case you're editing something that can connect to US spaceflight or NASA specifically. Thanks for noticing, though!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you thought about

...making this a bluelink? Fences&Windows 02:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Fences. Thanks, but my response now and for the foreseeable future is going to be something like "hell no". The main reason is that I spend way too much time outside of the mainspace as is. There are other considerations as well, but that's the main issue for me. I really do appreciate the thought, though! (although it would seem to indicate that I've created too high of a profile for myself recently, as well...)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I just realised you're one of the 'regulars' who is mopless. One day I will come across a non-admin who actually wants to become one! Fences&Windows 22:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive box "units" parameter

Hi Ohms law. I left a message for you at Template talk:Archive box#Units parameter. (Good news, the "units" parameter is working.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance Templates

Your posting to Template talk:Orphan#Time to welcome orphans with open arms has ignited further conversation. I had bought up this issue before see Wikipedia talk:Orphan#This maintenance template should be placed on the talk page

I also noted that you had another posting on Village pump "Promote use of talk page for cleanup templates" just before the Orphan one. You are not alone in these opinions you might be interested in the following:

• Most maintenance templates should be placed on the talk page
• User:Shanes/Why tags are evil

--PBS (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)