User talk:Ohms law/Archive 7

Active discussions

Left a message, but it was archived :p

Yo, left a message here: User_talk:Ohms_law/Archive_6#Request_for_review. Saw you were around now using Wikipedia's built-in stalking feature. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I forgot to reply earlier. I glanced at the article earlier, and it seems to me like you've made some good contributions there. I don't know anything about Homefront though (or any other console game, for that matter). I tend to avoid most of the pop-culture articles anyway, since the people working on them tend to be...
Anyway, best of luck with the article!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah alrighty then, thanks. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Los Angeles Dodgers MLB takeover

  An article that you have been involved in editing, Los Angeles Dodgers MLB takeover, 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. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC) RJaguar3 | u | t 16:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: please be more careful

I'm sorry about that. I just did not notice your comment after I got the edit conflict, and couldn't re-add it. Generally I avoid situations like this by just fixing my error later, but I just didn't notice. Thanks for messaging me about this, yep, I'll be more careful in the future. Diego Grez (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


Sorry about that. I wasn't aware of that guideline. pm (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's OK. You're not the first, and I figured you just weren't aware. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:S.S. Miami block

Hey, I have replied on my talk page, in case it's something that others want to join in with. J Milburn (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

And again. J Milburn (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Temporarily watching your talk page, man. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


Well, yes. Four editors are in league to impose what they think to be correct English everywhere, against usage, example, and clarity. See, if you want more, Talk:Mexican-American War, where their response to an 802 move request haws been to call the closing admin corrupt and start innumerable move requests and revert wars.

I am considering whether to take the effort to make a case to ArbCom against these good souls. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ohms law. You have new messages at Template talk:Time.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


You wrote "...which is exactly what I said above, no?" I was about to make a brief reply when someone else came along, so this is not an attempt to carry on the conversation here but just to say, yes indeed, I was not disagreeing with you at all, but making a further attempt to explain to BabbaQ who seemed to think that NOTNEWS prohibited "all material based on news". Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering... what confused me is that you indented your reply in such a manner that it looked like you were replying to me.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for being a small voice of sanity on the AN/I page. -- Avanu (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Bold is good

Good call[[1]]. Gerardw (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Also related to Bold in certain ways. There is a somewhat amusing debate over inclusion of the noble platypus in WP:DUCK on the talk page. The guy said you need to have consensus to add anything, I cited WP:ESAS and he still says you absolutely need consensus. Want to weigh-in/defend this poor creature? =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


Nolan, I emailed you. Tony (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

ITNC nominations

Please note that ITNC nominations use a level-4 header; we did go to level 3 for a while but as people continued to use level 4, we decided it didn't make a difference and went back to level 4. Just FYI, so that your new nominations won't result in weird issues with the TOC. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 16:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! noted. Thanks for the heads up. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


Hello, Ohms law. You have new messages at David Levy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

David Levy 00:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request Ohms Law Bot 3

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ohms Law Bot 3 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT 06:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Vote on article name

Hello. You are invited to take part in a 'Gordion knot vote' with three options on the future title of List of Indian inventions and discoveries. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Dashes... really?

Hey, sorry to bother you again, but I saw you were very active in that whole war there over proper dashes and I honestly don't feel like reading through it (there's tl;dr and then OMG WALL OF TEXT), so could you answer this one q for me? Why does it matter whether we use a regular dash or that long dash (or the super long dash) when the majority of the readers (99.99999%) will niether care which is used or even know the differences in proper use? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment - its simply about professional attention to detail. There are subtle meanings conveyed by those various lines of various widths. For example is it a Mexican-American debate or a Mexican–American debate? Is it people who are Hispanics from Mexican descent who are in the US and debating issues related to their interests *or* is it a debate of Mexicans opposing Americans in various issues? This is just one simple example. -- Avanu (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

We can call it professional, but like I said, most people don't know the difference between the two or three dashes afaik. Heck, I don't know it and I'd consider myself pretty knowledgeable with regard to grammar and all (not to toot my own horn more than usual). Maybe they are supposed to convey the different inflections that would convey the meaning when you're speaking? If that is the case, how many readers will actually get that or be able to appreciate the difference we're trying to get at by using them? It just seems like it should not be an issue. If there is a proper way to use it, use it. It just seems like there's no reason to have a massive debate over something most of the readers will not be able to appreciate. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep, its part of the problem with this issue. Its an issue that's a bit esoteric and mostly can be conveyed by context. The Manual of Style tries to cover it, but even it lacks documentation that is complete enough to cover every situation. -- Avanu (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Feh, now that is an annoyance, also if it is based on inflection, I think I get the usage now. Still, I don't even know how to type out the other two dashes as niether on our comp keyboards, and I have three keyboard modes labelled (English QWERTY, German QWERTZ and Hebrew /'קראט) mind you (four if you count English-International). Btw, in editor-mode, the two dashes you put up in the Mexican-American thing appear as the same length! xD (even though in the published text they are different). Let's hope though that some news org doesn't decide to do a story on this whole thing, eh? xD Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 08:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's just a typography issue, really. Regardless, with all of the added attention surrounding the issue, not least of which is the arbcom's recent interest in being involved with the whole issue, I've decided to "check out" from the whole debate. I figure that it can settle out over the next six months or so, and then I'll go back and take a look at where things stand. It's a shame that it's come down to this, but... that's what happens here, sometimes.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 10:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Same here. I only got involved originally based on a noticeboard posting, and despite being fairly neutral the whole time, it nearly led to a topic ban for me. To which I asked the banning admin, how in the world banning a neutral party from a topic was really all that useful. No answer on that yet. Makes me think twice about using the AdminNoticeboards. -- Avanu (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Six months? Banning over dash use? You know, Yiddish speakers have a term perfectly suited for this sort of thing - oy vey. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Arb case

Hi, I was sorry to see this, what I am hoping for is that everyone who has an opinion comes and succinctly votes at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting and does not get into banter. I (and hopefully some others) am keeping an eye on proceedings to keep it focussed. Hopefully vote and then sit back over the next few weeks. The more definitive the consensus and conclusion, the better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea... not gonna happen. As long as arbcom is involved in this, I'm not going to be. Sorry. (To be clear here, I'm not upset about it or anything. I simply have no desire to be involved in anything that arbcom sees a need to oversee.)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed this, and I have to agree that discipline or threats were never what was needed. An authority to shepherd things, yes, perhaps, and to keep order a little better, but beyond that, no. -- Avanu (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of intent, I see this heading nowhere good. I've simply chosen to no longer be involved in the whole thing. Whatever is ultimately decided (if anything), I'll abide by that, but I have no desire to participate in a decision making structure that involves arbcom, even if their role is ostensibly to only "shepherd things".
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


Hello, Ohms law. You have new messages at Nyttend's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttend (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


Ohms, would you review your upload log and fix the problematic images there? --Damiens.rf 16:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Which ones?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
What you mean by which ones? How many upload logs do you have? I mean you to review your own upload log. --Damiens.rf 16:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed my upload log. I fully expected that you'd come after me after I started an AN discussion about you, so I made sure to glance over my upload log the other day. Most of the images that I've uploaded are from NASA and are therefore PD, but I'll stand by the others that I've uploaded (there are a couple that have FUR's). If there are any that are problematic though feel free to give me a heads up.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure you recently reviewed you upload log? There is at least one image missing source and licensing and one fair use image of a living person (with an invalid source). --Damiens.rf 16:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Yup, I'm sure. Don't really care about Foing (It's not worth my time to argue with you if you if you nominate it for deletion)... or TVW, for that matter. I'll argue an FFD nomination of the TVW image, though (just not today).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
So you did notice the problematic images in your log, but still didn't fix them, because you "don't really care" about it? Would you fix the images yourself now? Is it worth your time? --Damiens.rf 16:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I take that back. I fixed the Foing image (I replaced it with a PD one from NASA). I'll add a {{Logo fur}} to the TVW logo later on. You're digging through stuff from over a year ago dude, before I was even aware of the NFCC. A polite "you know, this image is missing a FUR" or "You uploaded a non-free image of a living person here" goes a lot further then "hey you, review your log" (with the implied threat that you'll do it yourself and then nominate things for FFD). Plus there's the whole fact that even since I've educated myself on NFCC issues, and even after becoming a fairly experienced editor in general over the last coupe of years, I'm still not completely clear on what sort of documentation is required to keep uploads away from FFD. Thanks for the wonderful demonstration of the issue that's bringing this to AN now, though.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Isn't is the real problem the fact that you (and some other editors) take any FfD nomination as an affront? For instance, why shouldn't you take a nomination saying "non-free image of a living guy" with the same pacific attitude you (claim to) take a talk page message saying "You uploaded a non-free image of a living person here"? --Damiens.rf 17:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Because FFD nominations are confrontational, for one thing. FFD (along with all of the other xFD processes) is something to be avoided as much as possible. That you can't seem to understand that merely reinforces the need for a community ban. I'll be glad to participate further in this conversation on AN, if you'd like. Oh, and by the way, I don't answer to you. Quit trying to act all authoritative, it's just making you look like a jerk. How you can expect anyone not to take what you say personally when you constantly make "you statements" at people is beyond me. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, when have I been authoritative towards you? You read things that do not exists. For instance, I started this conversation with "would you review your upload log and fix the...", but lines bellow you quoted me saying "hey you, review your log". FfD nominations is not necessarily confrontational, but users like you make take them as so. --Damiens.rf 18:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not your mentor, and I have no interest in being your mentor. Since this is here now, I'll answer the direct question, but if you're actually interested in receiving some mentor-ship on these issues then I suggest that you specifically seek someone out to accomplish that. There are plenty of people, both on Wikipedia and off, who can help you with this sort of thing. To directly answer the question though, I'd like to highlight your own quote: "would you review your upload log and fix the...". If you can't see how that statement is confrontational, I don't know what to tell you (other then really suggesting that you find a mentor). We do have articles on I-statements, which may be helpful to you. Beyond that, there's Wikipedia:Etiquette, and several other behavioral policies of course.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
We both agree that I completely fail to understand how that statement is confrontational. --Damiens.rf 18:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:English

 Template:English has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


This message was so thoroughly and comprehensively wrong-headed that I had to reply. Firstly, do you have evidence for your claim that a flag contains information that the name alone does not, or is this just your unsupported opinion? Secondly, have you not read WP:MOSICON? It has evolved consensus over a long period, and the consensus is to be very sparing with flags as they over-emphasize nationality without particularly helping readers. If you have evidence that contradicts this consensus you should probably post it at the MoS discussion page and try to get the guideline amended. Meantime, this project works on consensus, and while you are welcome to disagree with consensus without any evidence to back you up, you should still respect the consensus that others have worked hard over years to generate. --John (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

lol you're funny.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure where your amusement derives from. I certainly did not intend my message to be a joke. Which part of it did you find so funny? --John (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi Ohms, could you check you were posting in the right section here please? It appears you may have been talking about Damiens, but you posted in a section about Delta. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi t | c 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm supportive, certainly. I'm not sure how much I can contribute to such an effort though... I'm not much of a "joiner", regardless. If there's anything concrete that I can do to help though, feel free to let me know. I'm certainly willing to pitch in.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Combative behaviour

I would have thought that including the lengthy, irrelevant and un-necessary jab, "I don't particularly care for TT or SOV, mostly for the combative behavior and lack of reasoning that they've both shown here to some extent," could lead to accusations of KETTLing... Just saying. ╟─TreasuryTagtortfeasor─╢ 18:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yea, you're right. you two piss me off, is all. Good idea for a discussion, I just wish that someone else had started it. Just about anything that you propose is going to get knotted up in politics because of your history.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually the discussion wasn't remotely getting knotted up in 'my' politics. I was very pleasantly surprised by the fact that every single editor contributed based on the merits of the proposal rather than making ad hominem remarks – until your post. ╟─TreasuryTagDistrict Collector─╢ 18:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I've just noticed your self-censoring; thanks for doing that. ╟─TreasuryTagFirst Secretary of State─╢ 18:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Right, but... I mean, you obviously have noticed how often the ad hominem remarks happen. That doesn't happen to most everyone else, you know? Oh, and SOV sniping at you, and you're reply back to him, were what really prompted the comment. You two are like sparks in a room full of gasoline vapors, I swear...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
From what I've seen Ohm's Law is usually a very stand-up editor. Though it's his page, I think you two should probably both walk away from this convo (electronically speaking) before it turns into something ugly. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
No worries, I simply removed the comment. It is unnecessary, after all. Like I said above, TT just pisses me off (SOV does as well), which is the only explanation that I have for letting that comment slip out. I'm done with it, though. I'm not about to go runing off to ANI or anything, and I doubt that TreasuryTag will either.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Villa Pump (proposals)

Hi, there has been a modification to a proposal which you have previously discussed. The discussion can be found here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request Ohms Law Bot 3

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ohms Law Bot 3 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT 23:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Unused template parameters

I noticed that you removed a number of unused parameters from the infobox in Side Cut Metropark. In my opinion, retaining unused parameters in infoboxes, if they are likely to be used in the future, is a good ideal. They remind editors of data that should be added. If it is unlikely that a parameter will ever be used, they should be removed, IMHO. No big deal. I just wanted to share my thoughts on the matter. –droll [chat] 02:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Ohms law/Archive 7".