User talk:Omegatron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 60 days will be automatically moved to this month's archive. Other months can be accessed from my list of archives. Sections with less than two timestamps (that have not been replied to) are not archived.

Contents 1 Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can 2 Finance Portal 3 Boston Aqua Teen ad campaign security scare 4 now nonexistant Browns gas article - perhaps a redirect is in order. 5 image source 6 -phob- 7 Notepad++ 8 Your recent changes to references in Cladistics 9 Creating circuits in Inkscape 10 Nice 11 AfD nomination of Denny Klein 11.1 Your edits at the Denny Klein AfD 12 Thanks! 13 Wireless Power 14 HHO/Brown's Gas 15 Fairness of tone 16 Analog sound vs. digital sound 17 Aquygen / HHO 18 dBFS 19 Video 20 Overturn 21 Zotero integration in Wikipedia 22 Nofollow rule 23 Use of Cite book in Bibliography 24 Need to finish the job on the audio mastering talk page 24.1 I helped cleaning audio mastering talk page 25 Binary Prefix Chronology 26 Disputedtag req. for input 27 Article quality? 28 Bistability image 29 WikiProject Microformats 30 Hypens in ISBN numbers

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

(Bot, please archive this.) :-) — Omegatron 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finance Portal

I saw your work on interest, I have been doing a lot of work on the structured finance end of wikipedia structured finance, asset-backed securities securitization etc. I am interested in creating a Finance portal to start organizing the financial links in wikipedia. There is one user so far who has also been very active who is going to start work on this but were looking for some more. Would you be interested?

If you are can you email me from my user page drewwiki --DrewWiki 19:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boston Aqua Teen ad campaign security scare

If you're going to move the article to a new title, could you at least fix the double redirects. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I was about to post the same thing (if perhaps a bit more politely). I fixed them myself. - furrykef (Talk at me) 16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? I expect it will be changed again soon, so why waste our time?  :-) — Omegatron 16:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's such a mess that I'm surprised people can even find the article anymore. We really need to come to some sort of consensus for the title, maybe through ol' fashioned voting. At this point I'm fine with anything with "Boston" in the title :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] now nonexistant Browns gas article - perhaps a redirect is in order.

there is no Wikipedia article for Browns Gas, not even a redirect. You've obviously been involved in the oxyhydrogen HHO aquagas David Klien whatever so you must be familure with what is what. Because of this familurarity - could you please look into the Browns Gas article, and create a redirect or whatever is needed so that browns gas has SOME mention on Wikipedia. It seems a seperate Browns Gas article is unwanted and/or at least controversial, so it seems a redirect should be the fallback. However i am unsure where to redirect it to. That's where you come in, if you would be so kind to accurately tie off the loose ends, thx. Roidroid 04:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the deletion of all of these articles, and object to it. There is an article Denny Klein, though, where I've redirected Brown's gas. I can undelete the content from HHO gas, Brown's gas and the like and we can put it in Denny's article instead if you want. — Omegatron 05:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think undeleting the pages is ok, that sounds the best option to me too. Although i can't see what's stopping them from being instantly re-deleted again though. Surely their's some important reason or drama behind it's deletion in the first place. i mean, atm i don't care what that reason is lol, but i'm sure someone has some reason. Drama will ensue Roidroid 15:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I would just undelete them temporarily so we can copy the content to Denny Klein's article. They were not deleted apppropriately, from what I can tell, though, so we could also put them up for deletion review. — Omegatron 18:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image source

Image:Tooltip.png has no source. Please add. --Ysangkok 21:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] -phob-

Congrats with Telephone Phobia catch! I also wanted to brag about the venustraphobia and stuff. `'mikka 04:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notepad++

I changed what you had said to be a little less critising and added citation needed because I can not find anywhere any critism on Notepad++, or the font being critisied, also as it is simply a default and easy to change, i dont think it should be critisised.

"AND JUST NOTICED NOW THE DEFAULT FONT IS COURIER NEW, "Courier is a monospaced square serif typeface" (so removing your edit) --Adam1213 Talk + 12:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just look through the discussion board. It comes up every month or so.

The default font for most text is Courier New, but the default font for comments is Comic Sans MS, which everyone hates and is not a monospace font. Also the default font setup uses differently sized fonts for different elements, which ruins the monospacedness. — Omegatron 18:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent changes to references in Cladistics

Hello Omegatron. I note with interest that the citation templates have been recently enhanced to take ISBN, PMID etc as fields. However I'm not yet convinced that any existing reference templates should be changed. Just two problems for starters:

1. 'What links here' currently works for {{ISSN}} and similar templates. In citation templates you probably can't get the same effect.
2. SmackBot probably will not check ISBNs for validity that are in named fields, rather than free-standing after the ISBN keyword. (And will not do the other things it can do, like supply proper hyphenation).

Can you think of any benefits that are enough to justify these disadvantages? EdJohnston 03:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I agree that the What links here should work correctly for conditionally-transcluded templates. That's what Bugzilla:8446 is for. If this were fixed we could put the ISSN template inside the cite journal template and What links here would only list instances that actually specified an ISSN. What is this really needed for, though? There's also no equivalent for ISBNs or PMIDs.
2. See #COinS_tag

The main benefit is that the new explicit tags contain only the actual identifier, making it possible to put them in the machine-readable COinS tags so that people can more easily access references, like generating direct links to their institution's copy of journal articles. Also it's just a better idea to have the information provided in separate pieces like this. That's why we have separate last, first, author, and authorlink fields instead of just a single author field that you can put anything into. — Omegatron 04:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creating circuits in Inkscape

Hi, I have been thinking about creating electrical diagrams for Wikimedia Commons and I decided to create a single vector image with prepared electrical symbols. It should make vector diagramming as fast and flexible as possible, although there is no other tool in Inkscape than grid snapping. (I have written about it at the pages [1] and [2].) I have already made several images (and some in my computer yet). What do you think about this way of drawing diagrams? --FDominec 15:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I already started to do the same thing: 1 2 3  :-) It would be great if we could figure out a single great-looking style to use consistently across all our articles, that can be produced easily. The central discussion point for this stuff is here. Xcircuit makes a nice output, but it has a weird interface, doesn't output SVG directly, and I haven't been able to get it working in Windows, so I doubt it's a great solution for the majority of people.

I think there are enough of us interested in this that we should just create our own javascript circuit drawing program. User:Poccil started working on a modification of Klunky to output SVGs. Since SVGs are just XML code, we should be able to write a program to directly output a complete SVG image from a grid of components like Klunky. [3] [4] If we really wanted to, in addition to a standalone script, we could probably even make a "plugin" for mononook.js that would allow creation (and editing?) of SVG circuit diagrams right on the Image description page. — Omegatron 16:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can say, drawing circuits only with Inkscape and prepared symbols is the easiest way of creating circuits I have tried. Except for "flexible" connections it satisfies all drawing needs, it is multiplatform and enables the user to add coloury arrows, texts, graphs etc. (And it is possible to add new symbols.)

Maybe it would be most effective to just add some functionality to the connector object in Inkscape. But I support any other approach, too. BTW I uploaded a new version of the library. --FDominec 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice

I like your most recent additions to the Denny Klein page. I think were working positively here.24.193.218.207 21:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting that, but... good.  :-) Positive cooperation is the ideal. Have you considered getting an account yet? — Omegatron 21:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Denny Klein

An editor has nominated Denny Klein, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denny Klein and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits at the Denny Klein AfD

Hi there. Please try to remain calm over at the AfD. What I meant when I made this adjustment to your recent comment is that altering your previous comments without making it clear that you have done so is bad form. Best practice is to strike through your original comment and put your revised opinion afterwards. Please familiarise yourself with WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable for the general guideline.

Specifically, in this instance, you posted an opinion on Tuesday; other users responded to your opinion. Then today, you substantially edited that opinion to take account of other users' arguments. Whether you intend it to or not, such alterations after the fact have the effect of confusing, and not clarifying, the discussion. Please consider amending your own comments in line with my edit (which you've reverted) - my markup of your edits was both clearer and within guidelines. Thank you. — mholland 20:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If I changed my argument, I would cross out the old and add in the new, but I didn't change it; I just added more detail. No one had commented on my argument so I wasn't modifying anyone else's comments indirectly, and I made it clear that I had updated it with today's timestamp. I don't see anything wrong with this at all. Editing other's comments, however, is strongly discouraged and often disruptive, as you should know from the page you are citing.

Please see the AfD process:

Please make only one recommendation; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one.

Did I delete anything from my original comment or change its meaning in any way? — Omegatron 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You added several links to sections of the Deletion Policy which are quite distinct from the arguments you initially put forward. Frankly, between your following up on the nominator, the nom's responses and User:24.193.218.207's posting of a 750-word comment only tangentally related to the AfD, the matter has been quite successfully turned into a bunfight, the outcome of which will assuredly be No Consensus. I don't think any uninvolved user will have the temerity to step into this one, which is a shame, because this AfD badly needs outside perspectives. — mholland 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You added several links to sections of the Deletion Policy which are quite distinct from the arguments you initially put forward.

You must have misunderstood my original arguments, then. Good thing I clarified them, eh?  :-)

a bunfight, the outcome of which will assuredly be No Consensus.

And then we'll end up moving the content to a re-created HHO gas anyway, since there isn't enough information about the guy himself to have a biography...

because this AfD badly needs outside perspectives.

Yep.

I think I'm going to do a deletion review of all the other articles after some more research, though. We need to cover this stuff one way or another. Maybe an all-encompassing article about fringe electrolyzers would be the best way. — Omegatron 22:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I find it rather perverse that you would !vote Keep on this AfD when you freely admit, "there isn't enough information about the guy himself to have a biography", but I don't really care all that much, and I agree that your next course of action is to DRV a different article. With that in mind, I'm going to keep well away from this matter, at least until the present AfD is closed. Thank you for your time. — mholland 22:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it rather perverse that you would !vote Keep on this AfD when you freely admit, "there isn't enough information about the guy himself to have a biography"

AfD isn't for editorial issues, as I have pointed out a few times. — Omegatron 00:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Re: Talk:Smartphone: I should have known how to do that, but didn't. Thank you for the cleanup :) Hypnotist uk 22:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wireless Power

Moved to Talk:Wireless energy transfer

[edit] HHO/Brown's Gas

Are we going to do anything about the information, because Denny Klein and Dennis Klein have been deleted. If anything we should at least talk about the peer review journal article, and the claims make in the patents. We can leave out the television broadcast, ect.... 24.193.218.207 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you register an account? You don't need to give an email address or anything. To regular users, all IP addresses look the same; like vandals. I have to stare at it for a second to figure out that you're the water fuel cell person.

I still have access to all the deleted articles, and I can copy the content into a new one. It is just going to be deleted again if we don't get it into good shape, though. It needs to not make any dubious claims and needs to be referenced to the reliable sources we were listing.

---

Idea:

• HHO gas could also cover:
  • Aquygen
  • Denny Klein
  • Common Ducted Electrolysis?
  • Magnecular bond? Or does it deserve its own article?
• Brown's gas is said to be distinctly different from HHO gas. Could also cover:
  • Information about Yull Brown since we probably don't know enough for a biography
  • Common Ducted Electrolysis?
• Ruggero Santilli could also cover:
  • Magnecular bond

---

Another idea:

• Electrolysis welder
  • Contains information about both Brown's patents and Aquygen
• Water-fuelled car could contain the claims about cars
• Ruggero Santilli could also cover:
  • Magnecular bond

---

I'm not sure how we want to arrange this. — Omegatron 01:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The previous treatments of HHO and Brown's Gas gave no hint of the opinion of mainstream scientists on these matters. I'd be receptive to a recreated article if it could give at least a tiny effort to reconcile this material with standard science. The term 'magnecular bond' sounds like phlogiston or the ether. It's possible that mainstream scientists could be wrong, but at least their views should be cited in some fashion. If no citations can be mustered, I'd most likely be against re-creation. EdJohnston 03:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The term 'magnecular bond' sounds like phlogiston or the ether.

That Magnecule stuff by Santilli is a stupid trademark. It is the exact same thing as a theory proposed by Yull Brown in the 60's dealing with gaseous crystal formations. The Brown theory at least use scientific terms and did not resort to create a novel trademark that does not represent the underlying scienific proposition. Obviously it is a bold theory, but there is very little that can explain the very heavy molecules clearly shown in the chromatography graphs. Noah Seidman 06:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, this technology is simple electrolysis. This isnt that Stan Meyers water fuel car stuff. This is 100% the same thing as Oxy-Hydrogen production except instead of separating the product hydrogen and oxygen they are "Common Ducted". Noah Seidman 07:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So what?

This recent trend of fanatic deletionism of anything that isn't mainstream science is really irritating me. Just because something isn't true doesn't mean we should exclude it from our encyclopedia. We have a duty to include this stuff in our encyclopedia if it has any significant notability. I wish these people would direct their unquenchable zeal towards researching and writing high-quality articles instead of fighting all day to get them deleted. I understand that the articles are difficult to maintain and tend to turn into crackpottery festivals, but that doesn't mean we should just give up and pretend the topics don't exist. — Omegatron 06:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Omegatron, I am 24.193.218.207. I will use this name in future posts. I think we should not make many articles. We should simply do a page titled "Common Ducted Electrolysis". Everything and anything under the sun that someone claims is different than Oxy-Hydrogen falls under the category of common ducted electrolysis. HHO is common ducted, Brown's Gas is common ducted, ect..... Although if you do indeed want to create separate pages, so be it, but I do feel that there is not enough information on any single topic to prevent the article from being a "stub". Within the "Common Ducted Electrolysis" page we can have a section "Brand Names (ie. HHO, Brown's Gas). Then subsections about proposed claims supported by the Santilli article. I'm not quite sure what to do with Brown's Gas because the Santilli article says that HHO is different than Brown's Gas, but in the article it does not clearly define Brown's Gas nor the proposed molecular difference. It is clear though that HHO is produced in a common ducted electrolyzer, and I actually contacted HTA to verify this! We can use the abstract of the Yull Brown patent that says Brown's Gas is common ducted Oxy-Hydrogen, but I dont know how some other administrators will feel about using a patent as a citation. Because there are no peer review journal articles dealing with Brown's Gas obviously we cannot say anything more than it being common ducted Oxy-Hydrogen; we cannot get into the proposed molecular structure, and its likely equivalent properties to HHO. Although we can conclusively mention that upon visual inspection HHO is indistinguishable from Brown's Gas as there are countless videos online that show no visual means of distinction. These are just some preliminary thoughts, we'll see how things develop. We should start with a stub to work from the ground up creating a perfectly cited encyclopedic work line by line. Noah Seidman 06:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont think we should get into biographies at this time as there is practically no biographical information available for sourcing!! Noah Seidman 06:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think breaking things down into independent articles will be too difficult to maintain and prevent crackpottery. As for citation there really is only the Santilli article, and one article from a peer review journal in Korea that briefly mentions the implosive property of Brown's Gas (I will track down the article as I have university access to peer review journals). We should carefully choose the sources of citation to prevent other administrators from getting their feathers flustered. What other than peer review articles is considers an appropriate source? Since the technology is something that can be visually observed what can be done with videos? I think we should avoid linking to any company involved with the technology to make sure no other administrator gets flustered. I guess we can mention the names of companies, but we should not provide a hyperlink to them. Noah Seidman 07:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please lets not get too much into that Magnecule stuff, even I consider that fringe and speculative!!!! Noah Seidman 07:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Electrolysis Welder is also ok. I do think its important to note on the Oxy-Hydrogen page that it can only be produced in an independently ducted electrolyzer and is completely impossible to produce it via common ducted systems. Noah Seidman 08:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fairness of tone

Omegatron, Not sure if you noticed but I got to it first. :-) I asked the same question right above your post about 16 hours earlier. Funny... We may want to merge the discussion as I agree. Morphh ^(talk) 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Analog sound vs. digital sound

Moved to Talk:Analog sound vs. digital sound#Exact_reproduction.2Ferror_correction. — Omegatron 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aquygen / HHO

The individual trying to delete the page is now vandalizing (with the assistance of a probable sockpuppet) and making insulting remarks in his edit captions such as "you would never make it as lawyers". An attempt to make HHO look like an actual science is also being made. Your intervention would be appreciated.Majestic Lizard 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "actual science"? The only thing we can do here is present who is claiming what, and what the scientific implications of those claims would be, if true. The article needs to be neutral and verifiable. — Omegatron 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ban me I hate Wikipedia. Every god dam line another editor puts on the article is something skeptical. Its rediculous. On the Ether page this shit dousnt happen, and even on the cold fusion page this shit dousnt happen. Wikipedia has malfunctioning editors. I seriously, and greatly appreciate your efforts Omegatron. I thank you for your consideration, and due dilligence, but I recommend that this article be abandonded as the contributions from other editors are simple bullshit. Noah Seidman 19:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If people are behaving that badly, get them banned. I'll do it if you show me unacceptable behavior. If the article is being assaulted in an unbearable fashion, get it protected. I'll do it if you can show me it's out of control. (I don't know if I have much time to follow everything myself in the next week or so.)

We are not abandoning these articles, though, and proposing it for deletion because you disagree with its current state is disruptive and a waste of everyone's time. — Omegatron 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and I will try and bite my lower lip. It seems that my most recent edits are being considered as netural, as I am retaining stances both for and against the topic. If anything gets out of hand I will let you know, otherwise I hope other editors will become less opinionated and actually help me create an article that represents the Santilli peer review pulication, the prior art, Klein's competition, and criticism. Noah Seidman 01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Omegatron, all my edits have been revered. Its not like the guy reverted a couple, he reverted all of them. Help please, why cant other editors talk things out instead of posting BS and reverting everything. OMG, help. Noah Seidman 01:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. I told him to not do that on his talk page. Please be patient and we'll all figure out a way to work together on this. But remember that you have to write in a neutral way without depending on your own research, too. — Omegatron 02:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Without a doubt I understand. I have never mentioned my Brown's Gas chromatography because it is not peer review published. I understand the Wikipedia policies to enough of an extent to attempt 100% compliance, and obviously anything that is not 100% compliant can be worked out with the help of other "reasonable" editors, such as yourself, via talking and debating. Its a shame to see that soooo many editors want to simply state their opinions only, the prevailing criticism and stereotypes, and not do even a small amount of due diligence. The article in its current state is disturbing in my opinion, but I will refrain from doing edits for some time until things calm down a little.

This is essentially why I created my website. I publicly convey the real information about this technology. While its not proper to state opinions on Wikipedia, obviously my website is the perfect place to clarify the situation, and the context of the technology. There is soooooooooo sooooooooo much bullshit out there, and when I was in College I saw this, and I wanted to change it. I wanted to break the technology down, understand it, and make it simple to understand for the general public. While my website is achieving this, and does have a remarkable ranking on Alexa and Google, Wikipedia links always show up on the top 10 of google searchers. Because of this it hurts my heart that such stereotypical information is aggressively being disseminated via Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with criticism, but the current state of the article portrays the technology as a complete fraud. I hope that this is not your belief, and I cannot forcibly convince anyone otherwise, but hopefully the information that I provide on my website, in consideration of my attempted edits to the various Wikipedia articles, shows you the effort that I am making, at such a young age, to clarify this simple, straight forward, electrolysis technology. Best Regards, Noah Seidman Noah Seidman 04:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dBFS

Dear Sir, Those links that you continue to undelete are a violation of Wikipedia terms because they point at a commercial website and also to an engineer.

If you'd like me to raise this issue to the administrators , I will have no recourse but to suggest that there is vandalism on your part. I would prefer not to go there with you. Evinatea 05:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am an administrator. Please stop removing the links. If someone reverts something that you've done, you should discuss it with them on the article's talk page instead of revert warring. See WP:3RR. — Omegatron 05:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video

Greetings. Back in September you contacted me about video support. We still have not gotten the native mediawiki support for video finished and integrated. But I've gone ahead and provided a video player applet via the same hack that I used for audio. The video templates have been adjusted to make use of this player. Any feedback in appreciated. --Gmaxwell 06:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overturn

Yes, and even if you don't boldface it it is assumed that you want it overturned because you wouldn't have nominated it otherwise. >Radiant< 15:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You're assuming that people actually read things before voting on them.  :-) — Omegatron 15:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zotero integration in Wikipedia

I was wondering if you'd obtained any result in producing an export that is compatible with wikipedia templates? I'm relatively experienced (with fitting references in templates, that is), so I can try to help if you want me to. Circeus 20:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but I'd love to help. I ended up spending my time putting COinS tags in our citation templates instead, which is kind of in the opposite direction. But it would be very convenient if Zotero generated ref tags. Did you see the thread on the zotero forums from a while ago? — Omegatron 20:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw it, and it's what prompted me to ask you about it. I do think you forgot to add COinS tags to {{cite encyclopedia}}, though. Circeus 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just did book and journal for now. I want to look around for complaints or praise before going further. Most people don't even seem to notice it, though. — Omegatron 21:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect if word got around that Zotero can export in Wiki-format, it would create more use of it in the community, and hence, more demand for use of zotero-comaptible templates. Circeus 22:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely.

Ok, so I keep staring at [5] and [6] and [7] and [8] and I can't figure out where to start. Do you know?

I did add COinS to the bottom of the "Cite this article" page, though.  :-) See this, for example. — Omegatron 01:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They already added it to the new beta![9] You can currently export citations to a text file with citation templates, and in the next version you should be able to copy and paste them directly. — Omegatron 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, many fixes are needed (for example, the dates in cite journal show up as 1984-11, and it ignores the presence of a URL), but it's certainly a good start we can build upon. Circeus 19:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. And there are fields missing and patents should be {{US patent reference}} instead of {{cite}}, and so on. I think we could either ask for trac logins or just start a new thread in the forums to report all our bugs in. — Omegatron 21:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nofollow rule

External links use rel="nofollow", meaning they have no effect on Google's search results. Attempting to get a better Google pagerank by spamming Wikipedia is futile. — Omegatron 16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is not true. While, Wikipedia does use nofollow on external links, many of the mirrors do not. For example consider the link to "Harry McCracken's Scrappyland" on Scrappy here and on Answers.com. The link text on this site is:

<a href="http://www.scrappyland.com/" class="external text" 
 title="http://www.scrappyland.com/" rel="nofollow">Harry McCracken's Scrappyland</a>

But on Answers.com it's:

<a href="http://www.scrappyland.com/" class="external text"
target="wpext">Harry McCracken's Scrappyland</a>

-- Selket ^Talk 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Omegatron, believe it. It does help the rank positions and in a big way. Otherwise, why am I am being harassed by a group of people in California that can't wait to see me being blocked and done away with? Because, I took away their money making link. The audio mastering page ALSO ranked first in other keywords such as "audio mastering". If you have an external link at the Wikipedia audio mastering page, then your site is bound to receive thousands of hits. I am sure that the spamming site (Promoted by Sorensen, Biggy P and all their other socket puppet IP addresses) will be dropped from Google very soon. Evinatea 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Cite book in Bibliography

Please see Cite book in Bibliography which may be of interest; if the solution to my issue is a new template, you'll want to ensure that it includes COinS. Andy Mabbett 16:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If your proposed template uses all the same fields and just outputs them in a different order, then you can just copy and paste the COinS tag from cite book and it will work the same way. — Omegatron 16:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm not confident editing such a complex tamplate, and I'm not clear whether the template need to include (but not display) the author, for inclusion in COinS (and what about co-authored books?). Andy Mabbett 17:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be best if the author were still included. Maybe what you really want is an option in cite book to display the information differently. — Omegatron 17:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I first envisaged, certainly. Can you assist, please? Andy Mabbett 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For another example/ test case, please see George Edward Lodge#Bibliography. Andy Mabbett 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a polite nudge about this. Andy Mabbett 12:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need to finish the job on the audio mastering talk page

I don't know why you have ignored all the evidence of socket puppetry and spam by the "artmastering" studio, but I am not concerned. However clean up the audio mastering talk page now if you are going to do clean up at all. Take out all the other accusations of spam and socket puppetry against me and others or it's going to look like you just like "Sorensen" are against me and that you are not coming from a NPOV. As an administrator, you could have done more. Evinatea 15:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Omegatron, I am sure I can edit out irrelevant text from the page you assigned for my so called "rants" User:Evinatea/Sockpuppetry. It's that correct?

I need to bring a few administrators and members of the Wikiproject Sound Production members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_sound_production) to read it in a few days, but the text seems to me chaotic at best and it doesn't help to make the case if it can't be more concise. So, can I delete the irrelevant stuff? Evinatea 12:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. If you were the only person who wrote it, you could, but it contains defenses of the people you are accusing, too, so I would say editing their comments or changing your comments around to invalidate theirs wouldn't be good. You might want to just put a summary section at the top before reporting it at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. — Omegatron 13:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Omegatron, you wrote: "Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people."

How come you don't tell "Mike Sorensen" and "Biggy P" to stop posting lies about me spamming, or at least say the same thing you are warning about?

Also, don't forget: When blocking may not be used:

Admins must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. Also consider filing a Request for comment on use of admin privileges.

Why can't i edit my own talk page especially if all they write in there is garbage? If you don't know , I will soon find out anywayEvinatea 15:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Omegatron, I thought I will drop you a line as it looks like someone is accusing you of conflict of interest. If it wasn't for your action we probably still couldn't have any rational discussion on Talk:Audio mastering page. But just for the record, you may want to know that when I was researching the subject of Audio mastering in other languages I just found this Spam in Spanish Wikipedia and it points to the same person that is accusing you of conflict of interest. My final comments here: [10] --Mike Sorensen 15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I helped cleaning audio mastering talk page

I fixed formatting and improved readibility and attributed some unsigned comments. No change in content. The only section that still needs work is Artmasterng [11]. I didn't touch it because I don't want to be accused of bias :-). Maybe you or some other editor can finish cleaning it up.--Mike Sorensen 07:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Binary Prefix Chronology

Regarding Talk:Binary prefix#History

I put a {fact} on the 360/30 core memory addition to the chronology since this appears to me to be a current (2007) description and not how this memory plane was described in 1964 or whenever it was sold by IBM. Shouldn't we be careful to assure that all our quotes are time period appropriate?

On a broader subject, isn't the issue really when did the OS's start using prefixes in a Binary Sense? Most of what we have in the chronology so far is evidence that there is no reason to use prefixes in a binary sense since these examples of main storage were not binary in nature.

Yr thoughts?Tom94022 16:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My goal is just to figure out the usage and meaning of the various terms over time in as factual and neutral a manner as possible. Software, marketing literature, scientific papers, etc. The earliest uses of "kilobit" (which probably predates "kilobyte", since "bit" predates "byte") I could find on Google Scholar are just as ambiguous as modern usage; one refers to a memory device which is binary in nature, and one refers to a data rate which is decimal in nature. — Omegatron 20:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My goal also, but I would state it as figuring out the common usage over time to describe main storage in the computer industry. In other technologies it's mainly all SI and where it isn't, the conversion likely occurred much later than in main storage. It's pretty clear today, that when you see M or G with regard to main storage they are binary. The question is when did this become common? We may never find a day but we should be able to locate a decade. We got started on this when I objected to the assertion it started in the 50's and 60's - so far, the evidence points to the 70's or 80's.

Do we agree that it has to be clear what is the date of the reference? For example, u still have posted the 1964 reference to the S/360M30 core plane, but to me it appears that the language is a current description of a 1964 artifact.

Do we agree that what we are looking for are sizes of main storage described with the unqualified use of k, K or M as a prefix to bit or byte where the preceding decimal number is a natural binary number greater than 16 (rounding makes 1,2,4,8 and 16 ambiguous) AND there is additional evidence that the actual size is a natural binary number, i.e., 2ⁿ

One last thought, is this original research that is inappropriate for Wikipedia?Tom94022 16:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

So from what I can tell, they were originally just explicit; saying things like "1024 words" and "60,000 characters". Binary computers tended to have power of two storage, both in electrostatic/core memory and drum memory? Decimal computers tended to have decimal-based storage.

Then they started using the "K" notation, like "60K" to mean 60,000. It was used decimally, as evidenced by the use of "65K" to signify 65,536, which rounds to 65 with two significant digits, but which we would normally call "64K". The K stood for "thousands of words", though, not bits or bytes, since words were 36 bits or so.

Then I bet "KB" evolved after they settled on 8-bit bytes? I'm going to add a bunch of stuff I've written down to the timeline. — Omegatron 23:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputedtag req. for input

Your participation in {{Disputedtag}} suggests that you might be able to help mediate a misunderstanding about it at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Merge and policy tags. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article quality?

Can you give me an opinion of the quality of the article Nyquist plot, please? RJFJR 15:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I've ever actually used one, but I'll look. — Omegatron 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bistability image

I found an image on commons for bistability. If that's not sufficient please let me know on my talk page and I can whip something up. Cburnett 03:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly what I wanted. A little weird-looking? But it's fine for now. Maybe I'll modify it myself sometime. — Omegatron 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Microformats

You might like to be aware of, or even join, WikiProject Microformats. Andy Mabbett 11:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. — Omegatron 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hypens in ISBN numbers

Hi,

Can you answer this question about hyphens in ISBN numbers, please? Andy Mabbett 22:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)