User talk:Omegatron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

---

Previous discussions are in User talk:Omegatron/Archive.

[edit] NIF comments

Are you the author who left the first two comments in the National Ignition Facility article? The first of the two was anon. If you are the author, the mention of the density is now missing from the article and I think it should be added back in. Do you recall what version this appeared in? Maury 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't leave the comment (though their email is ironic...) and I don't know what version it was in. — Omegatron 23:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unwaranted Block

Omega: You block be unjustly I believe. You might just have been too quick to act. Ya had the wrong guy, officer.DocEss 20:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

1. It was just a day.
2. Have you looked at your contributions lately? Or your talk page? You need to chill out. This isn't a discussion board; it's an encyclopedia. When you piss people off, it slows down the project and makes everything less efficient. Wastes time, poisons the atmosphere, and all that. There are other places to troll/vent/whatever, like IRC. From my interactions with you, I think you and I have similar feelings about a lot of things; animal rights, religion, whatever... but if you keep interacting with others like this, it doesn't matter; you have to go. — Omegatron 02:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Alas, was there ever a man more misunderstood? I am chilled out - I just seem to have an inate ability to irritate stubborn people. And I do think that most of my contibutions lately have been in the spirit you suggest. Gosh, I am only trying to keep things focused, something I thought would be appreciated. Oh well. Ok...ok I'll re-adujst again. Thanks for the advice.DocEss 16:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being cooperative. You're not all bad.  ;-) — Omegatron 19:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hee hee - I'm only 1% bad! Hey if you're not too busy, perhaps you could weigh in on an issue I know you could help direct. This section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy#Assessment_of_the_lecture.27s_purpose of the Pope's Controversy article looks like pure speculation to a few of us. I would even guess some would call it Original Reseacrh. I call it something we should delete. Also, another section ("Factual Errors") keeps getting itself added and I think it's completely ancillary. If you could provide some input or any help, I'd appreciate it; if noy, that's OK too. Have a nice day.DocEss 16:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear section

Hi, i see you are putting a lot of time and effort in the article, so just go on, some points need more consensus, my guess is we both want a better article. Cheers. Mion 03:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course we both want a better article.  :-) Too bad everyone can't agree on what "better" means...

Can you return the nuclear section to the original version? Those quotes were mistakenly moved to the Sustainable energy article, but they don't belong there, since they're about "renewable" energy. — Omegatron 04:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, stupid action from me, i'll put it back. reg.09:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes , the revert was more a reflex, second check made me clear that the discussion is going on a long time, and I should step into the discussion myself before i do actions like that, i also agree on not removing opinions, and i see the point, the definition of "renewable energy".....

I suggest making a page Nuclear Economy, do the discussion there , and ask people not to discuss on Nuclear Energy and Nuclear fuel cycle, renewable energy, etc. ? reg Mion 12:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(Our capitalization style would make them Nuclear economy and Nuclear energy.)

I'm not sure I understand what would be in the Nuclear economy article, thuogh. — Omegatron 13:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, we have Hydrogen economy, zinc economy, methanol economy, ethanol economy, lithium economy and liquid nitrogen economy, i am missing here Nuclear economy.

If i have a look at the Nuclear fuel cycle than you can see that almost al elements should be transferred from Nuclear Energy to Nuclear economy, Nuclear Energy itself is just an output product in the cycle. reg. Mion 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I'm not sure where the content belongs. Nuclear power and Nuclear energy contain different content. — Omegatron 13:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Best start is maybe just starting the article, moving the economy sections from both into the article and merge it , in the articles, a link to main Nuclear economy and backlink see details, by doing so the section economy can be centratred into 1 place. as a result in the other pages, the section economy will decline to four lines or so. reg. Mion 13:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I ment Nuclear power, maybe we just have to change the title of the article to Nuclear economy, would that fit ? reg. Mion 13:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

On second view, the both articles are in the right cat, handle the right subject, it seems the page Nuclear economy is just a nonexising issue/page. , reg.Mion 14:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Give it some time and thought, suggestions are welcome, i will create the page myself, setup a bit conform hydrogen economy, the community can respond on it after the creation. reg.Mion 14:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Audio link popup

Hi Omegatron and sorry for the *very* late reply. I have just tried your idea now. It looks nice. Though I'm not a big fan of being paternalistic with users (assuming they aren't even able to play an audio file) your solution seems an acceptable compromise. I only notice problems with the timings (the popup comes out immediately, so it tends to appear when you don't intend to; analogously it takes a bit too long to disappear when the mouse cursor isn't over it). I had abandoned all this discussion as it seemed really impossible to reach a consensus (the "wall" you hint at). —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 01:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. As I said, the functionality would need some tweaking. A plugin has been developed to play audio and video files right in the browser, so i was kind of waiting for that to finish, but maybe this should be made a part of that discussion; the player could be inside the pop-up.— Omegatron 14:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MOSFET drawings

O, I modified a couple of your MOSFET drawings on wikimedia (the simplified ones). See if you like. However, I don't see the change propagating to wikipedia. Is there something that needs to be done? Or just wait? Dicklyon 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Which ones? There might be more than one copy, but most likely you just need to Wikipedia:bypass your cache. — Omegatron 22:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why you mark a POV without an explanation on the discussion page?

please detail your arguments here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FreeJ - you are welcome to propose solutions, thanks jaromil 11:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The explanation is in the tag itself; it read like an ad when i tagged it.— Omegatron 14:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

you are stating it reads like an ad, another person stated it isn't so and detailed why. when requested about your arguments, you don't answer anything else than the above. Strange thing is that on your user page you state "Don't defend your beliefs; test them". jaromil 10:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You're one of the developers of FreeJ, aren't you? Not only does it read like an advertisement, it is an advertisement; taken from your own website, as I pointed out on the talk page. Just tweak it so it sounds like an encyclopedia article instead of an ad. — Omegatron 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Redirect/DeletionReasons

I have reverted you again. Please see my prior comments at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion and engage in discussion before making such a unilateral change. The DeletionReasons listing predates Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. The later page was more than just a pro & con list. It also included a proposal to ban cross-namespace redirects and change the way the Wikipedia search engine works. Both of those proposals did not reach consensus and that is what caused it to be marked historical. There was no agreement to remove XNR from DeletionReasons as part of that. Since that clause pre-dates the Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects, you can not take it being marked as historical as consensus for your change. There was no discussion about removing that clause. If you want to propose removing it, then please suggest it at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion and let it be debated. This has been a thorny subject in the past and unilateral action should not be taken by either proponents or opponents of XNR. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 17:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Flying spaghetti monster emblem 2.jpg

— pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 11:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schematic Editor

I've used this a few times in the past to kludge together schematics, check it out: http://musicfromouterspace.com/SchematicEditorPromo/schematicpubwebpage.html 70.241.16.85 15:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your seeming accusation

You wrote:

Then discuss it there. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point — Omegatron 23:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I replied. I don't know if you ever read my reply. But I remain puzzled. It is as if you were accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia. You also seem to think I was trying to illustrate some particular point. I don't understand what makes you think that. I edited that article in order to improve the article. My edit did improve the article. What point is it that you think I was trying to illustrate? And what makes you think so? And in what way could that particular improvement to that particular article have been "disruptive"? Michael Hardy 01:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mains hum

Hi,

You were not sure, what kind of 50Hz main hum was put there by user CoolKoon. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk%3A50Hz.ogg&diff=84873618&oldid=47460010 and use, if you want

Julo 18:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{otheruses}}

Could you please participate in the discussion on the talk page of this template, instead of editing without discussion or attempt to gain consensus support? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with my changes? — Omegatron 02:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several people on the talk page who disagree with them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Who? — Omegatron 03:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

...have you read Template_talk:Otheruses#Recent_change.? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That's where the new wording came from. If you have a problem with the new wording, say so in that section. We can discuss it. — Omegatron 03:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I did, as did several other people, but you didn't give any response. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the advice

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources: Revision as of 17:25, 16 October 2006 --Philip Baird Shearer 00:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for cooperating. Maybe you didn't see my comments on the talk page as they are not at the bottom of the page? That page needs archiving badly. — Omegatron 01:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

I think your on your 3rd or 4th revert now. Might want to cool it and move onto some of the dispute resolution stuff... perhaps a structured poll on the talk page can help find consensus? ---J.S (t|c) 00:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I was aware when I did it. The two templates are mutually exclusive, though. A guideline is something for which a consensus exists. You can't say "this is a guideline" while simultaneously saying "there is no consensus for this to be a guideline".

I would be glad to discuss it. There is a discussion already ongoing about the status of the page, which neither of the other reverters have participated in.

A poll is not consensus. — Omegatron 01:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop the rhetoric with me. I don't care. Having two contrary hatnotes is better then an edit war. ---J.S (t|c) 06:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Writing an encyclopedia comes first. That page is being misrepresented as a guideline and affecting the way articles are written all over, but does not have consensus. In this case it's necessary to step to the edge of WP:3RR (though I didn't break it, as you're apparently accusing).

Are you aware of what the word "guideline" means? — Omegatron 13:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that I'm not really taking a position on what tags should be there? I'd simply prefer to see an inappropriate tag on the page then to have an administrator demean himself by engaging in a revert-a-thon. ---J.S (t|c) 16:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Demean?

1. The first time I reverted, I explained my reasons for reverting on the talk page.
2. The other two users reverted me without any discussion at all, apparently without even reading the talk page, even after I explicitly reminded them to.
3. I stopped after my third revert

What should I have done differently? Blocked them? — Omegatron 17:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines

Perhaps I mispoke... The thing is, I disagree with your contention that there is a consensus to get rid of the guideline. Look through the talk pages and you will see that a LOT of people think that this guideline should stay. Some like it as it is, and others (like me) agree that it needs work, but think it is basicly a sound concept that should be kept. As I read the comments, there is a small but ardent group who want to trash it completely, and a very large but less strident group who want to keep it (and continue to work on it). The way I see it, that means that there is consensus to keep it as a quideline. That is what I mean when I say that there is no consenus to demote. Blueboar 01:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is an agreement among everyone, though; not a majority forcing the minority into submission. The guideline tag should not be placed on the page unless everyone agrees with it. When the page loses consensus, it is no longer a guideline, and needs to be worked on and revised until everyone can agree on it again, and then the tag goes back up (unless they can't reach agreement, at which point it becomes {{rejected}}).

In the meantime, a disputed guideline tag is fine, but it makes no sense to have both a guideline tag and a disputed guideline tag on the same page.

To clarify what the word "guideline" means:

Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus. If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline, to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over. — Wikipedia:Consensus — Omegatron 01:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Surly you meant to say "This is done through revert wars and typing in all caps" right? ---J.S (t|c) 06:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently. Wouldn't it be nice if users discussed things on the talk page instead of knee-jerk reverting? — Omegatron 13:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And when "polite discussion and negotiation" fails to convince an admin, he can just revert and protect a proposal he doesn't like. You are acting hypocritically. -- Netoholic @ 07:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hypocritically? Explain yourself. — Omegatron 05:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commenting

I provide inline comments so that my responses can be easily matched up on long, multi-pointed discussions like the one you referred to. It's 6 of this, a half-dozen of that, purely preferences on the part of the editor based on the situation at hand. Skyemoor 19:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upcoming NYC Meetup

You wanted to know when the next meetup was being organized in New York City. Plan for Saturday, 9 December 2006. While you're at it. Come help us decide on a restaurant. See: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Spread the word. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 22:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windpower comments

Don't change my comments; they are perfectly understandable the way they are. Treat them like the threads they are. Skyemoor 00:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikEd

Hi Omegatron, I thought you might be interested in this. I am the author of the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus: • syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • more fixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages • convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjust the font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage.

Cacycle 22:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap. I'll try it. — Omegatron 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation mark, non-English usage

Hi, I would like to comment on your suggestion to merge (obviously) but I cannot see where to do so. Have you set up a location for this? Reply here to keep the thread if you like.Abtract 22:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be discussed at Talk:Quotation_mark#Split_this_page. Always try to keep discussion centralized. — Omegatron 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

But, with respect, the question is no longer, "Should the split be made?" This has already been actioned after a month when no-one spoke against it. The question you are now asking is, "Should the two pages be merged?". Discussion on this should take place in a new section which you should set up (as I understand it but I may well be wrong). Abtract 22:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No. They should be discussed in the same place, so both the before and after can be seen, commented on, etc. — Omegatron 01:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite see it that way but OK. Since there were no objections, in over a month, to my initial suggestion to split (indeed there were previous similar suggestions), I doubt there will be much interest in merging but we will see. I will make an appropriate comment.Abtract 08:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zero-order hold and First-order hold

hi O,

i dunno if it's a good idea to merge the articles or not. they used to be merged in an article called Zero and first order holds but i didn't think it was well written, rewrote into two, and lobbied the admins to delete the other one (they did). the principle is the same, but the output of the two is clearly different. probably the FOH is not really used anywhere in reality. r b-j 21:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. We should also mention second and higher -order holds, too, somewhere, though. [1] I thought higher-order holds were used in linear predictive coding? — Omegatron 21:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

it's possible that something like higher order holds (used for bandlimited reconstruction of sampled signals) can be used for LPC under the assumption that the spectrum of the signal being LPCed is flat up to nyquist (or that the autocorrelation is a sinc() function). otherwise, the LPC "impulse response" is different. not that this is something i had thought much about. also, just as there are different first-order holds (that "predictive" FOH is one i hadn't known about until i started investigating the earlier merged article (that has since been deleted). i've always considered the FOH to be the simple linear interpolation (delayed a little if you want it to be realizable), until i saw some other references to that predictive FOH. i dunno who uses any FOH for D/A conversion, but you never know. the concept is used in discussion of the effect of linear interpolation of uniformly sampled data for the purposes of resampling, sample rate conversion, or even a fractional-sample precision delay. anyway there are a zillion different ways to do higher order piecewise-polnomial interpolation (which is essentially what the higher order "holds" are, in fact "hold" becomes a less elucidating term as you get to higher order interpolators). also, since there are a zillion different ways to do it, on way of extending order will get you to an ideal sinc() function in the limit, not a gaussian (as that cnx page suggests). if you are interpolating using B-splines (which has a certain advantage that i and Duane Wise have written about in the AES) then the higher order interpolation kernals look like what's in that cnx page and the limit at N=&inf; is gaussian.

if it's okay with you, i'm gonna take down the merge notes. perhaps a separate article on N^th-order polynomial interpolation would be good and relate that to the 0^th and 1^st-order holds would be good. i dunno. r b-j 04:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. We should move this discussion to the talk page. — Omegatron 05:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order holds

Long time no run across. Why do you think Zero-order hold and First-order hold should be merged? They seem sufficient to stand on their own... Cburnett 07:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just an idea. Thought we could cover nth-order holds all at once. — Omegatron 19:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Icons

Can you show a screenshot of Mediawiki with your icons? commons:Category:Nuvola-inspired File Icons for MediaWiki — Omegatron 21:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Done!--michael180 22:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. We were discussing using tiny versions for file type icons. See Template_talk:PDFlink, Template talk:DOClink and bugzilla:1578 — Omegatron 02:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A remark about Template:PDFlink

Hi Ωtron,

I've been absent for a while so my apologies if this has already been discussed. Did you notice how close to text the PDF icon is in the template rendering? Could we do anything for that? Also, would it be possible to use the same icon as the TargetAlert Firefox extension? That's much clearer! :-) —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 13:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice how close to text the PDF icon is in the template rendering? Could we do anything for that?

It looks good to me, but we can change it if desired. Can you take a screenshot of how it looks on your screen?

Hmm, I've uploaded a screenshot to http://gennaro-prota.50webs.com/WinZipArticleNotesSection.png. Taken with Mozilla Firefox 2.0 (release candidate).

Hmm... It looks fine to me. What don't you like about it? It's four pixels away from the text, just like the external link icon below it. — Omegatron 19:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the left side looks fine to me too. What I don't like is the extreme closeness of the text "PDF", on the right. Perhaps that's just me (I guess it may depend on whether one focuses on the rectangular grey area of the image or pays attention to that little red curl popping out of it).

Also, would it be possible to use the same icon as the TargetAlert Firefox extension?

I'm not sure. There's some qualms about it being a trademarked logo. I showed several alternative icons on that page. — Omegatron 15:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I asked. I'll try documenting myself a bit on this. Thanks for your reply :-) —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 16:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Here I am after a Google trip. IIUC, the page at http://www.adobe.com/misc/linking.html says that one can't modify in any way the PDF file icon *if* he/she downloads it from there. *However* I don't see any restriction about creating your own image, which is what the Nuvola author has done, as far as I know. If there are restrictions about creation, then it's possible that the very same images you show on the template talk page can't actually be used freely (not all of them, at least) and that Nuvola is itself violating some legal rule. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 17:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the rule is. There's copyright to worry about when copying their icon exactly, and there's trademark to worry about when using it in a custom icon. I think it's fine to use it, but I thought this one was better and more visible at the small size. I showed seven different icons on the talk page before implementing it, and no one has ever commented on them at all, so I just picked the one I thought looked best. — Omegatron 19:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know either... I'm just trying to reason about the issue. I find the icon used by TargetAlert clearer but again that may be just me. No big deal, anyway. —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 19:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical element templates

Hi. I noticed that you have left several comments on the Category_talk:Chemical_element_symbol_templates page, so I'd hope that you as a user familiar with the use of these templates could look at the suggestion I put there. Nihiltres 17:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Micro move

Hi there, Can you please (briefly) mention the rationale behind your proposal to move Micro on the talk:Micro page. Thanks! Fourohfour 10:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partial support of CSS border-collapse proerty

Hi Omegatron, I've posted also in Meta-wiki at css talk. Firefox1.5 seems to have an instability with the vertical lines in large "wikitables" (see 2005 in film#Deaths). The problem element is the css property border-collapse, for which Mozilla has partial support. Every time the page is reloaded it either shows all or some or few vertical borders. I've checked with more computers using Firefox and it's persistent. Support is partial also in Safari Konq2.2 OW4.5 NN7 (although I don't have these browsers to check). Opera is fine, IE6 has also partial support, but I get no problems there. I like wikitable as CSS class. What happens if the property border-collapse is simply omitted? I could also raise up the issue in Mozilla, but it's easier to tackle it here, if possible. I do some simple web-design, but I'm using broadly supported style properties only, so I never came across this one. I would appreciate your comments. Hoverfish 13:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musical acoustics

I've noticed that you've made several amendments to Musical acoustics, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to comment on the discussion at Talk:Musical acoustics. Specifically I was attempting to remove a segment of the article which I feel is irrelevant and misleading. I also find that the user who initially added this section, and is currently engaged in the argument, has been inserting material from his own research into many wikipedia articles, including this one. (Searching wikipedia for "greenwych.ca" and checking changes history will find a plethora of links added by the author to his own website.) There is a lot of text on the talk page right now, but I think the most relevant comments are under the heading: Talk:Musical acoustics#Please comment on the "Evolution of the diatonic scale" section. I would greatly appreciate another voice in this discussion. - Rainwarrior 20:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know what's going on there, but keep telling him he can't post original research. If it's not original, I can't help you. — Omegatron 23:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's material from his own self-published research (he has readily volunteered this information in his lengthy "defenses" of his own notability), and I have mentioned OR, NPOV, and other policies, but he continues to post argument. I have only made one edit to remove his material, but as I'm sure you understand, a two-man revert war is a futile endeavour. I think both of us are willing to abide by consensus, whichever it may be, but there is no agreement on our own. - Rainwarrior 06:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forced thumbnail sizes

If you are interested, please comment on the issue of "forced image sizes" at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. I'm contacting you because you seem to be the one who added the text to WP:IUP. Mike Dillon 19:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nasal Irrigation Revert

I noticed you reverted and edit of mine on the Nasal irrigation page without leaving a comment. I invite you to do so, as I believe that the material is a "how-to," and therefore against WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a reference manual. Pyrogen 21:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You saw that I reverted it, but you didn't read my edit summary? "rv - it should be reworded to not use the second person, but it's appropriate" — Omegatron 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinc integral

Hi Omegatron, I'm searching for a proof of the sinc integral . Maybe you know a source that shows a proof? Thank you, --Abdull 19:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Peelbot

Hello. I've left a response to your comment on User talk:Peelbot, and would appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks. Mike Peel 22:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comments there, I find the Wikiproject tags annoying too, but I don't think they are pointless. I believe they relate to the Wikipedia 1.0 project. Those working on it are trying to identify a subset of articles that could be distributed as a CD version of the 'pedia. To do that, they need to figure out which articles are most important in each field, and which fields are of sufficient importance to be included. The tagging system also helps establish which articles are of sufficient quality to be included. It is I guess also flexible enough to allow them to identify other specialized subsets of Wikipedia, so for example they could publish on a CD an encyclopedia of Science, or an encyclopedia of Physics, each of which would be more detailed than the CD version of the whole encyclopedia.--Srleffler 06:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wrongtitle template

Re the css hack, I can't find the template-discussion that I recall seeing somewhere concerning all this, so thought I'd ask you instead, does this Wikipedia:WikiProject User Page Help/Do-It-Yourself/Title Headers need to be removed/dealt with, or are user-pages free to use the hack? --Quiddity 03:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think CSS hacks should be used anywhere, including user space, but you'll have to ask somewhere else. — Omegatron 04:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Ok, asked at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#CSS changing title. --Quiddity 04:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your FR

Yes, I think that it would be better, but perhaps you should ask some RC patrollers what they think of it, since it mainly affects their work. (Radiant) 10:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I originally thought of it as mostly useful for watchlists, though. — Omegatron 13:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point... some people with 1000+ articles on their watchlist may appreciate a "hide patrolled edits from watchlist" option. (Radiant) 12:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't think of it as a marker for "patrolled edits" or diffs that have been "approved".

Think of it as a marker for unviewed edits; diffs that haven't been viewed at all by anyone yet.

Currently, I check lots of the diffs on my 2000+(!) watchlist to see whether they're valid or whatever. I'm usually suspicious of anything left by an anon or redlinked user name that doesn't have an edit summary. Often I'll try to rollback such an edit and find it's already been rolled back by someone else. With this feature installed, I could focus on the ones that hadn't been viewed by anyone else yet, making it much less likely for things to slip past the radar. — Omegatron 15:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image gallery

Omegatron, I had just changed the image which was on deletion. Sorry for bothering you, if you do not want to have it, please remove. I had just replaced the image. Sorry again. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 19:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a suggestion with regard to generating audio

I was browsing through some articles, as one does, and I came across the following "Image:Square wave 1000.ogg". I Couldn't help but notice that the little disclaimer on it stating it may be mathematically incorrect. Well for such a simple audio sample, it is possible to generate a mathematically correct wave version using MatLab, if you have access to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.185.154 (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Good point. I could generate it with GNU Octave. For that example, I used Adobe Audition, which generates a "perfect" square wave. But if you input a perfect square wave to a digitization process, with appropriate pre-filtering, the Adobe Audition version would not be correct. For the purposes of listening and an .ogg file, it's probably fine, but I'd like to create better versions of all of them and upload them as ogg-packaged WAV in the future. — Omegatron 17:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)