User talk:Oghmoir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Swahili project

Hi Oghmoir, you might be interested in this project on the sw: Wikipedia : sw:Wikipedia:Jamii. Let me know what you think. +sj + 21:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Multi-licensing

Could you multi-license your wonderful Helsinki metro & tram maps as Creative Commons by-sa 1.0, so they could also be used on Wikitravel? Jpatokal 04:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I hate to be pedantic, but Wikitravel requires CC by-sa v1.0, not v2.5. The {{MultiLicenseWithCC-BySA-Any}} tag should do the trick. Jpatokal 13:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome & backmasking & edit summaries

I see you deleted your first welcome message. Maybe I can give you a bit more useful and personalized one? Keep it if you want it:

Welcome, Oghmoir!

I noticed your contributions to Backmasking, and thought I'd welcome you to Wikipedia. My name is Dan, a.k.a. TheJabberwock. Thank you for your contributions, and I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Some other hints and tips:

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Thanks again for contributing to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

 TheJabberwʘck 00:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why did you change the lyrics quoted? I reverted it pending your explanation. You could certainly be right, but you should always give an explanation in your edit summary. Thanks, TheJabberwʘck 00:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. TheJabberwʘck 21:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Vantaa-Heureka.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vantaa-Heureka.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Helsingin-ratikka.png

Hi, I was wondering whether you still have the original (non-png) version of the above image? Need this in order to make hig res versions of the image using non-finnish station names. Cheers /Lokal Profil 12:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] commons:User:Oghmoir

I assert to be the same user as commons:User:Oghmoir Oghmoir 15:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common knowledge and not, Klinefelter's syndrome

Hi there. You reverted my revert of an original edit by me, where I inserted a fact tag regarding genetic conditions being irreversible. I don't think that I'm underestimating the understanding of the common U.S. citizen when I say that it is in fact not common knowledge that genetic conditions are irreversible. Can I get you to rev that? I'll supply a citation right now if that would be more appropriate. I'm not really interested in having a rev war, and would be willing to fill the space instead of leaving a cite needed tag there. But I just don't agree that it's common knowledge. --MalcolmGin 15:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. The average reader may not know this thing for granted, but I'd be surprised if someone would challenge it. What was said in the passage was that the genetic variation is irreversible, not that the condition is. I'm not an expert in genetics but I assume that with current technology, the genes you have when you're born are more or less irreversible. Anyway, the sentence is already fact-tagged so marking a passage inside it seemed a bit too much. You can always specify on the talk page what needs references so you don't have to tag every single phrase in the text that applies. Oghmoir 15:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you revert it if I in-Wiki linked the phrase to justify it? I feel it needs something. --MalcolmGin 18:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Please, go ahead, I won't revert it. I'll take a look at how it turns out and if I think there's something still wrong with it, I'll talk to you. Oghmoir 19:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty with this one. In trying to find a one-link type explication for intrawiki links, I'm finding lots of links that muddy the issue by mentioning viral gene therapy. I think there may be some potential in looking at topics like phenotype vs. genotype, but to be honest at this point even I'm confused (by the way viral gene therapy's being used to help folks with congenital health issues), so I think more research on my end is necessary to try to help figure out the subtleties here so I don't end up making an inaccurate implication. That said, if you have any ideas, I'd love to have them. Also, there'll be a delay for at least a few days anyway. I had to travel 2800 miles to see my family on Friday, and will be travelling back home again on Monday. Tomorrow, I may not have much time to dedicate to this cause as I've truly been burning the candle of familial piety at both ends for the past couple of days and may need to just fall over. But I'll try to get to this issue soon. Thanks for your patience (? -- :) ). --MalcolmGin 03:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T. rex

Hi Oghmoir!
I understand what you're saying, but it's not correct to spell it "T-Rex", and that is what the article is saying. The parallel with "dog"/"Canis lupus familiaris" isn't apt: "Dog" is English, while C. lupis familiaris is scientific: "T-Rex" isn't English, it's bad spelling not in the dictionary. Even "Sherbert" has an entry. Incidentally, as Tyrannosaurus is the only dinosaur commonly referred to in English by its full binomial name, T. rex, this issue does not affect the hundreds of other dinosaur genera. Just as it's incorrect to pronounce nuclear wrong, it's also incorrect to spell T. rex as "T-Rex", and Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place to use or actually encourage incorrect usage, under the guise of "oh, well, people use it this way, so it's OK". Wikipedia's article on Tyrannosaurus is a Featured Article, which are articles generally regarded as representing the best articles in the encyclopedia, and a high quality needs to be maintained, including correct spelling. I spend a great deal of time trying to make sure sloppy dinosaur entries are corrected so that the entries look presentable and are written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia. If you are interested in paleontology, Oghmoir, you may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, just because a lot of people make a mistake doesn't mean it's not a mistake anymore. If I'm writing an article on thieves, it wouldn't be cool to say "popularly spelled 'theif'" just because a lot of people tend to misspell it. Sheep81 04:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You're both missing my point. There are people who probably know that scientifically, it should be T. rex, but they might still write "T-Rex" in non-scientific conversation, so it's not necessarily a mistake! Sheep81: So are you saying that we shouldn't mention the "T-Rex" spelling in the article at all, because it's just a mistake? I don't think so. We have a section devoted to how T. rex appears in popular culture, and the "T-Rex" spelling is so widespread that it probably doesn't hurt to mention it. What I don't get is that why can't we just mention that the spelling is widely used outside scientific conversation. I'm having another go at it.. Oghmoir 07:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No... you're missing our point. It doesn't matter if you intentionally misspell a word, even if a lot of people commonly do it. There is still only ONE spelling of the word and other spellings are MISspellings. That's what misspelling means. It doesn't mean that the people misspelling it are wrong or dumb, or that they should or shouldn't spell the word however the heck they like, it just means they are using a spelling other than the accepted spelling. And that is clearly the case here. "T-Rex" is not a dictionary-accepted spelling of T. rex, any more than "X-treme" is a dictionary-accepted spelling of "extreme" or "pwned" is an dictionary-accepted spelling of "owned". It doesn't mean people shouldn't use those words if they want to. Just that if they do, it's misspelled. Who cares if it is? Nobody. But it still is. And I'd be willing to be that the reason most people write "T-Rex" is not because they like it that way, but because they don't know any better. I sincerely doubt very many people who DO know better still intentionally write "T-Rex". Jack Horner wrote an entire book on Tyrannosaurus for the popular audience and didn't spell it that way once in the whole thing.
And also, I didn't say it should be mentioned at all, but that it should also be mentioned as being a misspelling (because it is). The same way an article on thieves wouldn't say "the popular spelling is 'theif'" but might say "is commonly misspelled 'theif'". And in any case we DID mention that the misspelling is widely used, that's why it said "OFTEN misspelled "T-Rex". This article has already made it through the Featured Article gauntlet, it has been worked on to a consensus by a dozen or so different editors, and nobody has raised even the slightest eyebrow about that sentence. It is perfectly fine like it is and already conveys both the meaning you want to get across (that "T-Rex" is a popular spelling), and the meaning we want to get across (that "T-Rex" is a misspelling). I'm sorry if this post is too harsh, it is quite late here. Sheep81 10:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I do see your point, I just don't agree with it. I just think Wikipedia should tell things the way they are and not how someone things they should be. It seems we have a bit different view on both how "mistaken" and "misspelled" are to be understood, and how we react to a spelling like "T-Rex". I hope we have been able to share some of our differing views; it never hurts to gain new perspective, even though you'd still insist you're right. As what goes for dictionaries, I wouldn't mind the spelling "T-Rex" being included in a dictionary. However, there are probably more people like you than like me, so I won't expect it any time soon, as it won't be realized even in a small passage in a Wikipedia article.
I'm sorry that I have made you write harshly (no offense taken), I realize I've been a bit of a pain in the ass. This was about a matter of principle concerning a very small detail, and I'm not even that much of a man of principle, so I'll let you maintain the article the way you've done before. However, keep in mind that even if it's a FA, it probably doesn't mean that someone could never provide a new view on some of what's mentioned there, and it would never be a good thing. Thanks for this discussion, gentlemen. Oghmoir 07:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this issue is in part due to a cultural gap. My understanding is that Finnish, like Spanish, is a very phonetic language, so I reckon it would be more difficult for a native Finn to mispell a Finnish word than a native English speaker an English word. If you don't see as much bad spelling, you're likely to be less sensitive than those who spend half their time just fixing common spelling mistakes. Of course, this is just a theory of mine, as I don't know enough Finnish to do anything more than wildly speculate... I spent a couple of weeks in fair Suomi in 2001, but didn't learn enough of the language to do anything more than order strawberries on my waffle and cheese on my burger. "Mansikka! Juusto!"
I do agree that just because an article has reached Featured status that it doesn't mean further improvements can't be made or suggested. I just don't agree that's an improvement. Anyway, happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 08:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I like your theory. You're right in that words are not that easy to misspell in Finnish (there are some places where you can go wrong and people are good at using those possibilities, but generally it's true), and I can imagine that as an English speaker you get more experience in weeding out the mistakes, and when you do a good job at weeding, it's frustrating to see new weeds growing all around you. May the power of Mansikka and Juusto guide you on your path to good articles! Oghmoir 20:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weather in 2007

Hello Oghmoir,thanks for contacting me. I think you have done a great job of the Weather in 2007 page, very, very interesting. Any deletions on the page by me were accidental, sorry for this.

I am glad you liked my article, although it is not always easy to write about the weather. But I guess you already know that. I have years of study behind my back but there are things I don't fully understand.

Writing those aricles needs lots of research. I try to be as accurate as possible. I think progress will be slow but this kind of pages are becoming increasingly popular as more and more people want to read more about whats happening to our planet.

SunnieBG 21:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


Just to make sure you noticed... Check my question on fi-wiki... --KirvesAxe (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Winter storms

There is a discussion started by User:Juliancolton at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology about a proposed/possible new WikiProject called WikiProject Winter storms. Feel free to voice your opinion on the proposal.--JForget 01:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:METEO Active members

User:Juliancolton/Active

[edit] Image:Helsingin-ratikka.png

Moi Oghmoir! I noticed on the Image:Helsingin-ratikka.png description that this was originally done as a vector image in Inkscape and that you are marked as the original author. Do you still have the original .SVG (as vector) to hand so that the updates to 4T/6/8/9/10 can be done neatly? Once again, many thanks for producing the map in the first place! —Sladen (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)