User talk:Ohms law/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ohms law. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Your Deletion Nomination Of Template:notability

If you want to reply, please reply on my talk page.

I've noticed you didn't finish the deletion nomination because the template needs to be tagged that it is being deleted. I know that the template I nonadmin protected, so if you are an admin, I ask you to finish the nomination because I am not an admin and I can not do it.Curb Chain (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Per the TFD instructions, the template is tagged on the /doc page.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I guess the many times I've read the instructions, I do not remember that. But I think the prefered method is to put a tag on the template, so a request for unprotection may be in order.Curb Chain (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Templates that are used on thousands of articles shouldn't be unprotected. See: Wikipedia:High-risk templates for the reason behind that.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:Upset

I have to admit to being a tad confused. I am led to believe that you are upset over the diacritics situation, and given you have lumped me in with DJSasso and Elrith, I think you misunderstand my position on them. I actually oppose the use of diacritics, but I do try to respect the compromise we came up with in an attempt at stopping all of the battles and debates we had. My comment in the thread was simply to point out that when we came to the original agreement, that player articles weren't part of the deal to hide them. But, as I noted, I leave them as I find them on those articles. Personally, I would rather the entire problem went away, and I could write articles in the fashion that feels natural, which in this case, is without diacritics. As we saw with Dolovis' RFC on the matter, and that debate (which I admittedly haven't followed at all since my last comment, so never even saw your frustration) this situation is a mess that Wikipedia itself has been unable to solve.

I can understand why DJ and I would be held out as the unofficial leaders of the project, but as this situation shows, even we are divided on the issue. My comments on the matter were not meant to enforce an official view, but to remark on what was agreed to in the past. If a new agreement replaces it, or if changes are made, I will remark on such in the future and try to respect what we come up with. I would much rather you did not ignore the hockey area, especially if you have a desire to participate. We all have good things to add, and I hope that you will continue to do so. I have been on the wrong side of many debates and discussions about the way we do things as a project, and the way Wikipedia operates as a whole. Ultimately, I accept what the consensus decides. I sincerely hope that you will continue to offer your input and help us make the project area better. I will also think on your comments re my ...position... within the project. Regards, Reso lute 16:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The largest part of my frustration comes from the "stopping all of the battles and debates" position. Ignoring the problem by simply shutting down debate does nothing to resolve things, and actually creates worse problems (as exemplified by my own reaction). By "siding with" Dj (and I'm aware that what you're saying here is that you're not actually siding with him on this issue), you're effectively shutting down any real discussion on the issue, simply because yourself and Dj are both administrators (picking fights with two admins who appear to hold similar views isn't exactly condusive to "wiki-health", so to speak). You appear to be making a case that you're real views differ from your actions, but your actions are what matters (that's what defined consensus, after all).

In the end, I'm actually afraid to contribute significantly to Hockey content because I'm uncertain that I'll cross some artificial restriction that has been erected, and end up either blocked or entangled in some process wonkery for a significant amount of time (It's sort of too late to avoid that unfortunately, but such is life).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The attempt at finding a solution to the diacritics problem was meant to try and end the arguments, yes. But that seems to have failed. Is there a better solution? I really wish Wikipedia would figure it out. We have editors who are pretty militant about their POVs on both sides, and the goal was to bridge that gap. I think my actions are consistent with my views, but if I expressed my views poorly in that discussion, I apologize and will try to be more accurate in the future.

As for my being an admin, I don't use that to lend weight to my arguments, but I am limited in my ability to prevent others from viewing it as so. I am cognizant of the potential, and frequently take a minimalistic approach to many discussion topics. The diacritics thing being one - I made my comment, then backed away and let everyone else discuss the issue. I also frequently go to the project for options and ideas on how to do things, rather than to just do them - i.e.: the template discussion I have up. I hope that you will view me as an editor and not an administrator in future discussions, as I much prefer to be the former than the latter.

But, I do understand your POV. I don't participate in the baseball project out of frustration with a lot of the things they do. If there is anything I can do to help the hockey project feel more inclusive for you, please let me know. I would rather have you a part of it than to have you stand apart. Reso lute 22:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking the time to talk with me about it. I certainly feel better. :)

I'll think of a concrete proposal that we may be able to discuss on the project talk page. I agree with "that seems to have failed", which is a large part of where my personal frustration is coming from (I see the "there's a compromise" statement all of the time, which appears to be a way to shut down any discussion of the issue).

On a more personal note, I didn't realize that you were interested in baseball as well. I am too. Maybe we could work stuff out with the baseball wikiproject, at some point.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've dabbled, mostly on obscure topics. Calgary Cannons being one. I have an outstanding promise to try and bring the Montreal Expos article to FA status, something I expect to begin soon. Hopefully once I get Calgary Stampede to FA. Reso lute 01:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, anyway, I tried to talk to you guys. At least you're reasonable, but I can see that you're project companions still aren't, so... *shrug* Good luck with the Stampede article! I hope that you're able to work on the Expos article afterwords. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup template discussion?

Given the TfDs for {{Cleanup}} (TfD) and {{Notability}} (TfD) have you given any thought to what I said [1] regarding a larger community discussion for all of these cleanup templates? --Tothwolf (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the idea, certainly. I'm not sure that I have the energy to start up a discussion like that myself, though.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd have the time to initiate it either (but I certainly would have things to add to such a discussion). It seems like I can never get done with silly stuff such as this though, [2] [3] [4] which is eating up way too much of my time. Sigh. How can it be that the topic of electronics and electrical connectors be so difficult to work in? --Tothwolf (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I've been following those discussions for the last few days now, myself. I keep getting pissed off at myself for engaging in issues within the Wikipedia namespace. Right now I'm trying (not completely successfully, as you can see by my contribs today) to disengage from the area and concentrate on articles again... Anyway, if someone starts something, feel free to ping me to let me know what's going on. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been attempting to finish at least a couple of offline article drafts I've had going for weeks (don't think I'll have time today though). That stuff above plus some sockpuppetry things I've been keeping an eye on have really been distracting. I'll certainly let you know if something moves forward on a discussion for cleanup templates. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

BR tags

Why did you reformat the <br /> tags here? While Wikipedia does not use XHTML, as far as I know, it still seems like a best practice to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That had nothing to do with the <br /> tags, it was all about the inappropriate use of <span> tags. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#How to remove Skype formatting when it shows up? for the background. I probably should have just undone the addition of the span tags, but the use of __TOC__ in the mainspace isn't really appropriate either (in my opinion, that's not policy based), and I didn't see any other change as being significant. If someone wants to redo the break tags (or even the use of TOC), that's fine by me.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hardly seems worth redoing -- I was just wondering if there was a particular reason for it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Template deletion

Hi, I appreciate being informed if you nom any templates I have been working on, such as {{Notability}}. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC).

Hi Rich. A) the TFD is closed. B) it's a maintenance template... and a widely used one at that. It's not like we're talking about a navbox here or something. This is an odd thing to write a note to me about, especially considering the timing in relation to the request. Looks pretty pointy, from my perspective.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

How so? I just discovered a whole bunch of maint templates have been TfD'd without notifying me. Since I spent three years of my life working on maintenance templates, I would expect people who know that to drop me a note. Even if they aren't aware, certainly it is standard practice to let major contributors to a page know. Notability in particular is not "just a maintenance template", but a critical component of Wikipedia. (And when you say "pointy" that implies WP:POINT - you feel I am disrupting Wikipedia?) Rich Farmbrough, 01:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC).

And really - there is a point. Please tell me if you are planing on deleting part of, or doing anything drastic to the WP maintenance system, if you can. Often I may be able to make the task simpler, faster or better. Rich Farmbrough, 01:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC).

Here's a couple of things to think about. Regarding the notability template specifically, I did try to start a discussion about it n the template's talk page prior to nominating it. I only nominated it at TFD after being completely ignored. That being the case, it seems rather disingenuous for you to now be complaining that I didn't notify you personally. You'd already ignored me, so why should I be concerned about you, and more importantly how was I supposed to know that you even cared?

With respect to maintenance templates in general... they're not yours, you know. Maintenance templates are so widely used that the statement about having spent "three years of [your] life working on maintenance templates" appears rather ridiculous. If you have a problem with people editing the same things that you edit, then you should probably consider your motivations for contributing here.

anyway, I'm not that interested with arguing about a TFD, especially one that's been closed already, and even more especially here on my talk page. If these things are so important to you, I'd suggest watchlisting them. If you just want to bitch and moan about me personally, well, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is thataway.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I was actually trying to be nice in my first reply. This pisses me off, though. I mean, really. You apparently ignored me twice (once on the talk page, and then you seemingly ignored the TFD itself), and then you come here to get in my face over a TFD that I withdrew after it became apparent that it was going to be SNOW kept? That's an asshole thing to do, man. Quit being a fuckin' jerk.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Er... I think you are over-reacting a little. I didn't say that the template should not have been nom'd, I didn't even remonstrate with you for not informing me, that is quite reasonable behaviour. I just politely requested to be notified if you are XfDing templates I have worked on in future. Rich Farmbrough, 11:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC).

Thank you

Thank you, Ohms law, for your comments about a recently created essay attack page by a user focused on me. Your expertise and statements are most appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that I didn't say anything there in order to specifically support you personally. I don't have much of an opinion at all about you or your editing practices, other then knowing that you're a prolific editor and that I generally respect you.

That being said, you're quite welcome. The attack mentality that some others seem to have taken towards you certainly isn't appropriate, and it's definitely not helpful to the project. Best wishes going forward.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! :) What do you think of my statements regarding my future editing: diff and diff ? Do you have any advice for me regarding all this? — Cirt (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I'm generally supportive, certainly. :)

It is amazing sometimes, the different emotional viewpoints people bring to discussions and content here. See the section immediately above this one, for a wonderful example. I think that I have more experience in this aspect of online communication than many here, although I don't consider myself an expert or anything. My only real point being that there seems to be a lack of awareness on the part of many participants here on Wikipedia. It's an endemic problem, in my view, and what's worse is that it seems to be encouraged in some ways. ...I'm getting slightly off track here, I think, but that's what comes to mind in reaction to reading about your plans.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your statement, above, "The attack mentality that some others seem to have taken towards you certainly isn't appropriate, and it's definitely not helpful to the project." Other than my statements (diffs above) in those links, do you have any other advice for me regarding this? — Cirt (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly, no. Other then that I think your remaining disengaged from the essay (avoiding direct involvement with it) is probably best, for both yourself and those of us defending you, at this point. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have already made it a personal practice to avoid editing following the user who created the page, so your further advice is in-line with that practice. — Cirt (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ohms law/Wikipedia discussion

Hi, I was wondering what was going on with Ohms law/Wikipedia discussion. The bot approval the edit summary linked to does not seem related to what ever your bot is doing there. Is that supposed to be outside your userspace? Monty ₈₄₅ 00:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Duh.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

ani deletions

I'm guessing that this was an accident removing Tarc's statements?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Monty fixed it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

oh, FFS! AN/I sucks. <shakes head> (thanks for letting me know, though)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Signature

Hi; I've just noticed that your signature contains a </br> tag, which creates a line-break at the end of all your comments. As WP:SIG#Appearance and color suggests that editors should avoid such devices "since they disrupt the way that surrounding text displays," I wonder if you could remove that element? Thanks, ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 11:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ╟─Treasury Tag►Boothroyd─╢ 11:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag has chosen a singularly unpleasant and unconstructive way to approach this issue. (Is there some sort of prior history here between you two, or is he just coming completely out of left field?) He has further failed to offer any cogent, coherent rationale for removing the line break from your signature, beyond shouting "Obey the rules, because they're the rules!" If an individual were to deliberately set out to discourage you from changing your signature, they probably wouldn't be able to come up with a more effective approach than TreasuryTag's.

Nevertheless, there really are a couple of good reasons to take the line break out. I wouldn't say it's absolutely required, but it will – in at least a small way – improve the editing experience for the other editors with whom you work. I've gone on about it (in probably too much detail) in the AN/I thread, and I hope that you'll give my request there some thought. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Saw your reply, and am replying there now.

— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Responding here, rather than at VPM, so I don't sidetrack my own quesiton :)

You said:

That presents a good case of a process that is causing "damage" to the encyclopedia (more accurately, to the English Wikipedia community), with the obvious solution that the process should be shuttered.

I'm less averse to it than you might imagine. (Which means merely opposed rather than OMDB opposed.) With over 450 edits to the place, I have an interest in it that is more than average. Yet, I do fear that it may be, on balance, negative. My first desire is to fix it. Absent that, perhaps it should be shuttered, but we should figure out an alternative for the editors who are looking for feedback and who will welcome feedback. Perhaps creating a new article triggers an adoption? However, I am getting ahead of myself. I would like to first get feedback on the problem and think through less radical solutions first.--SPhilbrick T 16:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm supportive of the idea that there should be a good feedback mechanism. However, the problem here appears to be a simple lack of interest on the part of editors to provide feedback (and, admittedly, I'm part of the problem there. If I'm going to an article, I'd really rather just edit the thing than waste time on providing feedback that may or may not be valued). No process in the world, no matter how well constructed, can overcome complete disinterest. You can't force people into volunteering their time giving feedback (apart from the possibility of getting the WMF to hire some people specifically for that, but...).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2/3

Template:2/3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Delta_Community_ban_proposal

Without prejudice, I invite you to close this proposal. At 3 yes, 16 no, it's not going to achieve consensus and it remaining open will only cause more heat. Just a suggestion, do with as you will. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)