Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:21, 3 October 2007

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.

Note that this is the English Misplaced Pages; you may have been redirected from Wikibooks, Meta or Commons.

Click here to start a new discussion.

Archives

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 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.

intermolecular forces

i m preparing 4 iit2009 ............ i have a doubt on intermolecular forces.

how can the intermolecular forces act between 2 atoms as they both contain negative charges... both of the atoms would repel and not attract . so how can the attractive force act on these atoms..........explain me diagramatically

You have been quoted

Here. A.Z. 05:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:-)

That idea also kind of ties into the whole attempt at changing the tagline, which Jimbo even supported at one time, but fizzled out. — Omegatron 13:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Bibcode

Template:Deprecation notice --MZMcBride 04:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

pngfix.js

In response to your comment at Template talk:Merge#The SVG, I started the thread Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#JavaScript PNG transparency fix. I've tested this script in my user space and it appears to work flawlessly. Your comments would be welcome. —Remember the dot 02:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

POV edits at BJT

Hey, please take a look at the edits and manner of User:Kevin_aylward on the main article and talk page of Bipolar_junction_transistor. I've reverted and warned him once on the article talk page and on his talk page. Thanks. Alfred Centauri 15:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Didn't Light Current already do this once? — Omegatron 16:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I feel bad that LC has been permabanned. He was sometimes frustrating as can be but, I never failed to teach myself something while 'debating' with him. BTW, thanks for you wise words over at the BJT article. I've just added some reference material on the talk page that should be enough to convince Kevin that his edits are POV. We'll see... Alfred Centauri 00:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about LC. — Omegatron 00:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We may need a protect on the BJT article as Kevin insists in adding POV edits even though consensus has yet to be reached on the talk page. Also, Kevin insists on editing my talk page comments by adding comments in-line making un-clear who has said what. I've removed his in-line comments and warned in the edit summary about vandalism. Any suggestions? Alfred Centauri 12:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Cite journal link archive expansion

Sorry to add to your wikistress, but since you apparently have both the rights and ability to work on {{cite journal}}, I'd like to ask you to consider the argument I made (in responding to your question of why we would need "archiveurl" and "archivedate" for this template) at Template talk:Cite journal#template expansion needed, and advise me how I might fast-track this feature. (I took a look at {{cite web}}'s use, and it had enough syntactic pecularities around its archive components that I'm not sure I can, on my own, readily produce and test an update to recommend for approval. If necessary, though, I'll give it a shot.) Thank you for any help you can provide. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha. That's not wikistress; just normal editing.  :-) — Omegatron 02:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ISBN and {{cite encyclopedia}}

Is there a particular reason why the isbn parameter was never implemented for this template? Circeus 19:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of. — Omegatron 01:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

PIV

Replied to you here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Peak_Inverse_Voltage

--TvKimi 17:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

opinion?

Can you take a look at Phase fired controllers and tell me if you think it is ready to have the cleanup tag removed? I need a second opinion. Thnak you. RJFJR 14:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI regarding graphic images

You stated, "the pictures that we do have try to be informative without being graphic". Please take a look at the following: , , , , , . These are just a few medical ariticles that I found in a very quick search.

I agree that images should not be included merely to shock, but sometimes the truth is shocking and can be communicted only with images (even in Misplaced Pages): LCP 16:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Whitespace

What do you think of Bugzilla:11498? — Omegatron 02:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for any particular article having consistent internal formatting, but I really don't care what style that is, as long as it is consistent. So, if the software was to fix up an article's internal consistency, then it would first have to determine what the dominant style was already in place for that article, and just fix-up the inconsistent parts, if it does what I sometimes try to do for an article. That sounds like it would be hard to explain to a programmer in such a way that it could be automated. For example, if I can't find a dominant existing style in an article, I just leave it alone until one develops. - Bevo 12:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It would defeat the purpose and be counterproductive if we let each article be a different style. The idea is to make all articles consistent with each other. — Omegatron 13:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that idea (of absolute consistency) will go over well. I might be wrong. Good luck! - Bevo 03:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not? That's the whole point. Why would anyone want one article to be formatted different from another? — Omegatron 15:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just that there is no consensus as to what that "one-true-formatting-style" should be. - Bevo 23:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

You are violating the spirit and the letter of the mediation process that is under way. Please participate in the proper place, Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and refrain from making controversial edits in the face of both the process and the specific request of the mediator himself. Thank you. -- Avi 01:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved in any mediation process. There is dispute about the translation of that statement on the talk page, so I changed it to a neutral phrasing. My edit is not controversial. — Omegatron 02:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. Firstly, it is one of the key points under discussion. Secondly, it against most of the sources, which discuss condemnation of Ahmadinejad the man and not the statement. -- Avi 02:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The sources discuss condemnation of the man for the statement he made, no? I don't understand what this has to do with my edit. — Omegatron 02:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am speaking about this edit. The sources condemn the man, not the statement. Saying "but it is for the statement" firstly is a violation of original synthesis, secondly is a substantive edit to a section of an article under current mediation, and thirdly is a misrepresentation of the sources listed. Thank you. -- Avi 02:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of making edits that have been under debate and discussion for months, would you please join the mediation process at the link I supplied above? -- Avi 03:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What edits? — Omegatron 03:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This one in particular. -- Avi 03:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you pointed that out already. I don't understand what you think is wrong with that edit. — Omegatron 03:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is discussed at more length at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and I gave you three reasons at 02:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC) a few lines up. -- Avi 04:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Saying "but it is for the statement" firstly is a violation of original synthesis
  • That's what the sentence is about. He was criticized for a statement that he made. 'He was condemned internationally, for calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map."' I'm sorry, but I don't know how else you could interpret this sentence. Condemning the man? How is that different? What do you mean?
• secondly is a substantive edit to a section of an article under current mediation
  • So what? I'm not involved in your conflict and I'm editing neutrally.
• thirdly is a misrepresentation of the sources listed.
  • I see ridiculously long laundry lists of references talking about him being criticized for making that statement. What do you see? — Omegatron 04:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Briefly responding to each point in turn:

1. It changes the focus of the world's opinion, and is unsupported by the references.
2. You are, by virtue of your choosing to edit the article.
3. The long list was a result of consensus over two years of editing this article; removing any source is completely inappropriate.

Regardless, I have escalated the matter as described below. -- Avi 04:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm very confused by your comments. Which of these statement(s) do you disagree with?

• Ahmadinejad has been internationally condemned for his statements about Israel.
• One of his comments was translated as a call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".
• This statement was internationally condemned.
• Controversy exists over the exact meaning and translation of this statement.

I have not "removed any sources" or "declared interest in paring down those sources". Why are you making things up about me and "reporting" them on ANI? — Omegatron 23:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

WP:ANI#Mahmoud Ahmadinejad mediation and unilateral edits by Omegatron (talk · contribs) -- Avi 04:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Responded there. — Omegatron 23:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - edits to protected page and accidental abuse of sysop rights

You have just made a substantive content edit to a page protected for dispute and mediation reasons—most probably unknowingly. That is an (accidental) use of sysop powers to gain advantage in a dispute. I recommend you self revert quickly, as Arbcom has removed admin privs for such actions. Thank you. -- Avi 07:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Avi's note above. I have reverted to the last (uncontroversial) edit. Regardless of whether you wish to participate in the mediation case, please do not use your administrative abilities to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)