User talk:Omegatron/Archive/March, 2008

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Omegatron. 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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses require attribution, right? I know for sure the latter does. And I'm pretty sure that works released under either license aren't supposed to be used in copyrighted commercial works, especially if there's no attribution. What would you say if I told you that http://Class.com is selling a Physical Science 1B course containing commons:Image:Faders.jpg, which you created with no attribution by the image, and with the course content restricted under copyright? If I've misfired, please correct me, but it doesn't seem right that that image is unattributed when I've seen other images taken from Internet sources that are properly attributed and sourced. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Can you link to the actual use?

• Yes, they are legally required to provide attribution under either license, and there are other restrictions, too, like including a link to the CC website if you choose CC. I don't think these have to appear right next to the image itself, though. They might be in an appendix or something?
• You can use a Free image (Faders.jpg) inside a non-Free work (course content). You get a copyright on the work as a whole, including the placement and use of the image, but that does not give you a new copyright on the image itself. It's still copyrighted by me; I've just given you an implicit license to use it in your work.
• This doesn't really bother me too much, but I'll look into it. — Omegatron 16:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The use is on the page at [1], but it requires authorization and the username/password pair I have is for a different system (my school's). I'm guessing the credentials they want are embedded in the frameset launcher on the individual school sites.

The course has attributions under just about all their other images, though some have a copyright watermark in the corner. If there's an appendix or list of sources, it's not linked from the course menu. And now that I think about it, none of the other attributed images I've seen have linked anywhere. (There was another photo [one I remember] credited to "Armedblowfish", which I couldn't locate easily in Google. There are a lot of hits here, though, with indications that it was Armed Blowfish exercising the right to vanish?)

Thanks for clarifying the status of copyright on the image vs. the course as a whole. I'm trying to learn more about licensing. I didn't think you'd be too bothered if the photo's being used for the education of future Wikipedians (insert wink here), but I thought I'd point it out to you. :) Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 17:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I may have interpreted the licensing wrong. If an image is used in another "work", the "work" must be licensed in the same way, but if it is used in an "aggregate" or "collection", the collection does not need to be. I always interpreted this as "you can use a free image as an illustration for a non-free article", but I apparently need to dig into this further. Wikipedia uses images of incompatible free licenses within its GFDL articles, and I've always assumed that this was legal, but maybe it's not... — Omegatron 06:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that your second point above about getting "a copyright on the work as a whole" is partially incorrect? Is Class.com violating either or both licenses? That's what I gather, and what I thought initially, but I'm still a little confused. Despite the nickname, logic and law give me a headache... Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 08:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I need to read into it more. For the GFDL (which is really meant for text, not images):

• You can distribute exact copies, as long as they include the GFDL license information
• You can modify or translate it, and distribute copies of the modified version, as long as it is also released under the GFDL
• You can create a "collection" with other works, as long as the other parts of the collection were under the GFDL, and the entire new collection is released under the GFDL
• You can create an "aggregate" with other "independent" works, as long as the license of the work as a whole does not prevent the GFDL parts from being taken out and reused? This is the only case in which other parts of the work do not have to be under the GFDL.

For the latest Attribution-Sharealike Creative Commons license (which is better for images):

• You can distribute exact copies, as long as they are released under a CC-compatible license
• You can make an adaptation and distribute copies of that, as long as the adaptation is released under a CC-compatible license
• You can include the work in a "collection", and the rest of the collection does not have to be under CC

So if you use my image as an illustration in your school lesson, is that a "collection" of my image and your article, or is it an "aggregate", or is it an "adaptation"? What if I use your CC image as an illustration in my GFDL encyclopedia article? Creative commons explicitly states that an encyclopedia is a "collection", so perhaps my original understanding was correct. I'm not sure, though. — Omegatron 00:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and they can pick one or more of my licenses to re-release the image under, but they're currently violating both by not specifying which they chose.  :) — Omegatron 01:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm writing them a letter.

See Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying, which states that Wikipedia is considered a Collection of GFDL documents, with images Aggregated with it.  :)

See also [2]; this is Jimbo's official opinion. (So anyone arguing that use of non-GFDL images in our articles "invalidates the GFDL" can be pointed here.) — Omegatron 02:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote them a letter, but did not receive a response. Can you confirm that they are still using Wikimedia pictures without following the licenses? 05:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:CSS-based template requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I added some late information about the {{Google custom}} template to: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 19#Namespaces as subdomains. You were active in that thread, so I thought you might like to know. I did not see the question when it was fresh; another user called my attention to it later. --Teratornis (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that you could make site: searches more specific than subdomains. That seems to work fine. — Omegatron 00:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor has nominated Eric McDavid, 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/Eric McDavid 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. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea for a bot. — Omegatron 23:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 11:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't noticed, Image:Replace this image female.svg is up for deletion (nomination has been done on March 12, but without tagging the image page; I complete the nom today). Given the large number of pages where this image is used, I believe some discussion should take place before deleting. Tizio 14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not up for deletion if the image page is not tagged. How will anyone know? — Omegatron 23:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can anybody help me review this article, power engineering. Please give me some advices.2001beibei (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am kind of surprised at both your edit and you edit summary questioning that "Solar power tends to be complementary to wind" in the article Wind power. Wind comes from the sun warming the earth and the atmosphere, so it is not surprising that solar power available is 100 times greater than wind power, so your comment that "wind is greater than sun" is quite incorrect. As to being complementary, the first of the two references states "'There are natural complementary patterns between wind and solar,' said Elliot Mainzer, a policy manager with Bonneville Power Administration". There are hundreds of other references available that state the same thing, but this one is all that is needed. I would like to ask if you could delete your "who?" request. 199.125.109.33 (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not about how much energy is available, but how much we can turn into electrical energy, given the demands of cost, demand, and technology. With all the money we've dumped into it, wind has produced very small amounts of electrical energy, and the output from solar is even smaller.

Anyway, that's not the point. A statement like "There are natural complementary patterns between wind and solar" is meaningless without context. Why isn't coal "complementary" to wind? It needs to be explained and, since it's not an obvious or majority viewpoint, attributed to someone, like Elliot Mainzer or one of the "hundreds" of other references. "Elliot Mainzer says that solar is naturally complementary to wind because of __ and ___".

Thanks for your contributions to this article. — Omegatron 06:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No it is not how much we can turn into energy, it is about how much we could turn into energy. And the context is clearly stated in the rest of the sentence, "on most days with no wind there is sun and on most days with no sun there is wind." The point is that sun and wind are not dispatchable, like coal and oil or natural gas - you have to take them when they are present. You can't say, well I don't need any sun now so I'm going to wait until 10 pm to use my solar panels - it's dark then - there isn't any sun at 10 pm. You can't say, well I don't need any wind now on a windy day, and then try to use your windfarm on a calm day - there isn't any, once again. I couldn't care less what the meteorological reasons for the wind not blowing as hard on sunny days or the sun not shining as much on windy days, all I know is that complementary means that it happens. It is true that on stormy days, there tends to be wind and rain but no sun, that part is easy to understand. I am sure that there are meteorological reasons, but they are way beyond the scope of the article, and not really of any interest to me either. There is also live data that you can view for yourself to see the effect. Sometimes windy and sunny days alternate, sometimes they come together, and it allows greater use of renewable energy because less storage is required if you take advantage of the complementary nature of sun and wind. So you see that it isn't "we can complement wind with sun", it is "sun and wind are complementary" and we can take advantage of that fact, and it is both well described and referenced, and no need for your "who?" From the sample data, from 3/9/08 to 3/14/08 there was hardly any wind but all of those days except 3/12 had good sun, and 3/15/08 had fairly good wind but little sun. From the monthly chart, looking back a few days earlier, 3/6 and 3/7 had sun and no wind and 3/8 had wind and no sun. 199.125.109.33 (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No it is not how much we can turn into energy, it is about how much we could turn into energy.

For what? What are you even talking about? Putting solar panels on the same land as wind turbines? Spending the same amount of money on wind farms and solar plants in different locations? Building solar and wind farms in the same locations big enough to produce the same amount of energy?

In your references, they built a 450 kW solar plant on the same property as a 230 MW wind farm. They spent 100 times as much on the wind as the solar, and the wind produces 500 times as much energy as the solar. What's the point? The output of the solar panels is negligible; they certainly aren't making any difference in the total output.

Why would anyone want to spend 5 times as much for equivalent output power from solar plants, when they could just spend that money on more turbines and take a small hit from the inefficiencies of storage?

And this is "the only utility in the United States to link wind and solar". So why is it relevant to the article?

on most days with no wind there is sun and on most days with no sun there is wind

But you still haven't provided any evidence of this. Without references or attribution it doesn't even belong in the article. — Omegatron 10:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As you I am sure know, storage is expensive, very expensive. There was one ludicrous study that said that if you got all your energy from wind you would need something like 166 days of storage. Unfortunately they miscalculated the efficiency of the storage and constrained the wind park to less than 1% greater than total average demand. Wind parks generate power so intermittently that they are not as useful as solar panels, even though they are cheaper. Now the Portland study says in the reference "We want to track the power profiles of each to see if there's a way to balance the two, to see if we can fill in the wind gaps with solar". Well to track profiles you only need a small panel, which is what they did. For full deployment, the panels get installed mostly on buildings, on car parks, and other unused spaces. My favorite location is deserts. It's an interesting prospect, and if you read on a little farther you will find the "combined power plant" that they built in Germany that used 100% renewable energy to exactly track Germany's total demand for electricity, to show that it could be done. If you follow up a little bit on that reference you will find the Youtube video[3] which shows the operation of the combined power plant. I avoided including a reference that says something like "if the sun isn't shining the wind is blowing, so you always have power" which is easily shown to be false. To me I want to see it for my own eyes, which is why the live data is included. 199.125.109.33 (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we move this to the article's talk page? I don't own this article, and it should get input from a wider group of editors. — Omegatron 17:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am only addressing you because you are the only one who didn't appear to read the reference and added "who" when "who" was clearly indicated in the reference. There was no need to involve any other editors, and if the article wasn't protected right now I would have just taken it out myself - and then brought it back up on the talk page if anyone disagreed. No one "owns" any article. The issue is already discussed at considerable length on the talk page. 199.125.109.33 (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Omeg, I started with your chart and tried to bring it in line with the recently clarified text; however, when addressing the concerns of the other editors, it pretty soon fell apart into a new chart. I do agree that a simpler chart would be better, but the first drafts were not addressing all concerns.

There are 3 edits mentioned in the chart as exceptions to the general flow: (1) minor, (2) controversial, and (3) to processes, and these receive either preference or restriction. If you follow the chart the other types of edits are the mainstream by default. The term "processes" is a euphamism/buzzword for the combination of policies, guidelines, and other rule-sets (because we don't use the word rules at WP). Processes are more resticted in editing since we seek some stability -- not to perpetuate them, but to prevent the pervasive creep of new instructions. Please consider my work today as a draft for discussion. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Responded on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. — Omegatron 06:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea to remove the chart from CCC for now until we iron out the variances with the text. Clearly there has been an evolution away from prior expectations. One of the complaints was that the text did not follow the chart, and I tried to redress that. The current text was rewritten to consolidate the many recent changes in a streamlined form. Having a visual aid in conflict with the text counterproductive. --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You said: if we're following this version of the chart, you should have proposed such a controversial edit on the talk page first :).

Mr. Omegatron. Do I sense a bit of disruption, and a bit of point-making there? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Just to be sure, I *did* think it was funny. :-)

I hope you're not seriously accusing me of disruption. I removed it for the reasons listed on the talk page. — Omegatron 21:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok :) — Omegatron 00:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and any help and comments at Wikipedia:Consensus (+ a good humor ;-) ) are of course quite appreciated! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Having participated in a discussion a few months ago about how user-unfriendly the "+" tab is, I think it could help to address this and other new user experience issues in a more organized (coordinated) fashion. I'm sure there are a lot of experienced editors out there who share your (and my) frustrations on this issue.

Would you be interested in starting something like Wikipedia:WikiProject New user experience? My thought is that the WikiProject would identify specific points where new editors have problems, and then try to figure out what to do about them. A short list, off the top of my head, would include, other than what you already mentioned at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Reducing barriers to entry

• Using a bot to put the BLP template on the talk page of every biographical article.
• Using a table editor rather than editing tables in wikitext/wikicode.
• A WYSIWYG editor. (There is a lot of work being done on this, but perhaps some additional interested editors could help.)
• Creating tutorials (preferably screencasts) for the most frequently edited pages.
• Grouping the insertable text that is listed at the bottom of edit windows into selectable chunks, like the French Wikipedia does.
• Showing categories, during an edit, just below the preview text, rather than at the bottom of the screen
• Improving the footnoting system so that it's less counter-intuitive.

Anyway, if you're interested, I'd be happy to work on creating a WikiProject page, and recruiting other editors. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Great ideas. (Especially the table editor ;) ) If such a WikiProject doesn't exist, I would love to help start one. Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability seems similar. Ultimately we need to do things, though; not form clubs about doing things.  :) — Omegatron 17:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, maybe you should have posted this in the Pump. I can't figure out how to get a discussion going there. Maybe I should be posting to the mailing list instead? I hate mailing lists. — Omegatron 17:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw your post at the Pump. I like your User:Omegatron/Interviews with Normals -- good work! Useful information! If you post to the Pump or similar appropriate places a few times and nobody objects, then I'd suggest you just go ahead and implement the changes . WP:BRD -- that's how you begin discussion: by making the change, and then the people who object will come out of the woodwork and should start discussing it with you. :-)

Here's an idea that's sort-of like one of yours but watered down: article pages could have a tab "comment" which adds a section to the corresponding talk page. The talk page + tab could also be called "comment". Under the "random article" link at the left could be another link to the same thing: "comment" or "comment on this article". Not that I'm advocating watering it down. Just playing around with ideas.

In the "new user" box could be included something similar to, "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business." (Original version of Ignore All Rules.) Or "You do not need to know any rules to begin editing. We value your contributions and comments." Or such a sentence could be displayed on every page, beside a "click here to comment" button.

A bot could go through all articles and before the first template on each article, insert <!-- This is a template. It can be edited by going to the page Template:Exampletemplatename. For help go to the page Wikipedia:Template --> substituting the name of the template for "Exampletemplatename"

More people could post welcome templates. People are doing recent-changes and reverting vandalism and posting warnings, and ignoring good-faith edits, and hardly posting any welcome templates. The welcome templates lead to new users using the helpme and help desk features, which is great. I think welcome templates should be posted on talk pages of both vandalism and good-faith editors. I suggested at Wikipedia talk:Huggle that that vandalism-correcting program could be made to let users easily post a lot of welcome templates. I haven't heard back from the developer yet. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we keep these comments on the Pump so others can see them?

Yes, I already tried being bold, long ago.  :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Tagline&diff=20130615&oldid=17050524 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Addsection&diff=144342654&oldid=16503525

Chalk two up for tradition.

If we're going to get these changed, we need to demonstrate a significant number of people who think it's a good idea. A WikiProject might help with that, might not. — Omegatron 20:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a WikiProject could help a lot, because it can do things like set up pages listing pros and cons of each change, make sure proposals don't get lost, identify technical changes that will make things easier (for example, it's clear that there would be less resistance to changing the label on the "+" tab if there was a gadget that experienced users could select, in their preferences, that would change the tab back to simply say "+"), and could provide a critical mass of editors to show up to indicate support for specific changes.

At this point, I'm inclined to propose to Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability that they authorize the creation of a subproject for editors who want to focus on new user experience. You're right that we need to do things rather than form clubs, but I think that clubs can facilitate change, in this case. Shall I go ahead and make the proposal to the WikiProject? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. I guess I'm already listed as a participant of the WikiProject, though I don't actually participate. :) — Omegatron 00:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have to characterize your comment as trolling. No one is discussing what is renewable and what is non-renewable anymore. That's a long dead horse. And GWB? You apparently haven't been paying attention. Even he has both learned to pronounce nukular and no longer refers to it as renewable. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. We've had discussions about this section many times in the past, and demonstrated a consensus that it deserves mention in the article. It's notable ("worthy of notice") and presented in a neutral manner. I'm distressed by the obvious bias of the people removing this section bit by bit, and I hope you can help me defend its position in the article. I think it's pretty extraordinary that politicians like Bush would try to fund nuclear power plants with money set aside for renewables. Don't you? — Omegatron 21:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No. It's sick. However it is not notable. As I have said many times there are only four things that need to be included, 1. A scientific reason for including it. 2. A reference for that reason. 3. A statement that it is not generally regarded as being renewable. And lastly, 4. A reference to indicate that it is not renewable. Everything else should be deleted as garbage. You will find a dozen editors who will hold just as strongly to including this extreme NPOV as wanting it to be completely removed. So don't try to embellish it. It isn't needed and isn't wanted. Please also remember that the U.S. is not the only country in the world, or even the only English speaking country. 199.125.109.95 (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is notable. See Wikipedia:Notability for a description of what this word means. — Omegatron 22:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not in this article it isn't notable. It can however be appropriately added to the appropriate articles about nuclear policy and nuclear power. 199.125.109.108 (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A discussion about the scope of the term "renewable energy" belongs in the Renewable energy article. — Omegatron 21:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding [4], where is the talk about making more general which you describe in your edit summary?--Chealer (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any. I just thought it needed a shorter, more general name. See Talk:Mozilla_software_rebranding#Merge — Omegatron 23:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no support for renaming, i suggest you undo your action. Mion (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any complaints. No one has even commented on the page since I moved it. — Omegatron 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What code can i use so i can use the floting sidebar thing?

importStylesheet('User:Omegatron/monobook.css')

?

– i123Pie _bio^contribs 18:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a lot more in my stylesheet than that.  :) The instructions are at meta:Help:User style/floating quickbar. I could probably make something that would work with the import command, but it would require some work to set up. There are two different versions, as well (one with the logo and one without). — Omegatron 00:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I just read User:Omegatron/Non-free content. Nice essay. Carcharoth (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And today's the first anniversary of the Licensing Resolution...  :-/ — Omegatron 16:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I had thought of staging some kind of mass protest to mark the anniversary on the mailing lists, where the Board will actually see it and realize that there are many people who are unhappy with the current situation, but I'm not much of a leader/organizer. — Omegatron 19:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:HHO gas 5 amu.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Audiolink_icon.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 16:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)