Jump to content

User talk:Omegatron

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.46.11.43 (talk) at 15:01, 16 September 2023 (Fixed typo superscript). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ANI Notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Conduct problems at move discussion. Thank you. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Djm-leighpark: I honestly don't understand what your complaint is, or why it's ANI-worthy, or what it has to do with me being an admin. Here is a summary, from my perspective:
  1. VITT has emerged as the consensus name of this topic in scientific literature.
  2. The current name is invented/non-standard, making the article difficult to find in Google search results, etc.
  3. So I changed the name of the article to what I thought would be agreed to be better. I did not think this would be controversial, considering its use elsewhere.
  4. You contested and reverted the move, which is fine.
  5. When I tried to discuss with you why you contested the move, however, so we could reach consensus, you just said "It is contested because I have contested it" and asked me to make an official move request. OK...
  6. So I made an official move request.
  7. A few people commented, but not many, so I directly notified some people who previously had interest in the article, to get some more opinions. I did not know or care what their opinion would be; I just wanted a greater sample size. (It looks like I notified 5 people, and none responded to the move request, so my notifications did not have any effect at all.)
    • You say this is a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing, but that is about "notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way" which I did not have.
    • You say that I should "leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users". That's fine, I should have done that. You could have asked me on my talk page to do so, and I would have. You could also have just added the note yourself.
  8. After some people commented, I tried to discuss their votes with them, trying to change their mind.
    • You say this is a violation of Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, but I don't believe so. I made my counterargument and left it at that. I did not make "the same argument over and over, to different people" or "attempt to force my point of view by the sheer volume of comments".
    • As far as I am aware, it's a normal part of the move request process to discuss others' rationales, and indeed other participants did the same. WP:Requested moves mentions "Responses to another editor are threaded and indented using multiple bullets", for instance.
  9. As I found more sources that agreed with my argument, I added them to my move request rationale.
    • I think this is what you are referring to when you say "disruptive undated modifications and additions to discussion", and "change talk discussions, especially a nomination to which responses have been made, is a serious matter" and "talk interference"? Is that correct? In what way is this disruptive?
    • WP:Requested moves says "nominations need not be neutral. Make your point as best you can; use evidence … and refer to applicable policies and guidelines".
    • User:Rosguill said "It would also have been better for them to have put their comments citing various sources beneath a discussion section header to separate it from the opening statement more" but WP:Requested moves says "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line", so I'm not sure what the best practice is here. Is this just a concern about visual clutter?
  10. After the move request was closed, I wanted to continue discussing the page title to see if we could understand each other's positions and find some agreement. After I posted one comment about this, you immediately escalated it to ANI?? That is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." That seems like an overreaction to me.
  11. You say I should discuss the article title on User:Mike Cline's talk page, as closer of the move request, but a discussion about the article should be in the talk page for the article itself, so it can be seen by all interested parties. Are you implying that discussion about the article title is forbidden after a move request has been closed? (But also that it's forbidden to discuss people's votes with them during the move request itself?)
  12. I don't believe I have used admin tools at any point in this process, or threatened to use them, or even mentioned that I am an admin, as this is not relevant to a content dispute. I have been acting as an editor throughout.
  13. I have not tried to move it again, and don't believe I have revert warred with you or anyone else about anything in this article.
  14. I don't have any problem with you personally or think that you are at fault in any way, though you seem to perceive that I do, repeatedly implying that I am going to retaliate against you in some unspecified way, or that revealing your email to me would expose you to some kind of danger. (Mine is my username at gmail.) Your tone implies that you're upset with me, and I don't think that's a good use of your energy. I'm not a threat to you or to the encyclopedia, I'm not out to get you.
  15. I don't understand why you're spending so much time on all this bureaucratic stuff instead of just having a discussion on the article's talk page. I'm obviously not going to change the article title again without a discussion, so if you really don't want it changed, you could just ignore my attempts at discussion and nothing further would happen...
    • Your proposed title is an improvement in my opinion, though excessively verbose. Do you want to propose it on the article's talk page and discuss it?
  16. Responding to this is a lot of work. More so than actually productive research and editing of article content. A lot of time and energy spent on something relatively trivial, just the title of an article. During my research, I have found other sources and info to add to the article itself, but I'm demotivated to spend time on that, because of this exchange.
  17. I'm going to go for a walk now, and then spend my free time on non-Wikipedia things for a while. — Omegatron (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rejuvenate WikiProject Skepticism

Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [1] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgerbic: Sorry, I don't have time to commit to that. — Omegatron (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Help with proposed edits for Devialet article

Hi there. I proposed edits to fix numerous problems on the Devialet article on the Talk page: Talk:Devialet#Devialet Request Edits for July 2022. I’m an employee of the company and can’t edit the page due to WP:COI - are you able to review the requests? Thanks!Beautreillis6698 (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beautreillis6698: OK, I'll look. — Omegatron (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10== "Quantity of electricity" listed at Redirects for discussion == An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Quantity of electricity and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 26 § Quantity of electricity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. --2001:16A2:E6DE:D202:C018:C01:B021:8328 (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]

10OmegatronΩNext omegaies

7's the marauder 92.46.11.43 (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Omegatron&oldid=1175663124"