User talk:Omegatron

Attention: As of 2008-06-08, Omegatron is no longer active on Wikipedia.

If you need me for something, contact me by e-mail.

Wikipedia:Babel

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

fr-1Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.

Search user languages

DS alert American politics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Why are you posting this on my talk page? Do you want me to impose sanctions on someone? — Omegatron (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If you read the links in the template, they will answer your question, but the specific part is here. Note the bit about these alerts being purely informational. The information itself is important, however, so please read the rest too, if you plan to continue work on post 1932 US politics (for reasons that are explained in the links in the template). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

But why are you posting this on my talk page? I'm not "working on post 1932 US politics". — Omegatron (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edits about the Burlington Vermont election would appear to fall under that topic. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? So because I wouldn't let you bias an article by blanking criticism of a voting system you like, you're trying to intimidate me with ArbCom sanctions from an unrelated decision?

Voting systems are social choice theory, which is a branch of economics/math, not politics. The parties and identities of the candidates are irrelevant. My edits have nothing to do with partisan politics. I don't know anything about the candidates other than the number of votes they received. — Omegatron (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

One element of the DS alert case referenced above is to WP:Assume good faith. My objections with the disputed article text are laid out, with reference to Wikipedia core polices, at the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Template notice

Your recent editing history at Burlington mayoral election, 2009 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

My Added comments

• Bold edit .... I don't know when two blogs were added to the arcticle
• Revert 1 ..... I reverted them as self-published non-RS blogs
• Non-discussed re-Revert (Non-AGF Edit summary "revert blanking of references")... The first un-discussed re-revert of this sort is always the first salvo in and edit war

For reference sources at issue include

• leastevil blot
• bolson blog

However let's not discuss these here. Article talk of the WP:RSN would be better venues. It's dangerous, by the way, to edit war on an American politics article after recieving the DS alert notice (see prior thread on your talk page) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

So the thing to do, would be to self revert, and discuss these blogs either at article talk or the noticeboard. Meanwhile, thank you for the addition of real RSs.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Uh, you're the one in the wrong here. I'm reverting destructive edits to the status quo. Stop removing sources just because you disagree with them. — Omegatron (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI I have sought input from the Reliable Sources noticeboard in this thread via this diff.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

O! i am friggin' intrigued that you know about this Burlington IRV issue. being from Burlington, having voted in that election, and having written about IRV vs. Condorcet (and, at one time, being a friend of the candidate who got screwed by IRV), this is an issue close to my heart. are you involved in the Election Methods mailing list? (send me an email or facebook, i think you know who i am.) bestest, 50.47.109.19 (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Omegatron. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

hay O!!!

i didn't know you were back at Wikipedia. for some reason i thought you left it.

so i took a look at your contribs and see that it got thin around 2010 (with a 10 month gap) and then slowly the frequency of edits increased.

so welcome from a friend who dares not identify himself lest trouble happens. i do DSP. you might remember me.

so greetings from anonymous.

50.47.109.19 (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I left, but now I've been contributing again a little, but I'm not as invested as I used to be. You can see a graph here: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-yearcounts/en.wikipedia.org/Omegatron

I suspect I know who you are, and we still interact on other sites/wikis/mailing lists under different usernames. Not sure if you realize which names are me. :D — Omegatron (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

so O, are you on the dsp stackexchange? i don't do comp.dsp much anymore. (ASCII math is uglier than $\operatorname {LaTeX}$ math.) 50.47.109.19 (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I sent a Facebook message to someone who fits the description. We'll see if you're the same person. :) — Omegatron (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Path loss

An article that you have been involved in editing—Path loss—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83