User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2008/October

Val

Thanks for you help, Headbomb, on the nomination to delete {{val}}. I very much appreciate it. Greg L (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

List of baryons

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that according to the cleanup listing, the article currently has an unsourced statement. Because the page is a Featured List, it would be great if it could be resolved quickly. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to the Electron page.

While I appreciate your edits, the changes in the fractional forms didn't appear to improve the article visually, and may have harmed it. I much prefer ½ to 1⁄2 because the former doesn't get clipped in my browser. Likewise with ${\begin{smallmatrix}{\frac {1}{1836}}\end{smallmatrix}}$ versus 1⁄1836.—RJH (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate sub-par browsers. Grr... Oh well, revert away. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well if it is just a browser problem then perhaps it will get fixed eventually. Sorry to harp.—RJH (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Electron

Hi,

Could I ask you not to line-merge the citation entries on the Electron article? It is much easier to edit the page when the citation fields can be clearly distinguished. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A kilobyte of thanks

		The Kilobyte Barnstar
		For your efforts in restoring the industry standard terms for memory size to the Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The IC is an Intel 2708, a 1 kilobyte EPROM made in 1976. SWTPC6800 (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Although I really wish the world would adopt the KiB/MiB/GiB/etc... Maybe in a few years. Hopefully. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 05:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Autoassessment for WP:PHYSICS

 Done : Approx 223 of 1583 unassessed articles checked of WP:PHYSICS were autoassessed by TinucherianBot. FYI -- Tinu Cherian - 09:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool beans. Thanks a bunch! Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 13:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

IEC prefixes

You may wish to comment on this discussion at MOSNUM. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphan tag

Hi Headbomb. I reverted you twice today, so I thought I should leave you a note. Please do not put the "orphan" tag on articles that have three or more links from other articles. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage#What is an orphan? orphans are articles with fewer than three incoming links from other articles (with some other qualifications). Brewster's angle is far from being an orphan.--Srleffler (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you are aware of the problem. It would be nice if you would go through your edit history and check each of the places where you have put an orphan tag on an article via the bot today. --Srleffler (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that. I was using AWB and AWB placed the orphan tags. I assumed it worked fine, but then I noticed a couple of reverts for the orphan tags (I file a bug report for AWB). I'll go through my contribs soon (tomorrow night probably) (it's a simple matter of searching for "orphan" in the edit summaries, so if you want to do it before I get to it, go right ahead.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 05:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

you skipped..

• you skipped..{{Harvcol}}, {{Harvcolnb}}, {{Harvcoltxt}}, {{Harvrefcol}}...ummm, maybe others.
• Can't say I like the idea of having one template. standardization will soon lead to a single citation format. then we'll have format nazis running around imposing their will on everyone. You'll say it won't happen. You'd be naive to say so. :-)
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 13:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well only {{harvnb}} was mentionned. I didn't look into it yet, but chances are that a support of {{harvnb}} will mean a support for any of the similar templates. Could be wrong, but like I said, I didn't look into it yet. As for format nazis, whatever will be will be. It makes no sense to have {{citation journal template made by people who don't like commas for separators}} and {{citation template for books made by people who don't like periods as separators}}. Anyway, the purpose is to strive for uniformity in references, as references should be, like everything else, formatted consistently.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Within one article, they should. Across Wikipedia, they should not. That's the whole point. Where do I !vote? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but articles have more than one citation template used. For example, the article on autism uses {{cite journal}}x143, {{cite news}}x2, {{cite book}}x6, {{cite paper}}x1, and {{cite web}}x3. The one on 7 World Trade Center uses {{cite book}}x6,{{cite web}}x23, {{cite conference}}x1, {{cite journal}}x4, {{cite news}}x48, {{cite video}}x2 (unsupported by {{unicite}} for now), {{cite paper}}x1, and {{cite press release}}x7. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 05:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

quotes=no

It's implemented on cite journal and possibly others. It might simplify rollout in some cases.LeadSongDog (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know, I just don't see the point of it. I'm checking the 'pedia for examples of usages so I can gauge how and why they are used.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 07:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

...for the barnstar! --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What to do about above

• Headbomb. On a matter of principle, I can no longer help you deal with this guy. I absolutely refuse to waste my time dealing with him. I will no longer respond to anything he does. My only fear is that my silence in response to his provocations will embolden him to be further disruptive on Wikipedia and make a claim that “since there is no objection to his motions…” or “since the opinion is evenly divided…” or some such nonsense, that he will start editing against consensus. I feel sorry about taking this position and leaving you and Fnagaton to deal with him. Perhaps the thing to do is for you two to coordinate on an ANI. I think Thunderbird2’s disruptiveness on Wikipedia has exceeded the value of his contributions and it is time for the admins to consider a permanent ban. He is pretty much a “single-issue” editor and his “issue” is contrary to what is best for Wikipedia. I won’t respond to Thunderbird2 directly. I won’t respond to “All” to indirectly refute him. I won’t even delete his antics on Talk:MOSNUM. I have simply decided that he is a bug splat on my windshield of life and I will keep the pedal to the metal. No rule of law on this Pale Blue Dot requires that I have to give him the time of day and engage him in his antics and let him into my headspace. Last time I checked, I had not been drafted into the U.S. Army and still had free will.

  If Thunderbird2 continues with WP:POINT issues or fails to WP:Drop the stick, let me know if you’ve started an ANI and I will assist you there. Outside of that venue, I’ve now got an absolute case of Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism with this character. Greg L (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I was in fact just looking at RfC/Ban/RfA pages to find whatever the proper venue is for this sort of disruptive and tendicious behaviour. I'll notify you soon.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes I would support administrative action against Thunderbird2, it is time to give him a stern message that his disruptive editing is not wanted on Wikipedia.Fnagaton 07:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have asked for advice. Fnagaton 08:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Clever humor

• “Ramen”. I had to read the entire link. Then I went back to your “Ramen.” Then I got it. Funny. Damn funny. Very gooooood. Greg L (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)