User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2009/August

Genes, Brain and Behavior

• As the newest member of the Academic Journal project, could I ask you to have a look at the Genes, Brain and Behavior article? I have a COI with it (properly disclosed on the talk page), but have edited it in close consultation with DGG and think it is rather free from any POV. I would be interested to hear from another editor whether I really succeeded in keeping any POV out of it and, even more important, would welcome any suggestions on how to improve it. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your efforts!! One small inaccuracy was introduced: the infobox stated "partially" for "open access". The reason I did that is that authors can elect to have their article available for free online immediately by paying an OA fee. This is different therefore from the 2 year restriction, which does not apply to these articles. The box now says "after 2 years", but links to the Wiley-Blackwell page that does not say anything about this but explains how to get OA. I guess "partially" was not a good choice of words. How about "mixed"? --Crusio (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I was not aware of that. Perhaps saying something like "Immediate (upon paying OpenAccess fee), or after 2 years (all articles)." Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

fyi

I tagged File:MAPS software.png as dbf5. I don't usually tag images, let me know if I did it wrong. 66.57.7.153 (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts for WP:CHICAGO

I sent a query the bugs report, but WP:CHICAGO has not had an alert update since July.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, User:Legoktm (the bot op) has already been contacted about it.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My Request

I made a request to the ANI board about a content dispute over the Burger King and Burger King products articles and was told I should move it to the content dispute board because it that was a more proper location, so I did using a copy and paste; you promptly removed it. I believe you should not have done this as it violates the spirit of WP. We are constantly reminded that removing or refactoring others comments and posts is bad form, you should have left my post and left a comment with your opinion for me to reply to. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if it seemed rude (I've updated the noticeboard header to reflect the reasons why such a comment shouldn't have been made on that particular noticeboard), it's just that the content noticeboard is relatively new, and if we allow precedents like that (copy pasting the boilerplate horror from ANI), it'll quickly degenerate into something unmanageable. I've seen the removal of comments done on several noticeboards, and I've never seen this cause controversy. The idea is to remove the comment and invite the user to reformulate the statement so it doesn't clutter the archives. However, if you would prefer that I would manually archive your old statement, I could do so too. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not that you were rude, I have a legitimate content dispute with another editor and was pointed to that discussion board by another contributor from the ANI board. I copied and pasted the locus of the issue to the Content board so I would not have to retype everything from the beginning. Your casual dismissal of it as "dumping" and subsequent removal was not proper. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Then could you please at least reformulate your comments into something that makes sense for the content noticeboard. Something simple like "There is a content dispute at Burger King and Burger King products, advice please", or simply copy-paste the "Description of the dispute and the main evidence" part of it. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

re !vote

Actually, I had been monitoring. A fair request, and I have indeed modified my !vote. A word of caution if I might. Be careful of responding too often to the oppose and neutral !votes. Some of the less understanding editors who frequent RfA will often view that as "badgering". Personally I am content with your addressing my concerns, and outwardly impressed with your efforts. One reason that I am concerned with the communication issues, if you don't mind my speaking out - Wikipedia is continually going through a transition, and there is a steady influx of "new" editors. While we don't want to pander to "brats", "trolls", or unproductive editors - the fact is that WP can be a very large and intimidating place, especially for editors who don't have years of experience in on-line communications. I believe that these future resources need to be nurtured, encouraged, and guided. If WP is to remain at the top of the web rankings, we can not show a cold shoulder to those who want to be a part of our little slice of the web.

Administration, be it the management of a workforce, or the supervision of a website, is a endeavor entirely separate from the actual construct of any environment. Communication is fundamental, and I truly think that you have that ability, even if it is a bit latent. You are obviously a tremendously talented editor, and a huge asset to our project. I will continue to evaluate the RfA, and I do honestly wish you the very best of luck. — Ched :  ?  13:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering your position. It's a close race, so it makes a lot of difference. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Flexible SPC/E water model

I would suggest not to move the article in Water model, but instead to write separate articles about the most significant models. In a general article, the model will be cut and pooled. There are hundreds of models of water. Their choice for presentation in the general article inevitably very subjective. In particular, Flexible SPC/E not been mentioned. I gave a link.--P99am (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Spinion == spinon?

Dear Headbomb,

I can see that you have recently written an article about spinions. As far as I know the spinion term does not exist in physics (one can check it by searcing articles in arxiv.org ) . Moreover, what is written on the spinion page seems to describe a spinon quasiparticle (see e.g. Spin-charge separation page). I suggest to remove this page and to move its content to the spinon page (currently a redirect to Spin-charge separation).

Romul (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually that article has been written by Hex, not me. I have no idea what the correct term for these quasiparticles are, but it seems like spinon and spinion are the same (but it would make more sense that these were named spinon rather than spinions). I'll check things later today, and will take care of it. Thanks for bringing this up. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it appears to have been something of a late-night brainfart on my part. Thanks for the fix. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

response

I am preparing one. I shall send you an email first, but I am still preparing that also. Given the situation, I want to say exactly what I need to say, & I am exploring some things a little further. I fully understand your concern. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for being willing to reconsider/review the situation. Hopefully we'll be able to clarify any misunderstandings we might have and reach a conclusion where we at least both understand each other, even if we do not agree. And if we agree, even better! Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

aa bugs

Hey, the last time you commented on the Article Alerts bugs was ~3 weeks ago. Can you check them out? tedder (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. But the bot-coder and bot-operator are nowhere to be found since the last few week. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion to move something

Hi there. Please use {{db-move|target to be moved here}} if you want to request a page to be deleted in order to move another one to that name. Regards SoWhy 08:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Any particular reason? Both are as clear (or at least it seems that way to me), and {{db-move}} places things in the same category as {{db}}. Am I missing something? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you use {{db-move}}, it will create a template with a direct move link, making it easier for admins to move the page and pre-fill the necessary deletion reasons. Also, it will use the {{db-g6}} template, displaying the relevant policy reason for the request for everyone to see, which is helpful for new users. Regards SoWhy 13:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. I'll try to remember use it next time (and those following).Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

journal infobox

Hi, good job! What I usually do when I add an infobox is copy it from the "usage" window and then fill it in. If some optional tag were not listed, I might forget it. Perhaps other people would do the same as me. In the usage box, we also list things like "link1" and "link2", or "ISSN" and "eISSN", even though they are not always needed. But I have no strong feelings about this, I just thought you had forgotten this and tried to be helpful :-) Cheers! --Crusio (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh don't worry about that. I almost added |ISSNlabel= to the documentation myself (I even had the window open and typed it in!), but reconsidered based on clutter considerations (if you have to use ISSNlabel, you'll also have to use ISSN2label and ISSN2 at the very least). Thanks for double-checking my work! Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My condolances

I am sorry to see your RfA closed as unsuccessful. If there is ever a 4th one, I wish you better luck. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I am currently downloading the latest database dump to re-run the journals analysis, so at least you'll have something new to work on soon. ;)

Lol, no one's dead. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait three months and try again. Get someone to nominate you who is well regarded, and have him and maybe someone else be the leads on replying to opposes. Sit back and let your defenders do the work.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's like asking for a barnstar. I could never bring myself to request that. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't have to. Your nominator will come to your defense.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

So far I've got a perfect record of no nominations, but I'll be happy to nominate you in 3 months if you like, Headbomb. (I'll have to review you at that time of course, but I'm not expecting to find anything that's a stopper.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I probably won't remember, so just ask in a couple of months or whenever you feel like it. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've written it down, but remind me if I lose track, please. I'll want to look at what you've been up to around the first of November. - Dank (push to talk) 04:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just created {{Delayednotice}} for this kind of thing. I placed one at the top of your user page. Nothing will show up until 1 November 2009 (you can tweak the date), and from then on a notice will be display (it won't show in the watchlist howewer). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also be willing to co-nom (and offer a few suggestions) if you are interested. — Ched :  ?  13:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I won't mind. The more the merrier.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Armchair.JPG

(unindent)Hi Headbomb. Sad your RfA did not make it this time. But it seems another nomination is coming, this autumn . Let your nominators do most of the defence; here is an armchair for the next RfA, and be sure to have also enough Dr Pepper available. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb, I have a hunch your next RfA is going to sail through with more than 80% support. Above all, do not second guess yourself now, I think you acquitted yourself well and do not need to make major changes. Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

If you want to keep presenting examples at WP:FA, would you mind setting up a sandbox for that instead of working directly at the page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was off wiki when you nominate Quark for TFA, but I've commented on your ponts calculation at WT:TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Which Sections of the PRO/II article you identified for cleanup.

Hi Co-Member, I would like to know which sections of the PRO/II article you identified for cleanup.

Thanks, Tameez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyd12 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Pranashakty

Hi, It would be greatly appreciated if you could advise me on where the Pranashakty page was found non neutral. It would be a great help if I could rectify the same. Thanks PNSKTY —Preceding unsigned comment added by PNSKTY (talk • contribs) 09:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Simply too many problems to list. The main one is that this is written from the religion's perspective, rather than report it from a secular, encyclopedic, and neutral point of view. Ask the Religion WikiProject for guidance if you need more help. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Finite potential well

I have significantly expanded this page to cover solutions (before, it just had the setting up of the equations). I think it probably deserves a higher quality rating now... If it would help, I can tell you my credentials! Annafitzgerald (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Jean-Louis Naudin. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. __meco (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I thought it was a PROD. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

copyvio tag

Hello, i request you to remove the copyvio tag from the article Tanjore Ramachandra Anantharaman, because there is no copyright violation in the article, the website http://www.iim-india.net/page.php?id=203 copied content from wikipedia itself, see at the bottom of that site, it has mentioned wikipedia as a reference. the info is published on that site is on 20-06-2009 (see bottom of the page). but the contents were their in wikipedia prior to that date, see this version [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.133.180 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I've removed the copyvio tag (and the self-reference). Thanks for looking into this. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

ce?

What does your abbrev. "ce" in edit summaries represent? And why do you prefer the last-name-first style in refs? Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

ce = copy-edit. I have no personal preference for "Last, ABC", I just want a consistent style. I took a glance and saw no dominant style, so I picked one and went with it (in retrospect, I should've picked "ABC Last", would have saved me a lot of trouble). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for all your good work. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I had noticed your RfA, and while you looked like you'd make a good admin, I'm happier to have you as a good editor. Personally, I've never been tempted to be an admin, and would probably be rejected straightaway if I tried; I think fighting for good content is a better use of energy than the bureaucratic stuff that admins do. So congrats on staying outside that mess. Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I really couldn't care less about "admin" stuff. Vandalism, 3RR, content wars, blocks, bans, etc... I just wanted the tools to delete spam and edit protected templates. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

YATBot

Hi, if you didn't know, YATBot has been approved. Once I finish coding some minor add-ons to it, I will start running it on {{WikiProject Disambiguation}}. Thanks. AHRtbA== ^Talk 16:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I saw this. Thanks for coding it. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hopefully I can run it soon. AHRtbA== ^Talk 16:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Electron

I'm curious about why you feel the need to remove full names and dates from the references to this article? That does not seem to be adding any value and may lead to ambiguities. I spent a fair amount of time putting that stuff together only to see it get trashed.—RJH (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well citation style needs to be uniform, and a lot of them don't have the full names. Easiest solution is to abbreviated all of them. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree and have reverted your edits. There appears to be no standard stating that all authors must be listed in Last, F. MI.; you appear to be imposing your own standard without consensus. Please respect the format already in use, as it has required a fair amount of time and labor to perform. If necessary we can discuss this further on the talk page. If you want a uniform name format for all cites then you should take it up on the MoS discussion pages.—RJH (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Find me one manual of style that states that it is OK to write Feynman, Richard P. in one place, and Nishijima, K. in another. And I'm doing much more than simply fixing the inconstant authors, I'm removing redundant links, using the {{arxiv}} and {{bibcode}} templates, linking to jounrals, publisher, improving date consitancy and so on. You are reverting to inferior versions. I want to help bring this article to FA, but the citation style right now is unacceptable and grounds for opposition. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The MoS's overriding principle is internal consistency within an article. Thus one article can have a different name format than another, as I have seen in various places. The citation standard is also for format consistency, rather than uniformity. You are going overboard in imposing a blanket style, and I feel it is unhelpful. Since you are aware of the dispute yet inserting other edits, I believe you are deliberately going out of your way to make my task of restoring the material more difficult. If you want to oppose the article on the specific grounds that it does not satisfy the criteria, then do so. You'll need to demonstrate it from statements in policy, however.—RJH (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and currently, the article is not internally consistent and fails the first provision of the MoS. That other articles have poor referencing style is not a excuse for this one to be lax in its presentation. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Have it as you will. I'm abandoning further maintenance of this article.—RJH (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, see Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style:

A good guideline is to list author names as they are written in the original article/book, without further abbreviation. The APA guidelines recommend abbreviating first names to initial letters instead, but since Wikipedia has no shortage of space, you need not abbreviate names. Indeed, there are good reasons to include the full names of authors; such information makes it much easier to find the cited work, and it also makes it possible to find other related information by the same author.

Ergo, your abbreviations are unnecessary and may actually be considered harmful.—RJH (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

MOS says be consistent. It's impossible to find (without great hassle) the full names of all these authors, therefore we should abbreviated them all. You'll find no MoS which says abbreviate some of the time, give full names when you feel like it. The dois, isbns and whatnots are given, so the full names do not facilitate "finding the article" or anything like that. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in like this. but Headbomb one consistent way of presenting author names is to present them as given in the referenced work. It appears that this is the choice made in the electron article. (although one still needs to check that it has been done consistently.) I'm afraid you are fighting a loosing a battle here and wasting energy on something that is not worth it. (There are enough other points to be picky about in the electron article.) Well at least these were my 2 cents. (TimothyRias (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

That is not a consistent way. This is like saying a consistent way to write units is to write them as written in the referenced work, while one works used unspaced units such as 10kg and another uses a spaced variant, such as 10 kg. There's no consensus on which style to use, as in you can choose between any acceptable style, but you need to pick one. Abbreviating half the time and using full names half the time is not an acceptable style. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Headbomb. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied on discussion page. SimonTrew (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

cochrane

Why did you start the page Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews onluy to use it as a redirect to "Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews" the same exact phrase? I've changed it to redirect to Cochrane./ I agree we need a more thorough group of articles on them--what were you intending? DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant to redirect it to the Cochrane collaboration, but apparently I made some copy-pasting error.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 11:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Zoroastrianism

Hey, I was wondering if you could join WikiProject Zoroastrianism and help out, as the project is in massive need for help. Warrior4321 18:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know a thing about it. Try advertising WP:RELIGION, WP:PHILO, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism, you may have more success there. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've asked at WikiProject Religion, hopefully I'll get a reply soon. If it is possible, could you do the inactive/active check on the participants? I want to know exactly how many are still remaining and active there. Warrior4321 20:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you?? Warrior4321 20:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Kazuhiko Nishijima

On August 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kazuhiko Nishijima, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW (Talk) 05:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Journal stubs guide

Hi, I stumbled upon this and though you might find something of interest in it. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)