User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2009/January
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Headbomb. 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. |
your sig
In your sig, why do you use ex's instead of em's to make the 2-row thing? flaminglawyerc 19:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Copy paste from another guy's sig. Why? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- ex's are a measurement of character height, whereas em's are character width (as I understand it). You use 3.5 ex's, but there are 4 characters. I was wondering how that worked. flaminglawyerc 05:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- No clue. I've tweaked it to 4.5ex now, since it looks better. How that works is beyond me.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how it works... Just to be safe, I'll leave ex's alone and keep using em's. flaminglawyerc 18:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- No clue. I've tweaked it to 4.5ex now, since it looks better. How that works is beyond me.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
As promised, I created a PR for this article and copied your remaining comments to it. I've since tried to address each point. Please, take a look. --mav (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I asked a few questions on the linked page. Anyway I am close to passing the article as a GA, and wish to consider your opinion if you think the article is GA quality. Crystal whacker (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Belated: scientists and WP:Deny recognition
- Hi Headbomb, thought the point you made before the New Year was right on (re: scientists basically ignoring pseudoscience below a certain level), and belatedly replied. I'm going to take that list to ArbCom for clarification; will let you know when that happens so you can comment if you want. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 11:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom request for clarification: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE
- A request has been made for clarification of the ArbCom case WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE as it relates to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. I'm leaving this notification with all editors who have recently edited the article or participated in discussion. For now, the pending request, where you are free to comment, may be found here. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 13:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Excellent Userpage Award | |
| Your page is amazing! I certainly envy it.Goosemanrocks (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
Woot! Copy from it all you want.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Hey, what's up with the use of /b/ in your edit summaries here? I know it's your sandbox, but you're setting off alarms. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Alarms? Anyway, I saw an I.P.'s edit be logged as a bot edit and the edit summary was /b/ and I was wondering if having /b/ as an edit summary caused the edit to be logged as a bot edit. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Rollback
I granted you rollback. I suppose that you know that the rollback should be only used to revert obvious vandalism. Ruslik (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yuppers. I'll test it on my sandbox first. It's not something I plan to use much, I just find it pretty annoying to have to go through hoops to revert that sort of thing. Anyway thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)