User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2009/June

Malvern Water

You have recently placed POV and Weasel Word tags on this article. You have not explained your action on the article's talk page as required by Wiki guidelines. Compare with Perrier and Vittel, and the categories they belong too. I assure you that nobody is interested in writing an advertisement for this water which is part of England's national heritage. The article is adequately referenced (13 references). Could you please review the article again and leave some helpful comments here: Talk:Malvern_Water. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have left a comment on the article's talk page at Talk:Malvern_Water in continuation of the debate you have kindly opened. --Kudpung (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb, would you care to explain your tagging (What exactly needs verification? What is biased? What is not neutral?). Simply adding tags and explaining with a vague "there's nothing specific per se" is not helpful. There is now i discussion on the talk page. It would be polite if you would join it. GyroMagician (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb, your riposte is just a smokescreen and POV. With all due respect, I would suggest you contain your editing to subjects on which you are an authority, and do less of it - by 'reviewing about 100-200 new articles per day', it is absolutely impossible to read the entire content of an article and be objective about subjects that are not your domain; moreover, it defeats the purpose of WP's system of privileged editors. There is sufficient consensus against your tagging, and the editors and members of the project consider the matter closed. Please take this as a friendly hint before someone tags your talk page with an official WP:ANI warning - see: Talk:Malvern_Water --Kudpung (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb, I think you've got yourself into a knot over this issue. The bad faith and Wikilmawyering, bad language, and exaggerations only come from one quarter. With your various misunderstandings of the article's text and your comments, you have clearly admitted being unsure both of the article's subject content, and of your action. Three editors of the article, one member of the project, and one outside Wikipedian all oppose your tagging. The article has been revised again, is still in progress, and the current tag has been removed, so please don't replace it with yet another different one from your ready-to-paste repertoire. The best thing to do now is let us all as responsible and mature editors/contributors get on with our various projects and save time all round, and if you have a particular interest in Worcestershire and something to offer, you are welcome to join our Wiki project. --Kudpung (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comments of 3 June on the article's talk page are noted. You may well have wished to have read the above message before contending that we had not dropped the issue, which we have in fact done twice over, but which you continue to escalate.--Kudpung (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

I just returned from vacation, and had to organize a few things. I will now start contributing to the glass taskforce again. Thank you for helping out during my absence.--Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 05:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Alexander S. Potupa

I am not sure I agree with switching categories by you for Alexander S. Potupa. Yes - he was living in Belarus since 1961, but was born in Ukraine, got degree from Russia and his nationality is Russian. If you check references - you will see that his work is in OSTI - part of U.S. Department of Energy. So his work is well known in the world, not only in Belarus. I don't mind putting him under Belarussian subscategory, but he is also known as a scientist overall - in the world. Please clarify. Thanks.--Elalpo (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well you can also add him to Category:Russian scientists and Category:Russian physicists (and so on) if you feel like it. I was simply cleaning up Category:Physicists (we sort them by nationality because otherwise the categories just get too cluttered), and lumped them into Belarusian categories since the other categories were all about Belarus. If russian is better (or should also be there), feel free to make the changes you think should be made.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

mIRCStats / Article Alerts

Just wanted to let you know I finally had a chance to put the rewritten and expanded version of mIRCStats up earlier today since you requested I let you know once I got it ready. I suppose this means I'll have to rewrite and expand pisg now too though... The Article Alerts seems to be working very well for WikiProject IRC although I may end up moving the content frame depending on how active it eventually becomes. Tothwolf (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Beryllium-8

IMO, unless the isotope is particularly notable (C-12, C-14, H-2, and so on), it would be better to expand the isotope of element article (in this case, Isotopes of beryllium) and create a section within that article (such as Isotopes of beryllium#Beryllium-8). Then if the section grows particularly unwield, then it would be expanded into its own article. Your opinion? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

For most things I would agree, but this meanwhile leaves us with lots of redlinks for every nuclide we haven't written a separate Wiki on, like tantalum-180m, or else you have to go through the work to make every one a piped-link to the "isotopes of X" page, and then later undo them all, wherever you find them, when you spin off the new wiki. That's a lot of work. Is it better to have 10 or 100 redlinks or one stub? Since every one of the 250-odd stable nuclides and a fair number of the radioactive ones have enough published literature on them to merit a whole Wiki, they all really deserve to be linked, which means a lot of them will redlink. And if you don't want to stare at all those redlinks until the thing is written, the easiest way to fix it is with a stub. And by the way, "particularly notable" is not a good concept in an encyclopedia where there's a Wiki for every episode of many TV shows.SBHarris 22:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I'm following you 100%. Redlinks can be turned into redirects to the appropriate Isotope of element articles (which BTW, exists for all elements). This can also be done by bots, saving us humans lots of hours (see a related proposal at WP Elements). And by particularly notable, I mean an isotope which has enough things to say about it that its unwieldy to write it all in the Isotope of element articles. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if you've got a bot that will do it. "Can be in theory" is quite a different thing than "can be, now" SBHarris 22:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How about can be as soon as we know there is consensus, and as soon as a bot coder gets around (they usual take less than a week to code/trial the bot)? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I already have a program that does semi-automatic creation of redirects, that I've used to create redirects for alternate names of hundreds of chemical compounds. Just give me a list of the redirects to create and I'll do it. --Itub (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep than in mind. Right now the problem is deciding what's the range of isotopes that are probable searches. I've created some tables at WP:WikiProject Elements (see bottom of page), but these are generated on the fly by templates. A more reasonable option would be to take Isotopes of boron and generated a redirect for all isotopes listed (redirect to Isotopes of boron#Boron-X, so people are redirected to sections if they exists, or when they are created). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Charles Panati

Hi. This is Charles Panati. Why would you want to delete my bio since I'm extensively published, and have numerous references to my work throughout Wiki? [Check the many refereces to 'Charles Panati' throughout Wiki articles.] My bio is not self-promoting at all; it's simply true. I'm a physicist, a former Newsweek science editor, and the author of 15 published books - and scores of articles. If you Google my name you'll find that thousands of people reference my works - which have been reviewed in major news publications. I don't understand your objections. Visit my website, if you wish, www.panatibooks.com My bio does not make stuff up; everything is factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpanati13 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Gigs explained everything on your talk page. If you are notable, let others write about you. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Hyderabad Pin codes

You might want to consider bundling the four cities at List of pincodes of India along with the master list within this AfD nomination. - SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I've submitted the whole bunch.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Unproven

Moved to Talk:Quark#Unproven. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

On the note about decay:

1. We don't need it to detract from the lede.
2. We have internal links for a reason – decay is linked only a few words later.
3. We explain the link between stability and mass and decay in the classification section, so the note is superfluous.

We really don't need it. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert you again, but I'm really telling you that I think it's a complete waste. You haven't provided adequate justification for the retention of this note. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant to address it here, but you beat me by speed. The thing is that mass and quark decay is super important here. Removing the "thus" is removing the link between mass and why quarks bother to decay at all, and why the heavier quarks do decay while the up and down don't.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but we address this issue with necessary depth in the classification section. The lede is meant to be a brief overview, and bifurcating from that by talking about particle decay definitions is a poor idea. In that way, you're introducing flagrant redundancy with this note. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the note and incorporated it into the Classification section. Is this a good enough compromise? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti(-)gravity

Hi. Generally it's not a good idea to change article or category names without consensus (and/or out-of-process) when we're dealing with an issue of WP:ENGVAR. (I believe the British spelling is "anti-gravity" and the American spelling is "antigravity". The hyphenated spelling is used even when the word is a noun.) I've had to revert your changes in this regard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hassnium?

In WP:BOTREQ#Redirect creation for WP Elements., your list contains Hassnium. Should that be Hassium? Anomie⚔ 02:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was a typo. My bad.

Consensus Please

(Headbomb, since you are the WikiProjects Physics coordinator, I thought I would post this with you, as well as on the physics talk page.)

In the article Physics of the Impossible a single editor removed material that I believe, very much enhanced this article. The other editor’s view is that the removed material was off topic. My view is that it is very much on topic.

The current article is here: (current)

The version which I restored is at my sub page here: (restored)

[section trimmed down]

I would appreciate a consensus on whether or not to keep the removed material. Please place your comments here: Consensus please. This is on the talk page of Physics of the Impossible.

Thanks for your time Ti-30X (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

See replay on that page.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Glass transition

Have you checked this out ? -- logger9 (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Very quickly yes. This seems to be a content dispute mostly, and I know nothing on that topic. I will agree that the article is not written with non-experts in mind, it reads a lot like a written like a review. I would suggest relying much more heavily on reviews and books rather than relying on individual articles (or groups of article) because as of now, I would say that this article (and the others you've been working on) could be deleted under WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

{{cite web}} URL and quotes

Hi Headbomb, please see my reply here, and let me know if this is what you needed. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)