Jump to content

User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2009/March

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ripcurl

Hello Headbomb, I removed the physics template from "Ripcurl" (forgot to do so before the AfD nomination). Thanks for bothering to assess it. Regards, Crowsnest (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No probs. I feel uneasy removing it since I don't know if these things are part of FD or not.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:PHYS

Hi. I added myself to the list. Thanks for the note. --Meno25 (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No probs.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A-Class discussion

Hi Headbomb, we're starting the discussion on A-Class here today, thanks for signing up! I hope you can present your views. Thanks also for your input over at WP:Chemistry, I'll try and work on that on Monday. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Isotope labelling

I originally removed it because it is not specific to the "reactions" section. I've copied started the "nomenclature" subpage (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/draft/Nomenclature) from the old Chemicals style guide, and have included the discussion of isotopes there. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that your last edit undid mine: [1] --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
That's weird, I didn't get and edit conflict message. No matter.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:PHYS

Hey, I added myself as a member. I will contribute whenever possible, thanks for the heads up. Cheers, Jason Schwartz (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Question from Bci2

Related to our recent exchange of unusually constructive messages, I would like to ask you for your help with practically resolving the following related question: as I am the discoverer-- together with my two Cambridge coworkers-- of the unique phenomenon and theory of ferromagnetic spin wave resonance (FSWR) excitations in non-crystalline solids, how can I present the latter entry on Wikipedia without running into the potential for a conflict of interest, etc. that you have so kindly pointed out in your recent message ? `` To be or not to be, that is the question...' ' Nu 23:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Bci2Nu 23:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC) March 1, 2009 [UTC]. talk.

Well first, I would suggest that you first build the proposed section on FSWR in NCS in a subpage such as User:Bci2/NCS FSWR. Use primary sources when you are talking about discovery/discoverers, but using secondary sources (reviews and books) to assert that FSWR in NCS is an established phenomena. If it's in reviews and books, then there shouldn't be any problem in including it in wikipedia, IMO.
In general, and I believe this to be valid for all scientific writing, whether in scientific publications, presentations, or wikipedia, the big idea is:
Citing for ideas, concepts, properties
  • Use books first (historical and accepted understanding)
  • Use reviews second (recent developments, updates, increased precision)
  • Use primary sources (and always more than one) to exemplify
Citing for events/discoveries
  • Use primary articles first
  • Back up with a secondary source (recent events)
  • Back up with a book (older events)
Then when you feel you have a good start/near final product, message me again and I'll give my opinions and suggestions. See also Wikipedia:PRIMARY. Regards. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Also you should look into fixing your sig, it's rather confusing right now.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to HBmb ;WP Physics

It's too early for the books- so that's one strike out.

However, there are strongly supportive papers and a few textbooks, as well as related articles by other authors that I could cite first. Will prepare a document in my talk first as suggested, and then I will ask you to kindly review it to let me know if it complies with the `potential conflict' you raised. Bci2 {talk;Bci2; WP Physics} 00:30, 2 March 2009 [UTC].NuBci201:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC) 2 March 2009 [UTC] Am not too familiar with the sign style you mentioned and am trying to keep it very simple, as I feel strongly that one's privacy should be fully respected especially on the web and at wiki where there all kind of "stewards of the wk-truth" are lurking about like so many don Quijote's `fighting the windmills of creation built by very numerous, hard working wiki ants'. So, please don't ask me again for my "rank and serial number", especially on my own home page, and especially on my talk page, where there is now a big sign in bold letters about the due respect to the privacy of all wiki members. Nu 01:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Bci2;{WP Physics};{talk;Bci2Nu 01:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) [UTC]

I won't ask you for that again, but there's only so much ways that one can ask what I asked. Anyway for your sig, I suggest using the default signature for now until you familiarize yourself with the "wikilangage". Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong interaction on quark

Hi, I've tried to clarify this paragraph; could you have a look? Best, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Fluid mechanics rating

Hello Headbomb, I did not intend to change the math rating; only the physics rating. In my 1st edit I saw nothing changing in the physics rating, so I tried it another time. My mistake. Top importance seemed rather high to me, thought it more like a subdivision of classical mechanics. But I can live with "Top". Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it's a subdivision, but there's not much work being done on what can be considered classical mechanics that isn't FD nowadays. Anyway, these importance ratings are for internal purposes and simply help to coordinate things (for example with the cleanup listing). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:PHYS

Hello, and thanks for the invitation. I've added myself to the list. Hal peridol (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot

Just a quick note to say my bot task has been approved, Take a look at the request for tasks page and my message there. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 09:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it yesterday.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read: it's the discussion, not the page that is archived

Please read a page before you revert a user. The discussion is archived on that page, not the page itself. New comments are supposed to be added below the archived discussion as it says in the archived discussion. [2] --KP Botany (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. I forgot that I too was confused by these pages when I first saw them, where it looks like the whole page is archived since it's a page for one discussion. --KP Botany (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

KP Botany Wikiquette Alert

I have recently opened a wikiquette alert on KP Botany's comments in the recent addbot discussion. Any comments would be appreciated. —Nn123645 (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Quark review

All your concerns thus far have been addressed. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Why unfrac? I think it looks cleaner. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, the inline math makes the liners way too wider than they should be.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent message.

Thanks for the recent message on my talk page and offer of any help needed in getting used to Wikipedia. I may take you on this at some stage !

Yes, I have a reasonable general knowledge of surface physics, although my main research interests are in (the theory of) field electron and field ion emission, and related technologies. I did already put my name on the Wikipedia Physics Project list. (RGForbes (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

Where is the page

Yesterday several notices were dropped on some WikiProject talk pages. I was able to find the Ireland WikiProject alerts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Article alerts but, despite the post, the Philately WikiProject alerts page is nowhere to be found. It is not at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately/Article alerts where I expected to find it. Was it not created, do we need to create an empty page first, of did the bot just fail? Please reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, OK, I followed you instructions but am confused because why would you tell me there were new alerts if we had not subscribed at some time; very odd indeed. No need to figure it out. We will await an alert list. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I was just point that's where the alerts would be if you indeed had subscribed. And that's where they will be once the bot runs (and that you've properly set up the subscription (if you don't you'll get an error message and instructions on how to correctly set it up).Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Rollbackz0rz?

Hi HB- I've been watching the nonsense over at Frank J. Tipler, and I must say you're doing a pretty good job dealing with 74.?.?.?, who (to me) clearly seems to be trolling. I haven't read through all the details but in my opinion he is certainly being uncivil. But did you really have to use your rollback to revert him about 50 times last night? I'm not an expert on the rollback policy, but that doesn't really seem right to me. This is still a content dispute after all. Say what you will about his tone, but his article edits are not blatant vandalism, and probably don't deserve such a ridiculous 3RR violation using rollbacks. Staecker (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

50+ rollbacks is a lot yes, but I did expect a much quicker response from the ANI. Rollback isn't to be solely used for blatant vandalism, BTW. They can also be used for blatant disruptive/tendentious editing (which was the case here, rather than vandalism). I've requested semi protection first (which was granted), then the IP got an old registered sock account to circumvent SP. So I've asked for FP and they said a block was more appropriate, so I've requested a block for 3RR. I expected the ANI to respond rather quickly since they told me to ask for a block, and the SP request was granted quickly. But instead of 10 minutes or so I thought it would take, it took 2 hours. Hence the 50+ rollbacks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Categorising physics articles

I vaguely recall that Rutherford said that everything was either physics or stamp collecting. While I agree a sport like gliding is not exactly the same as stamp collecting, saying that it is physics is stretching a point. OK, I admit that it obeys the laws of physics, but I can't think of many physical events that do not obey these laws. If you include sports, even football/soccer could be included, although a few free kicks do seem to defy the laws of physics. There is no doubt that aerodynamics is a branch of physics, but this does not mean that every subject in aviation is. I am not asking you to reverse it; I am just puzzled. Following this philosophy very little could be excluded. JMcC (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A reply would be appreciated. JMcC (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The article was tagged by a bot because it was placed in a category related to fluid-dynamics (Cat:Aeronautics). There's some false positives, but gliding involves a great deal of physics so I didn't remove it. So even though things like acrobatics competition are completely out of the physics project's scope, there are other aspects, like lift, which are. It's possible that the FD taskforce decides that Gliding is not in its scope, but the reason I just gave seem reasonable enough to warrant not removing the banner for now.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Physics of glass

Thanks very much for your help on the new article! I'm a newbie, so I can use all that I can get ;-) -- logger9 (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No probs. BTW for references, you can write <ref name="Jimmy">Reference 1, page 4</ref><nowiki> the first time you use it, and then write <nowiki><ref name="Jimmy"/> the following times (instead of copy pasting everything). I'll make an edit showing what I mean.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Taskforce within WikiProject Physics?

I realized that you are interested in the article Physics of glass and you placed the WikiProject Physics template {{physics}} on its discussion page. This template is also on other pages that are vital within the topic glass: Amorphous solid, Glass transition temperature, Vitreous, {{Glass-material-stub}}, etc. I am wondering if it would be possible to find a home for the task force Glass development page within the WikiProject Physics. The topic glass covers about 500-600 articles. The problem is, however, that many of those articles are not related to physics, such as glass history and art. For this reason, I would suggest, not to incorporate the proposed task force within the main project Physics as Acoustics, Fluid dynamics, and Relativity that fit 100% within physics, but to leave an independent template {{Glass}} for the project. Do you have other suggestions? Thank you in advance.--Afluegel (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with it. I could give a link in the taskforces (A, G, FD, R) or something like that. Just check on the WP:PHYS talk page to see what's the general impression from WP:PHYS members. I doubt you'll get much opposition, if any. I can also help to set the Glass project page if you want. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, thank you. I will do as you suggested.--Afluegel (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:Physics

Hi Headbomb, sorry for the delay in the answer. This delay tells you that lately I am not contributing that much... But yes, I am interested in the physics wikiproject. Is there anything specific I can contribute about? Let me know Oakwood (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WP Biog Banner

Hi!

I noticed you have been addidn the WP Biog Banner to articles on Physicists. Please change your records to include a more correct ("importance" should be "priority") and a more complete (the listas and living parameters are really necessary) version.

Thank you very much.

JimCubb (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Signing edit summaries

Re [3] - I don't think I've fallen into this trap yet, but it can only be a matter of time ;-) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not really that I'm signing them more than it is that I'm copy pasting what I wrote in the edit summaries.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alert bot

I don't think you did what we wanted. We transclude from WP:CHIAA. You made a change directly from WP:CHICAGO. Can you please reconsider your correction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well revert everything if you want, but that's how you normally set up the columns thing. An alternative would be to place the transclusion between <div style="-moz-column-count:3; column-count:3;"></div> or something similar.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
In case it was not clear. I am a little confused by the code and need your help getting three columns set up at WP:CHIAA. Then we can revert your change at WP:CHICAGO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You can't set up columns at the alerts page as this is the "raw output" of Article Alertbot. You can, however, place the transclusion of the alerts between <div style="-moz-column-count:3; column-count:3;"></div> tags, (if you want 4 columns, replaced the 3s by 4s), and this will produce a column format. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much for setting up the glass task force website and expansion of the {{glass}} template! It looks very good so far, we just need to add some content. If you do not mind I will change "WikiProject Glass" to "Taskforce Glass" in the template because I was warned here that a project may easily die, but a taskforce within a project should be more stable. With significantly less than 1000 articles there are simply too few editors for a real independent project (so far I tagged about 500 articles). What do you think? - Keep up the good work! -- Afluegel (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I realized that "WikiProject Glass" can not be changed to "Taskforce Glass" because it is a standard template. We may just leave it as it is. Thank you again for setting everythin up so neatly! -- Afluegel (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (WP:UU)

Thanks for helping to set my formatting correct for the Article Alerts at WP:UU. Aleta Sing 01:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul Vanezis AfD

I'm replying here rather than MBisanz's talk page because I reply too much stuff there already ;) In the Paul Vanezis AfD, I found the mention of the Doctor Who Restoration Team somewhat interesting. The Paul Vanezis article mentions "He was a founding member of the Doctor Who Restoration Team." It makes me wonder if the nom is somehow connected with that group and/or and has something against either that group or Paul Vanezis personally. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Potential flow

Thanks for the help on Potential flow. Apart from the examples section, which I am not satisfied with yet, the main things have been done, as far as I can see. If you like to, can you take another look and see if there are errors/omissions/funny glitches. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Newtonian or newtonian

Hello Headbomb. Are you certain that Generalized newtonian fluid should have a lowercase n? Other articles, e.g. in classical mechanics, use "Newtonian". Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb, I am quite convinced it should be an "N", so I moved the page back. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

YNOT News

Not quite sure what I could offer at that discussion. I'm also puzzled by why you'd think I'd have particularly useful insight here. Try the folks at WP:PORN, they will probably have more (and better quality) insight than I could ever offer.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

The Guidance Barnstar
Thank you for setting up the glass taskforce and all the guidance and information related to it. I learned a lot. Afluegel (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


w00t! Thanks a bunch! Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Headbomb/Archives/2009/March&oldid=1089860541"