Jump to content

User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2009/September

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


Grandfather paradox

Dear Headbomb, can you analyze Grandfather paradox? The article lacks refs, and it may have inaccurate thing. I encountered the article while fighting vandalism. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Request:Speed of light

NOTICE: Upon the request of Brews ohare and Abtract, you have been added as an involved party in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Speed of light. —Finell (Talk) 02:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tauon name

I hope that your move has gone well. I'm reposting this from July, as it got no response from you the first time around. Please respond. The Wilschon (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I hate to bring this up again, but I noticed that you did not respond to the last 3 requested move discussion updates at Talk:Tauon. Did we convince you that the name "tauon" is sufficiently far from the mainstream that the name should be changed? If so, I suspect that GrooveDog would have marked it "consensus" and moved the page, given that the only other opposed contributor was anonymous and thus not available for continuance of the discussion. If you are convinced, would you mind re-listing the page for moving (or just moving it yourself, I suppose)? I am willing to help change other wikipedia references to tauon as needed; just let me know. The Wilschon (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not convinced. I'd make a longer post, but I don't have a lot of time right now (see wikibreak message). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

YATBot

Hi, Just an update: I'm still waiting for ToolServer access... yes, I know, it's been a long time. I should be getting it within a week or two though. Thanks. AHRtbA== Talk 18:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Emil Cohn

I re-organized the references within the article and expanded some passages for clarification - based on reputable and well-known historians of science like John Stachel, Olivier Darrigol, and Michel Janssen. BTW: Why did you include a POV-tag? --D.H (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Response

In case you don't watch the page I've responded to your question at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 30#DASHBot. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrino

You reverted my edit on Neutrino page. I was right, since neutrini is italian plural of neutrini. Maybe you thought I was meaning that it's english plural. Obviously not. Perhaps I wrote it in a way may create confusion -–- Tano-kun (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did think you meant the English plural was neutrini. But even if that's the Italian plural, I don't know if we should include it, it's not that relevant (in my opinion) and a bit confusing. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Your Image Request

Your request

I've started your Top/Antitop Quark Event diagram request, let me know where I messed up so I can fix it. :P — raeky (talk | edits) 01:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Database infobox

Hi, do you perhaps know of an infobox for databases? I have been cleaning up the articles on MEDLARS and MEDLINE (getting ready to tackle PubMed...) and would like to add an infobox, if available. I have asked at the database wikiproject, but that project does not seem to be very active right now. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have missed this message. No, I don't know of any infoboxes for that. You'd have to create one from scratch. Just take an existing infobox an adapt it. If you don't know how to do this / are intimidated by it, I could easily write one, provided I'm given the things the infobox should contain. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer! I'll give it a try myself first. However, I'm not too familiar with databases (just know enough to use them), so I'll have to think about what should be in it. Perhaps I should make it more specific, something like "infobox bibliographic databases". --Crusio (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Journals

Yes, the ones ending in |]] should fix themselves per WP:Pipe trick, but there is a Mediawiki bug inside references. I will sort these out. Rich Farmbrough, 18:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Speed of light arbitration

Welcome back. Could you please link the diffs in your evidence, rather than just giving the pages and date/times? The arbitrators specifically ask for diffs as evidence, and links are much easier for them to follow. Thanks. —Finell (Talk) 20:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If the article history was browsable, I would, but as it now stands, whatever time multiplied by 7 (since there are 7 arbitrators) it takes for them to press control+f then paste the utc tag is several times (by hours) less than the time it would take me to go through thousands of revisions to find the original diffs. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
It needn't take you much time at all. Go to the history (not of an archive but of the actual page), scroll to the date and time you already have, and copy the link under "prev" to get a diff to paste into your evidence.
It took me well under five minutes to change what you wrote here…
  • See for example Talk:Speed of light/Archive 9: 04:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC); 07:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC); 07:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC); 21:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC); 08:07, and 22 August 2009 (UTC).
…into this.
Your choice though, of course. Tim Shuba (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Then you're more efficient at digging diffs than I am. Feel free to change the UTC times for diffs if you want, but it's just way too much of my time for me. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Erikbot

Hi, did you notice that Erikbot has removed the WPJournals template from some articles that definitely belong into this project? See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Academic Journal articles by quality log, and, for example, Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. --Crusio (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No I did not, that is weird. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Aluminium-42 redirect to fragment

Hey Headbomb, on 16 June 2009 you created a bunch of Aluminium isotope redirects, such as

however there are no anchors for the url fragments ("#Aluminium-42" here). What was your intention with these? -- ToET 09:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea is that the isotopes of aluminum article may be developped one day to include such a section. The section link is both encouraging editors to create it and saving us the trouble of monitoring the hundreds of isotope list to see with sections have been created. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

MOSNUM

In this edit you replaced my crude green font color with {{xt}}. I now see that my edit summary should have included a reference to the talk page where the issue is being discussed. The problem is that xt makes those particular examples unreadable due to the font used, and the green font is a trial to see if making another template (xtc) would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: BOTREQ: List of CERN experiments

If no one takes this on within the next few days, I can probably do it for you. Scraping text is a bit of a specialty of mine. I haven't looked closely at the data, but it seems to be a pretty straight forward scraping job. The downside, as you probably know, is that I am pretty slow at actually getting to these requests. :)

I replied here rather than there as I didn't want to discourage anyone else from jumping on it, since I'm sure they'd get to it sooner. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Is this for a mainspace article or just to help you/others organize getting related article written. (Doesn't matter either way, I am just curious.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It's for a mainspace article. I plan to move my sandbox at List of CERN experiments once a bot fetches me the raw data I need. There is also CERN's Grey Book Online (see 2nd reference) that might be useable for things that are not covered by the SPIRES database, but I think that the bot datafetch from the SPIRES database will cover most of them, and that whatever's left behind will quicker to do by hand than by bots. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like User:Dr pda (sort of) volunteered to do this shortly after I posted here initially. Hopefully that will work out better for all parties, but if for some reason he doesn't follow through drop me a line & I'll do it. I'll leave a spot open on my to do list just in case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Will do. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Dunning-Davies

Moved to Talk:Jeremy Dunning-Davies Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

SymbolForElement

Hey, I was wondering what the purpose was of your recent addition of the symbols to the list in {{SymbolForElement}}: converting a symbol to a symbol seems a bit pointless and you don't seem to have added this feature to the other related templates ({{LinkForElement}}, {{NeutronsForElement}}, {{ProtonsForElement}}). If you have a good reason for this change, would you mind changing the other templates as well?

Thanks!

    — SkyLined (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's mostly so you can write {{SimpleNuclide|C|12}} rather than the longer {{SimpleNuclide|Carbon|12}} to produce 12
C
, and similar things. I agree you'd have to be pretty weird to directly use {{SymbolForElement|C}} to write C. :P Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but would you mind updating the other templates as well? {{SimpleNuclide|link|Carbon}} still works: 12
C
, but {{SimpleNuclide|link|C}} produces 12
C
... PS. Sorry for editing your own reply :)     — SkyLined (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I've made these updates. I've also rewritten the entire system, plz see Category:Nuclide templates - {{CheckElement}} is now used to check if the element is valid and can be linked to if requested. I've also fixed a number of bugs in various templates.     — SkyLined (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I tweak it, but for some reason I'm getting some extra whitespace in the error message. I've checked my code several times, as well as that of the templates upon which {{CheckElement}} is built, and I can't find anything wrong. Could you have a look? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed: the problem was that line breaks inside a template "call" are not discarded as they are inside {{#if and such: 

 X{{tl

   |x

 }}

Will look like this: X{{[[Template:x |x ]]}}X, rather than {{x}}     — SkyLined (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirect class journal articles

Hi, I just noted that suddenly this class is empty and all redirects that were in here are now in an "NA" class. I have not been able to figure out how this came about and who changed what where... I personally found it rather handy to have all redirects together. Can you check this perhaps? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's due to an update in the metabanner template. I'll check what's going on with them. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I've updated the banner accordingly.The category should repopulate itself over the next few days. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

x-ray photon spectroscopy

I am interested to know what the references/source of the information for the x-ray photon spectroscopy page were. Thanks.

I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you are asking of me. Could you clarify? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Journal and Magazine infoboxes

Hi, see Template talk:Infobox journal#Peer Review Parameter. I hesitate to touch these infobox pages... Could you perhaps put a disambiguation-type message on top of (at least) the journal infobox, stating that non-academic journals should use the magazine infobox? For popular magazines, the journal infobox really is not very appropriate and it is much better to use the magazine one on those articles. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a look over the week-end. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Journals project

Yet another question... :-) The WP journals project page now lists events such as whether an article tagged for this project has been PRODded or taken to AfD. Would it also be possible to have a list of articles that recently got tagged with the WPJournal banner? I have been going through the unrated articles list and find many articles that have been so tagged but don't really belong in this project. It would be nice to have alerts when an article gets tagged, so we could have kind of like a new articles patrol for journals articles. --Crusio (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Academic_Journal_articles_by_quality_log. Most of those tagged erroneously are probably due to the bot request (tagging those with journal infoboxes) I made a while ago. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks for that link! And I realize that many of the wrong tagging was due to the bot, but that isn't the bot's (or your) fault either, it's because of faulty use of infoboxes. That bot thing was an enormous advance for this project! --Crusio (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

John David Davies

You have mistakenly identified this spokesperson for CERN with Jeremy Dunning-Davies in the lede of his BLP. This was an extremely careless error to make, particularly since Jeremy D-D doesn't seem to have worked in high energy physics at any time in his career. Please see [6] and [7]. Because of this, rather than expand the deleted article as you have been claiming, you in fact inserted highly misleading information. Please try to be more careful in future. Mathsci (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It was an honest mistake, and I've exercised more care than you make it look. Follow the link given for J.D. Davies at "PS174" and "SC77" and you're taken to "Dunning-Davies, J.". He also has connections to Ruggero Santilli and his "hadronic mechanics", so it's not out of place. Next time please assume good faith instead of saying things like my edits are "disruptive" and "wastes of time", that I make a "mockery of the deletion process" and insinuate that I should be blocked for it and so on ([8][9]).
If you can put this behind you, so can I. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
When I followed those links, I saw the University of Birmingham, not the University of Hull, which made me look a little more carefully. That was just one error. The other was your insertion that the Telesio-Galilei association had something to do with cold fusion. I couldn't find any evidence for that. The other things about Santilli and "hadronic mechanics" strangely enough were added by me quite a while back. I even found his Santilli-Fucilla prize announced in the THES. I was rather puzzled as to how you got the article undeleted, but did note in trying to work this out that you were an active member of WikiProject Physics. Perhaps you should watch the trailers for the video "The Universe of Myron Evans" (which starts with J D-D) for a reality check on these spooky pseudoscientists. Cheers and best wishes for your continuing good work on WikiProject Physics. Mathsci (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
See for example [10] (search for the word "cold" and you'll get two such links). I don't (or did I ever) dispute that J.D.D and the Telesio Galilei association are on the far fringes. But being on the fringe doesn't mean you can't have an article dedicated to you (IMO, they are notable fringers, but I don't really care about them). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
You're on WikiProject Physics. Surely you know you know by now how to add proper sourcing for facts, which you failed to do. What you did was WP:SYNTH and WP:OR for the statement on cold fusion. The source was Francesco Fucilla's blog, failing WP:RS and WP:V. Honestly, please do try to take wikipedia core policies a little bit more seriously.
You recently edited Alwyn Van der Merwe. Did you not see that there is a much more severe problem with that BLP? Almost every sentence is unsourced/unsourceable at present. I understand that you are just a student and a volunteer, but still, all of the "Telesio-Galilei Academy of Science" material must have rung alarm bells with you. What about the wikilink Theoretical Physicist? The BLP is a total mess and almost useless as an encyclopedia article. Every fact needs to be checked and 90% of the article removed. I can't even check the chronology for the editorships of journals from the citations provided. The date of birth might be a place to start. Mathsci (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
If the Telesio-Galilei Academy of Science website doesn't qualify as a reliable source for what the Telesio-Galilei Academy of Science associates itself with, I don't know what is. And if you have a problem with the Van der Merwe article, then tag it with whatever cleanup tag you think it needs to be tagged with, clean it up yourself, send it to deletion, or whatever. I added a hyphen to a name so it would link properly. I don't have any particular responsability to copy-edit and cleanup every article I make a minor tweak to, nor am I responsible for whatever problems pre-existing content has. If you need help with things, contact WikiProject Physics or WikiProject Biography or the Content Noticeboard. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD numerical date format in footnotes

Hello, an RfC is now open for your comments on this issue at Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal_on_YYYY-MM-DD_numerical_dates. -- Alarics (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Headbomb/Archives/2009/September&oldid=1089163873"