User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2010/April
 | 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. |
4 pages to delete
Please. I've seen you are concern about deleting my subpage. And you are right. Look here my subpages for more pages to be deleted. The pages I wanted to be deleted, not all my subages, are already proposed to be deleted, they have the format on the top of the page. Thanks. --TudorTulok (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Ok, ok, enough with deleting my subpages... please don't delete User:TudorTulok/Music. The other pages can be deleted. Bye --TudorTulok (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)- Sorry, a missunderstanding. Everything it's ok. Please delete User:TudorTulok/Books/Composers --TudorTulok (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Re:Book:Seattle Sounders FC
Wow, thanks! Looks great. I just started to look at books, so I definitely still have a lot to learn. I guess the thing I don't understand the most is how a bunch of encyclopedia articles put together can flow well from one chapter to the next. Do editors ever re-write articles specifically to be chapters in books? I can see where books on scientific topics or programming might not have the same issue, but for a lot of topics (especially history-related books) I would think you would want the book to flow from one chapter to the next. ← George talk 21:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
{{Pp-book-cover}}
Can you point me to a page where the image was blown out of proportion? I think I know why it happened, but I need a test page. --Ludwigs2 22:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Every page that called the template using {{saved book}}. Use the sandboxes if you want to try things out, but everything is working fine now, so there's no need to convert to an html table. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice work
|
The Seattle Sounders FC Barnstar | |
| For your quality work on Book:Seattle Sounders FC, I award you this barnstar. Thank you for helping out in an area (Wikipedia Books) that is unfamiliar to most editors. SkotyWATC 16:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC) |
Feedback as promised
Hope it helps? 
--Jubilee♫clipman 00:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Please note that attempt is being made to redirect / delete Tannhauser Gate without reopening the AfD which closed with a consensus to keep...... --Michael C. Price talk 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 14:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Josh Parris 14:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Book:Half-Life
Two things about this template. Firstly, its really not needed on every single article. Doing that is just redundant, given that all the book does is put the exact same articles, the exact same content, in a different format; thus putting it in every article concerned is completely pointless next to the navbox at the end. Honestly, the only article that box should be in is the central topic article, Half-Life (series), no other article needs it. Its certainly not needed for the articles for characters, mods, etc. Secondly, creating an empty "See Also" section, with the box in it, is very shoddy for presentation, as it just generates a competely unneeded empty white space. If there isn't a "See Also" section in the article, shove it somewhere else instead so its still in keeping with presentation: "References" or "External links". -- Sabre (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Seems we were writing replies at the same time. I still stand by the above, it is not needed in every article that the book concerns, only the central articles that bind the rest together. -- Sabre (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- A link to a book on Half-Life should definitely be linked on the articles strongly related to it, since it's highly-relevant. I'm placing link in see also section in the article because it's how things are usually done (see also section, below the portal links if there are any), if you think there's a better way to integrate the link to the article, feel free to move it around. If this needs further discussion, I suggest using WP:VG.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've opened a discussion on WT:VG regarding how to link to these books (but not on presentation, that's a lesser issue), hopefully we can reach some compromise on this. -- Sabre (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Really?
[1]. Have you read the sources? None of them have high citation counts: it's a paragraph full of primary sourced speculation that is not directly accepted by any DAMA/LIBRA team-member nor general consensus of experts in the field. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Are you going to remain silent and simply revert or what? You know that every source in that paragraph is to a preprint and not to a refereed article, right? Hello? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- That is NOT true. Go ahead and list them, then. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I've started a section here, and I'd appreciate it if you would participate. NYCRuss ☎ 01:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain?
Can you help me, please? Regarding this User_talk:B._Wolterding#Bot.
Is this means that bot will not work any more, or until B. Wolterding is returned? Whenever that happened... Actualy, someone else will do this? Who? when? :) --Tadijaspeaks 16:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it means that the bot will not run until it is fixed. That could be either when B. Wolterding returns (and nobody knows when, if ever, he'll be back), or when Tedder gets access to the toolserver. Either way, it's going to be a while. Hopefully a few weeks at worse. There's really no way to tell when it'll be back however. Could be days, could be months. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, but it will be on in the future. We will wait! As much as it need! In the meantime, i will write few more articles! :) Thanks, man! --Tadijaspeaks 16:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to continue adding these links, please use the {{Wikipedia-Books link}} template instead if the "See also" section is empty, as this doesn't create a big chunk of whitespace. Gary King (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Italics
Thanks for the help with Book:Divine Comedy, but some of those italics constructs don't seem to be recognised by the rendering engine -- if you look at the PDF they are just rendered as pairs of single quotes. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a known bug, which hopefully be resolved soon. See link in the red box. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I'll change Book:Divine Comedy back again when it's fixed. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
FrescoBot
I noticed it, I was not aware of these peculiarities. I will avoid this namespace. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 09:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Edits to Mariology book
Confused I appreciate your input for Book:Mary and Mariology, but I am confused by your edits. In particular, I don't understand why you changed the title and subtitle, as you'll notice the cover of the book is unintelligible in your edit. If there is something that I'm missing here (and it's entirely possible that there is), please post to my talk. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- I trimmed the subtitle because it was really long and thought it made the preview ugly. Nothing more to it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Moved to Talk:Leptogenesis (physics). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Dummy books
You could have just asked me if you wanted them deleted and I would have db-author-ed them. I only created them to make your demo templates have blue links. Gigs (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well you can still db-author one of them if you want. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Albus Dumbledore
Hi, it was me that undid your edit to Albus Dumbledore, sorry, your edit got chucked into the mix with the vandalism I was undoing, didn't mean to remove your edit sorry. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)