Jump to content

User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2010/February

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


Question

Would you oppose an unblock of Brews and David? I am sorry for bringing up their material on speed of light again, while reviewing the old debate, I understood what they were saying, and I wanted to explain it clearly to the editors on the page, so that the issue can be closed forever (not by ARBCOM, but by the editors themselves).Likebox (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, unequivocally. Tombe should have been permablocked, and Brews caused way too much shit pre- and post-ban for him to be unbanning before the ban expires. He's become productive again recently, and the fact that he's following his ban is not unrelated to him becoming productive again. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Banning is a serious matter--- it should be done when absolutely necessary. When a ban or block is no longer useful for the encyclopedia, why should it continue? An editor that makes 10,000 bad edits that get instantly reverted can make one great edit which no one else could have made. I think we all agree on these points.
I don't think you are wrong in your judgements, but I think that it would be good for you to reconsider. Brews ohare has made many positive contributions, with diagrams and phrasing, and has brought to light issues which would not have been discussed otherwise. Wikipedia is designed to work with problem editors, we deal with completely ignorant people all the time. Brews is not one of those people, so his arguments are more cogent. These types of debates (within limits) are to be encouraged. Also his contributions on the diagram side outweigh any negative impact of some stale debates.
Post-ban "shit" is usually due to bad feelings over the administrative action itself. It does not mean that the editor will be problematic in the future. As Wikipedia grows, we have to be careful to protect minority views, so that they can be considered and rejected thoughtfully, or accepted eventually. This is to prevent the whole encyclopedia becoming overrun with lynch mobs.
If this means that a few less-than-stellar editors are blocked for a shorter length of time than one might consider optimal, what's the damage? On the other hand, if the punitive policies make it that some editors can be blocked for engaging in tough political battles over controversial material, that could destroy out fundamental mission.Likebox (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I am getting a full picture of what led to the ban. I want to say that I am aware that there were too-long talk-page discussions in the past regarding matters that are probably not worthy of such long discussions, and that these discussions crowded out other material.
I assure you that Brews is also aware of this, and is not interested in repeating this type of thing. He agrees that long prolix meandering discussions can be distracting. I believe that he is ready to be a productive physics editor again. If you agree, then I think that Finell can be persuaded too, and then there is no need for a long process, because you two are the most hesitant.
I hope you can accept Brews assurances at face value, because it would be nice to make peace. I'll let you mull it over. But with your agreement, there will be no need for any bitter feelings or any contentious debates. I placed a draft of a motion at User:Likebox/DraftMotion, and I was hoping (more akin to praying) that it can get your support. I make no accusations about anyone's behavior, because I sincerely believe, minus occasional incivility, that everyone was acting properly at all times.
If you say "no, my mind is made up against this", then perhaps it is possible to ask that that the discussions on ArbCom be forward looking. I don't want to pick at old scabs. Whatever you say, I won't bother you again, and I am sorry that I caused you to revisit this unpleasantness.Likebox (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding RfD nomination of Book:Coldplay

Hello, thanks for your work with redirects and the new book namespace. I have closed the discussion as speedy keep per your request, as the book was created. Just a quick note too that in future you should not subst: the RfD template, as it is needed for tracking purposes. Hope this helps, happy editing to you, --Taelus (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Humourous

Hi. I saw this. Contrary to your assumption, it isn't an ENGVAR issue; humourous is definitely incorrect in all dialects. --John (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's perfectly valid. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Care to show some evidence for that? I'm pretty sure you're wrong. --John (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The Free Dictionary, amongst others. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The Free Dictionary and a Google search aren't reliable sources. --John (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
If you aren't happy with these, then search for them yourself. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I have done, which is how I know it's wrong. Here is a good reference for you. --John (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I found several old (before 1909) books (google book search) using ou, while newer books skip the u.--Stone (talk)

Nebulium

Hi Headbomb, please revert the citation style to the way I created it in the beginning, this is conform with all the rest of the chemical elements.--Stone (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ideal gas law edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideal_gas_law&diff=next&oldid=342941660

Oops, my bad - I wanted to remove the pipe but ended up deleting a lot more... sorry :S.     — SkyLined (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No biggie. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

fixing cats

Thankyou for cleaning up some cats - I think my eyes went crossed ! Have I broken something - as I've been categorizing a fair bit the last couple of days, but am happy to clean up after myself if I have made a booboo? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 00:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No you haven't broken anything. My edit summaries have been a bit misleading, you haven't broken the categories, things were not just sorting properly. When you place a category like [[Category:Wikipedia interface help|Create a book]] on Help:Books, the page sorts as "Create a book" in the category, but still displays as "Help:Books". In this case "Help:Books" would be found under "C", as "Help:Books", and not as "Help:Create a book" (which is what you probably wanted to happen). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you are correct - I thought it was a page cache thing - ah well might as well leave them out then! cheers Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Books/1973 Atlantic hurricane season

Thanks for tagging Wikipedia talk:Books/1973 Atlantic hurricane season for deletion. But in future you should simply move the old talk page to the new page's talk page (really X! should have done so when moving the page). Rather than doing what was essentially a copy-and-paste move (although you did change the text slightly, it would have been better to do so after the move). However, since this talk page contains no important information, I've deleted it. Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I patrol the Book:... and Wikipedia:Books/... pages independently. So when I saw the Book without banners, I added them (didn't know it was a leftover from X!'s moving spree, since I requested both the books and their talk page to be moved on the original BOTREQ). I just stumbled on the old talk page when doing some cleanup in the book-related categories. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Infraparticle

I realize now that you were involved in this article, and you found the source listed. I read that source, and found the original source for the argument provided in the original article. I would appreciate it if you leave the text alone, barring some discussion of the material, because it is very very good material which was deleted frivolously because the original editor left this site years ago.Likebox (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity--- what makes you think this material is original in any way?Likebox (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I took pains to find the source for the argument that was presented. That source was fortuitously referenced by the source you found (thank you). I hope that you will either discuss what your problem is with the text, or restore it with the source. Also, please be careful to double-check when challenging material contributed by User:Phys, as it is almost always not properly sourced, because it is from 2004, but it is almost always 100% correct.Likebox (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
If you don't discuss, how are people supposed to know what is wrong?Likebox (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(deindent) Please stop edit warring--- you are an experienced editor. Get consensus.

Listen, I am sorry, but I reported you for 3RR, because you violated it, and you annoyed several people. The link is here. I asked them to disregard the request, since you actually restored the material (thank you).Likebox (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I realize now your fourth edit was deleting a duplicated paragraph, but I assure you that it was an honest mistake. I can also assure you that I am not 81.xxx.xxx.xxx, I never edit anonymously, and that IP is from a different region. It is possibly the original author. I didn't realize the anon gave the same source I found--- it took me a lot of reading to find it.Likebox (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank_J._Tipler revert.

I have added stuff to end of Talk:Frank_J._Tipler#Christian.3F as I would like a page reference please or a deeplink to the text that works. I fail to see why I should read a whole book to come to the conclusion that he is a "Christian". Either he says it clearly or he doesn't, or someone else very reliable says he is this. Our Omega_Point_(Tipler) article says "And as indicated above, Tipler also now considers himself a Christian due to his identification..." which (yes the sentence starts with "And") sounds like conjecture. AFAIKS at best we call him "Theist" because he says "If the Omega Point Theory is confirmed, I shall then consider myself a theist.". Ttiotsw (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Infraparticle_2

Likebox seems to be saying, on Jimbo's talk page(!), that the sources added to the article don't really support the text:

... The "sourcing" of infraparticle was a joke--- none of the references provided at all touch the subject in the article, except for the one reference I provided at the beginning, and other references by the same author on the same subject. At the moment, the opponents can be distracted by smoke and mirrors. It is not clear that this situation will continue.Likebox (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[1]

Could you look into it? I don't have access to the sources, and you are much more competent than I am to judge. If he means what he seems to be saying, the problem is even worse than unsourced content: an editor contributing deceptive content in bad faith. Thanks.—Finell 00:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I reported him at WP:ANI. This is completely unacceptable, and he should be blocked for quite a long while. Such a damned waste of our time and the physics project's members. In the meantime, I've restored the stub, and copied the damaged version on the talk page, so we can work on it, and delete whatever we can't verify, because we simply can't trust Likebox. We should also undertake a review of the articles he's significantly contributed to, to see if he threw bogus references as well. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't do the review. You are not qualified to do so, you'll see OR where there is none. Count Iblis (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Headbomb's not qualified? Who's talking? In this content, OR is a red herring. The issue is whether the content is supported by verifiable, reliable sources. Count, I notice that you have not accepted the invitation that I offered you on my talk page.—Finell 03:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I just commented on your talk page and on the infraparticle talk page. What I mean about checking Likebox' contribution is simply that he has added a lot of pedagogiocal stuff that can easily be wrongly contrued to be Synth in some cases. He sometimes writes freely from his knowledge. I have my doubts about headbomb not because he would lack the knowledge to act appropriately, but because he has shown to not give the benefit of the doubt when it would be appropriate to do so. So, this could lead to huge conflicts on many different articles in which likebox has been invloved, ranging from Balck Hole, Ising Model, various topics on QFT etc. etc. which would be a huge waste of time. Of course, there is nothing wrong with actually scrutinizing the content of articles to see how they can be improved. Count Iblis (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Likebox deceptively sourced infraparticle. Thank you. -- The Anome (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh yeah, I started that discussion... ? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Drop this claim of bad faith now please

One last time: Likebox did not "admit to deceptively source" the article, as you have been claiming [2][3]. The explanation of what he did say, plain and easy to understand, is here and here. Your reiteration of this claim of bad faith, after it has been clearly debunked, is bordering on harassment. Please drop it now. Any further repetitions of this claim will be treated as disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know it's been debunked, so hold your horses before accusing me of bad faith and disruption. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, you commented right below the posting where he explains it on his own talk page, and you repeated the claim on the article talk page after I addressed the point there too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:PHYS coordinator

First of all, I have much respect for your work; yet placing yourself as coordinator of WP:PHYS does not seem right. The corresponding thread is getting out of line, and I am sure you'll have much to say there, but. I feel that a true manager would stay on the background. In your shoes, I would place yourself as a regular participant (leaving your nice welcoming message :). This would allow quickly ending that thread instead of blowing it into an unnecessary cabal. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, I fucking hate this shit. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Template Help

Hi there, I'm trying to make templates for wikipedia and my own wiki site. I would like to know a few things:

  • how to make the template outlines (ie, {{Ambox}}, {{Tmbox}} and the others) and how to change the text and pictures
  • how to make the small logos what appear on protected pages above the title's line.

Many Thanks

Sghfdhdfghdfgfd (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you copy these templates to your own wiki. Seems the easiest way to achieve the desired behaviour. For how to change the images of these templates, read their documentation.
For the protection templates, they can all be found here: Category:Protection templates. If you need anymore help, try Help:Template. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I tried copy and pasting the source from {{Ambox}} into my own wiki, but the ambox wasn't formed, see here. I copied the /core as well.
Please note that, this site will go offline from Friday the 26th of this month, and a new site will be opening up. Will inform you of that.
Sghfdhdfghdfgfd (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

John Archibald Wheeler article importance re-assessment

Hi Headbomb. I saw that you've been re-assessing some WikiProject Physics articles importance. Please take a look at the Talk:John_Archibald_Wheeler and the article itself John Archibald Wheeler. The article have been rated as Low-importance, while by using the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics/Quality_Control#Importance_scale guidelines it should be at least High-importance (Important or famous. Something an undergraduate physics major could have heard of or studied. People who made major or famous contributions within their field (usually, but not always, people with effects or experiments named after them)).

--Dc987 (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

How in the world was Wheeler rated low-imp? I agree that he's at the least high-imp. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Book sorting

Thanks That's handy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

PROD of Multi-axis shaker table

Another user has placed at dated prod tag on Multi-axis shaker table, an article which you have edited, with the concern, "Wikipedia is not a communication in line with our corporate communications strategy." Cnilep (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Need any Help" Income4all

Thank you for picking up on me and asking me if I have a problem with the saving of Books on Wikipedia. The answer is yes. I thought all I had to do was fill in the title of the created book that I wished to be saved in the correctly selected form box. After which I press "save" and it would save it in the appropriate location as indicated on the menu: Wikipedia:Book/[title of my book] or User:Income4all/Books/[title of my book]. Instead of having a saved book I received a "namespace error" with instructions to move the file to the given corrected address. This I did and it correctly saved the book for view and was listed on the Wikipedia Book Index. Today my entry(s) were gone and my previously moved or deleted pages were back up. So I have now deleted everything.

I still do not know what caused the original namespace error in the first place. There was a space after the colon before the title of my book in the final save result. I am not conscious of putting it there. If that was the problem how can I correct a mistake like that after it has been done? Was that the original problem? Was my understanding correct in the first place, about how to save a book correctly? Is there something else I need to know?

At present I don't even want to entertain what happened to the books that were correctly displayed yesterday - which are gone now - paralleled with the mysterious return of the moved or deleted pages. I had deleted everything right before I read your note. Any help would be appreciated for the future. Thanks! Income4all (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The answer is that about two months ago the "Book" namespace (that is, pages that start with "Book:...") was created to host books, but the book creator has not yet been updated. So books created at "Wikipedia:Books/..." should be moved to "Book:...", instead you appear to have moved them at "Book/..." (with a slash instead of colons).
So the easiest step for you to correctly create this book would probably be to
Does this answer your questions? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it certainly does. Thank you very much for your prompt and well constructed response. It is directly to the point, easy to follow and couldn't be more helpful as far as my needs are concerned. I have been pulled out of the murk! Kindest regards Income4all (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Schrodinger equation

I am warning you--- you are edit warring again.

There are places where you inserted hbar which are incorrect--- the lattice version does not take hbar under any interpretation--- there is no hbar on the lattice. There are places where it is against convention (relativistic wave equations). You have inserted hbars in vandalistic ways that are still not everywhere consistent. Thankfully, you left about half the article in natural units (although this will come as a shock to a reader without the gradual ease-in to natural units provided before).

Your actions have crossed a line of conduct in my eyes--- you are no longer making reasonable arguments, but acting to change mathematical text without comprehension. This is very worrisome, and I am asking you to stop. I will report you for edit warring if there are any further reversions.Likebox (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Be my guest. Just don't be surprised if you're the one that ends being blocked for edit warring/disruption since consensus is overwhelmingly against you, and you've behaved disruptively at every point in the hbars vs no hbars debate. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A correct equation on wikipedia is a rare and delicate flower...

...a treasure to be savored for those fleeting moments before someone makes them incorrect. :-) I appreciate what you're doing by putting in hbars, and it's where the article should ultimately be IMO. But if you're not 100% sure that you can change the equations correctly, you should just leave it or post to wikiproject physics asking someone else's help. I'm afraid likebox has a point there. A natural-units equation is useless to most readers and helpful to a few. But an incorrect equation is actually counterproductive for every reader! You, being an experienced editor, should surely know better than to expect that someone else will promptly come along and fix it. In the average article an incorrect equation will just sit there, misleading tens of thousands of people before being corrected. So you should adopt the philosophy "Better safe than sorry" on risking an incorrect equation, even if it means that an article continues to be confusing. I say this with great respect for you and hope you find my friendly "advice" to be reasonable. :-) --Steve (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the advice is reasonable. My mistake was thinking Likebox would be reasonable/cooperative in this, allowing for a quick correction of any mistake I might have made. That being said, I don't recall making any change I was unsure of (aside forgetting to square some hbars the first time around, which has since been rectified). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Headbomb/Archives/2010/February&oldid=349806982"