User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2010/March

Standard Model

Hi Headbomb, I have a few suggestions for improving the presentation of the Standard Model article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model :

1) Remove duplicate references. Most of the Higgs and Guralnik papers are listed twice!

2) Restore the reference to the recent Higgs mass prediction paper. It is a valid reference listed on the SPIRES and CERN databases :

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=8510881

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1231061/

I think the list of references was better in the older version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_Model&oldid=335892155

Anyway, thanks for maintaining this article, which is otherwise excellent. Best wishes - Kenmint (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsolicited thoughts

Hi Headbomb,

In the past, we've interacted amicably and I really appreciate all of the coordinating effort that you've put into WP:PHYS. Now that I've ended up being sucked into the debate surrounding Brews O'Hare, I noticed that you're involved in sanctions or similar nastiness with a few Wikipedia editors. I don't know all of the history or who is right or wrong. However, I do have something to say:

My unsolicited advice is that because you're in some way important in WP:PHYS, it's up to you to set the tone and the example. WP:PHYS is right now not a place I really care to be because of how sour the tone is there. If you keep a cool head, it will help others either keep cool heads or look really bad. And that is what is necessary to keep things going in article space and avoid the massive waste of time that is Wikipedia administrative matters.

Not sure if this is helpful (or welcome), but I'm very concerned that the current goings-on will have very negative results in terms of accomplishing tasks in physics article-space, and I would appreciate anything you can do to help things get better and get moving again. Awickert (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I am very much concerned with that too. I absolutely loathe what is going on right now, and I hate what it's doing to the project. The solution would be easy, but alas it cannot be implemented, at least not without causing even more shit, and without significant collateral damage. Send me an email if you want to talk more about this. Me speaking my mind here would only inflame things even more. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

OK - good. I'm glad that we're of a single mind that this is overall bad and needs to be fixed. I think that everyone involved dislikes this conflict, so that's some common ground at least.

There is clearly a history that I don't know about, and you can probably see that my place in this is limited to annoyance that Brews hasn't been able to help on geology articles. I'd be happy to hear and talk about what you have to say via email, at least to be a recipient of your venting if it makes you feel better. Awickert (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Will do, although the email will be long I warn you. (Might not have time to write it now, because I have to back up my computer before it shuts down in 7 hours). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry; I'm horribly procrastinating a massive pile of work (being out of contact for a week and a half does that, y'know, and the bigger it gets, the more I want to ignore it). I should get to my real work, and don't mind the email being long so long as it helps you and/or helps things in WP:PHYSICS get better. Awickert (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Call me old fashioned

... but I believe in politeness and respect. I'm refraining from implementing your edit-protected requests until you start to say "please" and "thank you", or even if you can make them sound like polite requests rather than barked orders. Even a janitor deserves this respect, in my opinion. Of couse, another admininstator may well be happy to make the edits, but I thought I'd let you know in case you're wondering why your requests are still sitting there days later. Best wishes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

...? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried to write clearly. Which part didn't you understand? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The part where I'm impolite and disrespectful. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I did say that. I was just trying to give you some constructive advice. It's up to you if you take it or not. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

pages= parameter to saved_book

Was there once a parameter pages= for saved_book? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book%3ABeatles&action=historysubmit&diff=322147800&oldid=319651931 suggests there was. If there wasn't ought WildBot check for unsupported parameters to this template and mention them in its notes? Josh Parris 03:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, way back when (as many many months ago). It was removed because it was rather useless and the bot that updated things went away. As for mentioning it... meh. Seems like a lot of trouble for something that doesn't affect anything. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I've started the first pass over the community books after shaking out what I think are the last bugs. Josh Parris 08:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That went quickly; 226 books have problem(s). Josh Parris 11:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere&target=Right_Right_Now_Now_%28Japan-exclusive_EP%29 is linked to from Book:Beastie Boys, and nowhere else; this really lowers the likelihood that anyone's going to create the redlink - nowhere in article-space is demanding it. Should we separate orphan redlinks out into a special-case? Josh Parris 12:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it, orphaned redlinks could just be the case of someone being overly specific, or who made a typo/mistake such as writing And Justice for All... instead of ...And Justice for All, or in this case writing Right Right Now Now (Japan-exclusive EP) the mainspace-linked Right Right Now Now (Japan exclusive EP). (I note that the version linked by books would be the correct location of that article if it's ever created).

Also, have you need the changes I made to {{User:WildBot/b01}} about articles with parenthesis? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

parens= parameter to User:WildBot/b01

Reprocessing of the community books has started. The tagging of the books hasn't generated any comments, so I'll do user books sometime soonish. Josh Parris 15:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider your 3RR complaint

Hello Headbomb. I took a look at WP:AN3#User:Magnius, User:RepublicanJacobite, User:Michael C Price, reported by User:Headbomb (Result: ). Please consider withdrawing your complaint. We really don't know yet what will happen if these three editors have a full discussion, and you might consider resubmitting this later if discussion has no useful result. For 3RR purposes, usage of the *article* talk page is important. Currently there is no attempt by anyone to raise the matter there. If you agree to withdraw, just add a comment at the noticeboard that you are doing so, and the report can be closed by an admin with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not about 3RR, this is about edit warring, please read what I wrote there. Also notice that I'm not calling for heads to be chopped off, I just want these two to stop with the templating, threats, and with their refusal to engage in productive discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring needs more data than a 3RR complaint would. If the submitter of an edit warring complaint hasn't even raised the issue on the article talk page, the complaint has little credibility. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice

Great edit Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

{{main}}

Why are you restoring them.174.3.101.191 (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are you removing them? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

They don't need a dedicated template for the link in the article. Doesn't it make sense to use bluelinks where words occur?174.3.101.191 (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This particular article uses what is called a "summary style", that is, it has many small sections that are summaries of other articles. These templates ({{Main}} and {{See also}}) tell the reader "These articles cover this sub-topic in much greater details, or have information that is highly relevant to this particular sub-topic". See for example their use in Quark and Speed of light. Does this answer your question/clarify things? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest not using these templates and just bluelinking the first instance of the appearance, or failing that, bluelinking the most relevant appearance.174.3.101.191 (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggest it on the Plank constant talk page, otherwise we'll just have our two opinions, and we aren't agreeing. Whichever options gains consensus will be used. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

moved book

I have moved my book, The Great Depression and Geology, back to the public section. It is a community book for a reason. I have shared it with numerous AD participants throughout the nation on an AD forum, who number in the thousands. As such, it should be in the public section.

Could you please elaborate on what you mean when you say that "the use of revisions in articles can cause major problems"?

Thanks! EvilPizza (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason is rather technical, but essentially, Wikipedia only tells the software about the current templates used in an article, regardless of the revision. So if a template is used in an old revision, but not a new one, then it will be completely ignored. Thus sections of articles, parts of sentences, etc... could be missing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the book, I have started a discussion about it. There should be a notice at the top of the book (just click on the link and you'll be taken there). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

signpost story

thanks for the signpost story -- looks like you got it linked up correctly in the newsroom, so whoever publishes will see it. Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 20:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|Josh Parris|ts=06:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)}} Book related matters. Josh Parris 06:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Brews

I'm thinking of proposing that Brews be allowed to edit at WP:RD, and then inviting him there. I hang out there myself and it's generally friendly and drama-free. It would give him an outlet to share his knowledge, which he seems to enjoy, and hopefully help him stay out of trouble a little more of the time. Let me know what you think. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not too warm to that idea, considering the timing of this request. Brews is about to get banned from the WP namespace by ARBCOM, and his entourage about to get banned from kicking in the hornet's nest for the next several months. I doubt you'll be able to convince them it's a good idea to relax the ban immediately as it come under effect, especially if you're one associated with Brews' side.

Personally, I am concerned Brews will use the RefDesk as a soapbox against "what's wrong" with Wikipedia, and bring drama to a previously-free place on Wikipedia, or explain things by using original synthesis and bring otherwise idiosyncratic views as was the problem with SoL. This raises additional questions, such as Is Brews allowed to participate in physics-discussions on the RefDesk? Is Brews allowed to give advice concerning policies and guidance? etc... However, I also recognize that Brews participation at the RefDesk could be an overall positive, and might help him get back on the right track.

However if you ask me which of these cases is more likely, I lean towards Brews being disruptive despite himself once again. However, while I could not support such a request, assuming it is made, I would not oppose it either. He'd have about dozens of editors breathing down his neck, waiting for him to slip up and strike him with the banhammer. If the majority is fine with giving Brews access to WP:RD, I won't get in the way as an act of good will. However this good will from me extends to him being productive at the RefDesk, and nowhere else in the WP namespace. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. No I'm not associated with Brews' side, or at least I hope I'm not. I've only followed the matter because I've been in conflict with some of the "entourage" about unrelated issues. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Harambasa/Ćurković

Hello Headbomb:

If it was an article I would have deleted it, but being in user space, I would imagine if I were in that situation I would not enjoy it disappearing, I think a more definite user request or talk page response would do though. This is nothing serious, so I would not care if someone else deleted it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)