User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2010/October

Cites

Sorry for appearing to ignore you, partly the flurry of edits, and partly the confusion over what I said, that seemed clear enough to me (that I was fixing my manual replaces but was in the middle of some reasonably large tasks) but since no-one seemed to grok both the qualifications must not have been. Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Isotope Redirects

Hi there! The bot task you requested a while back is now running. I'm sorry for the delay getting it approved, I'm surprised it took so long given that it is such a simple task. Anyway, it should be finished by the end of the day. Let me know if you have any questions or if there are any issues with the bot's edits. - EdoDodo ^talk 17:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be finished. - EdoDodo ^talk 14:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Zetawoof/BookList

You removed a bunch of items from my book list a few days ago with a comment that you were going to explain on the talk page, but that never showed up… can you elaborate? That page is intended to be a list of all book pages; right now, you've left it kind of incomplete. Zetawoof (ζ) 04:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh... the explanations have been there since June? Is there something unclear about them? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ha. Missed that somehow. I'll see about adjusting my script to handle that stuff. Zetawoof (ζ) 07:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

problem w refs.

Hi,

I posted a question at Talk:Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata matrix. Two different journal names, with different volumes appearing in the same year, are linked to the same WP article. — kwami (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gabriel's Oboe

Hello! Your submission of Gabriel's Oboe at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see new note on DYK page. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox journal template

Hi, you moved the parameters around in the doc of this template, but now they are in a different order then when the infobox is displayed. For example, you put "formernames" after "language", but in the box it is displayed much higher (even above the abbreviation). This doesn't look logical to me, so perhaps you should either move the way parameters are displayed in the box or change the doc again back to the order that Plastikspork gave it. --Crusio (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I am mostly concerned about the JSTOR/OCLC/etc... ones, as well as the presence of the ISSNlabel (which should not be in the example, as it is only used in those with infobox that lists several ISSNs at once, which is rare). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Then why did you change the order in the doc so that now it is different from the way the parameters are displayed? Plastikspork had just put in some effort to remedy that. --Crusio (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

JSTOR is a same type of information than the OCLC/ISSN/etc..., so it should be grouped with the OCLC/ISSN/etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I see that, but you also moved several other parameters around, for instance, you put history after frequency, whereas it appears the other way around when the template is displayed. I'm just curious about the logic behind that edit. --Crusio (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I just reverted to the prior version. Maybe it would have been simpler to just manually move the 4-5 things that bothered me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bahá'í News listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bahá'í News. Since you had some involvement with the Bahá'í News redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

On typesetting

Hi I thought you might not see this. About the typesetting part, you have to remember the works were actually published it via a type-writer not a modern word processor. Also a Persian word processor with spell check did not exist until recently. Usually what happens in this case is: a) Authors have to type/word process their work and send to the editor as a hardcopy. B) The editor has to type it or get someone else to retype it (potential for mistake). Furthermore, imagine writing 400 pages of a journal article without a wordprocessor. Usually Persian works of few hundred pages that are handtyped via typewriter due to lack of wordprocessors at that time, and lacked spell check, have had some typeset errors. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So? An editor doing his job isn't anything special. That he doesn't have the same tools as others just makes his job tedious, not special. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gabriel's Oboe

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Brews

Hi. If you see him violating his topic ban again after the block expires, feel free to drop me a line and I'll take care of it. I don't see why you should have to waste your time filling out AE requests over and over again. Looie496 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well two reasons mostly, usually when Brews' involved, you can expect weeks of bureaucratic debates about semantics, procedures, block appeals, wheel wars, ... resulting in an AE request anyway. Going there straightaway is just a time saver. The second reason is that having an AE request with all the details makes it a useful reference for future AE request, as it'll contain the links and details of the case [you don't have to remember what happened, why it happened, how it happened, hunt for diffs on or two months after the fact].

But I'll keep your offer in mind next time. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Treehouse of Horror

Please weigh in on Template talk:Treehouse of Horror#Inclusion of episode segments, so we can generate a consensus. Thanks, Fixblor (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to {{su}} feedback on my talk page.

Just in case you had not noticed: I replied to your feedback on my talk page.     — SkyLined (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)