User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2011/November

Book Creator - Save and Share Your Book

Hi HB, hey you might want to have a look into this, as I've tried to create a book but cannot get it to "save and share", whereas an error page comes up in its place. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it's a known issue. It's being looked into, although I can't tell you when it'll be solved. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Query raised at Original research noticeboard

I have raised a query at:

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Can new formula be put in to a scientific article?

about the new common form and the interpretation of Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines#Examples, derivations and restatements Dmcq (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Article: "Faster-than-light", section: "Light spots and shadows"

Headbomb, I need your help, if you can give it.

There is a section in the Faster-than-light article titled Light spots and shadows. This information has been on Wikipedia for several months, maybe years.

The section is about three sentences long. The only problem is, it is severely flawed, and wrong. I explained why on the articles talk page under Erroneous Information in "Light Spots and Shadows". But someone by the name of Trovatore is insistent that my reasoning is wrong. Another user, DVdm, said that my Talk discussion is too general, and states that because the erroneous statements have external sources, the information should be tolerated, and has collapsed my remarks from being immediately read.

There are two external sources for the erroneous info. They were written by people who were not thinking about the nature of light. The second source is an "Opinion" article, and is just talk from someone speculating, erroneously.

What can be done? --Hypocritus (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have just added two more sources with direct pointers to the pages in question. Maybe that will help. Otherwise, you might indeed follow my advice and ask at the wp:reference desk/science. Happy reading and good luck. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

DVdm, thanks for attempting to hijack my efforts a second time. My FTL talk comments are not off-topic, nor are they too general. They may be too specific and too verbose. The section in question should not be there. The wording is flawed, and the reasoning is erroneous. --Hypocritus (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a comprehensive list of Wikipedia bots...

Greetings! I hope this finds you well. I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, trying to learn as much as I can about all aspects of bots on Wikipedia (policies, uses, programmers, etc.). I've been reading through the talk:Bots archives all the way back from the beginning, and I've been cross referencing some of the bots that were discussed in the early days with the list maintained at Wikipedia:Bots/Status, though there are a number of older bots missing from that list. As a BAG member, I thought you might be able to answer the following questions:

• Is the list at Wikipedia:Bots/Status indeed the most comprehensive one currently maintained? I'd like to add the info I'm finding in the archives, but I want to add it to the appropriate and current listing, not an old, unused one.
• Are there other pages that you'd recommend for learning about the history of bots on Wikipedia, as well as the development of the bot approval process? (I think I've found most of the obvious ones, but perhaps there are some less obvious ones?)
• Is there a list maintained of bots that were denied approval?
• I know that users who want to create a bot should follow the procedures here, including seeking consensus in the "appropriate forums", but besides the Village Pump, is there a centralized place where users seek this approval?

Thank you in advance for your help with this. Eventually I am going to reach out to BAG members and bot operators for interviews (which has been approved by the Wikimedia RC...here's my page). UOJComm (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• The list at Wikipedia:Bots/Status is up-to-date ish. I don't really know if it's the most up to date one, but it's a good start.
• As far as "history" is concerned, I'm not very knowledgeable about it. I know how things work now. How things worked 4 years ago doesn't really matter to me. I wouldn't have any page to recommended except the obvious one you've probably read.
• SeeCategory:Denied Wikipedia bot requests for approval and Category:Revoked Wikipedia bot requests for approval for denied and revoked requests. See also , although several of those entries might be very old, and it's possible they wouldn't be approved today.
  • Bots with 0 edits
• WP:BRFA is usually the place to seek it for uncontroversial stuff, and that's usually the case for a good chunk of the bot tasks. What "seeking consensus" usually means is that, if someone makes a bot whose task is to edit every/several instances of {{infobox journal}} on Wikipedia, it would be a good idea to mention the bot at WikiProject Journals to get feedback on the task before seeking approved (or create a BRFA, with a notice on the WikiProject talk page saying there's a bot proposal that would affect several journals-related articles). WikiProject editors will often have intimate knowledge of what the bot would affect, and very often know more about that than the bot coder. For example, a template might have redundant parameters, some non-obvious behaviour, or there might be a standard way to format certain things. Or the task might not be desirable for some reason the bot coder might not have though of. If you think the task is uncontroversial, you can't really go wrong with posting things at WP:BRFA without "seeking consensus". If it requires more than that, BAG people will usually let you know with some comment similar to "It might be a good idea to ask WP:BIOLOGY for their opinion on this". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank so much for taking the time to answer my questions. I'm wondering if you could refer me to another BAG member or person in the bot community who might know more about bots historically? I've asked Angela (who seems to be an admin who used to approve bot flags back in 04-05), but she doesn't seem to be invovled in this anymore. Thanks again! UOJComm (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

WP Academic Journals in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Academic Journals for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Headbomb/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mlpearc powwow 04:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems the email has been sent to an old account which I don't use anymore. You can resend it, or just post it here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Artefact cleanup

It has been a long time ago but I have made the changes to the maps of the USA you have asked for on the Graphics Lab page: Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop/Archive/Nov_2011#Artefact_cleanup. Wereldburger758 (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)