User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2011/October

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/National Basketball Association awards/addition1

FYI, I fixed the deadlinks Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to be overly picky, but I fixed them over a week ago...could you take a look at it again? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If they're fixed, why do I need to check them again? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess what I mean is that I'd appreciate it if you commented at the FTC nom that it's been fixed. Maybe I should have made myself more clear Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason I'd really appreciate it if you commented that the deadlinks have been fixed is that the nomination has been stalled for two weeks and I'd like to get it done, as I see it as open-and-shut now that the maintenance has been done Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake

Hi Headbomb. What I thought I was fixing, was this... had nothing to do with red links. For whatever reason, your later fix did not clear the error on my screen, removiving the wikilinks within the cite-templates in preview-mode did. Anyway, it's fixed now and that's all that matters. Regards, and happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Bizzarre. Well, everyone's still alive, so no big deal. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology

I just went back and reread the full discussion page at JOC. Most of the discussion there appears to be you arguing with many others who clearly disagree with you. There are a couple of others like Mr. Connolley who support you to some level but argue for compromise. You seem to be the sole voice that is so strident about keeping things as negatively biased as they currently are. I also notice that you created the article as well. Given all of this I think it is only prudent to ask if you have any real world conflicts of interest with respect to this journal or any of it's editors? This is not an implication, merely a question. --174.252.197.225 (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no conflicts of interest with this journal, nor any other journal out there. And half of those involved on the talk pages were sockpuppets (now blocked). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which (User:BookWorm44): thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Why did you place the last section on this talk page in a drop down box? What does this section have to do with the sockpuppet investigation? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

'Cause that IP's a sock? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

New bot approval needed

Please see requirement for Lightbot re-approval. We could:

• amend all existing ones
• redraft all existing requests
• create a new bot request that incorporates all the old ones.

What's best? Lightmouse (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

... Whichever of the above is chosen, I trust that it will be carried out in a forum that will allow me to explain why I do not think the proposed functionality should be approved. Hesperian 23:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Women in Music

And another one where two editors insist the whole tables of contents should be included... Your assistance would be appreciated... --Crusio (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Great job, a much better article now, thanks! Let's hope the other editors there will now leave this alone. --Crusio (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate edits ... see User talk:Crusio (Women in Music) Eurodog 18:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have quoted you

Here. I hope you don't mind. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books/tabs

What are your specific objections to cleaning up this template? Because the only thing that's unambiguous;y annoying here is being summarily reverted without so much as a constructive edit summary. What could possible be preferable about the current code soup to a template which handles all the logic itself? Hell, until I moved {{tab1}} into templatespace the other week this was still calling into some retired editor's userspace for its tab logic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not "cleaning up" the tabs, you're turning them into horrors of nature. If a WikiProject wants to use the tab template you designed, great for them, but no WikiProject should forced into adopting a particular style, especially one they dislike. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to grow up and give me some actual reason here (technical (or otherwise), so that I can try to do something about the tabs looking like "horrors of nature"? The eventual plan is to kill off {{tab1}} entirely as a hackish old solution that only still exists because people have been copy-pasting it around for so long. And unless you're presuming to speak for the whole of WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, I've seen nothing yet to suggest this was anything other than a personal veto. You don't actually get one of those. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is you don't get to impose your will on Wikiprojets, they are free to have the tabs look and behave how they want. If some project wants those ugly tabs, fine for them. But restore that horror at WP:WBOOKS and I'll have you blocked for disruption. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This is quite remarkably immature. Look: it is almost certainly possible to modify {{start tab}} so that the resulting output is identical to the current output of the tab bar in question. I'm happy to edit the template to make that happen, but I need some input on what your objections are before that can happen. I don't know who you're trying to kid by making this out to be me "imposing my will" on a WikiProject: it's quite obviously only you involved here, and you own neither the WikiProject in question (nobody does) nor the page in question (so far as I know there's nothing which says WikiProjects get userspace privileges over their pages anyway). If it comes down to you flat-out refusing to consider adult cooperation here I'll take it through the usual talk / RfC red tape, and by that point it's likely that you'll actually have to think of justifications other than "mine mine mine" for the current code. A bit of a bad taste in my mouth from this one: I'd previously considered you to at least know what you were doing when it came to templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 00:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Then ensure the output is identical before making those edits. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

DRN Discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Journal of Cosmology". Thank you. --Silverseren^C 18:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Hurricane season bar end

Hey Headbomb, could you work out a way to hide the "book" icon and link if it doesn't exist on Template:Hurricane season bar end using #ifexist: or something? Thanks! HurricaneFan25 13:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO is an important policy. Please respect it.

This file was presumably taken from the images found on this page which is clearly marked as copyrighted with all rights reserved. You appear to have copied the image in it's entirety. Therefore this upload fails criteria 3b and 8 found here. You are advised that you should seek to have it removed immediately. --174.252.192.157 (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the image is copyrighted. This does not preclude its use on Wikipedia. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I doubt anyone could claim copyright on that image. The Helix Nebula image is in the public domain, and the rest is simply letters and basic fonts, so it does not meet the threshold of originality. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Leaving your legal analysis aside since it has no bearing on this discussion, I have cited for you the specific policy elements that this image fails to meet. --174.252.192.157 (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Except it does. Goodbye sock. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

1st Airborne Division Good Topic nomination

Hi thanks for taking the time to review my nomination. I believe all your comments have now been addressed. Thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As there has been nothing further added by yourself I have marked your comments as resolved.Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of {{Cite... or {{cite...

I am a little confused about the correct spelling of {{Cite/{{cite in Wikipedia.

• I noticed that you changed {{Cite... to {{cite... in my contribution to List of songs about or referencing Elvis Presley, you are an experienced editor, and the changed version continues to work.

• It could be that you made the change because the only other use of {{Cite... has a lower-case C and existed before my edit.

• {{Cite... (with an upper-case C) is used consistently in Wikipedia:Citation templates so I believe that this is the canonical form.

If {{Cite... is NOT the canonical form, please would you correct Wikipedia:Citation templates to use {{cite... and let me know. Otherwise it may be best to change both instances of {{cite... to {{Cite... in List of songs about or referencing Elvis Presley.

What do you feel is best, and why?

Peter Loader (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk to User:Dispenser about this. This was made by his disambiguation solving tool. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The decided upon form is not to capitalize as this is less error prone when typing. This is consistently used on the template documentation and I've reverted the editor who capitalized it on Wikipedia:Citation templates. The canonical forms is rather lose, page titles are stored capitalized and spaces replaced with underscores, they're display capitalized and underscores replaced with space since they're title, but they're usually linked in all lowercase. — Dispenser 02:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I noticed that many of the examples which editors copy and paste from Wikipedia:Citation templates were still capitalised. So I have fixed them. Now I have to fix my own uses of "{{Cite". Peter Loader (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

BookWorm / anonymous IP ANI

I brought this situation to ANI. I mentioned your name at the ANI. It is taking place here ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Citation bot 9

You stole my fun! I was looking forward to using Approved for trial (0 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ;) Anomie⚔ 20:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hehe.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Art

See this edit :-) --Crusio (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox journal

Hi, have you seen the last (non-discussed) edit to this infobox template? I think it's ugly and unless there is a compelling reason to keep it this way, it should be reverted. --Crusio (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen it yet. I'll take a look. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Illustration lab

Hello, Headbomb/Archives/2011. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply}} template.

I addressed your problem with the USA-maps. Wereldburger758 (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Pea Galaxy

Concerning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pea_galaxy

I hope you can help me. I am trying to cite a new scientific paper in the above article. The title is: 'Radio Detection of Green Peas: Implications for Magnetic Fields in Young Galaxies' by S. Chakraborti, N. Yadav, C. Cardamone and A. Ray (2011) I have been trying unsuccessfully to link a citation on the edit page to its correct place on the arXiv site.

The web address for that paper is: http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3312/

I have checked the coding again and again. Really I want it something like:

BUT I CAN'T MAKE IT WORK! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Nowell (talk • contribs)

Try

{{cite arxiv
|author=S. Chakraborti, N. Yadav, C. Cardamone and A. Ray
|year=2011
|title=Radio Detection of Green Peas: Implications for Magnetic Fields in Young Galaxies
|class=astro-ph.CO
|eprint=1110.3312
}}

Instead. (You need to use eprint=, and not eprint:). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, you can sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). This lets people know who made the message, and gives convenient links to your user and user talk pages. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou very much. Such a small mistake! I must have looked at those few lines of code 100 times. Grrrrrrrrrrr!!!! Sorry about not leaving the tildes: that can be very annoying.Richard Nowell (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Song Dynasty FTC

All of the broken links are now fixed, and three of the eight articles have had alt texts put in. I will be unable to work on the rest of them for another few days, as I have a massive amount of work to do tomorrow, but it'll get done in good time. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Both the alt texts and the dead links have been dealt with now. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hi Headbomb! I hope you enjoy this home-made cookie of mine as a warm greeting from a fellow Wikipedian. Sp33dyphil © • © 05:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)