User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2016/February

Journal titles

Hi Headbomb,

I saw you were using AWB to correct journal abbreviations. However the preferred practice is to use the full journal title. For non specialists using the abbreviation makes it harder for others to find the journal. So for example "Gazz. Chim. Ital." should be "Gazzetta Chimica Italiana" or possibly Gazzetta Chimica Italiana with the wikilink. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: I tend to not screw the article style when possible. So that's why I fixed Gazz. Chem. Ital. to Gazz. Chim. Ital. rather than the fully spelled out version, simply because I didn't know (or felt like spending the time to find out) if the article citations consistently used abbreviation or consistent used fully spelled out journal names, or if it was just a mix of whatever bots put in there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I recently reverted an edit of yours to restore the full, Nineteenth-century title of the Astrophysical Journal to the article Astrophysics. You reverted my edit. To avoid an edit war let me briefly state my rationale:

The comment to your revert had noted that "subtitles of journals are left out of citations by all style guides", but my copy of the University of Chicago Style Manual accepts the use of "long titles of works published in earlier centuries." However, I didn't include the long title out of mere antiquarianism; the full title The Astrophysical Journal: An International Review of Spectroscopy and Astronomical Physics actually sheds some light on the nature of astrophysics as it was understood by its Nineteenth-century founders. I think this is sufficient justification to include the long title.

I look forward to your comments, thanks SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, it sheds no light on anything other than reflect the 19th century preference for very verbose titles of publications. Everyone calls it The Astrophysical Journal (even the 2nd citation to the journal uses that). The only place I would consider the subtitle appropriate to mention is in our article on The Astrophysical Journal, not on our article on Astrophysics. The quote is what's important, not the subtitle of the publications it was made in. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've worked up a historical paragraph that incorporates the title into a discussion of the early scope of ApJ that fits well in both articles. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Still can't say I see the point in mentioning the subtitle of the journal in Astrophysics, but I'm fine with the current version of either articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Higgs boson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Higgs_boson#if_energy_and_mass_are_equal.2C_higgs_bosons_would_be_the_opposite_of_light

^its getting an rfc and a request for mediation, if you close it again i will request arbitration until more administrator's have the chance to reach consensus on whether this higgs boson talk section deserves to be closed The5thForce (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, there is consensus. I can wait a few hours for someone to close this pointless discussion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

no worries here- i dont fear the truth, i can only try to convince others to see it, hence why im requesting that you to stop removing it. The5thForce (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary with AWB edit

Hello, just a minor thing, but the edit summary in this edit was a bit misleading, as a "." was added, not removed. I have no idea which way it should be though. Graham87 05:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me cleaning up the abbreviation. I guess my logic with AWB was to remove it, but other citations had dots, so I manually dotted it. I believe only two edits were made with this specific abbreviation. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta

"Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta" should be spellt "Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta". Cheers.--Zoupan 06:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Zoupan: I was mostly cleaning up the citations themselves. [1] listed "Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta" as a much, much more common spelling, so I went with that. Fixing the caps shouldn't take much time, but I'm about to pass out, so I can take care of those tomorrow. Feel free to fix them in the meantime. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Classical radius of proton

Hello, Headbomb! I noticed your edits to scientific articles. I want to ask you what is the status of classical radius of proton? Can it be defined similarly to that of electron? The article Thompson scattering gives this impression. --5.2.200.163 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really sure what you are asking me exactly here. You can define a classical radius for any particle (see bottom of section), but it's even more pointless to do with a proton than an electron. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly about the pointlessnes I'm asking. It seems that this quantity is just a formal expression gathering other quantities, a notation.--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thompson scattering

What is the real significance of Thompson scattering in the context of classical radius being a formal notation? In what conditions can it involve real proton or electron radius?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Proton radius puzzle

Concerning proton radius puzzle described in ref 33 from proton#Charge radius, in what condition could the determination of proton radius be infuenced by the expression (and nature) of forces in scattering equation?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't tell you. I'm no expert on scattering. My suggestion is to read the peer-reviewed articles attached to those statements and see what they say. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm about to insert some formulae from that peer-reviewed articles. It says there that it starts from the rather simple Rutherford equation derivation .--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please adjust your AWB arXiv script, if possible

It looks like your helpful AWB script for fixing arXiv citations needs a little tweak. See the red error messages here and here and here. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not really that the script needs tweaking, that was mostly GIGO, but I should have caught up the first two upon review. The third one had a badly formed arxiv identifier, so that's textbook GIGO. Not much AWB can do with that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It depends what your script looks like and how you use it. When I write AutoEd scripts, I try to make it so that the script takes no action when it sees garbage that it does not recognize as a valid pattern, and I visually inspect each edit before saving. It makes it so that I have to do more manual fixing, sometimes after rejecting my script's proposed GIGO edit, but then pesky gnomes don't bother me on my talk page (as often).

I imagine that these three were the only errors among a big pile of productive edits. I keep an eye on Category:CS1 errors: arXiv, which is where these errors popped up. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I tend to keep an eye on it myself. I'm mostly trying to cleanup this mess [2]/[3] of bad citations. Search for "arxiv" with your browser and you'll see the extend of the problem. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, that is a mess. Wikipedia editors are nuts. As I said, I figured you were doing something productive, since I've seen you around. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have cleaned all of the remaining arxiv citations on the A59 page and almost all of the blue-linked single arxiv values at the bottom of A58 using the regular expressions in User:Jonesey95/AutoEd/month.js. I had no false positives. You might be able to use the regexes in that script to adjust your own. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I get the feeling that I caused you a lot of work ...

		The Citation Barnstar
		I get the feeling that I and several colleagues caused you a lot of work with our imperfect reference formatting, etc. Thanks. Smokefoot (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Well I suppose that could be true to some extent, although I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to... Either way, thanks! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Penning trap and electron radius

Hi! How do you regard the info from geonium atom about efective or real electron radius which says (without being sourced):

Van Dyck, Jr et al. explored the magnetic splitting of geonium spectra in 1978 and in 1987 published high-precision measurements of electron and positron g-factors, which constrained the electron radius.

In what way can the value of electron radius be constrained?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirect categorization

Hi Headbomb! You've been interested in redirect categorization and the This is a redirect template in the past, so I wanted to let you know that there is a discussion at Template talk:This is a redirect#One parameter that might interest you.  Good faith! Paine  20:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Parkdale

If you want to cite a reference, please format it properly. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Secondarywaltz: It is formatted properly, or at least no worse than it was before. What are you talking about? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You know, when you do edits like this [4], there really is no reason to revert the previous edit that was done. It fixed a lot more than it broke, especially given that it broke nothing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Thank you for tidying many of the entries I created and/or I'm working to. Best regards, Daniele.tampieri (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The average Jane

I agree with this comment but couldn't resist drawing attention to an article on an average Jane who died of dysentery (but who, in my view, still passes GNG). Regrettably it wasn't in 1853, but prescience only goes so far. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Euryalus: TBH, I'm kinda wondering why we have that article. What's her claim to notability? Spoon thievery? Being part of the First Fleet convicts? Does that mean we should have articles on every of those convicts and crew? The article is mostly based on court proceedings, and the other sources, while they do establish WP:V, do little in establishing WP:N. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

She has no "claim to fame" outside of the fairly general one of being on the First Fleet. But she does have "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources," which is the measureable standard. In passing this includes many more sources than the Israeli football club you mentioned as having been directed to as a random article.

Either way, just highlighting it to illustrate (and agree with) your point at the Signpost talk page. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

AWB Edit : Abbreviation for "Annual Review Astronomy and Astrophysics"

Why have you used AWB to revert "Ann. Rev. A&A." to "Annu. Rev, A&A." for references to the Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, as you have done here Proper motion?[5] Virtually every cited referencing system uses "Ann. Rev. A&A.", including Springer who published the document! Whilst its ISO 4 abbreviation annu. is also specifically for the word Annuale not Annual, but this is not universally used in other systems. Most published astronomical references system abbreviated it as ann. not annu. (The ADS (Astrophysical Data Service)[6] which uses "ARA&A" by the way.) As even adopting ISO 4 standards says - "Please note that you may see contradictory abbreviations for some words in titles because journal title abbreviations do not usually change when rules for specific words change." "Ann." is therefore perfectly correct. I.e. As in, say, NED. [ttps://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/araa.html]

However, Annu is used in DOI and ISSN abbreviations, but these are not considered as primary citations.

Doing a simple Google search, "Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys." gets 163,000 hits, "Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys." gets "80,900." "Ann. Rev. A&A." gets 109,000. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted because it's the proper field-agnostic way of referring to the journal in abbreviated form. A biologist would come and look for "Annals of Reviews of ????" ApJ might be the ADS way, but Astrophys. J. is clear while ApJ is not. (We want to reach the widest audiences, after all.) The better solution though is to simply use the full name of the journal, but I was cleaning up the half million non-standard abbreviations used for the Annual Review series of journals. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I note you reverted my edit without further discussion. If you use AWB, you must have consensus to do so, which from my objection you do not. ISO 4 standards are not absolute, which you have also ignored. Pity. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

We're having the discussion now, aren't we? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Firstly - biology, or the other science, isn't astronomy. You're changes here have implications that go beyond these recommendations, and it leads to confusion is sorting through variable and fixed adopted conventions. By adopting absolutes in journal citations imposes new difficulties not fixing them. I am also concerned you have not gained any consensus to "cleaning up the half million non-standard abbreviations used for the Annual Review series of journals." Where does this discussion appear in Wikipedia adopted rules for editing here? (I can't find that, anywhere.) It is clear you haven't totally thought through what you have done here, and worse, seemingly ignored the use of WP:AWB. Its rules of use says "Do not sacrifice quality for speed and make sure you understand the changes.".[7] The problem with this edit is that you must under the rules of use follow; ""Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale." [8]

So far you have presented absolutely no evidence of gaining consensus before using AWB. By now saying "We're having the discussion now, aren't we?" clearly shows you just have done this at all. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on the Proper motion page. However, this still does not explain you use of global WP:AWB adopting this across all pages, nor failing to gain consensus do so. Whilst these changes may have done in WP:GF, the trap of WP:AWB is not understanding the implications of some edits. As far as I know, Wikipedia has not formally adopted the ISO 4 standard, and if it had, then this global edit may be justified.

Will you be reverting the WP:AWB edits too or attempting to gain consensus? The only other option here will be WP:DRN. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Headbomb: it has been a day since you made these edits. So far you have not explained nor demonstrated consensus for this. Either reverse all these WP:AWB, else I will have to prepare WP:DRN, requesting removal of privileges to use WP:AWB. Please respond, else I will have no choice to do this Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

IL-6

I just read an article about IL-6. "Alterations in resting state functional connectivity link mindfulness meditation with reduced interleukin-6: a randomized controlled trial" Biological Psychiatry 29 Jan 2016 J. David Creswell PhD

Would you be able to explain briefly - Does a person generally want an increase in IL-6 through exercise or a reduction in IL-6 through mindfulness meditation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmguynup (talk • contribs) 21:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

How should I know? I suggest asking at the WP:REFDESK. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Template Call Duplicate Arguments

Hello there! It looks like some of your AWB edits are creating a duplicated parameter in a journal citation. I noticed the error messages on List of bacterial vaginosis microbiota, Lactobacillus jensenii, Lactobacillus iners, Lactobacillus gasseri, and Lactobacillus crispatus. I fixed those ones but if you had any that weren't tagged as WP Micro, I wouldn't have noticed them. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know so hopefully you could tweak your edits. Otherwise, I'm glad to see some of the microbiology articles getting some love! Let me know if I can help! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, those were mostly a case of GIGO. I was planning on getting back to them to resolve the discrepancy, but you beat me to it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Change of journal title

Hi. You recently made this edit.[9] which removed the foreign (German I think) journal title. If you source the article through Google scholar and then select the citation, they give it as the foreign language name. On what basis then did you delete this?DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Because if you look at the publication [10], its title is "Archives Animal Breeding". Archiv für Tierzucht is the old (pre 2015, see [11]) name of that publication. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thanks for the explanation. Happy editing. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Likewise! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Headbomb - I would appreciate your opinion on the notability of the World Institute of Pain. Do you think it passes GNG? Thank you in advance. --Atsme^📞📧 20:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Forgot to add Pain practice: the official journal of World Institute of Pain 20:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Pain Practice has an impact factor, so it's a clear pass of WP:NJOURNALS. And as sponsor of a notable journal, world conferences, symposia, and workshops, I would consider the World Institute of Pain a clearly notable scientific institution. I don't think you'll run into any major issue if you want to create those two articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Headbomb, I thought so, too. And I actually did create WIP last year but it was deleted before I knew what happened, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Institute_of_Pain. I won't bore you with the details. I also created and co-authored Gabor B. Racz, a GA back in 2014 which led me to create WIP. Racz was reassessed within minutes of me being falsely accused of having a COI and I think that's why WIP got pulled into the stink and deleted. Sad. As a result of all the drama, I can't get anyone to do a GA review on Racz now that things have settled down, and I got that article back where it's supposed to be. I guess it's been stigmatized if there is such a thing here in the Land of Wiki. Forgive me for dumping all this on you, but as horse folks say here in Texas, I'm a little head shy now after what happened, and just needed a little reassurance. You being a FA contributor speaks volumes to me about your ability as an editor. I tend to have a higher level of trust in editors with FAs and GAs to their credit, and respect their input. Anyway, that's pretty much it in a nutshell for why I came to you. Best wishes! Atsme^📞📧 04:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The concerns of the time for WIP seemed to be that the article failed to establish notability, or that it was written like an ad. So if you want to recreate it, I would suggest keeping those concerns in mind. Using the WIP as a source on itself for 'boring' information like membership numbers, location, current and past president, etc... is fine, as it is for its activities. But there should also be external sources covering the WIP and its activities. E.g. [12] is probably good enough to establish the WIP congress as significant/noteworthy. Its affiliation with the Pain Practice should also be mentioned. If I had seen the deletion discussion back then, I probably would have !voted keep and cleanup or similar, but it's a bit late for that.

I've got no opinion on Racz, but the GA process can be a bit long to have feedback on. I would suggest asking a relevant Wikiproject for their feedback/GA assessment (most likely WikiProject Medicine). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Headbomb. Your response made perfect sense and I thank you for providing the external link. In retrospect, I probably created the article 6 months too soon. ^{In reference to the one that was deleted not the current one. 05:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)} Atsme^📞📧 22:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)