User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2010/November

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

banned user

Hi. I notice that your last edit at Planck units was reverted by this IP number who happens to be the banned User:Rbj. He has been 'harblocked' since that last edit but you should try to become familiar with his contributions, interests and methods as he is likely to reinvent himself again, and again, and again. He also edits articles such as Natural units. I no longer edit science articles and I can't keep monitoring the situation. McZeus (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind, but you might want to notify WP:PHYS (at other relevant WikiProjects) for this to get more attention. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

OK McZeus (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Bibleref2c

Template:Bibleref2c: Yor last edits of the template broke formatting of pages in which it is included. Please experiment on a copy of the template before finalizing the change, so that the rest of wikipedia remains unbroken. Yceren Loq (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

After the template the immediately following text (in Holy Spirit) looked like this:

 Jesus, just before his Passion, during Last Supper, promises to send

I.e., as if extra <CR><space> were inserted. Yceren Loq (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Holy Spirit. Anyway, I checked some others; same issue. Notice this happens when the template is inserted in the middle of a paragraph. I am using Internet Explorer 8 . Yceren Loq (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. My wikipedia GUI is in this "new features" mode. (I noticed it is a bit buggy.) Yceren Loq (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for quick response. Yceren Loq (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Contribution

Well, there is hope. Since sometimes critiques or critique-like articles are allowed in Wikipedia, I have something to shoot for. Maybe I'll take a look at the examples you cite. I understand the policies. I am just looking for a way to satisfy them and do what I think I need to do.

I want to use Wikipedia because it is well respected and it is frequently consulted by journalists and other professionals. I think something needs to be done about the bias that can be present in the popular media, professional scientific journals and even among Wikipedia editors. That is, the consensus can be skewed.

You really have to admit that just by accepting an article for inclusion in Wikipedia implies a bias that is contrary to the NPOV policy. Perfect neutrality cannot be achieved, but positive explicit steps can be taken to compensate.

Kentgen1 (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we are biased against the non-mainstream. A "criticism of X" type of article can only be written if their is significant and notable criticism of X. If the criticism is mostly done by fringers and quacks, then it is very unlikely that the article will be allowed to remain. A "criticism of black holes" type of article has nearly no chance of being included in the encyclopedia, because the only people who dispute that are relativity deniers and similar fringers/quacks. I don't know what exactly you plan to write, but if your recent posts on various talk pages are any indication, I doubt that I and others will agree that what you want to include meets our content guidelines. You're welcomed to try, but don't be surprised at the result if it turns out differently than you expected. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Bibleref2's

Thanks for the nice updates to the Bibleref2's.

Here are some items on my "dream sheet." I'd like to share them with you in case any inspire you to apply your talents:

1. In Bibleref2c, it would be nice to have the user's input displayed in the shortest legal abbreviated form according to generally accepted abbreviations. E.g., |Matt|6:33| would become ^{Mt 6:33} I realize that would require a table lookup, which I don't know how to do in this language.

2. In Bibleref2, it would be nice to have the Book name displayed in full. The user could always override that using the Comment field. Hence, Matt 6:33 would display as Matthew 6:33

3. Eliminate periods and superfluous spaces in any displayed references except comments. Users tend to be inconsistent, sometimes including a period after a book name abbreviation and along comes another user who adds a bibleref2 and omits any period after the abbreviated book name. We would leave them if the user makes the reference a comment.

4. Numbered books remain a problem and presently require a comment to separate the number from the alpha book name. If we get a table lookup working, it would be simple to let the user enter |1Cor| or |1 Cor|. Then, our earlier logic would enter the spelled out version in bibleref2 and correctly abbreviated version in the 2c's.

Thanks! ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Script Request

Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Requests's talk page. ~ QwerpQwertus Talk ツ 02:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Book:Sheffield

Hi. Looks good. You might also want to look at People of Sheffield, Sheffield Town Hall, Hallamshire, and possibly Sheffield Tramway. Thanks —Jeremy (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Book:Theban Kings

Hey HB, that's a good one! I wish I created that! Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's Book:Athenian Kings, Book:Spartan Kings, Book:Athenian Kings, Book:Corinthian Kings, ... all up for grabs :p. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm..., HMMM!!! Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think best I stick with music books! You're doing an amzing job with what you've got going on. Thanks for all you've done (which was a lot) on Book:The Spinners and Book:The Temptations. I don't know why Halls hasn't said thanks; but I am! Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Brews at AE

Hello Headbomb. I reviewed your new report at WP:AE#Brews ohare. I suggest you might consider withdrawing the report. Though Brews has been skirting the limits in the past, I don't see anything actionable here. His changes at Euclidean geometry appear benign to me. The theory of relativity was already in the article, so he didn't add that. It is reasonable to be concerned that Brews may not be sincerely trying to stay within the limits, but filing an AE report that isn't very persuasive won't really help the situation. He tried to add the same Fontoura Costa reference also at Pythagorean theorem, but the editors there did not agree to include it. Allowing the normal editorial process to work at Euclidean geometry seems like the natural thing to do. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a pretty crystal clear and blatant violation of his ban. Discussion of the nature of space, and whether it is Euclidean or Einsteinian is not only blatantly physics-related, it's also directly related the area where brews has been most disruptive (speed of light, electromagnetism, relativity topics, and anything related to it). You may not be a physicist and see the connection immediately, but this is equivalent of someone being banned from a topic such as geology editing the article on tectonics. Brews has been testing his ban, violating it left and right, and has wasted countless hours of productive editor's time over the last 16 months or so now. He has been warned plenty of times. Hell, he's been banned not even two weeks ago for this stuff, and he still keeps at it.

So no, I will not withdraw the request. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What about the Pythagorean theorem? Should he avoid that also? How about articles in Category:Euclidean plane geometry? I don't see where your argument has any plausible limit. If you closely view his actual changes at Euclidean geometry, I wonder what you can object to. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If Brews starts (or started, I don't watch that page but judging from a quick glance at its history, it seems that Brews behaviour has been problematic there as well) making statements about the physical nature of things such as "As discussed in more detail below, Einstein's theory of relativity significantly modifies this view." in Pythagorean theorem and reference physics books such as The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, by Roger Penrose, to argue his points, then yes, it would most definitely fall within the scope of the ban. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see a comment I made at AE. While some admins favor a 1RR/week restriction on all natural science articles, we don't have the authority to do that. All we can do is block Brews for violating his topic ban from physics. Maybe you want to comment further on what should be done. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Golden Age of physics

I started rewriting this article with a comment on the talk page. Uncle G previously added material as well. It appears that I can do a workable rewrite, matching sources. The idea is to report what the sources say when using this term, or what sources say about this term. For example, it could be argued that the time of Galileo and Newton is veiwed as a "golden age" of physics (including comsmology). And that is according to one source (at least). Maybe you could let me know what you think on the aritcle's talk (or other comments). Heck, if you have ideas for possible sources let me know. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Book: The Temptations

Hi.

Thanks for all the help with the two books I made (Book:The Temptations & Book:The Spinners). I was trying to put in as much info as I can when I had to go take care of some urgent matters. Actually, you've practically finished up everything needed to be done on them so thank you very much for all you've done.--Halls4521 (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Hopefully with these as guides, it'll be easier for you to create other books in the future! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And also thanks for the help on the new Book:The Isley Brothers as well. --Halls4521 (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour

Je vous remercie,
Votre utile, donner les moyens,
Et comment votre cœur généreux
Votre affiche désintéressement.

Je vous remercie pour votre gentillesse,
Je n'oublierai pas de sitôt;
Vous êtes l'un des plus belles personnes
J'ai jamais rencontré.--180.191.54.108 (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

...Uh... merci? Je dois admettre que je n'ai aucune idée de qui vous êtes. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

He's been posting similar messages on a lot of other people's talk pages; see the contribs link. —Soap— 20:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know. Can't see a pattern in the choice of editors however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Italic titles for articles using Infobox journal

See Template talk:Infobox journal#Italic title. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism

Hi! I would like to translate the article "A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism", which is about the great textbook written by James Maxwell, from English to Chinese. However, I can not find it in the English Wikipedia. I've heard that you are an expert in the area of electromagnetism. Is it possible you can write this article so that I can translate it into Chinese. Thanks very much for your help!--LaoChen (talk)07:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm hardly an expert on electromagnetism, but I suppose I could write something about it as it does deserve its article. The original can be found here s:A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism in the meantime. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"psychotic obsessive clueless maniacs devoid of judgment"

You said, here that Brews ohare has accused other pepople of being "psychotic obsessive clueless maniacs devoid of judgment". Can you show me some diffs of behavior of that sort?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Bear in mind this is mostly a description of the implications and tone of his rants rather than Brews doing verbatim direct accusations of us being psychotics and clueless. Common words in Brews' repertoire are accusations of us being "dubious", "frivolous", "high-handed", admins taking "baseless actions" etc... Brews' defense is denial in block, coupled with "it's not me, it's them" reasoning. This I take to be obvious by now for anyone familiar with the case, which you might not be. Coren agrees at the very least, that Brews refuses to entertain the thought that the problem might be him. And considering ARBCOM just issued a year siteban on Brews (8 to 1), with the "dissenting Arb" preferring a 6 months siteban, I think most of ARBCOM agree with that too.

However, if you want something more tangible, Brews' choice of language in several situations is many times very close to verbatim; very recently on your own talk page he wrote "With a clearer and more circumscribed authority, admins would find it harder to become despots. Moreover, the attraction for psychopaths prone to the Mugabe-syndrome to become admins...", which is most likely (although if you want to get technical I can't prove it beyond doubt) an oblique reference to User:Jehochman or User:Sandstein who were often the ones doing the sanctioning and gave him plenty of warnings. Some of it goes in the form of deleted pages, which I don't have access to, but just the title of User:Brews ohare/Physchim62: Is he nuts? should be evocative enough. Here's him very recently going the way of the conspiracy ""it's all based upon gossip in secret among admins".

I could find many more of such examples, but one of Brews' problem was his sheer verbosity, and I'm not keen on revisiting it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to gently but firmly recommend that in the future, even when feeling very annoyed, you refrain from putting words in his mouth like that. It lessens the credibility of your complaints by a very significant margin. Your answer here is that, no, he didn't actually say what you accused him of saying, although he did say some other bad things.

I think it will far better for everyone if you not do that. Instead, I suggest sticking to very unemotional and very NPOV descriptions, including diffs. It will be much more effective and also much more helpful to others who are new to the issue and would like to try to figure out for themselves what is going on.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that I put words in his mouth, reword "psychotic obsessive clueless maniacs devoid of judgment" into "psychopaths prone to the Mugabe-syndrome" and "nuts" who act secretly "based upon gossip" if you want, the jist of what I was saying is the same. But your opinion is your own. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, the Mugabe-syndrome seems to be a hotly debated topic on Jimbo's talk page; it has been mentioned by four different editors there in the discusion about RFA kicked off by Jimbo there :) Thing is that people do have emotions and adminstative actions can provoke such emotions by the sanctioned person or someone who disagrees with that. See e.g. here. SirFozzie and SBHV used to be reasonably good friends but after this conversation, things broke down completely. To not make things worse than they already are, I think that Jimbo's suggestion is something one should always to stick to. Count Iblis (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, when quoting Headbomb you left off his important rider " or variants thereof", which acquits Headbomb of distortion. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Book:Harry Potter

Hi HB, just looked at this and want to say might you use italics for the books, films and video game titles instead of not using them. I'll look at it again later to see if you done this, or I'll get on your case about it until you do! Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah they should use 'em. Feel free to fix it yourself if you see it that way before I get around to fixing it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay HB, done. Good book, by the way. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not using template:math

I have notices you using AWB to remove template:math such as replacing $B$ with B. I am not necessarily complaining about it. I was hoping, though, that you could point me to a page where the best way to format these variables is discussed. I checked the math manual of style for instance, a little while back and it seemed to promote using the math template, IMO.

Unfortunately, this is probably the correct decision. The math template produces a better font, at least to me and no pngs need to be downloaded. Unfortunately, it seems lately that it also produces larger vertical space between lines and is bigger for some reason on one of my computers. I think, though that these may be recent artifacts. Your thought would be greatly appreciated. TStein (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the {{math}} template is very new and has no consensus for such use. It seems to be intended for something replacing

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

x+y=2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

with a non-PNG version

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

x + y = 2

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

rather than being used inline. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm..., that would be silly since simple equations are automatically converted to html for most people. We don't need better control of the between line equations, but the inline situation is awful, IMO. Interestingly enough, you italicized variables are not made bigger for me while my bolded ones are bigger. Oh well, I guess I will go back to doing it the ugly way with B. TStein (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You can perhaps blame me for some instances of {{Math}} recently getting bigger: see here. But as far as I know it's now working as intended, making the size of both {{Math}} and math tags which use HTML (simple ones if the user lets them) closer to the size of text in PNGs. Because of that it would seem to be a poor fit for inline formulae, though the manual of style does not seem to take the size issue into account, or give any clear recommendation on whether to use it ("you may"). The manual of style maybe needs updating to either give better guidance, or to remove mention of it altogether if it has too many problems with use.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am in favor of that change and even proposed it earlier, iirc. I didn't know that it had been applied, though. Maybe we can make an inline version of {{math}} that overides the bigger font-size style; ({{mi}}?) although there are so many different configurations that it might be impossible to make it work for everybody.TStein (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The size of things made by {{math}} stretches the inline just as much as the pngs themselves do it. In general however, there are several many other things than appearance going against the use of {{math}}. The superior scheme has always been using <math> for formulas on their own lines, and HTML for inline.

Its existence means that articles will be using three different input methods {{math}}, with overlapping scopes.
If you use <math> or {{math}} for inline, you will either have a serif-font in an otherwise sans-serif string of text, or both. With <math> you can at least suppress the line-stretching by using \scriptstyle <math>\scriptstyle{x + y = 2}</math>.
The only exception is when rendering very complicated formulas inline, or things which do not have HTML equivalents ( $\prod _{i=1}^{N}x_{i}$ ).

In general, {{math}} was designed to duplicate and mimic <math>. It's an unnecessary style fork which makes the articles all that more nightmarish to maintain. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

tree book

Heya Headbomb, thanks for your work on my little pet project tree book. Re: this diff, I originally did have them arranged by age (I think), oldest-youngest, but alphabetically is just fine too. Cheers, phoebe / (talk to me) 22:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I mentioned that sorting them by age might be a better option. I'm pretty neutral on how to sort them (I certainly won't revert you if you go back to sorting by age), but alphabetical is easier to browse IMO. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

AWB

Would it be possible not to save such edits? Surely they are of no harm, but they might cover up previous vandalism. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That particular edit fixed some whitespace issues, there's no reason to not have made it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Do I believe this? Rich Farmbrough, 22:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

Merge discussion for I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)

An article that you have been involved in editing, I've Just Begun (Having My Fun) , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Xwomanizerx (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The {val} template no longer works correctly

Please see the Template talk:Val#Val is now screwed up. There have been one or more recent edits that totally fouled up the function of the {{val}} template. Greg L (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Update User:Martin fixed the spacing issue but left the issue of having a single hanging digit to between me and User:Verdy p. At User talk:Verdy p#Val template, you will see my response to him. But in a nutshell, he is way-wrong on this and I hope you keep an eye on how things progress on the Template talk:Val#Val is now screwed up-page. In a nutshell, my response to Verdy p was as follows:

Please see Template talk:Val is now screwed up. In a nutshell, the BIPM and the NIST and every other standards organization uses a last group of four digits so as to never leave a single hanging digit. By wide consensus, Wikipedia follows that practice and does not want a house style that flouts international conventions. Links are provided on the page.

Greg L (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of Latin upsilon in this article is wrong

From upsilon: In particle physics the capital Greek letter Υ denotes an Upsilon particle. Note that the symbol should always look like $\,\Upsilon$ in order to avoid confusion with a Latin Y denoting the hypercharge.

Headbomb, the Latin upsilon doesn't show up on many browsers and it's not supported by WP fonts. In addition, it's wrong. So stick a $\,\Upsilon$ in it. S B H arris 23:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a Latin upsilon, there's the Latin wye (Y). The template uses the correct ramshorned upsilon (ϒ), not the regular upsilon (Υ), and it displays correctly on all browsers as far as I'm aware. If there's a problem with it, it should be raised on Template talk:SubatomicParticle, not by making manual replacements on every article that uses it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)