User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2010/September

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.

Article Alerts Bot

Who is working on the bot? Arlen22 (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Neutronium

FYI, a category you created, Category:Neutronium , has been nominated for deletion. As it does not appear that you have been notified of the deletion request, I have taken that step. 76.66.194.106 (talk) 05:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Book

I'm just wondering, is this still active? It's first come first serve basis, and there are still quite a few slots :) ResMar 18:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yuppers. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And...done. Does the coupon have an expiration date? I kind of want to finish working on that section of Wikipedia before I get the book :) ResMar 18:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom for K2K experiment

Please see my query at Template talk:Did you know.4meter4 (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

See my comments again please.4meter4 (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Arthritis & Rheumatism

You tagged this article with {{NPOV}} in May without saying why. Care to comment on the article talkpage? Thanks.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems rather obvious that the article has a promotional slant with language such as "The mission of Arthritis & Rheumatism is to publish the highest quality basic and clinical research [...]" and "The goal of Arthritis & Rheumatism is [...] to maintain its position as the premier rheumatology research journal in the world.". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanx for adding a picture to the Yes book...

Meant to add one but couldn't figure out how to put one in. Now that I've seen how you do it, I can add it to my other books. VictorianMutant (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for K2K experiment

On 12 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article K2K experiment, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox neutronium

Template:Infobox neutronium has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Icalanise (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Alerts bot status page

This page is also linked to by the bots status page, so that part is required. Before you change it back, would you mind saying why you don't like it like that? It would make it much simpler to disseminate the status information to the different parts of the wiki. The short part is pared down for infoboxes and such like. Because of the bot status page, I will change it back like I had it, but if you feel that way is too cumbersome, I will change it. I will document it, though. Thanks, Arlen22 (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want a convoluted template with switches and what not. The status page is simply a short message that is transcluded on top of every alerts, so we can tell people to not panic when the bot is down. I know, I designed the thing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I know that is what it is for, but as there are a few other places that could benefit from regular information, I though it would be good. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have separate files for that, though it would be a bit harder to keep updated. If you really think we shouldn't, then fine. I can see the simplicity point. My thinking was that we could update the text and the bot status page with one edit. The short isn't needed, so I will take that out. Arlen22 (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There. Simplified it a bit more. Arlen22 (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions edits

You edits seem to ignore that the references you are asking for were in the citations you broke up. Please review them in detail and you'll see the various ethnographic religions listed if you need each and every single one specifically delineated by itself. I went through the effort of compiling all those references and have repeatedly had to rescue them from a variety of editors who mashed them up often actually breaking them. I'd like to take a break from Abrahamic religions but I'd also prefer if people who get involved with the article would actually recognized the work done to get references and content as straightened out as it was. Ad the twenty five refs were developed to substantiate things that mattered quite a bit. Please don't just delete. Not too long ago major sections of the article were just being stripped out and those refs were gathered to prove to all comers that the content that was being stripped was in error. Smkolins (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll dig through the references and find which are relevant/reliable if it pleases you, but having a list of 25 references at all once is not very useful. Many of the links (such as Google Knol, and some local organizations also fail to meet WP:RS). Also, for general links and references, you might want to use the further reading sections instead of inline citations. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The point of the refs was to hold up the diversity of views that extend the term abrahamic beyond the traditional three though the main sources tend to hold just the three - and that there were criticisms of that stance too. I had initially thought a single ref would justify the general idea but we still had editors strip out anything past the three. Again, that's why the extent of refs was built up. It's hard to call what was reached a concensus but it reached a degree of stability and part of it was to have a significant body of references. Smkolins (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Book:September 11 attacks

Thanks for your work on the book. I agree with you that is a better image. TheRetroGuy (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Book:The Godfather series

What do you think, hmmm? Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Jesus crap can't you people give it a rest?

I'm giving sources, you revert. I'm improving the article, you revert. Nothing ever makes you happy. The album is notable, if you don't agree, take it to AFD. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not a newbie if you believe that those damn sources are reliables, shame on you. Create your sandbox and work there not in mainspace creating unnotable album instead. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 05:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No shame on you for making Wikipedia a miserable environment to work in. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't create articles which grossly lack notability as you did at Pre-Madonna. None of the sources you provided establishes notability. It just states that a bootleg was released. You need to have a consensus at WP:ALBUM or WP:MADONNA for this. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:28, 15 September 2010 (UT

Then take it to AfD and have a proper debate rather than blanket revert. I gave 8 sources all from reliable sources, which covers the release, impact, etc... Which is more than plenty to established notability. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't blatantly lie. None of your sources establish notability, even give a minor instance of impact. All of them note that the bootleg was released, and how to order it. I don;t understand how an experienced editor like you can't understand what notability is and is resorting to such crappy argument. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes they do, and don't you fucking accuse me of being a liar. Place your balls on the table and send it to AfD, or shut up. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Your frustration is of no importance to me, neither is your aggressiveness. Please point me to the references, if there are any. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

How about you read what's given instead of being a pointy dick ([1])? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You can be as abusive as you want, and I have access to sources better than you, but none of them talk about the album, they talk about Madonna as an artist. None of them discuss the compositions, just mentions what is present. None of them critically review it, just tells you where to buy it. None of them talks of its impact, or even the so called fiasco regarding being released as unauthorized. Hence there is no point in keeping a page, just to list the tracklisting. I'm sure you must have noticed how many citation tags are there. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I suggest everyone removes themselves from this "discussion" and focus on the AFD. And remember to comment on the content, not the contributor. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphan template

You recently added an orphan tag to the article Efforts to stem the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which is wikilinked from two other articles. Since WP:ORPH recommends adding the tag only "if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles", I was wondering if you could explain you reasons for adding the tag. Thanks. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowswer does it automatically. I assumed its logic made sense. I also note that WP:ORPHAN states "{{orphan}}: A template to be put directly on the article if it has two or fewer links from other articles satisfying the orphan criteria."Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I put a question about this on the talk page of WP:ORPHAN yesterday, but haven't received a response yet. I would also note that AWB has a new option which allows it to comply with the recommendation in WP:ORPH. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replied at WT:ORPHAN and made the necessary change. And yes AWB has a recommended switch that allows it to not automatically tag articles that have 1 or more incoming links, but some people don't have that switch set and others might be running an older version of AWB that doesn't have this change. -- œ ^™ 15:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Alert Bug/Requests

Can I change the template that we use, I just want to change the "update with" to use templates, I think that is okay since it will be mostly me using that field. Is that Okay? I will basically make it like this:

{{AAlerts bug | status = New  | type =  | description =  | diff =  | signature = ~~~~ }}

{{AAlerts feature | status = Pending approval  | description =  | signature = ~~~~ }} See the edit page for better looks. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 17:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I have absolutely no qualms with things being updated and given a spitshine, it'll probably be a good thing. The problem I had with your previous edit is that it unnecessarily discourages people from helping. For instance, if something obviously isn't a bug, it doesn't take the coder or operator to close the report as "not a bug". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I totally get what you are saying about that. If the templates don' work then we can switch it back. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 19:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Book:Vietnam War

Five articles from Book:The Vietnam War are not in Book:Vietnam War. These five articles are:

History of Vietnam

1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt

1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing

Huế Phật Đản shootings

Xa Loi Pagoda raids

Best, --Discographer (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

HB, very important - notice that I relocated Book:Vietnam War to Book:The Vietnam War, and Book:The Vietnam War to Book:Vietnam War. I did the book talk pages that way too. Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: PediaPress renderer for Wikipedia Books

I really appreciate! Thank you so much! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Cernettes in the LHC article

Hi Headbomb, the sentence on the Cernettes that you just modified has been subject of a debate in the talk page. One editor claims that you agree with him, since you modified the sentence without reverting his edit. When you have time, could you please read the section in the talk page and give us your opinion on the matter? Thanks, Ptrslv72 (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I replied on the LHC talk page. Ptrslv72 (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars

	The Chemistry Bond Star and Isotope Barnstar
	For dealing with the mess that the isotope articles were in, and categorizing them, and for the work put on creating wikibooks on the chemical elements, you deserve at least a little double barnstar. Nergaal (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

w00t! Much appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

AWB bot - thousands of unnecessary capitalization changes

FYI - AWB discussion Q Science (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)