User talk:Headbomb

User	Talk	Archives	My work	Sandbox	Resources	News	Stats

---

Brews

Hi. If you see him violating his topic ban again after the block expires, feel free to drop me a line and I'll take care of it. I don't see why you should have to waste your time filling out AE requests over and over again. Looie496 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well two reasons mostly, usually when Brews' involved, you can expect weeks of bureaucratic debates about semantics, procedures, block appeals, wheel wars, ... resulting in an AE request anyway. Going there straightaway is just a time saver. The second reason is that having an AE request with all the details makes it a useful reference for future AE request, as it'll contain the links and details of the case [you don't have to remember what happened, why it happened, how it happened, hunt for diffs on or two months after the fact].

But I'll keep your offer in mind next time. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Treehouse of Horror

Please weigh in on Template talk:Treehouse of Horror#Inclusion of episode segments, so we can generate a consensus. Thanks, Fixblor (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to {{su}} feedback on my talk page.

Just in case you had not noticed: I replied to your feedback on my talk page.     — SkyLined (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Book talk:2010 Summer Youth Olympics

Hello. You have a new message at Book talk:2010 Summer Youth Olympics's 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)