User talk:Headbomb

User	Talk	Archives	My work	Sandbox	Resources	News	Stats

---

WP:MWG and WP:JWG

hi, I've used the journal writing guide as a template to make something similar for magazines. Comments/criticisms welcome. For the moment I haven't linked it from the project main page yet. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

inference of LDA

Hi ,

Nice job, but I have the following arguments to state:

1. How could the gamma function be ignored at the 2nd-last step of the final inference?

2. Right before the "Finally..." line, the joint-probability ignores the selection of k. Does it make sense?

Thanks for your attention and look forward to your reply,

Liu.Ming.PRC@gmail.com

Best regards, Ming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.132.39.207 (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hurricane season bar gap

Template:Hurricane season bar gap has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comments are requested on the CHEMMOS

Hi. I've made a proposal to tighten up the WikiProject Chemistry Manual of Style a bit with regard to Accidents and Incidents as well as sources. You previously commented on that talk page, so I felt your comments would be most welcome in the current discussion. USEPA James (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rjwilmsi could help me so that they don't delete my page, I have made a mistake, please, thanks.

Due to unfortunate errors in the wikipedia page Alejandro Correa Rueda, want to delete. All this for wrong interpretation of the meaning that said: "This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions may be available. (February 2012)". Incorrect changes that were made same day and Mr. Daniel Case is nominating me to delete my page. Not delete the page, please help.I like to contribute to wikipedia.

Best regards,

Alejandro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandro Correa Rueda (talk • contribs) 22:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Get admins involved in what

What is there to get admins involved in? A discussion? I haven't done anything but respond to your comments about my behavior. Mostly incorrect ones I might add based on assumptions you made without finding out the facts. If you really want to enforce a policy how about 3RR for Markvs88's actions before I got blocked, or his uncivil comments and article ownership. Theres 3 policy violations there. How about Brad's comments at Bag saying YAY your bot got blocked, How about, etc. etc. Before you go painting me as the bad guy here, I am just trying to defend myslef from editors trying to ruin my reputation. One I spent years building up only to have a couple shitheads drag it through the mud. --Kumioko (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here frankly is that I am not some young high school kid who doesn't know anything. I am well educated, with a lot of experience in managing things like this and I know better than to roll over and take it when its not correct. I may not be as tactful as I should be sometimes and its sometimes hard to type out exactly the right tone and texture as it would be in real life in person but the fact remains I am being railroaded and its wrong. Frankly, someone who has been around as long as you and having worked with me and seen what I have done thus far as you, should know better. Your right though, I did use my bot for 2 edits, one to the Admin who blocked me here and one to the project talk page here. In both cases I apologized for the method and I stated that I felt there would be repricussions. So if the revokation of the bot was the result, then so be it. But I still contest that the block was nothing more than a way to keep me from discussing the issues that you said I refused to do. I didn't refuse anything. I was actively engaged in multiple discussions (I would be happy to provide links if you even care, likely not) before I was blocked. I then continued to comment on my talk page. By the time the block was over, my reputation in the discussions had been crushed and no one cared anymore. Mark got off with not so much as a warning. So thats the short version of my story and why I am so pissed off about the whole incident. --Kumioko (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot policy is unambiguously clear that it's unacceptable to edit from bot accounts, and doubly-so for the purpose of block evasion. I (or any of the BAG members) do not give a rat's ass about Markvs88's or anyone else's actions, nor do I/we care about your education level. The only thing I (and the rest of the BAG) care about is your actions, which were inexcusable, and the way you handled the whole thing is a textbook case of how not to behave as a bot operator. There is only one person to blame for your now-soiled reputation, and you only have to look in a mirror to find who it is. You could have disengaged as several points in the whole affair, and you even promised to do so, but you didn't because of some misguided sense of 'I'LL SHOW THEM HOW WRONG THEY WERE!!!', went down the path of the conspiracy theory / admin cabal, still refuse to disengage, and still refuse to see the block for what it actually was: stopping your from edit warring over the wrong version.

The list of people who thought the removal of your bot op privileges was unfortunate is growing thin. It's not growing thin because people want the downfall of WPUS, it's growing thin because they are concerned about the well-being of Wikipedia. How many people told you similar things by now. Ten? Twenty? How many will it take before you consider that when the world is against you, maybe it's not the world that's gone crazy overnight, but you.

So please, for your own sake, disengage.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I already admitted I made mistakes, but I still insist that the block was wrong and to prevent me from commenting. I'm not dropping sticks or anything else and only time will see if my instincts are correct in that without a lead coordinator to help do the day to day tasks, WikiProject US will cease to function as will many of the supported projects. The list of people was fairly short and what continues to frustrate me is that NO ONE seems to give a rats ass as you put it. If people were truly concerned about Wikipedia they would have blocked Mark not me. But its clear to see that I have over stayed my welcome. --Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)