User talk:Headbomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User Talk Archives My work Sandbox Resources News Stats Misc.

The Signpost
27 January 2016


A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Elaborate user page and an archive of your contributions! These are great, one of the best user pages I have come across on Wiki. Keep up the good work. Ralphw (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

A brownie for you![edit]

Brownie transparent.png For catching today's code glitch. Nice job! Magioladitis (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

My script fixed 1,400 out 1,500 pages. The remaining pages seems to be false positives due to the ISSNx parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Journal titles[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Reference errors on 5 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)