User talk:Headbomb

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

The Signpost
30 September 2015

Question from NOVA Publishers[edit]

Good Afternoon or Good Evening Sir,

We are writing to you from Nova Science Publishers, Inc. and are wondering you why keep changing accurate, factual information on the Wikipedia account (today, such as in the case of our employees). If you are in New York, we would be happy to show you around since you do not seem to believe that these people work there. Alternatively, a fax from our accountant or Paychex company might be helpful. We thank you for noticing our company and are honored that you follow us. But we are not sure why you seem to have such deep, negative personal feelings towards us. Look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediaNOVA (talkcontribs) 19:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, on this page, where is NOVA Publishers -

You linked this to our wikipedia site but NOVA is not on this list. Please let me know if we are missing something so we can forward the article to our lawyer. Thank you for bringing this article to our attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediaNOVA (talkcontribs) 19:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Again you state in the "Talk", that we do not have Vera Popovic or Cathy DeGregory as our heads of accounting and billing, but they are in fact the Managers of Accounting and Billing, which has grown over the years. They have their own department and employees. Additionally, they have worked there for over a decade in previous roles but that is their current role. Please let me know if you would like to come and visit and see for yourself. We would be glad to show you around to prove to you that your statements are completely false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediaNOVA (talkcontribs) 19:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@WikipediaNOVA: I will point out Wikipedia has a policy on legal threats which you may want to review before continuing further. Additionally, if you have a problem with Beall's list, then you should take it with Jeffrey Beall, not Wikipedia. Also, the reference given is, not
As for the second part, I'm not sure why you think I mention Vera Popovic or Cathy DeGregory, or to what 'talk' you are referring to because I have never heard of these people, and I don't see it on the talk page of Talk:Nova Science Publishers. The question is not whether or not these people exists and have these job titles, this is a matter of given due weight to said facts. Compare, for instance, with The Coca-Cola Company, a company much much bigger, with much vaster operations than Nova Publishers. They list 3 'key people', the Chairman & CEO, the Executive Vice President, and the Outside Director (unsure what that does exactly). What's not including is a breakdown of each individual department and manages within The Coca-Cola Company. Or if you want another publisher to compare to, see Reed Elsevier, which only includes the CEO and the Chairman. Simply put, no one care who's the head of accounting. This is not just true of Nova Science Publishers, but of pretty much any company out there, unless there's a some major financial scandal involving accounting.
I will also point out that it's painfully obvious that you have a conflict of interest, so I suggest you familiarize yourself with our policies on conflicts of interests before editing further.
Regards. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Thank you for your email message. I am familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies but I will review them again, per you suggestion.

However, the lowest rating possible among the "refereed book publications" ranking - can you please state where this is in the article?

With Reed Elsevier, yes, they only have CEO and Chairman. Thank you for pointing this out. Indeed, nobody cares who is head of accounting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelAdamSmith (talkcontribs) 20:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear sir, can you also please repost the article. It has been deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelAdamSmith (talkcontribs) 21:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Merging to Wp:Women[edit]

Hi, thanks for doing the initial legwork. A big task, but one which can be achieved. The first step I think would be to leave a proposal notice to merge into a task force on each of the project talk pages. See how that goes. Some are largely inactive, those will be the first to be merged, and then we can chip away at the others. I don't think we need an RFC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

cite arxiv[edit]

This edit of your messed up Note the {{cite arxiv}} does not have authors, just author as a parameter. That template is a limited service template unfortunately. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


Hi! I'd love to ask for your attention on the ununseptium article; it's currently a FAC, but few people have actually reviewed the article. You've been around with WP:Elements for a long time, and our attention would be highly appreciated, as the previous FAC has gained too little attention to even stand a chance to make it to the FA status; hope you can take part. Thanks--R8R (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

WISE 0535-7500 and Wikipedia:Notability_(astronomical_objects)[edit]

The standards outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO are what we go by to establish notability. You can create a 'genuine infobox' for any of the hundreds of trillions of stars and objects out there. That does not make them notable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you really believe that, do you really believe that if you don't impose Notability standards on astronomical objects then Wikipedia will be flooded with pages about astronomical objects? I object to applying Notability standards to astronomical objects in principle, and I also and separately object to the particular Notability standards in that specific article. Explaining the "in particular" is easy, the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability_(astronomical_objects) are based on popularity, the number of times the object appears in the popular or scientific press for example. Astronomy is not a popularity contest. Science is not a popularity contest. To explain why I object in principle is harder to explain. I am a Wikipedia user rather than an editor, I only edit or create Wikipedia articles when I find it to be absolutely necessary. Today, in response to the NASA announcement of hydrated perchlorates on Mars I looked up Atmosphere of Mars. This article doesn't have any information on the seasonal pressure variation of pressure, which is important because that seasonal pressure variation controls the seasonal appearance of water on the surface of Mars. FYI, the seasonal variation is 200 Pa (as measured by the MSL) with a minimum in early sping and maxima in early summer and early winter. Yesterday, I wanted to see what X-ray telescopes there were other than Astro-H so looked up X-ray telescope. This article doesn't even mention Astro-H at all, and has a pitifully small amount of real information about its predecessor Suzaku, so it is probably missing other X-ray telescopes as well. That's important. The day before yesterday I wanted to find a list of solar telescopes in space. There isn't a complete list anywhere on Wikipedia, such a list is deliberately excluded by Wikipedia pages List of space telescopes, List of solar telescopes, and the space probes in List_of_Solar_System_probes#Solar_probes miss the Solar Dynamics Observatory, Trace and Hinode for starters, as well as including a dozen or so spacecraft that are not solar telescopes. That's important. Do you see that pattern? What is important to a Wikipedia user is the lack of information in Wikipedia. I find important gaps in Wikipedia's information nearly every day. Having too much information in Wikipedia is never a problem. How many astronomers would I need to get on a petition to make you remove the Wikipedia:Notability_(astronomical_objects) page? More than the number of Wikipediholics who created it, certainly, but how many is that? As for WISE 0535-7500, the parallax of 250 mas was a dead give-away, wasn't it? A parallax of 250 mas makes it closer than all but four naked eye stars. That certainly suffices for importance. It's also the 3rd closest Y dwarf, may be the second nearest free planet, and may be the nearest astronomical object with surface conditions compatible with Life, as we know it on Earth, but that's just the icing on the cake. Mollwollfumble (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Mollwollfumble: I'm simply telling you if you want to unredirect WISE <numbers>, you'll likely face someone that objects, and you'll have to justify un-redirection and why this article should be considered notable. WP:NASTRO is our guideline on astronomical objects. You can agree or disagree with it. You may even try to convince editors that the WP:NASTRO guideline needs to be updated and create a new consensus. But in my opinion, if this particular object doesn't meet the current WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG guidelines, then consensus will very likely be to keep it as a redirect. It certainly would be my position. Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY of indiscriminate information, and our business is not to duplicate galactic databases. Likewise, we're not in the business of predicting what may or may not be (see WP:CRYSTALBALL). What you do is up to you, but WISE <numbers> stands a much better chance of being accepted as notable enough for its own articles if you meet WP:NASTRO than if it doesn't. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)