User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2012/February

Lady Gaga template removal

Was there consensus reached somewhere regarding this edit?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess, I am going to revert and see what happens.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that you removed it again. I don't agree. See the talk.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Virotherapy cleanups

Hi, you have done some cleanups on this page quite some time ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virotherapy&diff=446249942&oldid=442305875) - and I have noticed today that the citation templates (like for pmid 17942938) are still bare PMIDs. Normally I use Template:Cite pmid style so that I have not much idea where the problem is but unless you see another obvious solution I will report it as an problem to User talk:Citation bot. Richiez (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thanks for the help

I just wanted to say thanks for the help today. I learned a lot in a short time. Maybe I'll edit for a while and see what happens. BTW is there a policy on editing talk pages? I don't know if it was appropriate or what the proper protocals are but I left a message on that Kumioko characters page. Sorry if that wasn't ok and feel free to delete it if you think its not. I saw the discussion when I came here and thought it might be helpful. I'm sure it wouldn't be the last time I tripped on here if thats not appropriate. There seems to be thousands of rules on here. I'm a fast reader and a quick study but not that fast. Cheers. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no real "rule" other than be civil. You can try reading the talk page guidelines if you want some extra material on the topic, but it's mostly common sense. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Headbomb. I read a lot of stuff last night and today. Bouncing pretty much randomly from forum to forum and discussion to discussion. I have to be honest with you, after reading through the contributions of many editors incuding yours, that Kumioko and several others, many discussions, doing a few edits of my own, etc. I have a lot of mixed feelings about this place. I'm trying to keep an open mind but frankly its very hard and time consuming to do an edit, much harder IMO than it should be. I tried to do a couple and I had to type a captcha three times just to fix a typo. I finally just copied the whole article to notepad and then looked at some other articles that were similar using them as a guide. Four More Captchas later I got it to work. Discussions seem to break out violently and frequently because both sides are interpretting a rule differently or are citing a different policy that conflicts with the other. It also seems more like the community sides with the one they are familiar with rather than the one that is right. I saw several discussions that apparently favored the regular editor rather than the new one with a valid question or did something against a policy and got run down. Honestly, speaking from a guy with a science background here the whole place is chaotic at best and I don't understand how it functions as well as it does with the amount of negativity and lack of patience so I don't think I have what it takes to be a regular editor. I do see a lot of science articles that could use some work so I'll probably do a few edits but from an outsiders view of things this place needs a lot of help and is barely holding on from what I can tell. I never realized what a complex subculture was in place here and I did learn a lot about that how Wikipedia functions and the inner workings of the machine while I was reading. Anyway, thanks again for all the help yesterday. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well as I said earlier, register an account and most of that annoying stuff (e.g. CAPTCHA) will go away. If you don't want to be personally identified, don't use your real name, but life is a million times easier when you log in. That annoying stuff is there because there is a truely humongous amount of vandalism coming from IPs. As for the 'regular editor' vs the 'new editor', that's what Wikiprojects are for.

Concerning the Kumioko stuff, it's a shame you had to see that, as it's certainly not representative of what the everyday life is on Wikipedia. I'm part of the Bots Approvals Group, which more or less means I'm part of the group of people (we're ~10 or so) that oversees the operation of bots on Wikipedia. Since bots have the potential to wreck havok a lot more than the average Joe, bot operators, and bots themselves are expected to follow a much higher standard, and are expected to be able to deal with less-than-reasonable without losing their cool. For comparison, out of the 800 or so bots out there, only 2 bot operators lost bot privileges in the last year. This really is the minority stuff. This is a lot more representative of what happens when you're focusing on the core of the Wikipedia (writing articles).

The subculture is deep and complex, that much is true, but you'll run into deep and complex cultures whenever you stumble on something new. But the thing is, you're only ever 'required' (I use the term loosely) to understand it when you're trying to deal with complex issues (i.e. something other than editing articles) or controversial topics (e.g. climate change). The biggest mistake a new editor can make is to fear that they might break something or worry about breaking some kind of rule they weren't aware of. Want to expand the brachiation article? You've pretty much got the freedom to do whatever it is you want to do, as long as you reference it properly, don't plagiarise someone else's work, and makes sense.

Let other people worry about the details (bots, templates, article categorisation, formatting, etc...), that's boring stuff anyway. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The situation with that Kumioko user does seem unfortunate. I did a lot of reading about it and the scenario sheds a lot of light on how the community deals with its members. Personally I think there were a lot of mistakes made by a lot of users in this whole Kumioko affair including the editor themselves. Lots of bad comments, fingerpointing and innuendo by editors, some with a long history of it. I did look at a lot of other things too. I read several scenarios on that Administrator noticeboard and reviewed a lot of edits from yours and Kumioko's contribs (and others like Brad101, Magioladitis, looked over that AWB app instructions, followed the Help, tutorial, special pages and other links, etc.). There was a lot of good work done by all of you but as a whole I didn't like what I saw. You make it seem like the scnenario is rare, and you could be right but from the outside looking in these incidents occur commonly. Take that Brad for example, his behavior is simply vile and it appears that its been that way for a while. Several other users seem quite offensive too but I'll stick to the ones from recent edits. I won't bore you any longer and I promise if I keep coming back it will be with actual questions and not long walls of text like this. In this day and age though our online personas can carry over into real life (especially for folks with security clearances, they check those things in the background checks). Like I said I will probably do a few edits but at this time I just don't feel comfortable with creating an "identity" that could affect me later on. I imagine too that this is a feeling shared by others who didn't bother to look around as much as I did or leave a comment about it. They probably just went away. Anyway, sorry for the long Diatribe and I hope to see you around. To quote a phrase I have seen on here a lot in my reading. Happy editing. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright best of luck. Hope you'll stick around. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, after seeing comments like [1], [2] and [3] just to name 3 from the last couple days and Kumioko had a slew of them too as you have seen, I think I'll need it. I just don't know how you all do it. My hats off to you. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's really not all that hard. When you run into drama, keep your head cool, put things on hold (don't keep the doing the stuff that creates friction), stay civil, and ask for advice/feedback/third opinions at a Wikiproject, and things sort themselves out nice and fine. This whole thing blew up exactly because people who should have known better kept doing the things that created friction without waiting for the resolution of disagreements. And then that's when things go downhill, and everyone feels they have to chip in, creating more drama, etc... It takes a bit more time to get things done (perhaps by a few days, or maybe a week), but things go smoothly that way, and whatever extra time you spend waiting for consensus to built is time you gain by not having to deal with avoidable drama.

That being said, I have to deal with drama a lot more than the average Joe because I'm working behind the scenes quite a lot (and notice how this whole thing was because of behind-the-scenes stuff, it's not about article content) and the community trusted me with some additional responsibilities (WP:BAG). Those who work behind the scenes are usually a lot more committed to the project, they will have much stronger opinion on stuff, which result in greater friction about pretty stupid things (like this whole affair). That's why we insist on bot operators being able to keep their cool under pressure. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Not here 24 hours and they figured it out [shaking head]. I wish I was smarter it took me 5+ years. --71.163.243.232 (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about your signature

How do you get your signature to do that, rather than the default one? Is there a setting somewhere. I assume I have to create an account for that? 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You indeed have to create an account for custom signatures. See WP:SIG for more details. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ingrid Daubechies and the use of template "Start date" for dates or accessdates

Hi Headbomb, I saw your reverted my revision using the template "Start date" for dates or accessdates in Ingrid Daubechies, with the edit summary "Undid revision 479285879 by SchreyP (talk) put it in whatever format you want but {{start date}} should not be used for dates or accessdates". Can you explain what the problem is with the use of this template within the "cite x" templates? I like to understand. No such recommendation is given at Template:Start date. Thanks, SchreyP ^(messages) 16:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

{{Start date}}/{{end date}} are used to produce metadata about the starting/ending date of something. For example, the Siege of Leningrad started on 8 September 1941 {{start date|1941|09|08}} and ended on 27 January 1944 {{end date|1944|01|27}}, so it would be appropriate to use those templates in the Siege of Leningrad infobox (this way the article has the correct metadata about the start and end of the siege). Citations don't 'start' or 'end' on any given day, nor do accessdates have starts and ends, and this would mark Ingrid Daubechies as 'starting' on several dates (which is completely meaningless). The template {{date}} could in theory be used instead, although there's little point to use it in citation. I hope that clarifies things. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oeps, I didn't realize that the template also contained metadata used for other purposes! I used this template as an easy way to generate the full dates in English, which is not my native language. I think that I picked this up when I saw it used in an infobox. Strange that nobody warned me earlier for this. I think this warning should be made also more clear on Template:Start date and related articles; that for the pure formating {{date}} should be used. This means also that I have some cleanup work to do. Any chance of creating a script to do this cleanup? Thanks for this clarification Headbomb, SchreyP ^(messages) 20:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You can mention this at WP:BOTREQ. This is a relatively easy task, so it should be picked up rather quickly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment in wrong place

Hi, you appear to have commented in the subsection where you are not meant to add comments (as per warning at subsection start) Talk:Big_Bang#Brief_comments. Can you move the comment down to the Threaded discussion? Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

My comment is exactly where I intended it to be. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"Simplify" at Hamilton–Jacobi equation

Headbomb - you didn't simplify a thing in this edit [4] except delete the colour box. I have been using these to help highlight equations in many articles. Are you going to go around deleting them to "simplify" the articles, in spite of such edits to make them shine some light on the main equation in formula-intensive articles, and make them at least a pinch less drab by lightening with just a slight bit of colour? I reverted the change. Thanks in advance for your response. -- F = q(E + v × B) 22:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary should have been slightly more explicit. I meant to simplify the markup because User:Bibcode Bot choked on the page and though it was the problem (turns out it was something else). By the time I wanted to revert myself, you already did. Hope that clarifies things. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, apologies and thanks. =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 22:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)