User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2008/June

Re:list of baryons
Yeah, it still doesn't look normal. Those 1/2 and 1/3 numbers are not wrapped correctly when they are with "+" and "*" signs. Screen shot#1, Screen shot #2, as you could see there is a pretty long horizontal scroll bar, as well. The interesting part is that there is no content when I scroll to the right, so that scrollbar becomes just an unwanted decoration.--Crzycheetah 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried something. Tell me if it looks better now (try to play with the widths if it doesn't). Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 00:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It does look better, those *+ signs look as they should. Screen Shot #3 The widths are fine, the only problem is that 3/2 does not change the height of the cells. If you look closely, you'll see that whenever the height of the cells is unaltered, the 3/2 can't be seen fully. Also, the scroll bar still remains.--Crzycheetah 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay try it now. It should look alright (the heights have been adjusted), if it doesn't play with the heights. Take a screenshot if you can't fix it.

As for the sidebar, try to select all the text (crtl+a) and try to see what's lengthening it so much. Or try edit/preview each section individually to narrow the problem to specific sections. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU! All info in cells can be seen now. I didn't know that a function for height existed. As for the scroll bar, it only appears in "Particle classification" and "references" subsections. More specifically the following paragraph in "Particle classification",

the rules above say that the contains a b and some combination of two u and/or d quarks. A must be one u quark (Q = $2/3$), one d quark (Q = −$1/3$), and one b quark (Q = −$1/3$) to have the correct charge (Q = 0).

As for the references, T. Aaltonen et al. (2007a) and T. Aaltonen et al. (2007b) references create that scroll bar. Again, thanks for fixing the tables.--Crzycheetah 04:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried something. The refs should be fine (removed SubatomicParticle at the expense of unaligned symbols), and I removed the nowraps from the particle classification. If that doesn't work, I have an alternative.
 * Refs section is fine now.  is the only obstacle in the "Particle classification" section.--Crzycheetah 05:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, try it now. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 05:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As soon as I remove  part, the scroll bar disappears. I feel really helpless here.--Crzycheetah 06:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Same.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 12:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the particle used as an example, perhaps that'll work.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 12:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The scroll bar is still there. still creates it, but when I remove the plus sign and preview with , the scroll bar is gone.--Crzycheetah 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC

 * he was indeed right about the consensus of the FCL section at the time (8 vs. 3 vote)

But the whole point of this is that an 8 vs 3 vote does not represent consensus. There are dozens of other editors who have opinions about the subject who were not included in the vote. If I went around canvassing to all those who voted in favor of IEC in 2003 (which I wouldn't do, because it's blatantly prohibited), the vote outcome would have been much different. As you said, another poll was then taken with a different outcome, demonstrating that consensus had not actually been reached.

You can't canvass a bunch of like-minded people, claim a 51% majority, and then use that to justify completely ignoring the position of the other 49%. Wikipedia is not a majority-rule democracy, and Greg's repeated attempts to use votes to subdue others is, as the policy says, antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works.


 * I consider this to be disruptive editing from Omegatron's part 

I also (of course :) ) completely disagree that my removal of the section constituted "disruptive editing". In disputes, the burden of proof for demonstrating consensus is on those who seek to add new rules to a guideline.  Removing something that's disputed is not prohibited, and certainly not disruptive.  It still shouldn't be on the page, and I would remove it myself if it wasn't going to fuel even more baseless criticism.

You said that I should be ashamed of my conduct, but I'm not at all. I don't believe that I've done anything wrong here. If you still think I have, please help me understand why. I expect Fnagaton and Greg to attack me with all sorts of nonsense at this point, but I wasn't expecting serious criticism from anyone else. — Omegatron (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Omegatron said "the burden of proof for demonstrating consensus is on those who seek to add new rules to a guideline" and the burdon of proof was demonstrated, many many many times, yet Omegatron did not accept that truth and instead used revert warring, that is disruptive. What Omegatron did is wrong, there is nothing that can be said which can be an excuse for the revert warring and disruptive editing from Omegatron's part. There is now consensus for the change due to the weak unsubstantiated arguments for keeping IEC compared to the much stronger arguments for the partial deprecating of IEC prefixes. Fnagaton 08:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There never was an 8:3 vote. The vote did not end 8:3. The archive shows 7 votes in favour, 5 against and 1 of "ambivalence". Thunderbird2 (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Without any substantiated reasons given with the against votes. So they are much weaker. Consensus is not made from votes, consensus is made by giving good reasons. Fnagaton 10:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 8 vs. 3 vote Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 14:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that votes cast after that date (21:23, 7 May 2008) should be ignored? or that a sock's vote should be included in the count? Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you said there was never a 8 vs. 3 vote, and I corrected you since there was one. Don't put words I never said in my mouth. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 15:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. I didn't mean to imply it had never been 8:3 and have corrected my earlier post accordingly. Can we agree that it did not end 8:3? Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 15:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

size of MOSNUM talk
Headbomb, It is slow going, but I've been able to edit OK at the talk page so far today. But it really is huge and my request to break it into more manageable chunks was ignored. It bothers me that there may be editors who are unaware of the discussion taking place because they cannot load the page. This remark suggests that other editors have difficulties even on considerably smaller pages. Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * TB2 it would help if you didn't keep on pasting large sections of text  from archives back into the talk page. By the way I have no problems at all from the UK so maybe it is localised to your ISP. Fnagaton 09:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

FCL and "consensus"
Headbomb: In the interests of helping to get the entire greenbox its much needed consensus, I've voted to support it and have given Fnagaton my permission to vote on my behalf. I just can't be watching over this frequently enough to adapt to rapidly changing events. I do ask that you make sure that what is going to MOSNUM has a proper consensus. Although Omegatron and Thunderbird2 complain that FCL didn't have a proper consensus when it was posted, outside, uninvolved editors agree that it did. And it is now on MOSNUM, where it calls for no longer using the IEC prefixes. If push came to shove, I'd organize a big-ass, Wikipedia-wide vote and FCL would have seriously deep tap roots. I would see it as a step backwards if the greenbox replaces everything--including FCL--only to be followed immediately by bitter complaints about how it didn't achieve a proper consensus. I'll very quickly take a strong stand that FCL goes right back in if some elements prevail in their claims that the binary prefix-related portion of the greenbox didn't have a consensus. Do things the right way. Good luck. Greg L (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * From MOSNUM talk page (too big to load)
 * First, it wasn't an argument for anything. Greg wants things to be done the "right way" so there's no revert war à la FCL, and I agree with that. And, BTW, that form of word is not acceptable to all parties. If it were, it wouldn't have been reverted now would it? Fact is that that form moves about 3 votes up, and about 8 votes down (which is hard to consider an "increase" in consensus). It's not that we "ignore" you "just because you're against the IEC units", it's that your arguments are weak. You've got I don't like it (aka not an argument worth anything) and 2) Wikipedia is a democracy (while it's not).


 * Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, that familiarity is needed, that IEC units have near-zero adoption, and that Wikipedia is not a place to promote anything (which is a shame IMO, else we could use IEC units legitimatly), then it follows that IEC units shouldn't be used here. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 13:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My arguments are weak? Let’s analyse yours: Thunderbird2 (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) that form of word is not acceptable to all parties. If it were, it wouldn't have been reverted now would it? You tell me. Name me one editor, other than yourself, to whom the FCL wording on binary prefixes is not acceptable.
 * 2) Wikipedia is [not] a democracy: Sure, but then what is the relevance of “3 votes up, and about 8 votes down”?
 * 3) Wikipedia is not a place to promote anything: Again, agreed, but it does not follow that “IEC units shouldn't be used here”. Use and promotion are quite different things. Where there is no consensus on a statement, the best policy is silence.


 * 1) Well other than me, there's Greg L, Fnagaton, Dfmclean, Pyrotec...
 * Precision: I meant that these people agree with me that my proposed wording is better than yours.

Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 14:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) You brought votes as an absolute mesure of consensus, and said that your wording increased it. Why then did the votes not aligned themselves to "support" when you struck the section about disambiguation?
 * 2) Yes, it follows. The deprecation is partial, as in you can use IEC units when quoting sources, when a a clear majority of relevant sources consistently use then, and on articles pertaining to IEC units. I've asked you (and others) give me one example of a use of IEC unit that is currently forbidden by the MOSNUM but which should be allowed because it would follow the spirit of the MOS. It's been over two weeks now, so I'm lead to believe that you don't provide one because you can't provide one.

Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) But that's precisely my point.  Greg L makes it clear above that he does support FCL.  So why do you insist that he doesn't?
 * 2) That's a very good question, but I cannot answer it.  You need to ask Greg L why he would vote against something that he supports.  Perhaps there was a misunderstanding (Greg is often quick to question my motives).
 * 3) er ... what are you talking about?  The wording forbids all use of IEC units except in very limited exceptions.  There is no point in picking out any one article because my reasoning applies to all articles that do not currently disambiguate.  Are you saying there are none left?

Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 16:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) And Greg L also made it clear that this wording summarizes the core FCL in a concise and efficient way.
 * 2) You should ask yourself if your interpretation of Greg L's post isn't flawed. Greg did not vote "against" something he supports, he voted that this wording was at least equivalent, but I'm under the impression that he finds it superior to the old FCL since it is more concise, and more to the point.
 * 3) If your reasoning applies to all article, then it shouldn't be a problem finding an example. But considering I've asked you at least 10 times by now to give an example of how the letter of the proposal prohibits a use of IEC units that should be allowed under the spirit of the MOS, and considering that you repeatedly failed to provide any, I'm forced to conclude that you simply can't. Unless you bother giving examples, this discussion is over as far as I'm concerned.

Archiving Talk:MOSNUM
Congratulations on MOSNUM!!! While you are busy archiving, could you please be sure to track down what the robots archived into archives 100 and 101 and get all that stuff into a B12 archive? Greg L (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But to be honest, I'm pretty drained from archiving the rewrite, and I really don't feel like going through archives again right now. Perhaps ask Fganaton. Or ask me in a day or two. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 18:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection
You're welcome. I've left some comments on RFPP about IP blocking/banning. Basically it's a "no" in almost all circumstances, except very exceptional ones. If it gets attacked after the 48-hour period feel free to relist it. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  21:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Headbomb/Request for the 217.237.xxx.xxx I.P.s to be blocked

 * Hello! If I'm not out of line, I'd like to suggest maybe requesting that this be copied into your userspace rather than mainspace. It would just seem more appropriate since it really isn't an article. Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 13:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * User Headbomb posted the following text in article talk space: "'Do not delete [section heading] This spans over many I.P.s, and specific I.P.s have already been banned to no avail. Banning specific I.P.s will yield no result, as user will circumvent ban. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 13:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)'"


 * I copied it here as the page has been deleted per WP:CSD: talk page of non-existent article. — Athaenara  ✉  14:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I may have rvv'd over one of your recent edits to WP:RFPP (we should have had an edit conflict, but didn't) You may want to check that page to make sure everything you wanted to be there is still there. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 23:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

changes to MOSNUM
I have just returned to MOSNUM after a couple of days away, and I see there is an attempt to move things forward. I tried to comment on the page itself but was unable to do so (presumably due to its elephantine size - again), so I came here instead, to let you know that I intend to update my votes tomorrow morning, when I will have access to a better computer, reflecting any changes since I last visited.

One thing that concerns me though from what I have just read is your stated intention is to upload the purple box with its clear deprecation of IEC units. I have explained many times that I oppose this because there is no consensus for it. You claim that the arguments against deprecation are unsubstantiated, but I don't understand what you mean. Surely you understand the need to gain consensus for a statement before making it part of a guideline?

The arguments for and against IEC units have been repeated many times. In essence they are very simple:
 * for = the units form part of an international standard and allow simple disambiguation
 * against = the units are unfamiliar to the average reader

Both arguments are perfectly valid, so why do claim that the arguments against deprecation are unsubstantiated? No consensus has been reached during the past months for either promoting IEC units or for deprecating them. Therefore the guideline should do neither. Thunderbird2 (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you are concerned about the deprecation of IEC units, you just don't give reasons for it other than "there is no consensus". However, as of now the votes are 7 for vs. 3 against. Removing your vote, it's 7 for vs. 2 against the upload, and those against don't give reasons other than "this deprecates IEC units" and that IEC units have been adopted by some people. However that is not a reason, that is simply a factual statement. No one ever says why is that partial deprecation a bad thing, while plenty of people say why it's a good thing. How is 78% not consensus, especially considering that opposition is unsubstantiated, and especially considering that not even 0.1% of scientific organization even use IEC prefixes?

Just to let you know, I'm proposing a bunch of text for uploading on Saturday morning. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For a start, how on Earth do you get 7/10 = 78%? Second, the reason that 70% (or even 78% if that were correct) support is not consensus is that no attempt was made to address the concerns of the 30%. Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You refused many times to take part in the debate, then when you finally did post you did not provide any substantive argument, not even close to providing any kind of valid reasoning. Stop your attempts to misrepresent the situation. Fnagaton 16:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 7/9 = 78%. I see you still did not provide any reasons. Goodbye. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not as simple as that. First, there is no justification for dropping any of the 3 votes, so I insist it is 7/10.  More importantly though, and this will not go away, is that because the minority concerns (which have been described many times) were not addressed, the claim of consensus on the narrow issue of the IEC prefixes is a weak one. Therefore it is unwise to discourage discussion of this point at WT:MOSNUM. Thunderbird2 (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You vote against on the ground that there wasn't consensus. Prior to your vote, the situation was 7/9 = 78% in agreement. You never explained once what the concerns were other than "there is no consensus" and "I don't like it" and "These people don't like it". At best these are statements, not explanations. You still haven't backed up your claims, so again goodbye and I'll ask you to stop spamming my talk page with statements emptier than each other. This discussion is over until you start providing what I asked for well over twenty times by now. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 09:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Absence of consensus is the best possible reason to not push something through, because a statement that lacks consensus leads to instability. Noticed any of that lately?  There are plenty of good reasons to use IEC prefixes as well as good reasons not to.  I didn't (and still don't) see a need to repeat these because they have been described countless times in the archives.  And further, you know perfectly well that I did answer your question, because you moved it from here to WT:MOSNUM.  However, you clearly don't wish to pursue the discussion further so let's drop it.  Just don't kid yourself that there is consensus for the wording. Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Headbomb. I also think undue weight applies here to this situation. "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." The IEC prefixes are really a tiny minority so we simply cannot use them for general purpose disambiguation in articles. Fnagaton 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * From No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man:


 * Greg L (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Experimental physics
First I'd like to commend your efforts on the page. They provide some much needed improvement. I do have one question though: what about the timelines? I think they added some valuable information about the history and development of experimental physics. Beast of traal  T   C   _  23:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Beast of traal

Timelines would definitely add something to that article since the history section is pretty thin. Add them as you see fit. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 23:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you might also be interested in helping with the new WikiProject Physics/Projects of the Week. Right now I'm going at it alone, but it's only been up for a few hours. I'd really like WikiProject Physics to pick up some speed, it looks pretty dead and it could be a much more vibrant community. No hard feelings if you don't join, but a bunch of thanks if you do.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 23:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edits on WP:RFPP
Ok, locking your Upage was needed. But please do not call specific people vandals as you did there. It's uncivil. You might also find How not to respond to vandalism useful. Good luck! Ultra! 20:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll call a cat a cat. There's no way anyone can consider IP 217.237.xxx.xxx to not be a vandal. I assume good faith from all, but I won't put gloves to deal with people who have proven beyond any shred of doubt that they are disruptive editors. This was not the first offense, nor was it the third or even the 10th. It's probably around the 500th disruptive edit from his/her part. If not the 1000th. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 21:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

request for comment

 * Hello. I would appreciate your comments here and here. Thank you. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm through dealing with a pointless dispute between two people who're convincing the other is Satan incarnate. {{#if:|{{#if:|$$}}{{#ifeq: {{{anti}}}|yes|[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb { }}|Headbomb { }}{{#if:— The greatest sin is willful ignorance.|$— The greatest sin is willful ignorance. — ταλκ / κοντριβς/Projects of the Week$}}]]|{{#if:|$$}}{{#ifeq: {{{anti}}}|yes|$\overline{Headbomb { }}|Headbomb { }}}$ 18:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. You are right in saying that the dispute is pointless, but I have never questioned Greg_L's motives (nor yours). He believes (strongly) that what he is doing is right for Wikipedia, and I suppose that's why he gets worked up about it.  In any case I would be grateful if you would reconsider and read what I have written.  I have the impression that some of your statements were based on an incomplete picture of the events, and that is what I have tried to put in black and white.  If I have misunderstood something I would like to know. We must put this behind us somehow, so we can all get on with our common objective: to improve Wikipedia. Thunderbird2 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Extremely long signature

 * Hi, your signature is extremely long and sometimes makes it difficult to edit a page with the signature on it because it takes up so much space and also contains syntax that many editors will not be familiar with. I suggest sticking with the character limit that Wikipedia enforces in the Preferences. Gary King ( talk ) 16:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Signature will give you more information if you need any. Gary King ( talk ) 16:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Albert Einstein

 * You are apparently unfamiliar with the assessment scale – A-Class is a higher rating than GA-Class and is compatible with GA status. I hope you haven't made the same mistake with other articles. —teb728 t c 23:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah. Then revert that edit. If I made that mistake on other articles, it should be easy enough to find as they should be physics article with GA ratings. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

List of baryons

 * Hi, I saw your appeal for comments on FLC review. I am not certain these are grounds for a no vote, or even correct, but at least I'll post them here:
 * Last sentence of lead paragraph: is incorrect as it stands I think, because it assumes you weight by mass, not just count particle number (leptons & photons, in particular). "most of the mass of the visible matter" would fix it.  There is also a slight issue because about half of the normal matter is not actually seen (? 2% or 3% of the total needed for flatness I think) but only inferred.  We should? have a term for "ordinary matter", made of known particles, "not (dark matter or dark energy)", but I don't know of one.
 * In the overview, the statement that orbital angular momentum (L, I think?) increments by 1/2 is contrary to my understanding. L is integral valued, and J can be half integral when L & S are added together if S is odd.  The redirect of orbital angular momentum to azimuthal quantum number also seems problematic to me, but would need an article (or section reference) to fix.  It has been so long since I learned this (essentially atomic physics) stuff that I cannot rule out that I may have broken a neuron somewhere, but it does sound wrong to me. Thanks for the useful table. Wwheaton (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow you're right, it's been nearly a month and I never noticed the error in the angular momentum stuff. Thanks a bunch for pointing that out! For the redirect, I really don't see a problem. The angular momentum article is lacking in this, and the azimuthal quantum number is exactly what is concerned here anyway. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
P.S If your Rfa fails, which it most likely will, don't be discouraged. You are a asset to wikipedia:-)--SJP (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * w00t! First barnstar! Yeah, I expect that my RfA will fail too. Once people cast there votes at RfA, it's very hard if not impossible to have them change it (favourably). I'm most saddened by the fact that opposition seems to stem from very poor reasons. Poor edit summary usage? Doesn't matter if I bring out the fact that in my last 500 edits, 71 are without edit summary, all but 3 of which being made before someone pointed that they'd like more usage of summary edits. Username is offensive? I said "shit" once in 4000+ edit?? Self-nom = autofail? Notifying those who'll be most affecting is canvassing? I mean seriously, these reasons are poor as hell. Doesn't even matter if I'm open to recall!  The only reasons I see there that makes any sort of sense (other than personal dislike of my "style", which IMO seems completely adequate, but I'm probably biased here so I won't contest that reason)) is the Template being taken to speedy deletion (a reasonable problem would be if I blanked a page that should not be blanked, not if I brought something that should not be deleted to the attention of people who made thousands of call on what should or should not be deleted, IMO), and people seem to have a particular problem with me taking it to MfD (after being refered there by an admin no less!). My certain lack of involvement on "admin-like" duties such as CSD or whatever, would normally be a valid opposition, but as I don't plan to be involved there very often, so I don't think it should be a concern. At worse I'll reapply in a month and some things in WP Physics will be on hold until I get Admin. At best people will see I ain't interested in using my admin powers to modify the WPAstronomy template to make it say "This article is part of WP WasteOfMoney" and will switch to mass support.  Oh well. Thanks for the Barnstar. I've been dying to get one but I make a point of never asking for recognition. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

 * My apologies if you thought my comment could be construed as claiming you were canvassing. Of course you weren't my comment was meant to be in a sarcastic manner, pointing out the ill will of those who throw accusations around without actually understanding what WP:CANVASS actually says.  For the record, I think your actions in leaving a message at WP:PHYSICS was entirely legitimate and should be encouraged.  Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 22:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't think you were claiming I was canvassing, that much was clear from your discussion with goggy. I was just very concerned about the way it looks to those who won't take the time to verify the claim that canvassing took place on your talk page. My first reaction "Was woah... I didn't message this guy to tell him to vote". Second reaction was "Damn, now I may have to deal with Canvass Zealots". I follow the debate I participate in very carefully since I know that a statement you made on a Sunday night which you think is as clear as it is inoffensive at first can become the source of major dispute due to a missing comma, snowball effect into bans and whatnots during the night, and a very pissed me on Sunday morning. I can seem very defensive at first, but it's the simple result of a very, very, strong dislike for conflicts that result of misunderstandings. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a word of advice here headbomb: RFA !voters generaly dislike candidates who debate the opposes, its called "oppose badgering" and considered to be very bad form. The failure of my first RFA can be partly attributed too such conduct. -Icewedge (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And to that I'll reply that I would oppose a candidate that refuses to address the concerns of the opposition. If they don't like it, so be it, but this is not something I'm willing to compromise on. Debating the opposition reveals who makes sense and who opposes for weak reason. I have no problem getting opposition from someone who has genuine concerns about genuine shortcomings, but have you seen what's out there? Oppose because I have an offensive username. Oppose because I didn't notice my sig messing up the namespace for a day or two. Oppose because it's a self-nomination. Oppose because I said shit once (well with this one 5 times, as there was 4 reference to said word)? I mean seriously. Thanks for the advice tho. It's good advice, even if I won't follow it out of principles. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

 * Best of luck for your RFA... --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 10:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Joule-Thomson effect article is now a messy, tortuous thermodynamic thesis

 * In the first paragraph, the well-known Joule-Thomson effect which has been used for decades has suddenly been named the "throttling process". Then the following description section starts out by describing an entirely different process ... an isentropic expansion during which work is done (such as occurs when a gas is expanded in a turbo-expander) and the temperature decreases. That is correct but it does not describe the Joule-Thomson effect which is what this article is meant to be about.  Then it discusses a "free expansion" and is linked to an incomprehensible stub of an article consisting of only three sentences.  Then it finally begins an equally tortuous discussion of the Joule-Thomson effect.  The very first two sentences should read"The Joule-Thomson effect or Joule-Kelvin effect is the increase or decrease in the temperature of a real gas (as differentiated from an ideal gas) when it is allowed to expand freely through a valve or other throttling device while kept insulated so that no heat is transferred to or from the gas, and no external mechanical work is extracted from the gas. The Joule-Thomson effect is an isenthalpic process, meaning that the enthalpy of the gas is constant (i.e., does not change) during the expansion."  Headbomb and Count Iblis,  have either of you ever heard of KISS ... meaning Keep It Simple Sam?  Have either of you ever designed an industrial large-scale low-temperature distillation system using the J-T effect? I have designed and operated at least 5 such systems during my chemical engineering career and those systems are currently operating well.  This article was meant to simply and clearly explain what a Joule-Thomson effect is and how to use it. You should read the comment posted the article's talk page by some reader on March 14th, 2008 entitled "What a wonderful article!" That was before your changes.  You two have turned an excellent, clearly written explanation of the J-T effect into a messy, tortuous thermodynamic treatise. What you have ended up with is an excellent example of the old saying: Those who can, do ... and those who cannot, teach. - mbeychok (talk) 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I didn't edit the article, I provided a reference to stop the "isenthalpic" and "throttling process" war. If you feel the article is unclear, then clarify sections. If you feel that throttling process should not be part of the JT effect (I really don't see why it shouldn't however), then start an article on throttling process and move the throttling process stuff from the JT effect to throttling process. If you feel it's too technical, then try rewriting some sections in a less technical way, or provide some "layperson's explanation" somewhere on the way. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 12:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * War? What war? I didn't revert anything that Count Iblis revised. I simply told him on the Talk page that he was wrong. There was no reversion war! Don't ascribe actions that did not take place! He has at least admitted that I was correct about the J-T effect not being limited to porous plugs. He has now also admitted that my wording of what the lead-in paragraph should say is "technically correct". In my fifty year career as a chemical engineer in which I actually designed low-temperature distillation systems using the J-T effect at least five times, I have never once heard of the J-T effect being called the "throttling process". That's the trouble with college students who think they know a subject but have never yet been out in the real world of designing or using processes such as the J-T effect or other such processes. Grow up! - mbeychok (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * War is not limited to reverting. It's the fourth or fifth time now that I ask you to stop personally attack either me or Count Iblis, either directly, or by saying our contributions are ridiculous. I'll point out that I did not edit the article either way. Count Iblis mentionned content issue with the difference between JT effect and a throttling process. I had F. Reif's Statistical and Thermal Physics next to me, so I thought I would drop by and help settle an issue. Fact remains is all is did is drop by, quote a book, move on. That you never heard the JT effect being called the throttling process is a good thing since it's not. The JT process is the throttling process. From Reif (paraphrased)
 * Free expansion
 * Gas does no work, &delta;E=0
 * Throttling process (JT process):
 * Gas does work, &delta;H=0
 * JT Effect
 * The result of a throttling process where the JT coefficient $$\mu=\left ( \frac{\partial}{\partial p}T \right )_{_H} >0$$, leading to a temperature drop as the pressure drops.
 * Now you can disagree with this all you want, retired chemical engineer or not, the fact remains that I provided references and stayed calm while you threw insults left and right with very little regards for anyone standing the the way of your quest for who knows what. I've been very civil with you, much more than I could have been, yet you still feel the need to throw snide remarks at me. Again manifested here by your snide remarks about college students, further accusations of being "childish", and a general penchant for completely unnecessary and uncalled for drama. I'm willing to put this behind me, especially if you take back your recent comments. However this is my last warning, and I do mean it. Next time you insult me, I will file a formal complaint. The ball is in your court now. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 09:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA

 * I would recommend withdrawing, because I don't believe your RfA has any chance of passing. You may wish to keep it going anyhow. Should you wish to withdraw, let me know and I'll take care of the paperwork. Also, maybe you can help me understand something: link I don't see the difference. Aren't they both Joule-Thomson effect?  Enigma  message 08:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure of what you're asking... Joule-Thomson effect and Joule–Thomson effect are simply alternative spelling of each other (one is a hyphen, the other uses an en dash). Both have pages since both are likely to be used when making links. One's a redirect because you don't need two pages with the same content. Did that answer your question?Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 11:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it answers it. I simply couldn't see the difference. I don't discern between a hyphen and an en dash, and the spelling was identical. Thanks,  Enigma  message 16:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No probs. Anytime. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In recognition of a job well done

 * Hello! I was introduced to your work via your RfA.  In reviewing your work, I was genuinely impressed by the depth and scope of your contributions to Wikipedia.  I believe that you are deserving of commendation, so please accept this as a token of my appreciation:


 * Wow, two barnstars in one day! It is very much appreciated believe me. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't suffer from hay fever -- it will certainly be aggravated by all of those grasping-at-straws arguments opposing your RfA! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hahaha! Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Scientist‎

 * Hello - I was wondering if you can tell me why you added Template:Infobox Scientist‎ to WP:Physics. It just seems unnecessary. --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well there's a lot of physicist biographies, so it's very useful to have in Category:Template-Class physics articles. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The template is being used in a wide variety of WikiProjects which are science/engineering-related. If everyone starts tagging, then it would be a mess. But I guess this is more of an issue in the future, and we can resume this discussion then. Thanks! --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

re: Featured list candidates/List of elements by stability of isotopes

 * I have left some replies to your comments. Nergaal (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think went through all your suggestions. How does the article look now? Nergaal (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was just wondering weather your vote to oppose still stands. Nergaal (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

List of baryons
Hey Headbomb, thanks for your note. The reason I don't oppose or support promotion is because, as an FLC director, I see that as a conflict of interest. We've relaxed the four support rule so, if after ten days there's a general feeling of support, I'll run my rule over the list one last time to check for MOS breaches, typos etc and then promote. I hope that makes sense. I'll have another look at your FLC shortly. Keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Particle Data Group data for Standard Model
Hi, thanks for your comment regarding the Standard Model at the Graphics Lab. Can you tell us where to get the Particle Data Group masses? Thanks. Dhatfield (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:WP 1.0 bot suggestions/help needed.
I saw your request at Oleg's page. We have implemented class and importance intersections in the India project by adding these to the project banner. See Stub-Class India articles of High-importance for example. Let me know if you have any questions or need clarification. It would good if the WP1.0 automatically does this, but it will add a lot workload to the bot and also category intersection as a MediaWiki feature is being worked upon for sometime. Regards, Ganeshk  ( talk ) 14:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That will not be enough. You will need to add the following code to the Physics project banner template.

Hope that clarifies. Regards, Ganeshk  ( talk ) 15:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly would this code need to be added (as in where in the code does it need to be inserted)?

I've taken things to Template talk:Physics. You you could drop by, that would really help. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18 June 2008

Davydov soliton
Was it on purpose that you made this article "top" importance? I would think "low" would be more appropriate.... --Steve (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it was on purpose. See WikiProject Physics's Importance Guidelines. At the time all particles and quasiparticles were in the "top" importance, but now they've been demoted to "high". It's a work in progress that's been going on for about a week and input is both needed and welcomed. Link is in my sig. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 21:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:reviewing cheatsheet
I just did this for the JT article. I think it is ok, maybe I didn't strike all the irrelevant things away, though :)

About your RFA, I think that a lot of criticisms you received there was unfair. Perhaps good training for you, as in physics you can sometimes get unfair criticisms which you have to deal with like unfair referee reports, rejected grant proposals etc. etc. :)

Count Iblis (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be improved or seems missing from the cheatsheet?

And many unfair critics yes. I don't mind having unfair criticism, but I do mind when decision are made not taking context into account. Bob may have killed a person in his past, but opposing on the ground that he killed someone is worthless if you don't know if it was a murder, self defense, or an accident. When things are decided according to democratic principles and according to the merits of the arguments for and the arguments against, bad decisions follow. While process is important, wikipedia should not be a democracy. See also WP:POLL and WP:IAR.

Thanks for the support BTW. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 22:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The cheatsheet contains a lot of information. For the articles I have worked on this is more than enough. Count Iblis (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool beans. If you want to use it, you know where to find it. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 02:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Physics template
Hi there. I've made the changes you proposed on the template, bar one, which I didn't understand. You said "remove the first three instances of: But I can see only one instance of that string. Did you mean take out the CAT|cat|cat? Let me know on my talk page. Thanks and best, PeterSymonds (talk)  09:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * CAT|Cat|cat|Category|category=category


 * I get several errors in the tests that I do (I'm doing something wrong) so I think it's best I unprotect while you make the changes. Let me know when you're ready. Please ensure that all of them are made with one edit, to prevent job-queue pileup. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk)  16:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm ready. Sorry that this is such a hassle. I tried to get admin powers to speed up things like this, but RfA people have weird standards. Shouldn't take more than half an hour to modify and test. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forgot to watchlist the page! Right, just a second, then go for it... :) PeterSymonds (talk)  16:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unprotected; drop me a line when you're done. No hassle. :) I'm one of the few admins that regularly patrol CAT:PER, which is unfortunate because my coding knowledge is limited at best. Thanks again, PeterSymonds (talk)  16:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I'll leave it unprotected until I go to bed, which will be about midnight UK time. Yeah, I left the = signs in, but when I previewed it went all wrong. Hah, well I'm getting better; I added the C-Class parameters and categories to NovelsWikiProject‎ all by myself this morning! :D There's hope yet. Thanks again, PeterSymonds (talk)  16:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks goes to you. This template needed an overhaul and the wait was killing me. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 17:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing cheatsheet
Regarding your message: I don't understand the reviewing process, and I don't understand the text in your cheatsheet, so I don't have anything to say--- but good luck with it.Likebox (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no real "reviewing process" other than going through the items in the list and striking what's not a problem, as well as listing problems such as "This image violate fair use". See Talk:List of mesons (reviewed by me) or Talk:Joule–Thomson effect (reviewed by User:Count Iblis) for examples. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)