User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2009/May

WikiProject Rufus Wainwright
Thanks for the tip! I just started the project yesterday, so I am still trying to get out kinks. Is there a source I can go to with information suggesting "how to" establish a wikiproject? Through mimicking other projects, I have constructed a project page (including scope, participant list, DYK, etc.), created templates, and added the project template to all Wainwright-related articles I can think of. However, I am not sure exactly what articles alerts are, or whether I need to set up an assessment table with quality and importance categories like many other projects have established. Just thought I'd ask! You are more than welcome to take a close look at the project page to see if there is anything I can do to improve the project. Thanks. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I am not sure what you mean about the article alerts. I should just provide the link to this on the project page so that others can view it? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Either that, or remove the display=none from the ArticleAlertbotSubscription template.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts notice
Hi Headbomb,

About this note: WP:MED has listed the article alerts link at WPMED Navigation, which pushes the link out to some thirty pages. If you maintain a list of projects that don't need this message again, then WPMED should probably be on the list Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC) (who is not watching this page)


 * Nah, I just went through the list of projects who uses "display=none" and checked for links. I guess I missed it when browsing the project. Thanks for letting me know where it is though.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
How's that?  Zoo Fari  14:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Vacation until June 2
Hi, until June 2 I will have only very little time for Wikipedia because our family is going into vacation. I still will check now and then, whenever possible. In case there is a a very urgent matter about the taskforce Glass, I hope you can resolve it, at least temporary until June 3. Thank you in advance... -- Afluegel (talk - WP Glass) 19:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Planck
I do not understand your chance back to v on the Planck's Constant article. Could you explain? I thought angular frequency was 2*pi*f not 2*pi*v. Unit analysis show 2*pi*f to hold true.

Thanks Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by JHenriksen (talk • contribs) 02:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nu is the symbol used for frequency across the article. Makes no sense to write "frequency" instead of &nu;. 2&pi;f or 2&pi;&nu; is the same thing, but &nu; is the commonly used symbol for frequency in quantum physics.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clearing that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JHenriksen (talk • contribs) 02:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. BTW, usually people sign their posts with four tildes ( ~ ). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for constructive criticism
Hi Headbomb - I left this same request for Bill Wheaton at User talk:Wwheaton. It is word for word the same request so I am a little "humbled" to ask it here as well. But, here goes anyway: I was wondering if you could read a wikipedia entry that I have been working on and maybe make some constructive critisms. Here is the title of the article, and the internal link for it: The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?. The article is about the book with that title. You might be familiar with it.

The intention of this project has turned out to be twofold. One is to give a summary of the chapters focusing through the lens of making this book and article interesting to the general reader. The second intention is to impart an understanding of particle physics based on this book. It is written by Leon Lederman who is a Nobel Prize in Physics laureate for his work with neutrinos. Obviously this has not been his only accomplishment. He has been right there on the leading edge of particle physics.

I see also that you are a participant of WikiProject Physics. Perhaps you could get some of your fellow members in WikiProject physics to look it over as well. It would be much appreciated.

Also I must add that it is not quite complete - but it is almost finished. However, now might be a good time for some feedback - I guess any feedback from the physicist community on the article's talk page would be welcome. Thanks in advance. Hope to hear from you Ti-30X (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is probably three quarters done, not really almost finished. I want to add more to Chapter 4 and Chapter 9 Ti-30X (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for tagging WP:Energy categories
Hi, Headbomb. I knew yoy have been involved in the process of tagging WP:Physics articles. WP:Energy has made a request for tagging WP:Energy articles by bot. As there was some overlap with the WP:Physics, the process was temporarily stopped for discussion and concensus finding. Therefore, I would like to ask you comment concerning potential categories for the tagging. The list of potential categories for tagging is located here and the discussion about which categories should be excluded from this list, is going on at the WP:Energy talkpage here. Your comments are welcome. Beagel (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've quickly reviewed the list and I don't think any of them needs to be bot-tagged with the physics template. Perhaps Category:Photovoltaics, but it still seems more appropriate to do manual tagging IMO. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Parallel editing
Parallel to your edits on Volumetric flux, I tried to solve the same "copyvio problem" on Talk:Volumetric flux/Temp (already speedy deleted). Anyway: thanks. -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your clarification on date delinking
Not needed, but appreciated nonetheless. I hope you know that any tone in my comment wasn't directed at you personally — I don't know you from Adam, and that's not my style anyway. It's just that I constantly see people saying that this entire problem and case wouldn't exist if it weren't for Locke and TE and, while they've certainly been the most vocal (and often disruptive), it's not that black and white. There's way more gray here than many are willing to see. That being said, I appreciate where your vent is coming from. Even though it's not necessarily for the same reasons, I find myself shaking my head at this mess just as often. All the best, and I offer my hand for shaking. Mlaffs (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, even if it were directed at me it wouldn't have been much of a deal. I clarified because it could have been taken in a way I did not mean it, it just so happen that your reply highlight the possible misinterpretation, even if you did not misinterpret. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Note
Hello! Regarding this comment, I am somewhat wondering what can be done. The account in question indiscriminately takes a "Too many articles" approach to AfDs and has never argued to keep. Thus, the bulk of its comments either repeat what someone else said or just go with WP:PERNOM. My concern is that unless if pointed out that it is essentially a single-purpose delete everything account, the closing admin might not realize that the comments do not reflect an actual examination of the articles under discussion or any look for sources. Other questionable edits include: Poor language in edit summaries:, , ; Incivility: , ; Calls our volunteers’ contributions “crap”: ,, and if you look through the userpage, used to have a "list of pages to masturbate to". Aside from maybe some vandalism undoing, I see next to know actual substative improvements of content from this account that somehow cancels out the more questionable edits. Any thoughts, advice? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it certainly looks like a problematic user to have in deletion discussions (not necessarily in disruptiveness [although that's arguable], but rather in that s/he's not really assessing the situation, inappropriately biasing the result towards delete). I would suggest asking the user to place more thoughts into his comments, possibly going with a friendly RfC to get that user some suggestions (perhaps there is an essay somewhere that sums what kind of input is desired in deletion discussions). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Editors have tried seeking outside opinions regarding this account before with little luck. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive325, Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive412, etc.  It started out with vote-stacking then an allowed unblock, but even with the second ANI thread and copious talk page comments by multiple editors (including admins), the account still indiscriminately says to delete everything, sometimes with simple WP:PERNOM, WP:JNN, or A NobodyMy talk 03:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, upon further review its definitely time for an RfC. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any experiences with those? I have commented in a couple, but never started one.  I think applicable policies could be such things as WP:TEND (making inaccurate claims just to get articles deleted) and WP:POINT (disrupting the AfD process with copy and paste and weak comments to reflect an inaccurate consensus as part of the "mission" to delete).  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have some, but it's been a while. I would ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct if I were you (or perhaps all the advice you need is found on the instructions at WP:RfC/U). Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll give it some thought (we're at the end of the quarter at my university, so I may be busy the next two weeks). Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove if you want to
Feel free to delete my nonsense if it is getting in the way of you making a statement. Cheers.  HWV258  04:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah, it's fine there. Made me laugh too.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar
Thanks! The hardest part was figuring out the best way to extract just the bolded links, I ended up translating MediaWiki's single-quote-handling functions into Perl. Other than that it was actually fairly straightforward. Anomie⚔ 22:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Rocketry
A tag has been placed on Template:WikiProject Rocketry, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page layout
Hi, can you explain this: Delete Talk page layout and move User talk:Magioladitis/Talk Layout here. The last thing does not seem to be a suitable replacement, being a talk page about talk pages, rather than an essay on talk pages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, WP:Talk page layout is linked twice. Once in collection of links (where both the redirect and the target are listed anyway), and once in a 2003 archive, which I've edited to indicate that the relevant page has been moved to WP:Talk page. However, I made a mistake in the request (which I've now amended), it should have been User:Magioladitis/Talk Layout rather than User talk:Magioladitis/Talk Layout. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense - moved it! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Acoustics Taskforce/New to Wikipedia
Thanks for the welcome to the Acoustics Taskforce. There are a number of us here at Penn State who are looking to start providing information that might be relevant to people who are looking to find out about the field, hence our creation of the Academic Programs in Acoustics page.

Personally, I'm trying my best to learn the Wikipedia language. I must say I'm in awe of your userpage, especially the tabs across the top. I'm wondering if you could tell me where you learned to customize it so much. I'm thinking that if I learned to so something similar, it might help in future edits of Wikipedia. You may notice I already learned how to steal your information pane.  ddomme  20:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it took me quite a while to perfect the art of templates and transclusions (the tabs system is pretty complex, even if you know what you're doing). I mostly learned by "stealing" from others and playing with the language until I understood it, so feel free to "steal" from me whatever you feel like. It helps if you know some HTML (I didn't when I started editing) or programming langages, as templates are more or less small programs.


 * Some very usefull pages are:
 * Instructional material/MediaWiki training videos, which I just learned existed. Would've been nice to have around when I started editing.
 * Help:Table
 * Category:Wikipedia how-to


 * Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing PVR
Thank you for the information. It was useful. I am writing this as an assignment for a class that I am taking and I am still trying to figure out how to use wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeresearch (talk • contribs) 21:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Mil hist tag for Senior Foreign Service
Hi mate, a minor debate is currently underway on Talk:Senior Foreign Service regarding the Military History project tag. I'd like to invite you to take a look and put down your opinion about it. I notice that you added it with a question mark in the edit summary, so I gather you weren't sure what project. My opinion is that it is not military history and feel the tag should be removed (I've added a WPUSA tag now also, which I think is more appropriate), but I will be happy to go with whatever concensus determines. Please take a look when you get a chance. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)