User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2010/August

Zaboj Harvalik
Hi. Back in November 2008 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to take it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Enrico Fermi
After your edits, there is now this message displayed at the bottom of the page: Cite error: There are ref tags on this page, but the references will not show without a Reflist|group=nb template or a references group="nb"/ tag. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Book:Kiss
That's (book count) number 27 for me! Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Headsquare.gif
Thank you for uploading File:Headsquare.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The fair use rationale is given, and so is the source. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Cancer journals
Hi, I see that last December you created this category, but it seems to duplicate the Category:Oncology journals. As in Category:Medical journals subcategories are mainly named after medical specialties, not their subjects, would you object if I did a "category merge" of "Cancer journals" to "Oncology journals"? --Crusio (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not at all, they are completely redundant. I was about to request the merge, but hadn't bothered to make the formal request yet. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Journal
Per the recommendation of User:Ironholds, do you have access to Science et Vie, specifically number 774 of 1982? Best, WilliamH (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Pflugers Archiv
They are not the pages I was using as the sources! The set from the NLM can be accessed via the search engine from the journals' database results, but I have never worked out how to link directly to the results page because they contain square brackets (eg http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog?term=0154722[NlmId] ) Please don't remove my links unless you can work out how to make the direct link to the correct pages work; it really isn't helpful to link to a page which doesn't contain all the information cited, and indeed may contain none of it as it wasn't the page I was looking at! Espresso Addict (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well if you want to use square brackets, use the %5B and %5D codes. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Optical tweezers
This term is very rarely used as a singular, especially by native speakers (try googling with site:.uk, for example, or better try google books). Sure about your move? Materialscientist (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the lead starts with optical tweezer, rather than optical tweezers, so... Personally I have no preference. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll fix the lead and move back then. Just checked Web of Science and the singular variant is not used there either (except for phrases like optical tweezer systems, where it is actually plural). Materialscientist (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Matter
I have left a comment for you on the page Talk:Matter. I hope you will take the time to respond. Brews ohare (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I also sent you an e-mail where I delineate how it constitutes HOUNDing  Pur ple  back pack 89    03:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

School for Champions
I've raised this at WP:RSN, you might want to comment there. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Book:Biblical apocrypha
Oh dear, that's twice I've done that recently. I'll have to watch that. I wouldn't want to get a reputation for bad editing. I've added another one that's in the public domain (at least that's what it says in the details) so it should be ok. I do like to find images for books if possible as I think it makes them look more presentable. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Coupons
Hi there, just wondering if you are still giving out coupons to those users who have posted their book on the book page. Thank you. User:Headbomb/Coupons MShefa (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that still works. Due to uncontrollable events I couldn't do a follow up on them until recently, but you can expect an email by the end of the day. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, just checking in to see if you are still giving out coupons at all. Thanks! MShefa (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Template problem
You're pretty good with templates. I have a problem with one (see Tim Lewens, reference 3, the URL should not be displayed and provide and external link to the title, but it doesn't). I'd appreciate if you could have a look. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sjeez! Now why didn't I see that... :-( Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Request on AN/I
I have brought your recent archiving of threads on Talk:Matter to the attention of AN/I at this link. Brews ohare (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Project templates - In print
Hi. Technical curiosity question. Is there a simple answer to why you're adding project templates to Category:Exclude in print? e.g.

I assumed (without sufficient coffee, upon glancing at my watchlist this morning... ;) that: It's of almost no concern. I'm just curious, and enjoy learning context. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * only mainspace pages would be concerned with how they print out (and none of these templates should appear in mainspace).
 * if we were printing the MoS, it might (?) be handy to have the navbox templates included, as a more complete overview of the page at "that moment in time".


 * No, some people do print policies and stuff. In this particular case, I was cleaning up Book:Be Wikipedia Wise, but there are others such as Book:Wikipedia and Book:Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines.


 * The reasons is that navboxes aren't "content proper", but rather help to get to other similar pages. For example, if you make a book on the MoS, you would include most, if not all, the pages in the MoS navboxes. Including the navbox would be pointless, since you can't click on it to get to the other articles, and it would also be included 10-12 times in your book, taking up valuable place. It wouldn't add a lot of relevant information either, since if you felt a page would be relevant to your book, you would have added it.


 * I hope that explains. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you.
 * Having now had more coffee, it was a bit of a confused question.


 * I guess it somewhat stems from my appreciation for the insights that navboxes can give. E.g. Template:Typography terms – I realize it shouldn't appear within every article in a book about "Typography", but I believe it deserves a place somewhere within a book. I suppose the ToC is meant to be handling this task (structural insights), but they're not perfectly swappable in efficacy of functions.


 * I've also had the issue of "historic versions of templates not appearing correctly in historic diffs" on my mind lately. E.g. this 2004 diff is completely unrepresentative of the page's actual state at the time. ...


 * Ramble ramble. :) Thanks again. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Headbomb/Coupons
Left a question and a request there; prod me with a tb or something as I probably will forget all about this.  — fetch ·  comms   23:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated.  — fetch ·  comms   01:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Free-fall atomic model in Template:Atomic models
Would you mind un-reverting my deletion of Free-fall atomic model from the template? I've been trying to engage with the person who wrote the article on its talk page to try to clarify exactly what the status of the model is - perhaps you'll see why I'm concerned if you look at this description by Gryzinski (which was originally referenced in the article). The reason I don't think it belongs in the template is that the Schrödinger picture is the last word in atomic models, and putting the Gryzinski model after it (which is where it belongs chronologically) implies otherwise. Putting it in the template seems to be giving it undue weight. Thanks! Djr32 (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I did that without checking the model first. After checking Gryinski's website, where he rants about scientific censorship and similar things. It seems really non-notable and very fringy, but if that is the case then I would prefer a full AfD discussion on the topic (which I'm thinking of starting, but feel free to cut the grass under my foot there). If it's good enough to include in Wikipedia, then I would say it's good enough to include in the template. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have absolutely no objection to you taking it to AfD - I was hoping that the discussion I've started on the talk page would help to clarify matters, rather than going to AfD straight off, as I've always found it a fairly bruising experience! Gryzinski was a real academic, and he seems to have made some notable contributions to atom-atom scattering theory back in the 50's, but I can't tell to what extent the free-fall model overlaps with this (at least without doing all the work of following up the references that the original editor should have done) vs being a crank theory that he developed late in life.  Djr32 (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We never really closed this question out - I'd still like to remove the "Gryinski model" from the template (on undue weight grounds), do you object? Alternatively, are you still thinking of taking it to AfD?  Thanks!  Djr32 (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Your WP:AE request has been closed
Please see the result. I edited your reference to ANI to link to the now-archived location of the original dispute. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

European Physical Journal
Hi, I saw you de-prodded EPJ-H, but wouldn't all these EPJ journals not better be put together into one substantial article, instead of all the separate short ones (that to a large extent repeat each other) that we have now? --Crusio (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In general, I'm rarely a fan of merging entries on separate journals. They are all notable journals on their own, so I don't see why they shouldn't be given the same treatment as all other journals. It would save us the problem of having 7 infoboxes in one article, or how to handle categorization, or have a custom table which gives an overview of all the journals.


 * Also note that in general, I'm in favour of deleting most recent journals (which is why most of your prods for recent journals go uncontested by me), but EPJ H is part of a very-well established series, and its addition to the EPJ series is very welcomed by most physicists with an interest in the history of their field (which is admittedly my field: particle physics history and experimental physics history), and it will become a very highly-cited journal on Wikipedia in a very little amount of time because, if only because of its high-relevance to our articles and rather unique scope (there are other journals on the history of physics/science, but none with a scope comparable to EPJ H).


 * IMO, we'd be doing a disservice to readers to only give it a passing mention in EPJ series article, rather than a full treatment on its own page like we do with the other EPJ journals. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to have a look at Current Opinion or Trends (journals)... These journals are more different from each other than the EPJ ones (completely independent editorially and they are not "split-offs" from each other). --Crusio (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they should be. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification of book problems sent to wrong project
I see your bot left a message at WT:WikiProject Europe about problems with a book on the European Union. This subject is covered by WP:EU not WP:WikiProject Europe (which specifically excludes EU topics). The book talk page also includes the wrong project template. --Boson (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, free free to fix this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the project banner on the book talk page. I presume the bot will now automatically send future notifications to the correct project. I do not know if changes need to be made to the project banner template to accommodate class = book. The actual problems seem to have been fixed. --Boson (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Article Alerts
I noticed that you have done things with the Article Alerts bot. Do you have the source code? Arlen22 (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, try User:Legoktm or User:B. Wolterding. However both seems inactive, and people didn't have any success in contacting them so far. You're welcome to try your chance however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Arlen22 (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)