User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2011/May

Frederick Rudolph Wills article
Good Day, Headbomb,

You seem to be responsible for an important recent revision of the Wiki article about Frederick Rudolph Wills.

It's important to me because I'm interested in his life, but I would like to know the sources of your information; mine are only Wiki and the WWW in general.

Thanks for your contributions and thanks in advance for any help you might be able to give.

Kind Regards, Robert. Robbert Thompson (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't have any article on Frederick Rudolph Wills, and I've never edited any other articles on a "Frederick Wills" to my knowledge, except this tiny edit. Which specific article are you talking about? Are you sure I'm the one you're looking for, or did you perhaps mix me with someone else? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Headbomb,

Clearly, I've erred. I apologise. Thanks for your quick response.

Kind Regards, Robert. Robbert Thompson (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

F and A
Thanks for your fixes; they're all good. Doing the page in the first place is time-consuming and largely clerical, so the authors often lose it as far as final polishing. Tony  (talk)  07:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Books
I thank you for your reply, I left mine there. Regards, --Elitre (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

headbomb is a cool name for a physics guy.. itd go good with a beard and sweater patches like kinsey from mad men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.3.116 (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Snotbot 6
I'm extremely surprised by. There is nothing in the RfC which precludes the changes proposed; which do not apply any new microformats. Indeed, there is. I'll be happy to explain further if anything's not clear. Otherwise, please restore the approval, or tell me where this can be appealed. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, there are already over 54,500 transclusions of Start date. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the high-use of start date or end date. However, as noted in the BRFA, in the absence of both clear guidelines with regards to metadata and clear consensus with regards to what is acceptable metadata, and how it should be handled on Wikipedia), the request is premature. So no, I will not "restore" the bot's approval merely because I originally approved it on the basis of incomplete knowledge, when I never would have approved it in the first place (had I known about the RfC on metadata).


 * If you really need to appeal somewhere, I suppose this can be done at Bots/Requests for approval/Snotbot 6 itself (in a new section) + a notice at WT:BAG, although your chances of getting this overturned are IMO not much better than a a snowball's chance in hell. As of now, if you want this to be handled through a bot, a more productive approach would be to demonstrate community consensus (in contrast with a fait accompli) for the use of start date/end date in these templates and establish community guidelines concerning metadata. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As I'm involved in this, Andy has asked for clarification of my close - the discussion is here.  SilkTork  *Tea time 00:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for POLYGON experiment
Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Your insistence on Answers.com and subsequent misquote at Working hypothesis
Headbomb, your insistence on Answers.com as a source for this article is misguided, since there is available scholarly literature which you choose to ignore. Furthermore, you seem to have mis-quoted the definition provided in Answers.com and substituted your own. As such, your conception of it appears to have conflated working hypothesis with formal hypothesis by arguing that working hypothesis "is provisionally accepted when no alternatives are available." This is not the case. Even your own chosen source states that working hypothesis is "a suggested explanation of a group of facts or phenomena provisionally accepted as a basis for further investigation and testing." Specifically note that this definition emphasizes that working hypothesis are a basis for further explanation, and state nothing of acceptance after alternatives are rejected. T.Whetsell (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)