User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2014/November

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Xi baryons
So, this happened: http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4849

Someone added the two new baryons (xi'-, xi*-) to the Xi baryon page, and I tried to bring them into line with the format of the other entries in the table, but they're still pretty incomplete... and I have no idea how the spin/isospin/parity notation works :P

You seem pretty involved in the hadron pages so I thought I'd let you know! 24.250.22.118 (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally I would wait for peer-review before including them, but yes, it would be a great result if confirmed! I have my own predictions about where the masses of these baryons should be and well... I'm very happy too! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

F N D Kurie contributions
Hi Headbomb! I′ve noticed your involvement in the discussion re the proton-electron structure of the neutron and I was wondering if you could help in locating articles by Franz Kurie which contain specific quantitative details of his disproof of the proton-electron structure of the neutron. Thanks--5.15.54.128 (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)