User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2016/March

Revert and Possible Abuse of AWB Rules
I have reverted this edit on Planetary Nebula, in which you made AWB edits of the abbreviation used for the Astrophysical Journal. You have not, nor did you seek, to gain any consensus to do this edit, which is a prerequisite of using AWB in this manner. Please justify this global edit or provide evidence in seeking consensus. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What kind of ridiculous argument is that? Restored. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Either explain where is consensus for doing this, or you can be sanctioned for (again) abusing WP:AWB. What is ridiculous is you avoiding any scrutiny for the global edits you are making. Show where the consensus, or I'll take this further. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

ISBN
Hi. Thanks for the heads up. Since comments do not affect wikimagic I won't fix them anymore. Please take a look at WikiProject Check Wikipedia/ISBN errors if there is anything else you would like to comment at.

please use your bot to clean the list using the updated checks when you have some time so I can resume fixing the real ISBN syntax errors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Cool beans. Not sure what feedback I could give on that list, except those with multiple instances should probably be given higher priorities. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Mass of observable universe
A question: does Davies actually perform the three calculations given also in the section (estimating the mass based on critical density, extrapolation from stars, and steady-state theory)? If so, why don't those sections cite Davies? If not, why wouldn't they be OR? Banedon (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It matters little who performed the calculations. These are all estimates, based on different methods, which states their assumptions, and all are based on reliable sources. I don't see what can be considered OR about any of those. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because unless the calculations are actually performed by Davies, it's synthesis. Similarly if a source gives the number of stars in the Milky Way and that only, if the article says "if we assume that the average mass of a star is that of the sun [cite source for mass of the sun], and that the number of stars in the Milky Way is this [cite source for number of stars in the Milky Way], then the mass of the galaxy is ___" - that's OR. Neither source actually performs the calculations for the mass of the galaxy; that is "extrapolating". Banedon (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No it's not, Davies is considered a reliable source, so we can depend on him, he can synthesize whatever he please. Doesn't matter if Davies' is quoting some other guy, if it's not his own calculation, we trust him to have ensured the figure he quoted comes from proper scholarship. And given the subsequent sections, it's clearly obvious that the 1053 kg figure is one that's found in the literature. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the calculations were given in the book? What exactly is written in the book? Banedon (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't what's in the book, and it matters little that the calculations appear in the book. If Davies says 1053 kg, then the book can be used to support that. If not, there's plenty of other references in that section which can be used for it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but then the article should state 1053 kg without also giving the list of calculations. I am unconvinced. Moving this to the article's talk page. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Typo
Hello Headbomb I noticed that the form of three was used incorrectly on the Obesity in adolescence article, just wanted to let you know! You used "family and community can be the're to support" when the're is supposed to be "there" to support, so I have reverted this to correct form. Thank you for your time! Kai2004 User:Kai2004 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai2004 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Kai, in general, you can just fix the typos and grammatical errors without messaging people. It's a fairly trivial matter, and tracking down who made the typo/error can be really annoying. Case in point, I was the last person to edit the article, but the typo was already there when I did. Going down the history of the article, you could find who really made it, but that seems like a waste of time to me, given I'd rather fix other mistakes and typos than track down who made them in the first place. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Journal of Scientific Exploration
Can you access and get its impact factor? Or is this useful? Doug Weller talk 17:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure that one doesn't have an impact factor (it's not listed in ). The SciImago ranking usually is left out, but if no IF is available, I suppose there's no harm in indicating it's current 3rd quartile position. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, not sure how to do it, and the graph on the left looks more useful but again no idea how to use that. Doug Weller  talk 20:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge of LoC catalog record --> LCCN
Please see this TfD, which I forgot to cite in the edit summary of the merge (my bad). The merge has been conducted in such a way that it changes nothing for existing transclusions of LCCN. It just adds more options to the template to preserve the functionality of a mostly similar template. ~ RobTalk 02:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure I agree with that TfD, and find it pretty weird that something from June 2015 is only being merged now, but I won't revert. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It often takes a long time for TfD outcomes to be realized. There's an extensive backlog at the holding cell, where there's a merge pending from as early as August 19, 2013 (that one is particularly complicated). Template merges/deletions are not glamorous, and very few people actively work on them. As with any TfD outcome, you're welcome to seek a larger audience via an RfC or similar discussion to see whether there's a larger consensus against the merge, but I suspect there is not. Now that the merge has taken place, I don't see any reason why it would be undone when editors can continue to use LCCN as they always have if they choose not to specify a second parameter or the  parameter. ~ RobTalk 02:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)