User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2016/November

Nature Research
I moved Nature Publishing Group back to Nature Research because it had been moved without consensus - as that's the current name of the company even if they haven't updated some of the content of the website since the Springer takeover. Even the page you quoted for the revert is titled "About Nature Research" - they've updated the headings but not the page content. If you look at recent press releases you will see they are firmly using "Nature Research" as their corporate identity as a subsidiary of the holding company Springer Nature; any reference to Macmillan is out of date. I think we've crossed wires which means the Talk page history in particular may have discombobulated - I suggest that we go back to where it was before 4 September and then a proper discussion can take place (but I'm right obviously ). Le Deluge (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Replied on NPG's talk page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Added orphan to my page
Hello,

I was just curious why the orphan tag was added to my page and what specifically I can do to get that tag removed?? Page: Annie Fisher Thank You! Sean Dwyer (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As the tag says, very few of our existing articles link to Annie Fisher. Link to Annie Fisher from a few other articles, and the page will no longer be an orphan, and then you can remove the tag. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Fellow Acadian

 * Funnily enough, I had dropped by your user page 3-4 days ago and I was like, uh well look at that, another Landry from Canada. I wonder who asked you if we were related? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * *shrugs* Reddit people. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Found the comment. That guy never really forgot my leading the charge against WP:AEE (see log for where it's hosted now). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

JSTOR
I seem to see on my watchlist that you're running a bot with a new editing format for JSTOR. I often cite JSTOR, so I was wondering what had changed specifically and where the discussion which led to the consensus for the change was please?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * A new editing format? That's been around for a good 4-5 years, if not more. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Reconciling Legality of cannabis by country and Legal and medical status of cannabis?
Your feedback invited: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cannabis

Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hexaborane formatting
There's some crazy stuff with visible double-square-brackets. Your last changes "changed" it, but it's still confusing. Should some of them be single-square-brackets, or be piped bluelinks? I can take a look, but this isn't quite my field of chemistry so if you know what's going on here, please feel free. DMacks (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what the intent is there, but I've cleaned it up as best I could. Might want to ask at WP:CHEMISTRY. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! DMacks (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Access locks: Visual Design RFC
I have undone your close to this RFC, as it should only be closed by an uninvolved editor, unless the consensus is clear which I think is far from the case here. If you think it is time for it to be closed you can post a request at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, but it may be it does not need closing yet, and should be left open for further discussion.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)