User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2019/March

Anchors
Re this, for some odd reason anchors are case sensitive. I didn't want to break any existing incoming links, which is why I added another anchor to match the case of the section header rather than just change the one that's there. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee for the background to this edit. It shouldn't be necessary to check the source of the page in order to find the correct name/case of the anchor. Bradv 🍁  19:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See the note at the top of WP:BOTDICT. Every anchor starts with a capital. I suppose that could be changed, but if so, it'd have to be changed across the board. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that note before, but that's an even stranger decision than the one to make anchors case sensitive in the first place. Why would we agree to make anchors uppercase and section titles lowercase? Bradv 🍁  20:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't really call it a conscious decision. It's just a choice that was made, but have both uppercase/lowercase would improve usuabilty, so I'll try to add the lowercase anchors by the end of the day or so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that will help prevent this confusion going forward. Bradv 🍁  00:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Anchors in the underlying HTML are case sensitive, so at the browser level it isn't a choice made by Wikipedia. A template could, say, automatically generate an all-lowercase version of an anchor in addition to one with the same casing as the original input parameter. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to change the existing anchor template to do that, though; I would be more inclined to introduce this behaviour in a new template. isaacl (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost
Please retract or redact your PA and disingenuous comment and get your facts right - or stay out of the argument. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the personal attack here? That you (i.e. The Signpost and its editors) fucked up? Because you fucked up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Kudpung. It's been a long time since we last met in person, but as long term contributors, I'm sure you remember we have similar views on many things. If you object to Headbomb's overly frank description, it may help for you to contribute to the MfD from a procedural perspective. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have always been a strong supporter of your work and ideals, in particular considering everything you have gone through and still remained stoically on Wikipedia. Headbomb's current attempts to misinform us and his personal attacks are beyond the pale. Until he retracts his comments I will have nothing to do with the MfD. I am not responsible for the publication of The Signpost and haven't been for some time. As an admin, I am not allowed to defend myself beyond the warning below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are one of the two Co-Editors-in-Chief of the Signpost and you have actively and knowingly participated in the publishing of this piece. Which means the editorial responsibility of publishing that piece of garbage is on you (and Bri). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Continue with these lies, garbage, and PA - someone will  block  you  sooner or later.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There are no lies or PA in what I wrote. Take me to ANI, see what happens. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Admin threats from Kudpung? Badge of honour, Headbomb. Tony (talk)  12:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Screenshot preservation
Hi, I don't know how reliable gyazo.com is, but just in case: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/file/upload/ is pretty easy to use and ensures we preserve screenshots about our tools, bug reports etc. Nemo 08:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Gyazo is a right-click --> automatically uploads things with the address and all and takes place in like 2 seconds. Using manual file upload like that is at least a minute long process. And quite likely longer to remember how to even get to the phabricator upload form, plus login, plus finding where in the world my screenshot went, plus cropping. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it. Indeed there is a demand for such features, Firefox also provides screenshot taking and hosting since a while ago. It's hard to tell which hosting is more resilient in the long run. Nemo 13:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Even if it wasn't very stable, it's not like this is critical information. Gyazo do claim hosting is permanent, although of course, they could go down and bring everything with them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Pour la Science listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pour la Science. Since you had some involvement with the Pour la Science redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Paradoctor (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes yes, we all know. Sadly for you, facts aren't in your favor. Stop leaving me bunk messages about bullshit accusations of personal attacks that never happened. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding PMIDs/DOIs
Hey Headbomb wondering about the possibility of doing a bot run on medical articles to add PMIDs/DOIs when one or the other is missing? This data is often used for research and thus would be useful to add. Not sure if this would be something you would be interested in doing. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly be interested in that, but if you're asking me to code such a bot, that's well beyond my coding skills. At least at the moment. I'll be taking a coding class soon-ish to help with such things, but you'll probably want to file a WP:BOTREQ for something speedier than "months-to-years, maybe".
 * I'll point out that User:Citation bot is quite good at adding doi/pmid/pmcid identifiers. You can run it on categories or lists of articles (see WP:UCB for how to activate it), although the bot might is not up to par to unleash on a large list of page without review just yet. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Perfect thanks. Will review. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * btw, since the category API is a bit busted at the moment, if you do run the bot on categories, a good way to review the bot and keep track of its progress and reviews its diffs is to make use of Special:RecentChangesLinked. For example, if I activate the bot on Category:Electromagnetic components, then Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Electromagnetic components (remove the 'no bots'/'no minor edits' options) will present all the changes the bot does. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Lille-Fontinettes RDT
I've redrawn] the Lille-Fontinettes RDT but now the collapsible sections won't align. Can't work out how to shift them over. Not simple and intuitive like BSMap is. Can you fix this please? Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * that seems something HTML/CSS/LUA related. I'd ask at WP:VPT if I were you. They know more about than that I do. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've commented out the collapsible section markup. All aligns correctly now. Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The Humor Article
I really do not feel that our role in this has been discussed whatsoever. People keep debating the merits of the post, but for me the real questions I have are about how it got there. Would you mind sharing the details about how you found the draft? Furthermore, why do you feel there was immediate retaliation towards your opinion on the matter? Thank you. &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-☖  05:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I found the draft by pure accident. I was drafting User:Headbomb/Crapwatch, and needed to double check something about formatting, so went to WP:NEWSROOM I randomly picked a thing which happened to have a formatting mistake, which I fixed. But then I read the piece and was appalled that this was even considered for submission, so I spoke up.
 * What happened after that it that The Signpost had the misfortune of being editted by Kudpung, which has had a grudge against me for eons. I can't recall one positive interaction I've had with them over the years, and I could never could figure out why. That is until a few years back, where I finally traced it back to the Malvern water article, which I felt had tone issues back in 2009 (you can see things at Talk:Malvern water/Archive 1, first 7 or so sections, plus Wikiquette when they just wouldn't drop it). Their reaction at the Signpost newsroom could be for other reasons too, I suppose, but I feel it goes back to that initial dispute about the tone of the Malvern water back in 2009. They have never been able to assume good faith about me ever since.
 * For Bri's reaction, I don't see any venom in their response. To me, it was no more malicious than when this local teacher got trusted in a US national story. If you dress up in blackface, in your mostly white community, where people know you, you're not going to cause much fuss, and you won't be getting much pushback, if any. For you, it's like hey, I'm in black, my kid's in albino white, what's the difference between what we're doing and getting painted in purple? Why can't I be Lafawnduh, a character in a movie I loved? And you don't get the fuss, because you're not just not aware, or just aren't thinking of this being seen as blackface. And if one person spoke up before the party, they'd have been "Oh sush, it's just a costume for a party." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for the ping. I just read that talk page archive, and it was the strangest thing I have read in a while. Regardless, you are aware Kudpung is no longer editor in chief, correct? During the entirety of the writing of the previous publication of the SIgnpost not editor-in-chief. You and I both were under that impression as no one had updated the about page for the signpost, so it said that  co-editor-in-chief. They have consistently maintained that for a while now oddly enough, but the about page was only updated at the start of this controversy. &#8213;  MattLongCT  -Talk-☖  05:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm aware Mike Peel removed him from the page, and that they haven't objected. But I find that tenous reasons to absolve them of responsability, given they re-iterated their intent to remain EiC as recently as December 2018, that they were active at the newsroom at every publication since that re-iteration, and that they jumped on me pretty much immediately after I raised objections. But if they want to resign/step down as EIC because they refuse to take/no longuer want the responsabilities of an EiC, that's fine by me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While I cannot disagree with the second part of what you said, I will say that they have been maintaining their lack of authority since last month and then again recently. It's hard to say what role they have, but if anything it is informal. &#8213;  MattLongCT  -Talk-☖  06:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but they were still listed as EIC on The Signpost. It could be that they forgot to remove their name from there, but that seems like a grevious lapse in judgement to step down without announcing it and remaining listed as EiC. If this was some temporary/interim co-editor situation, the standard is that the EiC still has to take responsability to address issues that arise during their absence, even if they might not have the blame. And if this was simply that they forgot to announce stepping down or remove their name, and thus have neither responsability nor blame, a clarification could have been made ("BTW, I stepped down as EiC on, I just forgot to remove my name."), rather than personal attacks, accusations of lying, or threats of blocks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have posted on their talk page. I hope to come to a mutual understanding and reconciliation. &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-☖  15:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, MattLongCT, I don't foresee anything good arising from that post. Kudpung stepped down as editor-in-chief from the September 2018 issue. Bri has continued to ask for someone else to be editor-in-chief, but as no one has volunteered, has continued acting in the meantime. Kudpung remains involved in a consulting role at least in part due to the paucity of volunteers, and presumably also out of interest. Since Kudpung became involved earlier in 2018, he has adamantly resisted public criticism of Signpost writers, stating it will drive them away from contributing. Arguing whether or not he was involved in the specific editorial decision to publish a given article is sort of beside the point. His opinion is highly influential on the newsroom page, so he bears the responsibility of that influence, no more and no less. The answers to your questions regarding the direction of the Signpost can be seen in the newsroom archives, I believe (he's opined on these very topics elsewhere as well, but I think the archives have everything). isaacl (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , you probably are right, and I am just shaking the hornet's nest. It's just defeatist at this point. &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-☖  22:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Welp... Just as I was typing that.. &#8213; MattLongCT  -Talk-☖  22:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:As of/Print


A tag has been placed on Template:As of/Print requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Deprodded Interface: A Journal for and about Social Movements
I think it may fail NJOURNAL but pas GNG based on coverage linked. AfD might be a better venue to continue this if you disagree. No hard feelings, cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Planck law correction
Hello Headbomb,

I found the relation of Einstein coefficients (A21/B21) is wrong, and I have corrected it, but you have reverted it. Please recheck it. Thank you!

--Quantwa (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is correct, make sure to use the correct distributions (based on ν not λ). Feel free to discuss this on the talk page, with references. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have a nagging doubt (also ), now that you mention it... I'll double check things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I have recalculated it, Please help me check the calculation as following link. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rOXiewjPxKe_ckm2N4Eez70j-iatyYds --Quantwa (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Enrico Fermi
I replied on my talk page. Thanks.

PS. See what my adversary did. My 7 sources have no meaning to him :-( Vikom (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Dagger
Hello Headbomb, I've added citations to the article, in draft, at Draft:Dagger (zine). - NorthPark1417 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You crashed the bot :-)
Did you really want...

The lack of a parameter in position 3 did not go down well... Ron h jones (Talk) 19:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A stray pipe. Nopers. Do not want. Fixed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll fix it so that it will report bad entries. Ron h jones (Talk) 19:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Time sensitive - BRFA
Hi. A mass message was just sent out that contains an error. I have a pending BRFA, Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 8, that is for fixing errors in mass messages. Since its undesirable to intentionally add an error, this would be a really good time to trial the bot - the pages that would be edited are at meta:User:Trizek (WMF)/sandbox/temp MassMessage list. Do you think you could send this to trial? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * minor: The list of pages shows User pages, but the pages to be edited would be User Talk pages, I expect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would have used AWB's "convert to talk pages" function, but thanks for pointing that out --DannyS712 (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering what steps I would need to do to convert it from a manual task to automatic - the edits would be the same, but since I filed the BRFA as a manual task I wanted to err on the safe side. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's fine. In fact I assumed it would be automatic, given the task. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks - can you add a note of that at the BRFA? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Citation bot
feasible is spelled with an "i". The bot does not work consistently with French titles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Citation_bot#Foreign_capitalization Seniorexpat (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss the bot, the place to do that is on the bot's talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I will mention it here and not on the main bit page, but none of your suggestions for user authentication are not easily hacked. I have personally run the bot as you after you posted a link on the talk page that included your name in it. None of them have any authentication.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm aware there are WP:BEANS scenarios. The point is that my suggestions would go a long way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your solution means no more running more than one page at a time including the category page. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How so? I run multiple pages at a time / categories all the time with my username declared. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thousand Oaks
Where do those trees come from? Why not just "Chronic Stress"? --Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's where Sage is based, also see NLM. NLM could be wrong there, they often are, but this seems to imply there's another journal out there with a similar abbreviation (could be something like Chronic of Stress). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it. Weird. Searching NLM for "Chronic Stress" in a journal title only gives this particular journal. I don't think I've ever heard of another journal with this name. Googling '"Chronic Stress" journal' doesn't give anything else either. The Library of Congress also adds the trees in the abbreviation, but also lists "Chronic stress" (no cap on stress) as alternative. The journal itself does not say anything about how it wants to be cited. (Funny aside, it looks like their website was hacked, have a look at the last line on this page). --Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is weird. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

NeuroQuantology
Dear Headbomb, I have seen that you have been editing the article on NeuroQuantology (ISSN 1303-5150) and you have been involved in the discussion on the article talk page. Importantly, as of 2019 it seems that NeuroQuantology is no longer indexed by Clarivate Analytics as you may check by search in their Master Journal List with query 1303-5150 for the ISSN from the dropdown menu. Danko Georgiev (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK? And...? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

trying to tidy up australian projects
such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:FA-Class_Tasmania_articles and your sandboxes are sitting there - such as they are - is there any reason they need to be linked? JarrahTree 12:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

your awb script appears to be broken
See.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

your edit of Bimetric gravity page
Sorry, I just find I've deleted your last edit on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimetric_gravity

You added a template I guess. Feel free to add it again. --91.169.1.118 (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

More ISO-4
Tokenzero (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) For latinx/latina/latino my reasoning was that 'latin', which is abbreviated to 'lat.' means something different (A derivative of a word which has acquired a different meaning or a different morphological structure shall have a different abbreviation.). Also there are rules 'latino', 'latina-' in spa and ita, yet the rule for eng,fre is just 'latin' without a dash. But I guess you can argue it's not really a different meaning, so keep whichever you prefer.
 * 2) For Nachrichtentechnische Fachberichte I believe Nachr.tech. as a compound of Nachricht and technisch (both made plural) is the only correct abbrev (compare Forschungstechnologie = Forsch.technol. from the ISO-4 standard text)
 * Do you really concatenate compound words like that? That seems super odd. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The precise wording of the compound rule in ISO-4 is basically 'as determined by the requirements of national practice' and their German example suggests this is what they think German practice requires. On the other hand, a quick google search shows that while they're not completely alone, 'Nahr.-tech.' is significantly more popular, then 'Nahr. Tech.' another order of magnitude more popular, and by far the most popular seems to be your 'Nachrichtentech.'. So OK, I guess we should conclude German practice evolved. Tokenzero (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well "'Nahr.-tech.' and 'Nahr. Tech.'" already make more sense than 'Nahr.tech.' unsure about what it all means overall though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Review request
Hello Headbomb, can you weigh in on this deletion nomination? I've expanded the article with more citations. - NorthPark1417 (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Universe/amount of energy in the universe
You have recently reverted my edit which stated that the total amount of energy in the universe might be infinite, justifying your reversion with the fact that this is not stated in the paper cited. You are right that it's not cited in the paper, and, in fact, I can't find a single source that says that the total energy of the universe is anything other than 0. However, depending on one's definition of energy and model of the universe assumed, the total energy in the universe could be any one of: zero, any fixed non-zero finite number, a constantly increasing but finite amount of energy, a constantly increasing and infinite amount of energy, and a non-changing infinite amount of energy. For example, if dark energy is counted as energy, the amount of energy in the universe is infinite and possibly increasing. Would you mind finding a source that points this out? O l J a 17:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Would you mind finding a source that points this out?" Not really interested in spending time looking for things that may or may not exist, sorry. The predominant view is that the amount of energy in the universe is finite, although extremely large. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Keep an eye on out for the next issue of The Signpost, there's going to be a piece on it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Will do! —  Newslinger  talk   12:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I realize you're probably already aware of it, given who else you gave barnstars to :p Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * —  Newslinger  talk   12:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)