User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2021/July

An article about Peter Gill
Could you please take a look at Draft:Peter Gill (chemist). First, do you think an article on Peter is posible? Second, you will see that in my old age (I am now 82!) that I am losing my grip on the wiki, and there are several points that I am having difficulties fixing. If you think it worth while, could you help me to fix them. Bduke (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm no chemist, but that draft seems to suffer from something that annoys me about most run-of-the-mill biographies about academics. The guy looks (to my non-chemist eyes), like your average run of the mill prof. What did the guy do to be notable? What makes him special over the prof that was sitting in the office next to him? I'm not asking him to be the next Antoine Lavoisier, but if the average science-proficient reader can't fathom why they'd read about him, then why write about him? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your review. I will accept your advice and give up trying to write an article on him. --Bduke (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Not sure what I did merits a barnstar, but hey, thanks. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Bouncing ball
Hi, Headbomb. The Globe and Mail reference that has been used for the golf ball COR reported that the USGA and R and A had established the threshold of 0.83 but did not provide a source for that claim. Additionally, that article is not available unless you are a subscriber - which is not itself disqualifying but verifying publicly available sources is certainly more transparent. I thought the reference could be improved so I went to the USGA website to find the applicable standard and found a curious thing. The max COR of 0.83 is not found in the rulers, regulations, or equipment standards of the USGA. Instead, the applicable club head equipment standard is for maximum ball rebound (COR) is based on a reference plate. That is, the ball cannot rebound off a proposed club head more than a small fraction of the rebound from the reference plate. No where is the COR of the plate stated. Instead, the only references to COR are mentioned in anecdotal white papers such as the one I cited, "Distance Insights". In that USGA article, on page 32, "A characteristic time of 239 + 18 μs correlates to a coefficient of restitution of 0.822 + 0.008 (R48 - Review of Driver Clubhead Characteristics 1992-2018), which was the conformance limit introduced by the USGA in 1998...". Obviously, 0.822 + 0.008 = 0.83... hence the origin of the threshold. Therefore, I maintain the reference I cited (1) does include the threshold, and (2) the USGA source directly supports the claim as opposed to the newspaper article mentioning it without an understanding of the reliability of the claim.

Please let me know what you think.

Thanks,

RemotelyInterested — Preceding unsigned comment added by RemotelyInterested (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Globe and Mail reference that has been used for the golf ball COR reported that the USGA and R and A had established the threshold of 0.83 but did not provide a source for that claim. And they don't need to. The Globe and Mail is a reliable source Wikipedia can depend on, unlike the document you provide, which does not verify that the limit is 0.83. (edit: Actually it does verify it, but in a very convoluted and inaccessible way.) &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks... but one year? I'm confused here. One year of what? Because I've been around for a lot longer than a year.&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It took me long to notice, - there's a link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I followed the link, it just points to a table entry, and also checked the template documentation, and it says nothing about what years are supposed to represent. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's another link, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a year since this. DuncanHill (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure where I was supposed to find that link, but at least now it makes sense. One year since I received a 'precious' award. I have to say that template is very cryptic and unclear. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec, thank you, DuncanHill) Sorry about the lack of template documentation. As I seem to do 99% of all reminders, I was too lazy, but RexxS said to document when he created the template. Sorry, busy this weekend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, - did you find the link in the table now? - Until last year, the first year reminder was more wordy, but I try to keep things simpler. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, the username in the table is linked to the talk page message. That's very WP:EASTEREGG-like. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy Easter! - In 9 1/2 years, you are the first to speak of Easter, and next year you'll know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You probably didn't see my comments in RfAs which are a link to the candidate's table entry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Miguéns
Your edit was incorrect. His family name is "Miguéns", not "Miguèns". I have corrected it. SLBedit (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Cite LSA problem
Would you please check a recent edit diff at Agua de la Piedra Formation which introduced "Lua error in Module:Cite_LSA at line 104: attempt to concatenate local 'volume' (a nil value)" in a cite LSA instance. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I've reported it at Template talk:Cite LSA. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

28 July 2021
Colonestarrice (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)