User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2021/September

Thanks for responding! "What is the Best AI model for Content Moderation on Wikipedia?"
Dear Thanks so much for your participation in our discussion post "What is the Best AI model for Content Moderation on Wikipedia?" in Village Pump! Your insights are really appreciated! I wonder if you would have time to engage a bit more with us and other interested editors on this topic? We plan to host an online zoom discussion session soon to invite editors to discuss further with us and with each other -- of course you can turn your camera off if you want :) If you're interested, please get in touch and I will send you (and others) a WhenToMeet link to schedule the session! Thanks so much again for your time! Bobo.03 (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly interested in the topic. I do wish you luck with it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * sure! thanks for your participation in our discussion post! If you change your mind, want to explore future, or have any questions/suggestions, please don't hesitate to reach out! Really appreciated! Bobo.03 (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

For editors
Dear editor Headbomb,

I am professor of theoretical physics and hope you are PhD as well. My russian students are very dissapointed to know that the article "Fock symmetry..." is removed (redirected). I don't want to edit and critize the article "Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector". It is of high quality and good written.

Nevertheless, author did not read Fock's original paper. It is a reason why the short part of content in section "Fock symmetry" doesn't concern to the subject totally and why the separate article is written. I will allow myself to point out following grounds for the new article:
 * Fock theory is done for the momentum space where Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector is nonexistent. Why :author does consider it there?
 * The Schrodinger equation in momentum space is integral one,
 * Fock theory is applied to integral equation that is not discussed in the section,
 * Fock's symmetry is mathematical result for momentum space turned into 3-D sphere.

Physical interpretation is valid in physical coordinate space only. So,following words from the section are inaccurate-"Vladimir Fock showed that the quantum mechanical bound Kepler problem is equivalent to the problem of a free particle confined to a three-dimensional unit-sphere in four dimensional space". Here,reader is deceived. No free particle in physical space here in the problem. Fock doesn't give such interpretation.

Kindly try to calm my students and restore my article "Fock symmetry in theory of hydrogen". I would appreciate Yours help to compose perfect English as far as I was not graduated from Cambridge as probably You are.

Sincerely Yours EfimovSP (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not a subject matter expert there. The discussion happened at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics, where you're welcomed to make your case for why the article should be restored. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

Author of removed article-Fock symmetry in theory of hydrogen atom.

EfimovSP (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Error in the Spanish Flu article
Hello, I see that you have recently edited the Spanish Flu article and hoped you can make an edit for me, since it's semi-protected. In the paragraph "Etymologies" it says the following: "This lack of scientific answers lead the Sierra Leone Weekly News (Freetown) to suggest a biblical framing in July 1918, using an interrogative from Exodus 16 in ancient Hebrew:[a] "One thing is for certain—the doctors are at present flabbergasted; and we suggest that rather than calling the disease influenza they should for the present until they have it in hand, say Man hu—'What is it?'"

The thing is, Man hu does not mean "What is it?" It means "it is Man." Man or manna, was kind of an nondescript food that the Israelites ate in the dessert, so it makes sense that it would be a good placeholder for a name for the flu, since it also was nondescript. You could translate it as "whatdoyoucallit" or "thingamajig." Exodus 16:15.

I realize the Sierra Leone Weekly News quote may be accurate, but I thought I'd add this piece because correct information is what wikipedia is all about!

Thanks so much, Leora Koller-Fox

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4800:14f0:e99f:7e24:a732:cc54 (talk • contribs)


 * BTW, the place to put these comments and edit requests is at Talk:Spanish flu so that everyone can chip in on whether or not the proposed changes are acceptable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Headbomb/My work/Books
This is now filled with redlinks. Are you going to delete/fix this? Just passing by... &#8213; Qwerfjkl  talk  21:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Haven't decided what I'm going to do with it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

CounterPunch
Huh, normally we include RfCs for source reliability or deprecation into the Policy and guidelines category (see the current RfC for Business Insider for instance) but I think you may be right it's an improper category. Do you think Politics, government, and law or Media, the arts, and architecture would be more appropriate categories for the CounterPunch RfC? Thanks! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Media maybe? It's just not changing policy. A new sourcing category might be relevant. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Yup, the updated link was good, but the page was just at the wrong location to begin with, so overall it's a win-win. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

help?
I am sorry to bother you, but you know I am worthless with technical things. I fear that once again some major change has happened in formatting of refs? The last time, you helped me clean up errors that occurred when they decided to remove the ref=harv parameter, but this time, I don't even know what the issue is. I just converted all the sourcing in Elena Arizmendi Mejía's article to work it up to GA. Every single source says "Harv error: linked from CITEREFBeltrán2010" (obviously with the last part varying per author and date). There do not appear to be any errors in the sfn citations nor in the references, but what do I know? As this is the way I routinely format, I do not want to have yet another huge referencing issue. Can you explain what's going on and either fix it, or help me to fix it? SusunW (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * should be fixed. The issue was that the references were in a further reading section, and that's usually a sign that should move those to a proper references section. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I truly appreciate your assistance and patience with helping me. I am also really, really happy to know that it isn't some completely new technical thing I have to learn and was easily fixed. :) SusunW (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Always happy to help. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)