User talk:Steve Quinn/Archive 11

Disambiguation link notification for August 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Terahertz nondestructive evaluation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Imaging, Thickness, Insulating, Ultrasonic and Insulator


 * Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to PASCAL and INIS


 * Earth-Science Reviews (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to PASCAL


 * Geologic modelling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Computerize


 * Journal of NeuroVirology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to PASCAL

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=569824195 your edit] to Acta Biotheoretica may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * philosophical foundations of biological and biomedical science'' is a quarterly peer reviewed  [academic journal]  journal published by Springer Science+Business Media. It is the official journal of the [[Jan

Disambiguation link notification for August 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Computational Science & Discovery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to INIS


 * Journal of Solid State Chemistry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Ceramics


 * Transformation optics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Bandwidth

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry B, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Annual Review of Physical Chemistry
Is there an existing article you are trying to move over Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, or are you just planning to write an article there? If the latter, you can simply write over the redirect, it does not need to be deleted. Monty 845  15:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

JCR journal rankings
Hi Steve, i see that you have removed these rankings in a few cases. When I have time, I actually often add such rankings... They're notable: remember that for each journal included in the JCR, there are a bunch of other journals that are not included. If we include the impact factor, regardless of its size (i.e., even when very low), then it also makes sense to include rankings based on that IF. Let me know what you think. --Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I have been undoing your edits. That was not my intent. Feel free to undo these edits if you wish.


 * Continuing, I think the disagreement I have about adding or keeping these is re-editing them every time (every year) we come through to change the impact factor. It's just more work for an editor, and there are many scientific journal articles. So, I guess, if you want to add the rankings, it is fine with me. I just can't guarantee that I will update the rankings when I update the impact factor. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don(t worry about having removed them. I'm a bit ambivalent about them myself (and have been adding them less and less), for exactly the same reason. It's also the reason why I don't think we should include any of the alternative indexing rankings (SCImago, Journalrank, and such), because we just don't have the people to keep all that stuff updated every year. Some publishers include the rankings on their journal website and, at least for the big commercial publishers, I have never seen a case where they were incorrect, so then it(s easy to include in the article. But if you have to go into the JCR, then it's a lot of clicks to get the rankings out (especially if a journal is included in multiple categories). --Randykitty (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I see the idea behind not including SCImago, Journalrank, and so on. It's OK when these are first added, but then comes the chore of yearly updates afterward. And it may be easy to include the rankings but the difficult part is having to go back into the JCR reference, which is normally included, and change the year, in three different places. This is when editing becomes tedious (for me).


 * That's why I am not sure it is a good idea to include the impact factor in the text (outside the infobox); because, not only does the impact factor need to be changed, but the JCR reference also has to be updated by changing the year in those three places. It's OK the first time, but when an editor has to come through and do this with a signifigant number of journals, it totally slows down the process. If we had more editors helping out, it would be a different story. --- Steve Quinn (talk)
 * Well, the advantage of including the IF in the body of text is that we can then include a independent reference to a reliable source, thereby avoiding those pesky "unreferenced" and "primary sources" tags. Also, in principle, the infobox should only summarize what is in the body of text (which is why we include a link to the journal homepage under "external links", even though it is in the box). Of e course, we need to do this sensibly, not everything needs to be repeated in the text (like ISSNs and such and repeating links to online access and such might be seen as promotional). But I do repeat in the text the name of the EIC and the publisher, the year of establishment, the publications frequency, and such things, if only to make the article a little bit more substantial, as usually there is not that much sourced information available anyway. I agree that the updating of the IF is a pain. I have no problem with removing the rankings when the IF gets updated. Also, I myself generally now only update IFs if I have to do something else on an article. I don't go around updating IFs anymore just for the sake of updating the IFs, too much hassle... --Randykitty (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I won't be removing rankings or IF's from the body of the article. I'm just discussing the editing experience involved :>). --- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, don't worry! I fully understand the hassle of updating IFs every year (booooring...) just wanted to point out that there are advantages of having them in the body of text, too. As for the rankings, if you update an IF and don't feel like also updating the rankings, then I do think, in fact, that they should be removed. Otherwise we get a weird mixture of an IF referring to one year and rankings pertaining to the previous year (or even older). --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Chemical physics
Hi Steve, our article on Chemical physics says that the distinction with physical chemistry is vague. Far as I can see, it's just a difference of emphasis and indeed rather subtle. Wouldn't it be best to keep the journals in the two fields together? Some journals will inevitably cover both fields, insofar as they can be separated. --Randykitty (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you are probably right; it is probably best to keep the journals in the two fields together for our purposes. That just didn't occur to me. And some or most of the journals I have recently worked on DO cover both fields. So, perhaps making a seperate category would be nit-picking and simply be redundant. Thanks for pointing this out.


 * Also, now that I have your attention. The Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry B is a spin off of Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry, which was established in 1959 --->
 * (Please see the following:, , , , and ).
 * So shouldn't the "history" in the infobox say 1959 somewhere? Of course, this can be remedied by putting a blurb in the prose description of the journal, somewhere. What is you view on this? --- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the last two links. I don't know why they are not working. One Harvard library link actually had Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry A, Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry B and Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry that showed the different start dates in a chart with links. --- Steve Quinn (talk)


 * OK here is a replacement link at the Library of Congress . This is similar to what I had in the Harvard library catalog. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello colleagues, here are some comments on your last edits. Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry B is a translation of Khimicheskaya Fizika, established in 1982 by the Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics RAS. Khimicheskaya Fizika was published only in Russian in 1982-2007. All these volumes are in the library here, so 1982 is not an error. Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry A is a spin off of Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry. It is a translation of Zhurnal fizicheskoi khimii, founded in 1930. Khimicheskaya Fizika and Zhurnal fizicheskoi khimii are two different and totally unrelated journals. I don't think it is possible to call Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry B a spin off of Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry. Historically Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics was THE center for the Russian school of combustion, home for all big guys such as Zeldovich, Frank-Kamenetskii, Khariton, Sakharov and many others, who are hardly known now because of the second world war, their involvement in the nuclear project and secrecy. That's why the scope of chemical physics in Russia includes combustion, explosion and related phenomena. But you are totally right that the distinction with physical chemistry is vague, even in Russia. --Fedor Babkin (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fedor. It's good to see (or know) that we have "shoes on the ground" in Moscow, and an authentic physicist who knows what is going on over there. This is good because I have other Russian journals in the pipeline (which equals "personal sandbox" on Wikipedia).


 * It's interesting how the "B" journal carries the same title as "A" in English, although these are different journals with different origins. Also, while working on these articles I was able to figure out the Russian title translations, because these are phonetically similar to English. For instance, I could see that "Khimicheskaya" probably translates to Chemistry and "Fizika" probably translates to Physics. Also, I know from my editing expereince on Wikipedia that "Zhurnal" translates to journal.


 * However, if these were strictly in the Russian alphabet I wouldn't have a clue. Yet, the way things go, the English spelling of Russian words might have no correlation to the actual Russian title, written with the Russian alphabet and spoken in Russian (if that makes sense). But, can't I pretend ? (and feel smart)--- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, if you don't mind I would like to add your comments to a history section in one or both of these journal articles. Is this OK? --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You are welcome Steve. Your guess is correct, and even though Russian is notoriously difficult to learn, khimiya (=chemistry, while khimicheskaya=chemical), fizika, termodinamika, biologia etc. are easy, and pronunciation is quite similar, too. Latin or Indo-European roots. Sure you can use my comments in the articles. If you need help with any of your new edits, don't hesitate to leave a message for me. BTW, 20-30 Sept I'll be at the 25th biennial Russian Symposium "Modern Chemical Physics" with an oral presentation. I'll try to be smart to figure out what this all-inclusive discipline means in 2013 )) --Fedor Babkin (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I see you've got some assistance from someone knowledgeable about these journals. Good, because I'm a bit short on time :-) --Randykitty (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=571807610 your edit] to Science Citation Index may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * New Chemistry Citation Index On CD-ROM Comes With Abstracts, Related Records, and Key-Words-Plus  ." Current Contents 3 (1992): 5-9.

Disambiguation link notification for September 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry A (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Russian


 * The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Quantum theory

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages David Brooks and Afghan war (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Mad about Physics - Book Page
You previously looked over the Mad about Physics book page and suggested some articles that I could read on structure to make the page better. I did look over the articles you posted, and I've worked on trying to improve the page's quality; however, I could definitely use some specific tips. If you are able to look back over the page and point out weak areas that need to be changed, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks for your time, BCornine (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to look over the page within the next few days. This happens to be a busy time of year for me, so I will do my best to help out as soon as possible. Thanks for asking for feedback --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest
I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

24 Hours of Happy/First 24-hour music video
I have moved the article back to 24 Hours of Happy; the article title should match the name of the subject, i.e. the music video. For example, the article about Usain Bolt is located at Usain Bolt, not at World's fastest person. (See the naming conventions.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it is possible that the true name of the video is "Happy: The World's First 24 Hour Music Video", and the article should be moved accordingly. (To preserve the article's history, you shouldn't move it by manually copying its contents; you should use the "Move" command at the top of the page. If you are unable to move the article, e.g. if the target title is blocked or you have too few edits, you can list it at requested moves.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mike, I appreciate what you are saying, however the notable topic is "First 24-hour music video", and this is according to the sources I used in the original article. Although, the song "Happy" may be notable in some way or other - the notable event is the creation of the first 24-hour music video. Below are my sources. These sources clearly indicate that the "first 24-hour music video" is the notable topic, and the song, and song title are pretty much secondary or third in consideration. Also, the articles below reiterate that the song that is being played in the video is "Happy". Your reference to "24 Hours of Happy" is actually the url for the music video, which can be found at "http://24hoursofhappy.com/".


 * Finally I wish you had conferred with me first before making any moves for this article, so we could have sorted this out.


 * Regards - Steve Quinn

My sources:


 * I have a couple of other sources available, but hopefully, these three references will give you an idea of what I am talking about. -Steve Quinn (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, but "first 24-hour music video" is what the video is (just like "world's fastest person" is what Usain Bolt is); the title of the article - if one needs to be created - should match the actual name of the video. From the leading sentence - "The first 24-hour music video posted online is entitled '24 Hours of Happy'" - I have assumed that the name is "24 Hours of Happy", and rewritten the article accordingly. STATicVapor has redirected the article to Happy (Pharrell Williams song), arguing that the music video itself doesn't need a separate article. (The video is covered in the "Music video" section.) I tend to agree, and I guess this renders our argument on the correct title of the article irrelevant. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. Static vapor doesn't determine inclusion - there are guidelines and policies for that. So, if one or two decide that a seperate article is acceptable by Wikipedia standards then that has validity. Also, I don't get what you are basing the name of the article on. The sources determine that the "First 24-hour music video" is notable. The article and its title should reflect what the sources say. In other words, this is the first such video, and it has coverage, therefore is notable for that. There are by now at least a couple of other 24-hour music videos, but these are not first, and they won't have coverage as being the first. Does this make sense? --- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In other words, where does the idea that the title of the Wikipedia article must have the name of the video come from? Is there something in the naming conventions that says this? All I know is the title should reflect what the coverage says. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, but "first 24-hour music video" is what the video is (just like "world's fastest person" is what Usain Bolt is); the title of the article - if one needs to be created - should match the actual name of the video. From the leading sentence - "The first 24-hour music video posted online is entitled '24 Hours of Happy'" - I have assumed that the name is "24 Hours of Happy", and rewritten the article accordingly. STATicVapor has redirected the article to Happy (Pharrell Williams song), arguing that the music video itself doesn't need a separate article. (The video is covered in the "Music video" section.) I tend to agree, and I guess this renders our argument on the correct title of the article irrelevant. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. Static vapor doesn't determine inclusion - there are guidelines and policies for that. So, if one or two decide that a seperate article is acceptable by Wikipedia standards then that has validity. Also, I don't get what you are basing the name of the article on. The sources determine that the "First 24-hour music video" is notable. The article and its title should reflect what the sources say. In other words, this is the first such video, and it has coverage, therefore is notable for that. There are by now at least a couple of other 24-hour music videos, but these are not first, and they won't have coverage as being the first. Does this make sense? --- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In other words, where does the idea that the title of the Wikipedia article must have the name of the video come from? Is there something in the naming conventions that says this? All I know is the title should reflect what the coverage says. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The article title should unambiguously identify the article's subject. I feel that "first 24-hour music video" is too vague: it just describes a particular quality of the video - refer to the Usain Bolt example above - and does not tell which video is the first 24-hour music video. Instead, the article should use the official or commonly used name of the video. (While the policy says: "The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic", the descriptive titles seem to be intended for topics that provide additional information about the main topic - the page lists Population of Canada by year as an example, which has been since moved to Population of Canada.)

Regarding the appropriateness of a separate article for the music video, I note that your article contained little information that wasn't already covered in the main Happy (Pharrell Williams song) article; I don't think there's any need for a split. (Your references are indeed useful and could be merged in the main article; at the moment, the section is unreferenced.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=590785555 your edit] to Sub page 2 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sub page 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Periodicity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sub page 2
Hi -- I can't quite figure out what's going on there. Did you accidentally create this in main article space while intending to create it as a subpage of something? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah - this was supposed to be a subpage. I apparently accidentally created this as a mainspace page. I think I was really tired when I did this. Sorry about that and thanks for letting me know. This is embarrassing. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, just wanted to be sure that you knew. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

PRCM 1-24-2014
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of PRCM 1-24-2014, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Pine River Capital Management. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This wound up in the mainspace by mistake. I have requested speedy delete and blanked the page. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)