User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2009/February

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Quark "current" phrasing

The construction "In light of current knowledge (quarks weren't discovered at time)" doesn't make sense. Current is the present tense, but you then go on to allude to the past ("at the time"). My re-wording wasn't changing the meaning, it was just more grammatically sound. Do you know what I'm saying? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense. "In light of current knowledge (quarks were not yet theorized), the Cabibbo angle is related to the probability that down and strange quarks decay into up quarks." means that the explanation is modern and relies on concepts that weren't there in the time of the proposal of the Cabbibo angle. The parenthetical statement is and "on the side" explanation that does not affect the sentence. See "In light of current knowledge, the Cabibbo angle is related to the probability that down and strange darks decay into up quarks." It's all present tense ("is related" is a passive voice construction, not a past-tense construction. A past tense constuction would be "was related").

Your construction however, changes the meaning and the accuracy of the sentence. "In light of the knowledge at the time (quarks were not yet theorized), the Cabibbo angle is related to the probability that down and strange quarks decay into up quarks." means that you are explaining this through the eyes of someone from 1963, when quarks were not yet theorized. But this is not what you are doing, because you are relying on an explanation of the Cabibbo angle based on quarks, which could not have been possible.

Hence "In light of current knowledge". Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah! My error. I see what you're saying. Knowledge as of the 21st century (current knowledge) allows us to realise that the angle is related to that probability factor. i see it now; thanks for explaining and I apologise for wasting your time. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No prob. You had me re-dig some of my limited English grammar knowledge to make sure I wasn't saying something stupid. Could've very well happened since I'm not a native speaker of English. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

hello. This is just to let you know that another user has filed a complaint about you here. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope you're willing to take our advice on board. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to ongoing incivility by Fnagaton and Greg_L, I found it necessary to bring this up again at WQA. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As demonstrated in the WQA [1] it is found that Thunderbird2 is at fault here and is misrepresenting (lying about) the situation, again. Thunderbird2 has been warned to stop otherwise he'll be end up getting blocked.Fnag aton 03:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

re:Bug report

Hey, Headbomb/Archives/2009. You have new messages at Shep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing or tnulling the template.

§hep ^Talk 05:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This

Of course, I could be mistaken about this; I've made it clear from the outset that I have an amateur not professional interest in particle physics. It just seems to me that the section really is not particularly related to quarks, but more related to hadrons. Giving context about quantum numbers is for the articles to which we link from quark. What's your opinion (to re-iterate, I could be way off mark)? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To explain what I mean more: I see that the section kind of explains how these quantum numbers tie in to quarks at the end, but I think we'd be better off just having those values in the table and linking the terms to the articles at that point. I'm not sure. An extended discussion of isospin, hypercharge etc. and why they were introduced and how it relates to charge and all that seems out of context and too much for an article about quarks. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, do you have an opinion? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll get to review the article soon, but for now I'll just say that the main motivation for the quantum numbers are their relation to the hadrons, so removing how they are related to hadrons removes a lot of context.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 11:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that the current way the section is written doesn't relate the concept back enough to quarks? Maybe if we could make it more clear how this idea links in with quarks, it'd be more appropriate. Right now, though, it just seems to describe numbers and qualities that are ascribed to non-quarks, without explaining why, frankly, "I care about them if I'm reading an article about quarks" (from the reader's view). —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That is very possible.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 11:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Isaac Newton in popular culture

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Isaac Newton in popular culture, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Original research.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. DFS454 (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Isaac Newton in popular culture

I have nominated Isaac Newton in popular culture, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Newton in popular culture. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. DFS454 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Symposium: FAC and the sciences

Your input is requested, either Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC_symposium or at the subpage where the effort will begin... Thanks! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Too late, I already replied!Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a debate. It's still very much in the nascent stage, but is intended to be a cross between a coffee klatch and Meeting of Minds. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 11:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Article Alerts

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:

[[Category:Wikipedia tools]]
[[Category:Parent2]]

Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you disagreed with the parent I chose. Please take a minute to poke around the hierarchy and find one you like. --Stepheng3 (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does this category needs a parent in the first place? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To help users find it, in case they don't know what it is named. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization under "Do categories need parents?" --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see why someone who doesn't remember that it's at the bottom of WP:AAlerts would want to find it through another category instead. The likely category one would search to find WP:AAlerts is Category:Wikipedia tools where WP:AAlerts is listed. This is an pretty "internal" category used to keep track of the pages and subpages of WP:AAlerts. But hey, if you feel that it's appropriate to include a category like Category:Article Alerts in Category:Wikipedia tools, I won't revert.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Signpost article

Headbomb, thanks. I'm happy to run an article about the new automated alerts system. You have a good start, but it will need to be edited to conform more to a sober-toned journalistic style to be appropriate for the Signpost. It should read like a report about the system rather than an advertisement for it. It would also be good to note how many WikiProjects are using it and how many are not yet using it.--ragesoss (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Now it looks very good, except that I think the first paragraph should be re-written. It's rather too colloquial right now; it should be written in a way that isn't just targeted at people involved in WikiProjects, but to any editor and even outsiders who are simply interested in Wikipedia-related news.--ragesoss (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll rewrite it for a wider audience.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Style Numbers

You reverted an edit I made a while ago to Template:Style. I explained my edit in the talk page but you have not done the same for your reversion. My change was to improve the usability of the page: having "numbers" under "d" in a list did not seem very helpful for such a basic topic. I will reinstate the link unless you'd like to persuade me otherwise? Bazza (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was reverting something. I thought it was simply an old leftover link. Anyway, do as you wish, I don't really care either care.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Headbomb, T-bird can remove what he pleases from his own talk page, whatever anyone else may think about it. Please let him do so, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

One can freely slander others on their talk page? That's a new one. For the record I was one of those pushing for an investigation of Fnagaton as being the sockmaster, but I can abide by administrator's ruling even if it doesn't please me. I don't have checkuser access, so I can't see the best evidence for myself. If admins who have that access say the evidence is inconclusive, then the evidence is, as far as I'm concerned, inconclusive. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You made that post, writing, "This is yet another case of your blatant lies and misrepresentations." So T-bird removes the post, you put it back and then ask me, "One can freely slander others on their talk page?" What am I missing? Also, are you saying you think T-bird is a sock of Fnagaton? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that though I do believe that Fnagaton is the sockmaster of User:DavidPaulHamilton, I also believe that declaring that he actually was the sockmaster is slander and definitaly is misrepresentation, especially when those with the checkuser tools didn't think the evidence was strong enough to justify actions actions Fnagaton. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't grok what you're unhappy about. I don't understand why, when I re-removed this, you said "One can freely slander others on their talk page? That's a new one."

Also, what does the notion "Fnagaton is the sockmaster of User:DavidPaulHamilton" have to do with T-bird.

Please help me out here, I'm only a clueless, stumbling admin, after all :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following you at all, so I'm confused as well. As far as I'm aware the order of events was Tbird said Fnag was the sockmaster, this is innacurate, so I clarified and called him on his BS. Tbird, as usual, invoked his persecution complex. Anything we say is archived as persecution, or results in him filing a WP:WQA (which is how you first became aware of Tbird). Tbird is not removing irrelevant/incivil stuff, he is censoring what he doesn't like. Upon seing this, he'll probably defend himself that saying Greg is doing the same, but I don't give a rat's ass about that, I am not Greg. And it's Tbird who deleted my comments, not you, so I really don't get what you're talking about when you said you re-removed my comments. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Do not restore those comments to his talk page, he can take out what he pleases, as he pleases, it's his talk page. If you do it again I'll warn you a block is nigh. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Plutonium

Thanks for helping to clean-up the plutonium article after the flurry of edits and vandalism from it being the TFA. :) --mav (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No probs. I really don't see why TFA aren't at the very least semi-protected by default. I suppose this is to show the world that "yes, you can edit this page". IMO a simple message to the effect that the page is semi-protected for the day because of high-vandalism would be better. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A-class review

This is just an advance notice, as the WikiProjects will be spammed shortly, but you might well like to put yourself down for Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Coordinators' working group. Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Since I more or less coordinate WP:PHYS, I'll place my name on there, but I doubt I'll have much to say. I'm of the opinion that anything but FA/GA-class reviews are internal matters.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely there, all the more reason to represent oneself to try to keep it that way ;) Physchim62 (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

AWB typo fixing in Wikipedia: space

I'm not sure this is such a good idea... –xeno (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm really doing template substitution. The typo fixing is a drive-by consequence.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, perhaps turn off typo fixing whilst doing that... My concern is that it could catch other user's comments (i.e. [2], [3]) and those shouldn't be modified even in good faith. –xeno (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So far I didn't run into anyone who complained that a typo was fixed. I'll use care however. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not just turn the typo fixing off? –xeno (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not leave it on? These are not talk pages. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In some cases they are, they have comments from other users which should not be modified. –xeno (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I'll use care.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

But you haven't, you modified another user's comment here: [4]. Please turn typo fixing off while you complete this task. –xeno (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bob.

Ah, the good old palindromic song. I have heard sections of it, but not the whole thing. Interesting. A random heads up, but a much appreciated one. By the way, the palindrome on my page has about seventeen thousand words. How did you stalk me down? ...Ω...^..¿TooT?.._..¡StatS!.. 01:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I dropped by User talk:Legoktm's page and saw your message.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Name no one, man. ...Ω...^..¿TooT?.._..¡StatS!.. 01:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

User:ArticleAlertbot/Alerts header move revert

Hello, I've reverted your move of User:ArticleAlertbot/Alerts header to ArticleAlertbotSubscription/Alerts header. It doesn't belong in article space. I think there's some other prefix you forgot but I couldn't figure it out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I've meant to for it to be in template space.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)