User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2009/October

Grammar

I was reverting back an incorrect "fix", and you revert me? Strictly speaking, data is a plural term and as that was what was originally used in the article, let's stick with that, please. Fences&Windows 03:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello HB- Saw the recent action on data, and thought you might be interested in a quote I added to the bottom of Talk:Data#Data_WAS_the_plural_of_datum. Eric ^talk 14:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. The article author chose to use "data are", which is acceptable use and traditionally correct. It's also the standard use in science. An editor unnecessarily changes this, thinking incorrectly that they are making a grammatical fix, and I revert them. Rather than letting it lie or discussing it, you decide to edit war to impose the American usage, making a vaguewave towards the MOS. Just leave it alone, it doesn't need "fixing". Fences&Windows 20:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the original was "data is" you changed it to "data are". This is changing one variety of english for another, and is forbidden unless there's strong national connection to the topic. There is no such connection, so "data is" is the prescribed usage in this case. And that's all there is to it really. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My bad, upon review, I missed the IP's edit, switching are --> is, I though you were the one switching from is to are. Also two reverts is not an "edit war" by any measure. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A classic misunderstanding, sorry. Do you want to submit this to WP:LAME, or shall I? Fences&Windows 23:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This little episode really doesn't seem to be comparable to anything in WP:LAME. It would be out of place IMO. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Particle

How do I update Template:Infobox Particle? It's driving me nuts. I've added some new fields but they don't appear, AFAICS. There's something about templates I don't get (and I even read the help page). Is purging a restricted function or something? --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look later in the day. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, well I took a look at it and didn't see any edits on the template, so it's hard for me to tell what exactly you where trying to do, and where you went wrong. If youre talking about things like B − L displaying, it does. So if that was your problem, it was simply one of purging the page (make a null edit, or force a reload with crtl+shift+R). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved - I was being an idiot. Thanks for looking into it.--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Ok, this is all getting too confusing. Please do not move anything without discussing on talk first. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

signature

hello, headbomb. your signature is very hard to operate. it seems that your talk page link blocks your contributions link. at least this is the case with ie8. thought you may want to know.--camr ^nag 16:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! This must be a problem with IE8 (and prior versions?) because it works just fine on Firefox. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Bibliographic Database infobox help

Hiya Headbomb! Crusio pointed out that you offered to help with the development of a Bibliographic Database infobox for the mutual benefit of Wikiproject Academic Journals and Wikiproject Databases. I've created a mock up, but I'm not skilled enough with infoboxes to produce anything at this point. Could you have a look and see what you can do? Thanks!!! Clifflandis (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting TOCs

Hi there. Since we've decided that my bot should delete redlinks to TOCs on Books rather than CSD tag the pages, I think the next step while the BFRA is ongoing is to find an admin who will delete the unnecessary pages. This will allow my bot to delete the links sooner, as I logically won't be able to do it until the pages are deleted anyway. If there are any admins in the Books Wikiproject who can just do that, then we should simply ask him/her to do the deletions for us. Alternatively I can track down an admin on IRC or somewhere else that can go through deleting the pages. Just let me know. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 20:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to just tag the pages for deletion using AWB (not the bot). I will do this tomorrow unless there are objections. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 23:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't see it, a BAG member approved the request and deleted the TOCs. I'll start removing the links now. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 03:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I did see it. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The links have been removed. Let me know if you ever need any more bot work done. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 23:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks goods. Thanks a bunch! Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Journal editors

Hi, I think it would be good to move this category to Category:Academic journal editors , that way Category:Magazine editors can be used for all those who edit non-academic journals. As it is, both categories are used interchangeably. However, I don't know how to move a category... Could you help? Thanks! Unsigned comment by (User:Crusio)

Well there are many ways to do this but, if, as you say, both categories are used interchangeably, then the simplest option is probably to go create Category:Academic journal editors (AJE), then go through Category:Magazine editors (ME) and clean it up (aka moving Academic journal editors to the new category). Then go through Category:Journal editors (JE), and clean it up as well (aka moving Academic journal editors to the new category).

When that's done, the AJE category will be clean, and there will be two leftovers (JE and ME). These should be taken to WP:CfD and the categories merged into Category:Journal and magazine editors (or something like that). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Maths rating

When adding the "maths rating" template to a talk page, please fill in all three parameters (class, priority, and field). There is already a list of mathematics articles that is automatically generated without talk page tags. So the only reason for the maths rating tag is to rate math articles; if these parameters are not entered then the tag has no function. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi Headbomb, you had asked me for a review for a possible RFA in November. This is just a heads-up that I'm taking a break from RFA for a few months. Juliancolton, SoWhy, or any of the regulars can probably give you a good idea of what to focus on. Thanks for asking. - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Followup: I was hoping to take a break, but it didn't happen. But Timmeh_3, Kww_3, and discussion on WT:RFA has convinced me that a small but significant number of voters now want to see 5 or 6 months rather than 3 months between RFAs. I think this is a shame, but that's how it is, for now. Feel free to check with me in January or February, and I'll try to say something useful then. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Materialscientist

Just a quick note that you seem to have forgotten to sign your support at this RfA. :) GlassCobra 18:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, you might want to tone back this comment - badgering the opposing side in these discussions is rarely productive, and the people with whom you ultimately agree even less so. Your rationale explained your point pretty well. Also, I am pretty sure that the closing B will be familiar with at least several of those names, as you are in pretty venerable company there. But hey, that is just my 2¢. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• All editors are reminded to be civil at all times and seek consensus where possible, and encouraged pursue dispute resolution when necessary.
• Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is warned for his conduct in this dispute, and placed under a general probation for one year, under which any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions if Brews ohare fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia or general editing and behavioral guidelines, policies, and expectations, despite warnings.
• David Tombe (talk · contribs) is also warned for his conduct in this dispute and during the course of the arbitration case, and is placed under the same general probation but for an indefinite duration. David Tombe may not appeal his probation for one year, and is limited to one appeal every six months thereafter.
• Both Brews ohare and David Tombe are banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months.
• Violations of the topic bans or general sanctions may be enforced by blocks of up to a week in length for repeated violations, to increase to one year after the third block. All blocks and other sanctions applied should be logged on the case page here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

lmep talk moved to user talk page,see afd discussion

if you want to help check sources for merge it would be appreciated. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories mess

Hi, could you have a look at this discussion? I feel rather overwhelmed, so advice/help is more than welcome... --Crusio (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

CHU request

Your request is now outstanding since 19 September. Per a number of notes on your request, could you please confirm that you are now happy for your request to go ahead, otherwise it will be archived. In future I would ask you to make the request at a time that it's suitable for it to be carried out. The Rambling Man (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC).