User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2011/March

Your change to MOSNUM

In this edit, you introduced an example of an inconsistent date format. This is a layer upon the long-standing rule that formats within reference sections should be consistent. The effect of your change is to increase the complexity and the hotch-potch of date formats within that section – I presume this was inadvertent instruction creep, and have reverted it. If it was not inadvertent, kindly lay out your rationale for the proposed change in the talk page. Thanks. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What inconsistent date format? If you mean something like 7 Sep 2001 for citation date and 2005-05-07 for accessdate, that is allowed and was deliberately chosen as an example. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• You are edit warring, and I hereby serve notice on you to desist. I now notice that your change had been revertedtwice before (the editor contesting your edit said "Remove comment that reflects the views of a single editor. Also, no consensus was ever reached about whether accessdates may have different date from rest of citations". Notwithstanding, you insisted on reinstating it without discussion. Agreeing with the editor who contested you, I only removed part of it – the part I most object to, which allows for dmy or mdy dates to coexist in the reference section with yyyy-mm-yy dates. I have once again reverted you but will not do so again, although I am sure an admin else will step in before long. Please do not revert until consensus has been gained on the talk page. Thank you. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It was reverted by Jc3s5h who eventually conceded (here) that accessdates and citations dates were allowed to differ if the accessdates were in YYYY-MM-DD format. Now YOU stop edit warring, and if you want to change the consensus version as I explained to you here, based on this RFC here, create an RFC on it as explained here. I would think twice of bringing admins in if I were you, considering your history. I supported your bot, but you're seriously making me reconsider my support given your attitude. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• I do not dispute that access dates and ref dates are indeed allowed to be in a different format to the body. There is a longstanding consensus on that. What you seek to change was to allow accessdates and ref dates to be different amongst themselves, which is quite different. You change, a deviation from the previously agreed consensus, and appears to have been done with little or no discussion. What's more, your examples really trash out the entire section, which used to be concise. Now you appear to have introduced serious instruction creep. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Then, for the third time now, create an RFC on it and gain consensus. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You cited the dates case and the consensus generated around date formats. Yet, there is nothing in the debate that took place around that time that allows BOTH dmy/mdy formats to be mixed with yyyy-mm-dd formats. You made the change unilaterally, and it was incumbent upon you to seek the consensus on the talk page prior to the change. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

As to the link you supplied, it was just WP:TLDR. Where's the exact diff, please? Where did he "concede", and was there anyone else who expressed a view, while you were at it? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

For the fourth time, if you dispute this, or can't be bothered to read the previous RFC, it rather simple for you to create a new RFC on the issue. Maybe consensus changed since the last time, maybe it didn't. This has been explained to you several times now, it's been explained here, on the BRFA, and on MOSNUM's talk page. Now you can follow due process and create the RFC asking for a clarification/new consensus on the issue of hybrid citation dates / accessdate in references (which is used in several articles, including GAs and FA passed after the big RFC on dates), and everything goes smoothly. No one gets blocked, banned, no editprotection is required, etc... Or don't. But if you choose not to create this new RFC, then stop pestering me because you can't be bothered to read a three-line diff (two if you exclude whitespace). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• It really doesn't matter if you go blue in the face counting the number of times you tell me you are right and how so, because there is nothing in that discussion you linked to that supports your position that there can be separate dmy/mdy and yyyy-mm-dd dates within the references section. You refuse to discuss on the talk page, and you stonewall me here, then you browbeat me with your regret about supporting my bot application. Your change was unilateral, and was challenged; yet you still refuse to back down. Now you edit war with me. I'm beginning to feel like I'm receiving a dose of "don't do as I do, do as I say". --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I gave you the links, and you refuse to check them out. I pointed you to discussions on the MOSNUM, you refuse to participate, then have the gall to accuse me of "refusing to discuss". Arguing with you is like arguing with a dining room table. Create the RFC, or don't. You can leave me more messages here if you want, but since you don't read what I write, I won't bother replying. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Headbomb. The related discussions and RfC do indeed give clear indication that YYYY-MM-DD may be used for accessdates alone. If there is any desire to change this, then discussion (maybe an RfC) needs to be had. The link to where Jc3s5h conceded the point is clearly linked above, where he also states that it was in the guideline prior to the RfC.

From Ohconfucius' talk page, it seems that the examples were removed from MOSNUM to support a position relating to a number of recent edits when challenged about them ([1]). _wjemather^bigissue 08:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Warring

Headbomb, as I told Ohconfucius, you should both know better than to edit war over MOS changes. I see you have already committed to a discussion, so i encourage you to carry on with that. I have unblocked Ohconfucius on the proviso that he does the same. As I read the article history WP:BRD was not followed, and you both should know about that... :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: file sizes

There is a ticket for this issue.

Headbomb

Saw your posts in the FAQs for downloading books (via topic 'culture'). I would like to reiterate the desirability of knowing at least a rough file size before attempting a download. Hard though it may be to believe for some people, not everyone has an all-you-can-eat permanent internet connection.

I could not establish whether this suggestion has been or should be made in some other forum. The help pages, guides and FAQs notwithstanding, Wikipedia is as opaque and impenetrable as a large city without a guidebook. The only way to find your way around is to do it regularly over a long period of time. Your comments suggested you are knowledgeable enough to ask whether I need to go elsewhere to register this suggestion, or perhaps you already know whether it has been so made, considered, rejected or otherwise.

Regards

Peter S Strempel 09:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterstrempel (talk • contribs)

Good idea. There should be a way to make this more explicit. I've filed a ticket for this (see box in the top right corner). No idea when it'll be implemented however, but you can monitor the ticket via email if you want (although I think you need to register on the pediapress ticket tracker first), otherwise I think you can subscribe to it via RSS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanx kindly Peter S Strempel 03:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterstrempel (talk • contribs)

Das Kopfbombe

Erratum: The German title Das Kopfbombe is grammatically incorrect. Bombe (bomb) is always feminine in German unless discussing attributes, when it becomes male and female: Die farbe der Kopfbombe (the colour of the Headbomb). Confused yet? Never mind. In short, it's "die Bombe", and "die Kopfbombe".

Regards -- Peter S Strempel (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

While we are nitpicking.

1. It is "Die Farbe der Kopfbombe" (nouns are capitalized in German).

Right you are.

1. "der Kopfbombe" is not masculine, it is the feminine genitive declination.

Grammar is fun! TR 12:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, particularly when it's foreign grammar. --Peter S Strempel (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

New moons of mars image

I've uploaded a new image at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop in response to your request for the Moons of Mars article.

4dhayman (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Unicite

Template:Unicite has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Project template

Hi, I asking some help about this. Do you know what to do? Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Button

Template:Button has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are you changing good quality information-Mnwolf

I am wondering why are you changing good quality information and leaving a page almost empty. What is your education/preparation about environmental toxicology that you delete good information? Based on your edits shows that you have no idea of what you are doing. Your page show physics credential, so stick to your knowledge. MnWolf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnwolf (talk • contribs) 04:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Because that is not "good quality information", specifically read our policy on original research, copyright violation, original synthesis and this guidelines on what wikipedia is not. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Be nice at ArbCom

Hi Headbomb!

Please remember that the ArbCom people are volunteers. Elen has tried to be more than understanding and demonstrated a willingness to listen to the mathematics community (as long as we don't ask for changes in policy that ArbCom cannot make itself). I don't know of a single ArbCom case where an ArbCom member has engaged in such extended dialogue as Elen has.

Please forgive her if she slips occasionally. She is very knowledgeable about WP policy, just as you are about mathematics. Any condescension was inadvertent, I believe. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 10:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer or not, these decisions affect the entire community, and this one would have drastic consequence on science articles. When you're not qualified to pronounce yourself on an issue, you don't shoot from the hip, tell your interlocutor he's a moron, and then hide behind a "I'm a volunteer wall". What you do is recuse yourself.

ARBCOM should remember that I'm a volunteer too, BTW. We all are. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We are all volunteers, of course, and you have a huge number of edits and are more experienced me.

However, you are not helping us by reacting with (justified, given a subpar comment from Elen, I agree) irritation.

I don't think that she will be further irritated, since as an ArbCom volunteer, she has "thick skin" (or the personality of a saint---or a masochistic!). Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 11:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fractional error propagation

Further to your favourite example of linewidths and lifespans, I looked up "fractional error propagation" using search, and it seems to me that our articles in this area could maybe stand a look.

• Propagation of uncertainty is probably the best, and contains the most important formulas at Propagation_of_error#Example_formulas
• Experimental uncertainty analysis appears to be a deliberate content fork, motivated on the talk page by the statement that the first article is a collection of equations, with minimal discussion. The style falls badly foul of NOTATEXTBOOK. Also he doesn't give the most simple, revealing, important examples, which are those at "Example formulas" above.
• Uncertainty analysis. As the talk page just cited complains, "says nothing much at all".
• Measurement_uncertainty#Propagation_of_distributions doesn't refer to the first two articles at all.
• Sensitivity analysis. Simply quotes the partial derivative formula. Article has an uneasy relationship with Uncertainty analysis. Both should perhaps be presented in a more consciously integrated way under the same roof.

The one that gives me most concern I suppose is the Experimental uncertainty analysis article, which needs a fair amount done on its tone and presentation. But as it was supposedly motivated by perceived deficiencies in the Propagation of uncertainty article, perhaps that needs a look too. I quite like it: it seems clean and uncluttered to me, which is a virtue that is too easily and too often destroyed in far too many WP articles. But maybe there are things that need attention.

I'd appreciate if you could run your eyes over them. Jheald (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

From a quick glance, the main problem with most of these articles is that they are written as most Wikipedia articles on mathematics are written. Abstract, incomprehensible to anyone but mathematicians, and TL;DR. Whatever improvement someone makes will eventually be canceled overtime to be brought in line with the Wikipedia standards for mathematical articles. which means hopelessly abstract, hopelessly incomprehensible to anyone but mathematicians, and hopelessly TL;DR. I couldn't tell you what these articles are supposed to be about anyway. I can't even make it through the lead (as usual for mathematics articles).

So while I would love to help, I would rather be nice to my brain and not subject it to read a mathematics article on Wikipedia. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Amen to that. The maths articles are terrible. Truely awful. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 12:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppenheimer FAC

Hiya Gaëtan. I'm wondering if you have a chance to look at the edits I made to the physics subsection of the Oppenheimer bio, now at FAC. I'm trying to make the article slightly more accessible, but since my physics is weak, I may have misinterpreted things. That second paragraph could use less detail, but I don't know how to summarize it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it when I have some time. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Informational note: this is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Supernova

Can we discuss this and reach a consensus? We're stomping on each others edits.—RJH (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Is a full RFC really necessary for this? It will inevitably end on the side of consistency. You can't possibly find (or want to find) all the first names of all the authors of all these articles. Some of these will be missing in the databases, which makes the article impossible to make consistant in the "Smith, John" style. Plus, per WP:CITEVAR, we should stick to the established style (which, if you check this revision, is overwhelming in favour of "Smith, J." over any other citation styles). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style: "A good guideline is to list author names as they are written in the original article/book, without further abbreviation. The APA guidelines recommend abbreviating first names to initial letters instead, but since Wikipedia has no shortage of space, you need not abbreviate names." I see no consensus regarding whether the article should use the same name style for all authors.

If you are referring to Talk:Electron#Names and citations this discussion, a chat between two people is not exactly an overwhelming consensus. I think we need broader input.—RJH (talk)

That and countless debates on WP:MOS, WP:MOSNUM, and also per WP:COMMONSENSE .... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well we disagree, so I'll await the outcome of the discussion.—RJH (talk)

Per your edits to the Supernova article, blanket modifying of the date format in the article references is inappropriate. Per WP:DATE: "If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason." You need to discuss these types of changes first.—RJH (talk)

I didn't notice there was a date format established. I'll switch it back. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Books

Hi Headbomb, I noticed that you're someone who seems to have a lot of experience with Wikipedia books. Would you mind taking a quick look at Book:Fergie and seeing if it's okay? It's my first. Thanks. Acalamari 20:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks mostly good. I fixed some things (mostly articles need to be in :[[Link|How you want it displayed]] format, aka :[[London Bridge (song)|"London Bridge"]] rather than :"[[London Bridge (song)|London Bridge]]".

A few related things, I notice Category:Fergie does not exist and the {{Fergie}} template has not been updated. The category should probably be created and populated (take a look at Category:Britney Spears) and the template update to link to the book/category and possibly a portal (again {{Britney Spears}} is a good example of this). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Headbomb! I'll create the category and populate it in a minute, and I'll update her template and her article accordingly. As I said, this is my first book, and I'm glad those are the only things I need to fix and remember in future. Thanks again, I really appreciate your help and advice! Acalamari 21:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, if you have AutoWikiBrowser it's never a bad idea to load the book (sources > Links on pages > Book:Fergie ) into AWB and do some semi-automated cleanup. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't looked much into automated tools (mainly due to my internet, but that's changed in the last few months), so I had to do all the Fergie edits manually. However, when doing it I realized that the articles on her songs I was adding the new category to were redundant to an existing category, but not to worry, I've sorted it all out and will know better next time. One last thing though, is it possible to create a book without using Special:Book, and instead create one as you would any other page? Again, thanks for all your help and advice. Acalamari 21:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, you can create books just like any other pages as long as you know the syntax (Help:Books/for experts#Saving books). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's good. Thanks to your help, there are a few books I will soon be able to go ahead and create. Thank you! Acalamari 21:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

POV/unPOV?

Quite legitimately you POV-marked the article VizieR here. I cleaned the article here. If you think that my edit fixed the non-neutralness that you objected to, you may feel free to drop the POV-mark, otherwise let it remain. Cheers! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's better, but still not very neutral with unsourced statements such as "It contains 7300 catalogues to date, far exceeding any service of this kind in the field." and "With the advent of the Astrophysical Virtual Observatory the ViZieR catalogue has gained importance in being the source of all catalogued data within the community." (amongst others) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference does not correspond to linked file

After this diff, the title and year of the linked article by Michael S. Turner are not what the reference says they are. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just cleaning up the references. If the inputs were bad before cleanup, they'll stay bad after cleanup. So if you spot a problem like that, just update the reference accordingly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

en dashes

Hi Headbomb,

Your argument at Talk:Mexican-American War is that attributive adjectives are punctuated differently than attributive nouns. This would be an important point to incorporate into the MOS if true, as it would have consequences for many articles. It seems unlikely, though, and I've been unable to verify it. Can you provide a ref? — kwami (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the examples in the style guides are attributive nouns. However, these are typically called "adjectives" (a "simplification" of terminology that's been used for a century), so it seems unlikely that a distinction in punctuation would be proposed between attributive nouns and attributive adjectives, and indeed sources tend to speak of them as "elements" without specifying part of speech. I have found one source which joins adjectives. (I suppose one could argue that these are nouns, but one could argue that for "Mexican" and "American" as well; that's a complication that none of the style guides I've seen are concerned with.)

Garner (2000:94) The Oxford dictionary of American usage and style : "In circumstances involving a disjunction, the en-dash is usually preferable to the virgule: ... 19th-century possessive–genitive dichotomy"

— kwami (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Mexican" and "American" are adjectives (more specically, Mexican-American is a compound adjective) which modify "War". They are not nouns. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. "Possessive" and "genitive" are also adjectives. You have not given any reason to think that they're punctuated differently depending on part of speech.

Okay, another example. This one's a bit odd, but then all the straightforward examples seem to use nouns. Ivers (1993:202) Random House Guide to Good Writing:

"Use a simple hyphen, not an en dash, if the compound that follows is hyphenated, unless two of the elements form a single unit.

• Italian–Russian-Jewish ancestry (two elements form a unit)"

Although that should probably just be reworded, it does parallel Mexican–American War. Again, my point is that if you are correct, this is a serious issue that would affect more than just this one article, and so should be documented so that those other articles can be corrected. — kwami (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Another: Dupré (1998:221) BUGS in writing:

"[in equal-weighted pair] the pair is not both equal and weighted. Rather, equal and weighted together make a compound adjective that modifies pair. Thus, you set equal-weighted pair with a hyphen. In contrast, a brown–red shade is a shade that is both brown and red, so that term is set with an en dash."

— kwami (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hudson (1993) Modern Australian usage : "Use of the solidus in place of a dash in such phrases as the French/German border is not recommended, as it can lead to accidental ambiguity. The French–German border (using an unspaced en-dash) is unambiguous."

Martin (2009:127) New Oxford dictionary for scientific writers and editors : "electron–nuclear double resonance (en dash)"

— kwami (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppenheimer again

We can get through the FAC i think with the answer to just two questions. Would you consider "relativistic quantum electrodynamics" and "quantum electrodynamics at high energies" to be similar enough in meaning that I can replace the second with "it" without interfering much with the meaning? Also, do you have any problem with this phrasing? "... the continuous spectrum. He developed a method to carry out calculations of its transition probabilities." - Dank (push to talk) 17:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Relativistic and High-Energy are synonymous in this context. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I got it right then, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man!

Go Wiki! Go reptiles! Go USA!

Thank you for the help. Hope to see you around the wiki. Always makes my chest swell to work with professionals like you!

TCO (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup has been appealed to ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jagged 85 RFC/U and cleanup and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, thought you might be interested -Aquib (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jagged 85 cleanup: article stubbing

Hello. You are invited to take part in this vote concerning the clean-up effort in connectuion with Jagged 85's RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Your talk page

Sorry to bother you but your talk page banners look extremely tall and skiny under IE9. Perhaps you should inflate it a little bit. Your page looks OK (nice and plump) in compatability mode, so I assume it is coded under at least IE8 or older (looks ok when I choose IE8 under browser mode). --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, man. Maybe you could suck in your stomach when you primp and preen. Or maybe just change that shirt. Love and Rockets, Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

See http://i52.tinypic.com/wcmvza.png --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 15:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Solution: Don't use shitty browsers like IE. If you get this problem on my talk page, you'll get this problem at several places on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? I didn't encounter this problem elsewhere. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Tachyons in six-dimensional special relativity

Best Gaëtan Landry

I noticed you had taken away my reference to this approach. I of course wonder why?. Both doctor Cole and Pavsic have published on this in scientific journals. I myself am a former doctoral student in theoretical physics. So I would apreciate a scientific argument rather than censorship. Best Regards Jan Pilotti B.Sc (mathematics) M.D. Psychiatrist University Hospital of Örebro Sweden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpilotti (talk • contribs) 19:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You wrote on tachyon

Another approach to tachyons using six-dimensional space-time, three space and three time dimensions, have been presented independently by at least three researchers:

• Dr E A B Cole DrE.A.B.Cole . Dr Cole also predicts dark matter in this theory, which is quite interesting as many cosmologists say dark matter is needed for the Big Bang theory to Work.
• Dr Matej Pavsic DrM.Pavsic has also done early and extensive work on this and you can download a whole book.
• Dr Jan Pilotti DrJ.Pilotti also early described the possibility of extending the theory of relativity to six-dimensions and have mainly used it to propose a new theory of consciousness

Please read our policies on conflicts of interest and promoting one's own work. Personal webpages also are not considered reliable sources. If you want to have your own work present on Wikipedia, you should be able to demonstrate that your work has been published and reviewed (favourably) in relevant journals such as Physical Review D, Journal of Physics A or maybe Journal of Physics G, Science, Nature, ... until that happens, you have little chance to have your work mentionned on Wikipedia. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Marking as WP:MINOR edits that are not.

Hey, your last edits at Solar System were great but they do not meet the criteria set forth in WP:MINOR. I recommend that, when there could be any doubt, one leave the minor box unchecked. Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is not considered minor in these edits? It's just a tidying of references, there's no change in content. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The criteria for WP:MINOR is, to paraphrase, "an edit that could not possibly be questioned". Vandalism cleanup also may be considered "minor".

However, I went back and looked at it and believe that I probably shouldn't have said anything; the ref cleanups you made didn't significantly change the article. These things frequently sit "on the fence" and I think I called it wrong.

I apologize for that. Take care! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 00:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Re citing own work

Headbomb, I have a question relating obliquely to your comment on tachyons in six-dimensional space-time above. I am currently involved in the astrology article (specifically, see the Avoiding censure and Carl Jung headings near the bottom of the work page), which has a long and acrimonious history of debate between people characterised by each other as pro- and con-astrology.

In that debate I responded to a question by a self-professed professional astrologer that citing a work in which he was also a contributor (not citing his own article, though), was OK so long as the reference was credible. I went on to say that if he, himself was cited from a credible source, I couldn't see a problem so long as it was a straight paraphrase or direct quote without elaboration. Finally, I opined that putting reference to his own published work in the 'further reading' section wouldn't be a problem so long as it passed the test of credible sources.

If I read your tachyon comment correctly, I offered advice that wouldn't stand your test. I believe, though, that context must also be considered: several administrators are watching the astrology debate because a handful of users were recently topic banned, and no one has yet contradicted the advice I gave. Plus, the editor concerned appears to be one of very few who can actually be cited from non-private or self-publishing sources; I have stated respectfully but firmly that I would question references that were self-publications (web sites, PDF e-books, etc).

Your opinion on this matter, particularly as a detached observer, would be greatly appreciated. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Citing a "professional astrologer" whatever that would be, is either citing a professional charlatan, or a professional idiot. Treat them as you would from any other known kooks like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Deepak Chopra, Truthers, Flat-Earthers, etc... Fine to use as references about themselves and their own claims, but not fine to use anywhere else.

A particular problem with astrology is that there is no "credible" (or rather no "recognized") associations of astrology, and that they operate in vacuum. What I mean by that last claim is that, e.g. in dentistry, a dentist having gone through a Canadian dentistry school will successfully be able to detect a cavity, as would an Australian dentist, or a Jamaican dentist. If you go to three different dentists for a tooth-ache, their methods might vary, as would their skill, but their diagnostic will all be the same: tooth cavity. Likewise, with minor variations, their deontological codes would also be the same. So you can expect them not to lie, not to expose you to unnecessary risks, nor use bullshit methods to produce a diagnostic they now will be bunk.

Go see three astrologers from three different "astrology associations", and you'll get three completely different, unjustifiable, bullshit claims about you. There is no deontological code for "professional astrologers". In fact most (but not all) of them will explicitly mention that their service is purely for entertainment and no replacement for professional advice, because to pretend to offer professional advice when they are in fact spewing nothing more than made-up generic bullshit carefully crafted to maximize the effects of confirmation and emotional biases. So you cannot take the claims of one "professional" astrologer, and think it represents a consensus of opinions within the field. The only "consensus" you can find amongst astrologers is that astrology is "somehow meaningful", and that it's somehow based on planets and constellations (and other celestial objects).

If a field consists of bullshit, experts in the field are expert bullshitters. So unless they are recognized as a particularly prominent bullshitter, who's bullshit has influenced other bullshitters, that link should most likely stay out of every article except on that person's biography article. And that is my neutral opinion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, I thought so. I don't think I could run that argument on that particular talk page without getting banned. Thanks for your time. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 06:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of ISSN

Why did this edit delete the issn number? Glrx (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it's irrelevant and unconventional to give the ISSN? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)