User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2012/April

Book:History of the 39th Infantry Division

Can you run NoomBot on this book? Book:History of the 39th Infantry Division Thanks! Aleutian06 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The bot should run every 2-3 days automatically. If it's not running, or you want an advanced run, the bot's operator is User:Noommos, asking him would be your best shot. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see, the book was malformed, so the bot never picked it up. I fixed it up, so the bot should run fine the next time. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir! Aleutian06 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

100,000 edits

		100,000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100,000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work! – From: Northamerica1000(talk) 20:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Centre d'Immunologie de Marseille-Luminy

Hi Headbomb, first of all congrats on reaching the 100K milestone! Second, you just moved this article and for the life of me I cannot see the difference between the old and the new title (even though it's obvious that there must be a difference, as my browser treats them differently...) What am I missing?? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• PA: and thanks for finishing the cleanup of the refs of that article, I started doing that but got sidetracked and didn't get around to finishing. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The difference is a curly apostrophe (’ vs '). And thanks! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

(Cross posting to everyone who commented in the JSTOR discussion on WT:FAC)

I have now created Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access. Feel free to sign up. Raul654 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Headbomb/Archives/2012. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Magioladitis#AWB_revision_8039

Maybe you are interested to follow User_talk:Magioladitis#AWB_revision_8039. AWB developers are trying to fix the behaviour you describe. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Many, many of these problems with Yobot lately seem to be due to the CHECKWIKI fixes. The operator seems unable to give specific edit summaries of what is supposed to chage on each edit, because the task is trying to do so many things at once, and CHECKWIKI itself seems like an open-ended source of cosmetic edits. It might be worthwhile for BAG to consider limiting the bot's task to a specific collection of particular CHECKWIKI edits, with no other changes permissible in those edits (and thus no general fixes problems). As it is used by Yobot, AWB seems to just be too buggy to prevent cosmetic changes from this task when it is run with general fixes enabled. For example, today Magioladitis indicates that it considers re-ordering categories to be a significant change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, the onus is on you to make sure those edits don't occur. There are 'skip genfix / minor genfix' options for a reason. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Barrier

Greetings Headbomb! I am curious, what is the "notability barrier" referred to here? Best regards, mate. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It means that publications established after that point in time have a harder time having articles on Wikipedia than publications established before it. It'll usually be because these publications are too new for people to have noticed them, thus fail WP:N. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Tribimaximal mixing

Hi Headbomb. I've noticed you've now twice reverted my edits to the article because of concerns apparently over what is "compatible" with "verified" experiments. What is your standard? Generally in physics more than other disciplines, leeway is afforded to preprints from major experimental collaborations owing to the long lead times between relatively reliable consensus among an experiment and its peers to the actual publication date. Experimental science outpaces publication. I'll admit that this is not necessarily a WP standard, but even when the source has been indeed published, I have gotten into the habit of providing the arXiv link. This allows anybody to view the material, not just those who have log-in credentials to a closed publication. In the context of the article, there are two experiments with mutually consistent data, which "verify" each other and are "inconsistent" with tribimaximal mixing. They are also consistent (I didn't really cite this, but whatever) with previous global analyses of earlier experiments, which were already disfavoring the null result. It is at a level where the theory preprint I cited willingly admits that TBM is at best a zeroth order approximation. Are you waiting for the next edition of PDG to "verify" the results, or what? Teply (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

These are preprints, and while I personally agree with the findings and don't see any red flags in them, I also am not an expert in that field (so my opinion matters little in terms of giving RENO/Daya Bay results the thumbs up). However, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is usually best to wait until these results are actually published. Maybe something's off in the procedures, maybe both groups overlooked some aspect of the experiment, etc... Having a PDG review is nice, but certainly not mandatory. But actually being published/reviewed is rather important. The two preprints cited have had some major (and recent) revisions since last time, and it's very possible they get further revisions before publication, hence why it's common practice/usually best to wait until publication before updating articles with the latest findings. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Not worth arguing. I expect publication in the near enough future.Teply (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Journals of Insect Science

Hi, originally this article was about several journals, but now it is only about an Indian journal, so perhaps it should be moved to the singular version of the title? As for the dab, I think the proper title of the other journal (if it has to be the country) should be "United States" instead of "USA". Cheers! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidence Page

Hey Headbomb. I reverted your comment that you placed in Hersfold's section. Each section is for one person to offer evidence. Commentary on a person's evidence should be located on the workshop page. Sorry about the fuss but one comment often leads to another comment which leads to a threaded discussion. This isn't fair to the person who's evidence you are commenting on because each person's section is limited to 500 words. Thanks for your understanding. As an Arbcom clerk, --Guerillero | My Talk 21:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For the idea of having a bot place past AfD discussion notices on talk pages. Bgwhite (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried giving this to Anomie, but they said it was your idea. Thank you for your great idea. I've CSD several new articles that were previously at AfD. It sure saves time and confusion. Bgwhite (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Shortcuts

Wikipedia has built-in HTML anchors created automatically for each header on a page so that they can be linked easily. There's no reason to create a new one.

Check any anchored shortcut link, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOTGUIDE&redirect=no. They all use the automatically-created anchors, unless there's a specific reason not to.

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots&curid=8924030&action=history, and try to click the anchor link (→) for one of your edits. They lead to the top of the page, when they're supposed to lead directly to the edited section -- because your explicit anchor breaks the automatic one. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:55, 14 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Then submit {{anchor}} to deletion if it's so problematic, or file a bugzilla report. Until then, it should stay. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The anchor template has its uses, but this isn't one of them. Why exactly should it stay when there's a built-in anchor that can be used instead -- and always is? What's the special situation here that warrants special treatment that also breaks other features? Equazcion ^(talk) 15:01, 14 Apr 2012 (UTC)

It's used exactly as mentioned in the documentation. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. When there's some reason to use it, it's used, but what's the reason here? Equazcion ^(talk) 15:04, 14 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Your copernicium edits

I notice you recently removed a "self reference" in this article, which indeed seems to be just a Wikipedia copy. However, is there another valid reference for the corresponding claim (8.9 min half-life)? Otherwise, we should re-tag the claim as requiring a reference. (I tagged it as needing a citation on 5 April, User:Nergaal added this "self reference" for it on 7 April and removed my tag.) Greetings, Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think it needs a , feel free to re-add it. Asking Nergaal for a source might be better however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Asteroid redirection process

Thank you sincerely for your help with the astroid redirection process. While reading Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Feedback_requested_for_Wikipedia:Bots.2FRequests_for_approval.2FHelpful_Pixie_Bot_50, I realized that I needed to add a history at the top of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Candidates for redirection new and let me know what you think of the history at the top. As I read that discussion, they were talking about the wrong lists at certain points and I saw people weren't given enough information and confused different lists. Sorry about that. I think I want to try to have someone present it to them again or something, what do you advise? Plese do look over Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Candidates for redirection new and let me know if it looks like everything is perfect. Thanks again and sorry again about the list history omission thing. Chrisrus (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidence Phase

Just a friendly reminder that the evidence phase of the Rich Farmbrough case has closed. If you would like to add additional evidence, please speak to a clerk or one of the drafting arbitrators --Guerillero | My Talk 04:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Book status?

Qexigator (a novice editor) is looking for any other category which has the Book status. Can you help, please? Qexigator (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll need a bit more detail. A category that has the Book status? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Current/Past Members of the Beatles

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

FrescoBot

The changes to the two headers instead were pretty cosmetic: there were some trailing spaces at the end of the line. Header cleanup and few others simple cosmetic checks (not from cosmetic_changes.py) are performed only after a substantial edit. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 05:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem + AWB bug?

Your cleanup edit at Jerusalem deleted half a reference, which I have restored. If that edit was made with a standard copy of AWB then you'd better log it as a bug. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Headbomb, this appears to be the same problem I posted here about in March. Please stop with the "citation cleanup" until you have fixed this bug, and also please go through your past edits to fix any other instances of this problem. Anomie⚔ 16:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Weird... I thought I fixed that one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see, I had a duplicate set of regexes causing the same error. I fixed one in March but didn't realize there was a duplicate. Anyone it's fixed for good now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Good, thanks! Anomie⚔ 18:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Golden Checkerboard edits

Thanks for the Golden Checkerboard edits. Four questions/observations: 1. the asin parameter in the citation template is valid in that it provides linking to Amazon. Yes, it ends up as a "commercial" link, but if this is a concern why should it be a workable parameter? (It just leaves the door open for many other links in other references.) 2. You removed the subscription tag on the JSTOR citation. I added it because it does require a payment ($12.00) to access the full article. (At least it is required if the reader does not have access through a library or institution webpage.) 3. OCLC 3094608 is not bogus. (I just checked it.) It actually leads to a second entry for the Ringwald material, which has additional locations (Tulsa and Princeton). Compare OCLC 14015139. 4. Removing the oclc entirely is not helpful. As above, a reader may not have access to JSTOR. --S. Rich (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• ASIN is valid yes, but as it commercial in nature, it should only be used when other identifiers are not available. The LCCN and OCLC ones already achieve that, so the amazon link serves little purposes other than favour amazon over other retailers.
• Concernings the various OCLC (which is a rather low-value identifier in terms of usefulness to the reader), it's purposeless to list all OCLCs for every work, pick the best and run with it. Those I removed contained inferior information (aka OCLC 14015139 has the correct year, but OCLC 3094608 has crap metadata) or redundant (OCLC 464581464 contains a link to all other editions, so OCLC 620294456 serves no purpose).
• JSTOR is a subscription database, the link was converted to a |jstor=, which has superior usefulness, and frees up the URL parameter to be used in case someone finds a free version of the article. You are explicitly told you will be taken to the JSTOR database, which you should already know if you have access to it or not (hence why {{subscription}} is just redundant), and it improves how things are rendered in print. The OCLC here is also useless, as it does not offer anymore information over the JSTOR entry.
• Going further, I would have removed the OCLC links when LCCNs or ISBNs were present, but I don't have particularly strong feelings about that.

Hope that explains things. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Very helpful. Your expertise in this area is greatly appreciated. (I'll take a closer look at the oclcs. I might restore those which list the additional libraries and the one giving libraries for the physical locales.)--S. Rich (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: I invite you to look at Carl Eytel, which might benefit from your scalpel. --S. Rich (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Another suggestion for Anomie's army of bots

I've fallen in love with Anomie's bot putting past AfD notices on new biographies. I was wondering if it would be a good idea to expand it to include prods and speedy deletes. Often, the same article gets speedied multiple times. Seeing a past Prod would help to see if the concern of the proder has been addressed. If it hasn't, then either fix the article or Proding it again.

I'm not sure on if or what period of time would be best, but say only articles that were Proded in the past three or six months? Don't include BLPprods as it is easy to see if the article as a ref or not. Bgwhite (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Anomie about that. He did the work, so he could tell you what's feasible or not. I just had the idea. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it a good idea?

I'm married, so obviously I have some lousy ideas. Bgwhite (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Book status?

As here: Category:Architects Registration in the United_Kingdom

the Book status is shown on the category page, and links to this: Book:Architects Registration in the United Kingdom

My question is, whether other categories have such a link, and how can these be found? Qexigator (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what exactly it is you are asking. If you're asking which category have those templates, you can always check the "what links here" of {{Wikipedia books}} and filter by namespace (e.g. [1]). Books are not as linked as they should be, many of them lack the category links (or more importantly mainspace links via navigational templates such as {{Rihanna}} or {{Intelligent Design}}). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. Qexigator (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Phil Soc Trans.

If these are public Domain they should be on Commons, so Wikisource can work with them ;) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And until this is the case, there is no point in removing that link. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought you would have seen the not so subtle hint (wink wink) ;) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you browse the Commons content. There's only Volume 1, Issues 1-22, and Volume 2, Issue 23 uploaded. All other issues are not there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So why don't you upload them the other volumes ? I can't use torrents because my ISP appears to block the port BitTorrent uses,

I'm also running on reduced bandwidth :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Since when is it my job to upload stuff on commons? Pay me 40$ an hour and I'll do it. That you have a shitty internet plan / ISP isn't my problem. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)