User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2016/October

Unblock request (IP range)

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Headbomb/Archives/2016 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Headbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Neondreams". The reason given for Neondreams's block is: " There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must: Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked. Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked. If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ".

• Blocking administrator: Widr (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: Autoblock lifted. MER-C 12:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why this applies to me, but I'm clearly not the target of this block. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Please do not move DYK nomination pages

Headbomb, I appreciate that you were trying to help, but please do not ever move DYK nomination template pages as you just did with Template:Did you know nominations/bioRxiv. I know that it should have been named with the capital "R" to begin with, but once a page has been named, it should not be moved, because moving causes other problems. I had already adjusted the page to reflect the discrepancy in naming and its internal templates, and just had to adjust the DYKmake in prep to reflect your move. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Reason for reversion at fine structure constant?

Can you please explain your reversion here? Without the scaling factor you arrive at a value many orders of magnitude larger than the correct approximation of 0.0072973525664. Earl of Arundel (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Check your math or numbers, because there is no scaling factor in that equation. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake. Earl of Arundel (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for BioRxiv

On 7 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article BioRxiv, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the second year after its launch, biological preprints hosted on bioRxiv repository were tweeted about on over 20,000 occasions? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, BioRxiv), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I am displeased

I don't appreciate your editing while discussion is underway. You don't OWN NJOURNALS. Judging you on your actions does not line up with your words, a fact for which you solely are to blame. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Then be displeased. See if I care. I'm fully aware that I don't own WP:NJOURNALS, but you would do well to look in the mirror before you demand that the world stops spinning on your account. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is clear consensus before changes are made. If consensus disagrees with me, so be it. Your behavior speaks a lot louder than your typing. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I do things. You just obstruct. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Revert

Hello, I reverted those edits because you changed the comments of other users. Granted, they're not signed, so whether this guideline applies here is debatable, but I erred on the side of it applying. That being said, I don't feel strongly enough about the issue to even *begin* to think of re-reverting at this point. Graham87 06:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

citation RFC

Can I suggest that you move up a description of the purpose of the graphical access indicators to the start of the RFCs? For someone who doesn't know the background, the RFCs seem to start in the middle of a discussion. Thanks for your consideration. isaacl (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you are talking about. Both RFCs start with a description / purpose of the RFC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The first RFC starts talking about "access locks". Until I paged down to the bullet list describing the colours, it was unclear to me what additional information an "access lock" is intended to convey. Personally I don't find the term by itself to be sufficiently self-descriptive; I would have found a quick clarifying clause to be useful, such as "access locks—a visual indication if a citation is freely available". The use of a term of art without a descriptive clause is what made it feel like I was entering into the middle of a conversation. isaacl (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

[1] looks like canvassing to me. Would you mind removing it? While I understand the desire to advertise, going into certain options is not a neutral frame of reference for an editor coming to the discussion. --Izno (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't said it's desirable, I said it was possible. I've also notified WP:MED the similar impact for PMC, and plan on notifying WP:ENERGY for OSTI link, and others as well. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Which still predisposes an editor to say "I want that one". Please revert these. --Izno (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)]

I will not. The notices are neutral, and editors in those field will be highly impacted by any update we make to the templates when it comes to autolinking arxiv, bibcodes, rfc, pmcs, etc. They deserve the notice. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Bah. Never mind. I can't read apparently. --Izno (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah...? Anyway, if you have ideas for an improved wording, I'm certainly not closed to that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

howdy

howdy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyscout27 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)