User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2018/June
 | 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. |
Something goes wrong when you click the ISO4 link, it gives the probable abbreviation for a completely different journal. As I don't know anything about hos this actually works, perhaps you can have a look. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Randykitty: Try it now. This was caused by an empty
|title=. I've tweaked the template to handle empty, rather simply undeclared|title=parameters. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, that missing "title" escaped me, I usually add those, even if the title is identical to the article title. Thanks, I've now added the abbreviation and created the redirects. --Randykitty (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
ZETA edit
Looking over the history, it seems one of your edits on the ZETA article might have got stepped on when the FA was being posted. Take a look, it was AWB so it should be easy to re-do. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
AFD help template
I just wanted to say that I noticed this new-fangled template on an AFD nom, the XTools gadget came up with your name as the creator of it. What a nice idea. Thank you for developing this template. talk to !dave 19:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
1st Law of thermodynamics for universe
Hello, I was wondering why would you assume that dQ=0 in the 1st law of thermo for the universe. In every process we know, we see that dE=0 which is energy not heat. Patrick Birbarah (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
AFD help box
Hi, Just wanted to say thanks for including a way to hide the box :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Template:WIR-doc/create doc preload
Hi. The includeonlys on {{WIR-doc/create doc preload}} are a mess and lead to a nonsense red category on the template. It looks straightforward to sort out, I just don't like to do it in case there's a reason why it's like that.... Cheers Le Deluge (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Le Deluge: The includeonlys need to be done that way, sadly. There might be a way to prevent the red category from displaying, but I can't come up with any solution right off the top of my head. But it's not a category anyone would create or see, so there's not much of an issue there.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing escapes Special:WantedCategories! <g> The same OCD that gets people working on SWC is the same OCD that gets really riled by having to leave things like that outstanding, so if there is a way to clear it per WP:REDNOT that would be great, but ultimately I guess we can live with it in an unscratched itch kind of way. Le Deluge (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I guess the dumb question is, why not<includeonly>...</includeonly>the {{WIR/doc}} and the Cats separately? Makes more sense than what looks to be three sets of nested tags. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)- Never mind, I see what you're trying to do (get the /doc to transclude but have the cats be noincluded). Just requires some more specific placement of the tags. Primefac (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing escapes Special:WantedCategories! <g> The same OCD that gets people working on SWC is the same OCD that gets really riled by having to leave things like that outstanding, so if there is a way to clear it per WP:REDNOT that would be great, but ultimately I guess we can live with it in an unscratched itch kind of way. Le Deluge (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Women in Red tools and technical support
We are preparing a list of tools and techncial support for Women in Red. I have tentatively added your name as you have provided a wide range of technical assistance, especially on templates and improving historical records and displays. Please let me know whether you agree to be listed. You are of course welcome to make any additions or corrections.--Ipigott (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work on this. I had in fact not wiki-linked the editors listed as I thought I ought first to obtain their agreement. However, as many have now responded positively and there have been no objections, there seems to be no problem. Following Rosiestep's suggestion, I'll now move it to Wikipedia:Women in Red/Tools and technical support. As you are always very helpful with lists and supporting documents, you may like to make further additions and find a suitable slot for it in the WiR template.--Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello,
I have improved the referencing of the article "Journal of Behavioral Public Administration". Please let me know if there is any further problem. Many thanks.
Best regards, Ivan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanplee (talk • contribs) 06:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in study
Hello,
I am E. Whittaker, an intern at Wikimedia with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. A full write-up of the study can be found here: m:Research:Civil_Behavior_Interviews. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? I am contacting you because of your involvement in Wikipedia’s Women in Red project. The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview.
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 08:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 16:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Bibcode update
Hi Headbomb, How are you? I see you bot has run against Gisbert Hasenjaeger and updated the bibcode. Its not an astronomical journal article as such. Can you take a look, Thanks scope_creep (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
New templates
Hi, Headbomb, I’ve created some box templates to help standardize the headers for Women in Red: {{WiR-HeaderBox}} and {{WiR-SubheaderBox}}. (I still need to create redirects.) They are the first templates I’ve ever made; would you check them out for any beginner’s egregious errors? I’d love to hear any feedback you have, too. Thank you! NotARabbit (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I did check all 500! - I use a link grabber to grab 20-30 diff links in one go and open in new tabs. Makes like much easier. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello Headbomb, please have a look here and leave your opinion if interested. Thank you. Herbmuell (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
tidy up edit on community discussion page
Regarding this edit: for me, it's made it a bit more time-consuming to see what new comments have been added to the "Village pump (proposals)" page. Although I agree in principle the cleanup is desirable, I'm not sure it is a net positive on the Village Pump page. I was thinking of suggesting that such edits be performed after the text is archived, but not sure if that is any better in the end. Perhaps it's just a personal issue. Nonetheless, I hope you might consider this feedback if you are making a similar edit in future. isaacl (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ah I see, those are changes from WP:DABSOLVER which piggyback when making an edit. The only thing I asked it to do was to disambiguation blood drive. Everything else is the WP:DABSOLVER acting on its own. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Bot blanking articles again
Please see [1] & [2]. Sro23 (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion page reformatting, again
Back in March I pointed out to you how a use of WP:DABSOLVER on a talk page resulted in a very dirty diff. I see now you did it again. Please don't use that program on talk pages, or make sure it doesn't reformat a million other things in the page before saving. Anomie⚔ 19:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Simply not true
I'm only one of many who resents an unproven theory being put forth as proven. Have you double checked on this matter? It is absolutely not yet proven and it's unethical to claim that it is. Metaphysics Man (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Take it to Talk:Big Bang. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- Looking into it further I see that technically the Big Bang Theory is a proven theory. What I meant to say to Wikipedia readers is that it is not a fact but a theory. A theory can change drastically over time no matter how proven it currently is; therefore it is unwise to take it as a fact which implies something which does not change. We currently have some brilliant scientists who believe that alternate theories may supplant the Big Bang Theory if given the same level of attention but there seems to be something sexy about the Big Bang Theory coupled with a great reverence for Dr. Hawking which attracted all the attention. Thanks for correcting my error. Metaphysics Man (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
A page you started (Journal of Comparative Physiology B) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Journal of Comparative Physiology B, Headbomb!
Wikipedia editor Ozzie10aaaa just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
a very good addition to journal articles, and medicine articles overall, thank you
To reply, leave a comment on Ozzie10aaaa's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Ozzie10aaaa:, while I do appreciate genuine thanks for things well done, I feel this is a bit of a 'newbie/NPP' thanks more aimed towards newcomers. There's really no need to any beyond clicking that review button because of that stupid bug that's making page creation not reviewed for the autopatrolled people. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Your changes to Template:Bot on June 28 broke the codebase parameter!
Hey,
Your changes on June 28 to Template:Bot broke the codebase parameter for certain cases due to what appears to be using an incorrect number of braces on the last use of the codebase param in your edit. I made an edit request to fix this after fixing the issue in the sandbox and adding relevant test cases, but given that you seem to be online and that you're the origin of the issue, I thought it was probably a good idea to alert you directly to this as well in the hopes of getting the fix expedited. Garzfoth (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)