User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2018/March
 | 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. |
Bots Newsletter, March 2018
| Bots Newsletter, March 2018 | |
|---|---|
 Greetings! Here is the 5th issue of the Bots Newsletter (formerly the BAG Newletter). You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list. Highlights for this newsletter include:
We currently have 6 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing!
While there were no large-scale bot-related discussion in the past few months, you can check WP:BOTN and WT:BOTPOL (and their corresponding archives) for smaller issues that came up.
Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 03:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC) (You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.) | |
Stefan-Boltzmann-law: J* = s . T^4, with s = 5,67 x 10^-8 W/m^2 . K^4
So J* is in W/m^2 , NOT in Watt! Not so difficult to understand.
So the law of S-B. describes the radiated power per meters squared.
See Hyperphysics: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitus~nlwiki (talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Recent Did You Know? blurbs on WiR
I see that you have enterprisingly added this new section to the WiR mainpage. I certainly agree it would be useful to have something along these lines if it could be automatically and efficiently updated. At the moment, it is certainly not displaying the most recent. I add them manually every day and list them here. Perhaps you can use this listing to retrieve the hooks.--Ipigott (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Why did you move the section on controversy back to the top of the MDPI page? I think it is pretty clear now MDPI is not a predatory publisher (any more so then all the academic publishers are trying to make a buck) so it at best belongs in the section below - which in terms of importance is not high other than for historical reasons. Also as you have clearly been editing for a lot longer than me - can you point me to how to easily import a table (see the talk page) Thanks Upoon7 (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
March 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Frontiers Media, you may be blocked from editing. Randykitty (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Please look before reverting
{{Citation}} does both CS1 and CS2
{{Cite news}} does press releases as well. It has a special parameter.
I'd be grateful if you actually looked before reverting?
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Discuss these changes to documentation before making them. That a template supports something does not mean it is the recommendation for that something. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Supported parameters in fully protected templates are not recommended? Don't make me laugh. Those parameters would not make their way into fully protected templates without prior consensus. But if you have any evidence that they are not recommended, show me.
- —Codename Lisa (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The article Frontiers in Physics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Randykitty: the notice should have been for Jora35947445 (talk · contribs). Their the ones that created the article proper, I just created the redirect back then. Personally, I'd just WP:BOLDly redirect the article back rather than delete it outright. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- That's Twinkle... I agree with restoring the redirect. --Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
This cat just lit up with errors. It appears to be related to this.[1] (cites #19, 20 etc) To avoid generating red errors in the citations, the archiveurl/archivedate/deadurl should be deleted along with the url. I have a tool that fixes these, but does so by restoring the url. -- GreenC 19:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Please undo your last editing in this article unless you have legitimate reasons to conceal this information. Here below follows the standard message that has been mailed to authors of the mentioned kind at least from 2012 to 2017. This deserves to be mentioned in the article, since most other scientific journals publish articles based on their scientific merit alone:
”Dear ..., Thank you very much for having submitted your manuscript entitled : "..." to Astronomy and Astrophysics. I regret to inform you that your manuscript cannot be considered for publication in Astronomy and Astrophysics because we do not publish articles that are not authored by members of astronomical research institutes. Sincerely, ... A&A Editor in Chief” Talnat (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Replied at Talk:Astronomy and Astrophysics, but the short answer is I will not restore that information without a reliable source to back it up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sounds like the kind of email that an editor would send to the author of a crank article on which they don't want to spend valuable reviewer time. It is indeed unusual to see a submission to any academic journal from someone who has no academic affiliation. As Headbomb says, such an email is not a reliable source. Also, this kind of discussion belongs on the talk page of the article, not here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Discussion page reformatting
In this edit, you apparently used WP:DABSOLVER to change [[IFF]] to [[If and only if|IF]]F. First, it's odd that the tool didn't do [[If and only if|IFF]] instead, but more importantly it also changed signatures and made other cosmetic edits throughout the page, completely obscuring the actual intended change. While those changes probably make sense in an article, they don't on a discussion page. Please be more careful in the future. Anomie⚔ 11:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Anomie:, @Dispenser: I think DABSOLVER should be updated, because all I asked it to do was update the IFF link. Everything else, Dabsolver did on its own without asking me about it. Not sure why the F got put out of the link though, or why external links got modifier from "here" to "here [2]". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Might as well ping GreenC (talk · contribs) so they know their signature could be cleaned up sightly (underscores/spacing mostly). The HTML hex colors being trimmed doesn't make much sense to me though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Done. But it's many other people's sigs as well. -- GreenC 14:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Ground state
Isn't the eta_c ground state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwdphoenix (talk • contribs) 04:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)