User talk:Headbomb

Jump to navigation Jump to search
User Talk Archives My work Sandbox Resources News Stats

The Scouting Barnstar[edit]

WikiProject Scouting barnstar.png The Scouting Barnstar
Thank you for your work on the Portal:Scouting/Recognized content page. --evrik (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query about AuthorHouse[edit]

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if you could look at the Atom article on Simple English Wikipedia. It should be around the level that would be seen in an article like Introduction to quantum mechanics, but articles at that project try to use Basic English. It would be great if you could review the article to see if it's factually correct and reasonably comprehensive. See simple:Wikipedia:About for more info about that project. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Headbomb. I was also contacted by this editor regarding this Simple English article. If you recall my understanding of physics is not a deep as yours. So, I think it would be best if you or someone on par with your background could review this article. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lights and freedom:, I'm sorry to say, but I don't really believe in the value of Simple English Wikipedia. But I'll take a look at the lead.

The bit about crystals is ... off at best. Liquids and amorphous solids are also joining of atoms, and those aren't crystals. There's also very poor grammar in "Other example of chemical reaction are the break of a molecule into atoms..." which should probably be "Other chemical reactions are the breaking of a molecule into individual atoms..." or similar.

"The number of protons of an atom is sometimes called its "atomic number". For example, atoms of hydrogen have one proton while atoms of sulfur have 16 protons."

This should make it clear that H has an atomic number of 1, and S has an atomic number of 16, and not leave it implicit. Maybe you also could give an example of atomic mass / mass number, like Sodium = 11 Proton + 12 Neutrons = 23 (Atomic Mass number) and then compare to the real value of 23Na = 22.989770 u for atomic mass, which is very close to 23.

"Atoms are only rarely made, destroyed, or changed into another kind of atom."

Should probably make it clear what the link to fission/fusion is here.

"Any person has more than 1027 atoms in their body; some of these were once a part of every person who has ever lived."

Seems like a weird number/quantity to focus on. If the idea is to say that there's a lot of atoms in not a lot of space, using a small common object (like an apple), like seems to make more sense. Or a fixed known mass, like a 1 kg = 1 L bottle of water. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G10[edit]

I encourage you to carefully read WP:G10. You wrote several incorrect things such as G10 covers attacks on people. Not negative pages about entities. Entities are specifically mentioned and the existence of Db-attackorg makes it clear. I encourage you to admit the error and apologize to the other editor. Cullen328 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe G10 can cover non-people entities, but I also disagree that the ATINER draft is an attack page, and would have removed it regardless. I'll also point out that if you object to the G10, you get presented with "This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (your reason here) -- <sig>", it says nothing about non- biographies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming here because I suspect that Prax doesn't really want us all discussing this over on her talk. I also want to emphasise that I'm not looking to have a go at you here - I greatly value your contributions, I use one of your scripts myself (the one that highlights dodgy refs in different colours according to their dodginess), I'm not looking to chase you out of the room. However, let's be clear - there's no 'maybe' about this - G10 can be and is used for articles about non-human entities, that's not up for debate. Whether the page in question is a valid G10 is another matter, but it would be nice if you were to acknowledge that you misunderstood the policy in this area.
On the question of gender and treating people equally and blindly, I hear what you're saying, but consider this: you declare yourself to be a man (as do I). The problem of men telling women they are overreacting when they are upset has been written about extensively - I'm sure you don't need me to dig out links. If you choose to declare your gender, and you choose not to try to find out the gender of the person you're speaking to, I do think it would be better if you were to find a different way to speak to people who are upset by something you have said. Girth Summit (blether) 18:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Maybe" is the wrong word. "Entities" is mentioned very clearly in the policy. Perhaps the alert language should be modified. Please do not be pedantic. Two administrators have explained that your interpretation of the policy language is wrong. Do the right thing. Cullen328 (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll accept G10 applies to non-people. But is it ever shittily worded if that's the case.
As for the tangent on gender, I'll disagree with you there. I'd say the same to anyone, unless I know them personally, everyone's a faceless, genderless, raceless, nameless blob of unknown and irrelevant sexual orientation. If others want to bring their own biases into it, that's on them. I'm a man and I don't shy away from that identity, but I can't recall ever drawing attention to it, or using my gender as the basis of any argument. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK cool, I don't mind reasonable people disagreeing with me. Would you be willing to apologise for any offence caused, and to acknowledge the mistake? We could really do without losing Prax's expertise at SPI, I really mean that. Girth Summit (blether) 18:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They've told me to piss off and go away a few times already. I don't feel like having a revenge/harassment ban on me for apologizing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say here for posterity that this is a tempest in a teacup and that Wikipedia is better with Prax than without them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind if I drew her attention to these comments on her talk? Tempests and teacups aside, from where I'm sitting Wikipedia would be far more open to attack from LTAs without Prax's long memory and ability to spot connections. Just earlier today I processed an SPI case in which she suspected from experience something that I was unable to detect with the CU tool - if she hadn't been there to tell me what to look for, I'd have missed the connection. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kenpmi, if you're interested. That sort of thing happens a lot - I don't want to lose her skills. Girth Summit (blether) 19:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely feel free to do so. I bear her no ill will here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done so. I should probably add, for the record, that I think the chances of Praxidicae responding to an honest and frank apology by seeking an interaction ban would be zero. Yes, we can tie ourselves up in knots with who is banned from who's talk page, but everyone who has been involved in this discussion is an experienced editor, we all want what's best for the project - I'm confident that we can all see good faith attempts to de-escalate and get along together for what they are. Girth Summit (blether) 19:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I don't feel comfortable taking that chance. Especially in light of the vagueness of WP:UCOC and the shitshow of pseudo-legalistic readings of what gender-based harassment is. I don't need twitter after me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cite journal[edit]

Hello. There seems to be problem with the cite journal template. On one article I received error messages regarding the usage of this template. I thought it was me and I was intending to go back and see if I can fix it. This is the article. To see the error message you have to open it with the edit button and press the "Show preview" button.

So I started a new article in my user space and I have an error message at the end of the citation in the References section [1]. There is a link at the end of the citation that goes to the "cite journal" template page. So, I am thinking the problem is within the template itself. I am wondering if you can have a look when you're not busy. Or maybe you can direct me to someone else who knows about Wikipedia software. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page stalker reply) @Steve Quinn: the template is working fine. The error at The American War in Afghanistan: A History is informing you that the citation is missing the |journal= parameter. The source you're citing there appears to actually be Foreign Affairs, a magazine, so {{cite magazine}} is the template you should use.
At User:Steve Quinn/Hammer and Rifle the error is similar, only this time it's because you've included an |access-date= parameter without specifying a URL. However in this case, you appear to be either citing a book, so {{cite book}} is the template you should be using, or a book review in which case {{cite web}} seems more appropriate. Hope that helps. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sideswipe9th. Thanks very much. I think this is very helpful. And I am sure you just saved Headbomb from having a headache Face-smile.svg ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]