User talk:Headbomb

User	Talk	Archives	My work	Sandbox	Resources	News	Stats

---

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/National Basketball Association awards/addition1

FYI, I fixed the deadlinks Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to be overly picky, but I fixed them over a week ago...could you take a look at it again? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If they're fixed, why do I need to check them again? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess what I mean is that I'd appreciate it if you commented at the FTC nom that it's been fixed. Maybe I should have made myself more clear Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason I'd really appreciate it if you commented that the deadlinks have been fixed is that the nomination has been stalled for two weeks and I'd like to get it done, as I see it as open-and-shut now that the maintenance has been done Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source in Journal of Cosmology

I question an edit of yours in Talk:Space colonization. Fartherred (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 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!

Buster Seven Talk 16:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Keep in mind WP:EDITCOUNTITIS. But thanks nonetheless. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(applause...) "Speech!" "Speech!" -:>)--- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Purported attack pages of The Journal of Cosmology

Greetings HEADBOMB:

I am not surprised that there was no evidence supplied that the cached version of cosmology.com website was officially approved, but there is more to it than that. I want to know when, where, and how you came across this cached version. I just want to know that if there was any improper action, Wikipedia editors had nothing to do with it. Sincerely, Fartherred (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What in the world are you rambling about? Improper action? Officially approved? No evidence? You have the archived version of the attack page hosted on the Journal of Cosmology website. It's still there, in modified form, BTW. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It seemed so irrational to have a page like that that it was hard for me to imagine that they cause themselves problems like that. Every other link you provided to those pages was archived through a different website. Fartherred (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Medal templates

{{Gold medal}}, {{Silver medal}}, {{Bronze medal}}

I am not confusing these templates with those others. Look at the edit history—I created these over 4 years ago, and in 2009 I modified them for WP:ALT reasons. I know what my original intent in creating these templates; I am not responsible for their misuse on other articles. Create something new if that's what you need. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Then you are misusing the templates yourself. Having text readers read "1 Gold" in the "medal" columns (example) should NOT happen. These are purely decorative images, and should not featured alt text per WP:ALT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Then get people to change WP:ALT before reverting. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I'm disagreeing with. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is. WP:ALT is crystal clear on this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Remove useless images"

With respect to edits like these, I'd strongly suggest that you bring this up for discussion at WT:WikiProject Olympics. That style is used on thousands of pages, not just for the 1952 Winter Games. I'm not opposed to their removal, but I think we need consensus before you make these edits. I don't think WP:BRD should apply to that scale of change. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Olympic infobox

{{Infobox Olympics Argentina}}

Can you please explain why you think this entire section of the infobox should be suppressed for the printed version? This is useful content—not just a set of navigational links—as it shows at a glance which Games the country has participated in, and sometimes under which other flag. For example, the infobox for all "Russia at the year Games" articles shows the appearances for both pre-Soviet and post-Soviet Russia, the Soviet Union years, and the Unified Team in 1992. This is certainly as useful for the reader as other infobox fields, such as the name of their National Olympic Committee, their country code, etc. The only thing that ought to be suppressed is the "(summary)" link, and I'd make that edit myself if I didn't think I'd be accused of something else at ANI. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's navigational content completely unrelated to the article. The purpose of an infobox is to succinctly summarize the key points of the article. What is not summary content is either navigational content and should be excluded from the print version, just like navboxes, see also section, {{main}}/{{see also}}, and so on and so forth, or irrelevant content and should simply be removed from the infobox.

That, for example, Argentina participated in the 1972 Summer Olympics but not the 1904 Olympics is completely irrelevant to Argentina at the 1952 Summer Olympics as a standalone article, and equally irrelevant to Book:1952 Winter Olympics, Book:1952 Summer Olympics, or whatever possible collection of article that would include Argentina at the 1952 Summer Olympics. Even in a book specifically about Argentina's participation in the Olympics (Book:Argentina at the Olympics) because a) you don't need to be told on every article that Argentina participate in the 1900 Olympics, but not 1904 Olympics and b) any well-designed book on Argentina at the Olympics (or where this information would somehow be relevant) would include the Argentina at the Olympics article which contains this information. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this is the first response you've given that addresses the actual edit, so I appreciate that. I understand what you are saying, but by that token, should fields such as the NOC name and website, the IOC country code, and perhaps the flag and its caption also be removed? These infoboxes have a top and bottom section that are common for all appearances, and only the middle section is specific to the article at hand. I think you are asserting that only the middle section is useful in print form, correct? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally I like the flag, since those can change over the years, but I could live without it. No real opinion on NOC names/IOC codes/captions, but they probably could/should be removed. The website seems like a relevant resource, so I wouldn't remove that one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think I'd still like to see some WikiProject discussion about the merits (or not) of this change (i.e. not just the two of us deciding), but I have a much better understanding of your position now. Amazing how some talkpage discussion helps more than just edit summary exchanges, eh? The other thing that occured to me upon looking at the PDF versions of those pages is how horribly the infobox is rendered. The top portion shows as a "child" table within the outermost table, and occupying only the left side of the page. The infobox header looks silly just below the page title, and wouldn't make sense with the existing title if the history section was removed. It might make more sense to make a significantly different version of these infoboxes for printed versions, and that is something that ought to be sandboxed. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no getting around that infoboxes are usually pretty ugly in PDFs. The biggest problem with that one is that it has a table within a table, and the renderer doesn't like that very much at this point. However, let's not withhold improvements because perfection is not yet achievable. This stuff is done one hundreds if not thousand of infoboxes already.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for feedback on WP:Astronomy discussion

Do you think you might take a look at this discussion happening on WikiProject Astronomy? I'm trying to get some opinions about a community policy (or lack thereof) concerning articles for astronomical objects. Specifically, I'm frustrated by an admin who is factory-creating thousands of articles for every known minor planet ever discovered, whether or not it's been studied beyond its initial discovery. Care to chime in? AstroCog (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

My mistake

Hi Headbomb. What I thought I was fixing, was this... had nothing to do with red links. For whatever reason, your later fix did not clear the error on my screen, removiving the wikilinks within the cite-templates in preview-mode did. Anyway, it's fixed now and that's all that matters. Regards, and happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Bizzarre. Well, everyone's still alive, so no big deal. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

1st Airborne Division Good Topic nomination

Hi thanks for taking the time to review my nomination. I believe all your comments have now been addressed. Thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

'== Journal of Cosmology ==

I just went back and reread the full discussion page at JOC. Most of the discussion there appears to be you arguing with many others who clearly disagree with you. There are a couple of others like Mr. Connolley who support you to some level but argue for compromise. You seem to be the sole voice that is so strident about keeping things as negatively biased as they currently are. I also notice that you created the article as well. Given all of this I think it is only prudent to ask if you have any real world conflicts of interest with respect to this journal or any of it's editors? This is not an implication, merely a question. --174.252.197.225 (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no conflicts of interest with this journal, nor any other journal out there. And half of those involved on the talk pages were sockpuppets (now blocked). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which (User:BookWorm44): thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Why did you place the last section on this talk page in a drop down box? What does this section have to do with the sockpuppet investigation? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

'Cause that IP's a sock? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

New bot approval needed

Please see requirement for Lightbot re-approval. We could:

• amend all existing ones
• redraft all existing requests
• create a new bot request that incorporates all the old ones.

What's best? Lightmouse (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

... Whichever of the above is chosen, I trust that it will be carried out in a forum that will allow me to explain why I do not think the proposed functionality should be approved. Hesperian 23:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Women in Music

And another one where two editors insist the whole tables of contents should be included... Your assistance would be appreciated... --Crusio (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Great job, a much better article now, thanks! Let's hope the other editors there will now leave this alone. --Crusio (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate edits ... see User talk:Crusio (Women in Music) Eurodog 18:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books/tabs

What are your specific objections to cleaning up this template? Because the only thing that's unambiguous;y annoying here is being summarily reverted without so much as a constructive edit summary. What could possible be preferable about the current code soup to a template which handles all the logic itself? Hell, until I moved {{tab1}} into templatespace the other week this was still calling into some retired editor's userspace for its tab logic. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not "cleaning up" the tabs, you're turning them into horrors of nature. If a WikiProject wants to use the tab template you designed, great for them, but no WikiProject should forced into adopting a particular style, especially one they dislike. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to grow up and give me some actual reason here (technical (or otherwise), so that I can try to do something about the tabs looking like "horrors of nature"? The eventual plan is to kill off {{tab1}} entirely as a hackish old solution that only still exists because people have been copy-pasting it around for so long. And unless you're presuming to speak for the whole of WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, I've seen nothing yet to suggest this was anything other than a personal veto. You don't actually get one of those. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The point is you don't get to impose your will on Wikiprojets, they are free to have the tabs look and behave how they want. If some project wants those ugly tabs, fine for them. But restore that horror at WP:WBOOKS and I'll have you blocked for disruption. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This is quite remarkably immature. Look: it is almost certainly possible to modify {{start tab}} so that the resulting output is identical to the current output of the tab bar in question. I'm happy to edit the template to make that happen, but I need some input on what your objections are before that can happen. I don't know who you're trying to kid by making this out to be me "imposing my will" on a WikiProject: it's quite obviously only you involved here, and you own neither the WikiProject in question (nobody does) nor the page in question (so far as I know there's nothing which says WikiProjects get userspace privileges over their pages anyway). If it comes down to you flat-out refusing to consider adult cooperation here I'll take it through the usual talk / RfC red tape, and by that point it's likely that you'll actually have to think of justifications other than "mine mine mine" for the current code. A bit of a bad taste in my mouth from this one: I'd previously considered you to at least know what you were doing when it came to templates. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 00:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Then ensure the output is identical before making those edits. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have quoted you

Here. I hope you don't mind. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

DRN Discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Journal of Cosmology". Thank you. --Silverseren^C 18:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Hurricane season bar end

Hey Headbomb, could you work out a way to hide the "book" icon and link if it doesn't exist on Template:Hurricane season bar end using #ifexist: or something? Thanks! HurricaneFan25 13:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO is an important policy. Please respect it.

This file was presumably taken from the images found on this page which is clearly marked as copyrighted with all rights reserved. You appear to have copied the image in it's entirety. Therefore this upload fails criteria 3b and 8 found here. You are advised that you should seek to have it removed immediately. --174.252.192.157 (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)