User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2017/December

"Broke links"

That was the point. I am trying to keep the number of links to crank websites down outside main space because otherwise every single review for new abuses of these crank sources, takes an age. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Then you should get consensus for that, because right now you're breaking links to the journal on the journal's talk page. It might be fine to break on a different talk page (like Autism, or whatever), but certainly not on that talk page of all places.

I've got no objection to flagging crank sources in general, but it's inappropriate to break links to sources when you're discussing those sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Oort cloud

You didn't test the former link, did you?
Interstellar space doesn't link to the top of the Outer space article, it links to the middle of the article, the section specifically addressing the Interstellar medium, hence my revision. Go ahead, test those links see for yourself. Rather than undoing my revision, why didn't you just change the link to start at the top of the Outer space article?
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Interstellar space is a location. Interstellar medium is the stuff in that location. The Oort Cloud article clearly refers to the physical space within a galaxy beyond the influence of each star on the plasma, not the matter/radiation that exists in that location. Hence why interstellar space is the intended link. If you want it to link to the top of the article, you can write [[Outer space|interstellar medium]].Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

My point being, why didn't you do it yourself instead of an Undo? If you have a better edit, that's fine, but at present it displays "(Redirected from Interstellar space)", which makes no sense. I'll fix it myself.

Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. I fixed the article to be accurate (the mention is about interstellar space, not interstellar medium) and the link takes the reader to the relevant article on Wikipedia. If you think it's better to link at the top of the article than in the middle of it, go right ahead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

JWG moves

I see you just moved Transportation Research Part D from its old, longer title and cited WP:JWG as the reason in the move log. Where exactly does JWG say anything about titles that would justify this move? Thanks. Everymorning (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

See the subtitle guidance. It's how we name pretty much everything e.g. Physical Review B, not Physical Review B: Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, Journal of Physics A, not Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This is true. This is also related to normal naming conventions in the WP:MOS (as far as I know). --Steve Quinn (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Headbomb. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Daltonpowell33

Thanks for giving Daltonpowell33 a notice about adding the unsourced and frivolous material to Fermi paradox. It's not the first time they have added this. I would have increased the warning level personally, either they are ignoring the talk page or don't understand how to access it, which given how prominent the new message notice is seems unlikely. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not much familiar with twinkle warnings. I just looked at the type, didn't think about the severity level. Either way, I don't suspect they'll get very far here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Undone MusJabłkowy's edition of art. Scientific notation, section E-notation

Dear Headbomb,

The phrase ", but it is not encouraged in some publications.[3]" is a POV of a single publisher, and refers to a very old publication, but makes people give up with E-notation. Janice Sexton <journals.manager@aas.org> from The Astronomical Journal wrote to me, that I am the first person asking them about E-notation. In fact E-notation is accepted by 80% publishers (half of them would accept it in manuscript and convert it to classical superscript scientific notation). What can I (or you) do to avoid misguiding people and to avoid preventing making E-notation popular?

Sincerely

MusJabłkowy (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Headbomb: Thanks for contributing to AfD. I replied to your !vote there. Please consider providing policy or guideline related rationale, unless you aren't interested in doing so. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: "Your submission at Articles for creation: Outline of acoustics has been accepted"

Reposted from The Transhumanist's talk page:

Outline of acoustics, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Headbomb, I didn't submit this to Articles for Creation. The above message, and the AfC banner posted on the article's talk page are in error. Please direct me to the edit which submitted this to Articles for creation. Thank you. The Transhumanist 22:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It was a draft, I edited it, brought it to a state I considered it good enough for mainspace, and I moved it there with the AFC script since it was simpler to categories, tag with banners etc. I debated unticking the 'notify creator', but I'd figure you'd want to know it's been moved to mainspace. The notice may not have been the best, but it feel it was good enough. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Adapting a tool. Resourceful. Thanks for clearing up my confusion, and for improving the outline. Cheers. The Transhumanist 02:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)