Talk:Headlamp (outdoor)

Misnamed disambiguation?

The disambiguation appears to be rather misnamed, as its usage by miners is not really "outdoor", and automotive usage is usually outdoors as well. Thoughts? Perhaps headlamp (gear) might be more apt? Morgan Riley (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"Gear" sounds like a toothed wheel to me. Perhaps we should rename the other article Headlamp (automobile) and name this one just Headlamp ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Original Research

An editor Wtshymanski keeps reintroducing Original research (WP:OR into this article. His adding edit summary makes it clear that the information is based on his observation it his local stockist of these products. This is not permitted. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

An editor is welcome to look at the Swart book and see where I researched this highly controversial fact. But it's not about improvement of articles now, is it? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You have not referenced a single claim that you have added. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

I propose that that this edit be undone.

Reason: This was the latest revert that added a considerable amount of original research. The fact that it was original research is betrayed by the edit summary to the edit that introduced the material originally (here). The edit summary, "anyone who's seen the display at the local outfitter knows there's at least three styles" clearly betrays this as original research. Any of the remainder if not original research is certainly unreferenced. Removal of original research and unreferenced material cannot possibly be 'controversial' (except, of course, by the editor who introduced the material). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the edit should be undone, but not for the reasons given by User:DieSwartzPunkt. While the original edit gave the impression that it may have been original research, I do not believe that this is the case. User:Wtshymanski has a long history of editing Wikipedia to his own standards, and ignoring the policies and rules set down by the community as 'wrong'. In this case, his later reverts show that he is attempting to rely on a pre-existing and vague reference - a book written by one Swart to support his additions. This edit should be reverted because, in my view, the reference supplied is wholly inadequate. Supplying a reference to whole book, and expecting it cover an entire section of article will not do particularly, as in this case, Wtshymanski expects it cover otherwise unreferenced later additions. Specific references are required for each and every claim made. References must be verifiable. Wtshymanski is expecting every one else to go through the whole book just to verify the points made. Book based references must, at least, quote the page number on which any claim can be found. If there are 20 claims then 20 references with page numbers are required.

Revert the edit. All claims added are unreferenced to the standards demanded by Wikipedia. 212.183.128.209 (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. You really need to talk with Wtshymanski about this to try and reach an agreement as to what should be in the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 19:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that you may be too new to this Admin role to be familiar with how attempting to discuss anything with Wtshymanski pans out. Any attempt to duscuss anything on his talk page is treated like this. This is also how he used to treat attempts to discuss anything on article talk pages until he was blocked for it following an ANI complaint. The current technique is to provide some discussion, but it is not a real attempt at discussing anything. There is enough that an admin unfamiliar with the subject believes that a discussion is taking place, but at the end of the day, Wtshymanski's approach is that he is right and everyone else is wrong. Much more on this subject can be read here. In my view the meterial should have been reverted because, by definition, proposing an edit that is backed by editing policy (see below) is not controversial. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering why the teapot lid is rattling, I point out that the book is considerably longer than pages 34-41, which is in the citation. But of course it's never been about accuracy, now, has it? One normally doesn't footnote every clause in a paragraph, at least not if one is literate. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is entirely about accuracy. From WP:V: "The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate" (my emphasis). This means that the precise page number on which each and every claim can be found is required. A single reference at the end of each paragraph that you somehow believe covers the whole paragraph is completely unacceptable as other editors have no real idea what is referenced and what is not without reading seven odd pages of the book. The first paragraph under 'description' makes four separate claims. As the paragraph stands, only the last claim is referenced (and nowhere near precisely enough). The exact page number where that claim can be found is required (and similarly for the remainder). The 'description' section currently contains nineteen unreferenced claims. Your edit added seven of those (ignoring the two that were later vaguely cited). For adding the precise references that are required there are several methods of achieving this. They are all helpfully documented at References and page numbers. Incidentally, references derived from book based sources should cite the reference using the CS1 format (which yours does not). 85.255.233.10 (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wtshymanski: To answer your last point: it is not every clause that requires a reference, but each and every claim does. From WP:PROVEIT:

Attribute ... any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate).

This means that all 23 claims (I haven't actually counted them but I assume the above count is right) in Headlamp (outdoor)#Description requires an in-line reference. You can consider them challenged because I am challenging them (and it seems that I am not the only one). Also from the same policy:

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source.

This means that once it had been challenged, you had no right to restore it without those all important in-line references (See WP:BRD). It also means that the edit request above was bona fide. But then you have been an editor long enough to know all of this already. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Dubious content

Headlamps are usually powered by three or four AA or AAA batteries. Well, no. This page shows pictures of headlamps powered by lithium ion batteries and wet cells. C cells can be used too.

Systems with heavy batteries (4xAA or more) are usually designed so that the light emitter is positioned near the front of the head, with the battery compartment at the rear of the head. You know, only on Wikipedia can we use millions of dollars of Web resources to learn that the lamp is on the front of the head. It must be true, no-one has been dragged to admin for saying it even without a note. This is of course one of three styles of headlamps listed in any book on headlamps, but for the life of me I cannot figure out why the hate for the Swart book that I cited.

It is sometimes possible to completely disconnect a headlamp's battery pack, for storage on a belt or in a pocket. The headlamp is strapped to the head or helmet with an elasticized strap.

It is sometimes possible to completely disconnect a headlamp's battery pack, for storage on a belt or in a pocket. Got to say this twice, it's so important. But that doesn't trouble anyone who'se reverting edits, it seems. And "it is sometimes possible" is wordy, vauge, and entirely in the tradition of flabby Wikipedia writing. But let's not try to fix it, oh no.

Lighter headlamp systems are strapped to the user's head by a single band; heavier ones utilize an additional band over the top of the user's head. And some are attached to a helmet, but don't tell anyone.

Headlamps used incandescent bulbs before power LEDs became available. Incandescent bulbs have the advantage of allowing more tightly focused beams and the use of more power than LEDs, with the disadvantages of high power consumption, fragility, poor beam pattern and inability to operate at lower power levels. The more you read this, the less meaning it has. But it must be true, it's evidently preferred to a version that makes sense. Watch what happens later when we say more about power.

Incandescent headlamps also have rapidly declining light output once the batteries start to lose voltage.

Painfully written statement of the obvious, but blessed by a reference.

White LEDs were quickly adopted for use in headlamps due to their smaller size, lower power consumption and improved durability compared with incandescent bulbs. See? Now lower power is an advantage. Creidibility?

Power LEDs rated 1 watt or more have displaced incandescent bulbs in many models of headlamps. To avoid damage to electronic parts, a heatsink is usually required for headlamps that use LEDs that dissipate more than 1W. To regulate power fed to the LEDs, DC-DC converters are often used in 1W+ lights, sometimes controlled by microprocessors. This allows the LED(s) to provide brightness that is not affected by a drop in battery voltage, and allows selectable levels of output. Following the introduction of LEDs for headlamps, sometimes combinations of LED and halogen lamps were used, allowing the user to select between the types for various tasks.

More brilliant prose. Now we like Swart.

If we could fix the above problems, the article would be better. I've tried, and failed. Perhaps you, Gentle Reader, can run the gauntlet and fix this, though I really don't know why you'd bother. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wtshymanski:. As far as I am aware: nobody else has actually directly queried the material that was in the section before you added your largely unreferenced addition. Your outburst is therefore entirely without point. Further: it just demonstrates that you have a totally inability to comprehend the points that have been made in the last talk section as you keep regurgitating the same unacceptably vague and imprecise blanket reference.

Nobody is going to stop you correcting any points that you believe are inaccurate, provided you provide those all important precise references.

The only matter, at issue that is relevant here, is your continued attempts to edit Wikipedia to your own unique and lowly standards that are clearly unacceptable to the project. 85.255.234.160 (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

85.255.234.160: don't rise to the bait. This is standard Wtshymanski discussion technique. Never discuss the issue at hand, but introduce some irrelevant distraction to give the impression to any passing admins that discussion is being attempted even though there is no real attempt at addressing the point.

Wtshymanski: you know very well that the matter under discussion is not the content of the article prior to your contribution (or even now). The matter at hand, is your contribution and the lack of any acceptable referencing to support it. Your screed above may, or may not, be valid, but it is completely beside the point. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Date

@I B Wright and Titodutta:

Swart, Peter K. (2002). Caving. Stackpole books. pp. 34–41. ISBN 0811720527.

You do not need to put the specific page for the refs. The following date range is perfectly fine. There is nowhere in mos where this date must be even more specific. On journal articles, we don't put specific date. On books, have a small page range is fine. The source could be in multiple pages, two page or one. Usually several paragraphs is summarized into one sentence in an article. Tell me where in tarnation does one needs to put the exact page when there is a small page range? Also, I have reverted three different IPs.

I B Wright, don't ever put a partial sentence as a reason. Per WP:PROVEIT, "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). (emphisis mine) Bgwhite (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, I am not putting anything, I revered their edit and then self-reverted to see what others think. I could not understand what they meant by "date needed". By exact page needed, well, I have seen sometimes that people cite page range unnecessarily for two reasons a) they are lazy to read entire chapter/pages. When they see a specific chapter discusses something, they cite entire chapter, for example pp. 123–160. b) they don't have access to original content, suppose they are reading Google Books preview. There they cite page range to cover the citation. There may be a third reason as well — intentionally mislead/unintentionally mistake: editors may try to confuse GA/DYK/FA/Peer reviewers or any other reviewers (not many will like to read 20 or 25 pages to verify a source?). I have not seen any application of the third example.
  Bgwhite, frankly speaking, I also will prefer to see specific page/s being cited. For example a statement like "India got her independence on 15 August 1947" does not require citation like "ABC book" pp. 102–126. It can be easily cited using specific page/s. and here I was unsure for this article. That's why I felt, one who has fully read and understood both the statement and the source, should comment on it.

--Tito☸Dutta 18:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Titodutta: There is a bigger issue here. The editor who added the cite intended it to cover the entire article section (that is why it is so vague). As a result no one can really tell what is cited and what is not. This is a technique of his to insert inaccurate information in articles and indeed, not every claim is accurate. As I see it, the {{full}} tags are an invitation to provide proper references for each and every claim. I will not be holding my breath! DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

DieSwartzPunkt, if you are going to make accusations against another editor, you should back it up first. They added a reference whose syntax is perfectly fine. It doesn't matter if they cite a page or a range of pages if the reference contains inaccurate information. Using {{full}} is not the way to say the reference has a possible problem or to use as a crutch against another person. Use a proper template, maybe {{dubious}}, just don't add a template that is incorrect for the given circumstance. You are asking for a stop sign, but putting up school crossing sign. Bgwhite (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. The template is unclear. Dubious template may be better. --Tito☸Dutta

@Bgwhite: Hold it there. I did not add anything. As for backing up any accusations. I cannot be bothered to attempt to find all the administrators' noticeboard incidents that this editor has been the subject of, nor the request for comment where he was critisized for his editing behaviour (but if you want me to, be warned - I charge by the hour because there is a hell of a lot of them). Suffice to say this is an editor who will change his viewpoint in order to pursue an edit war or to try to push his own agenda. I have a list of arguments where he has argued one way in one edit war and the exact opposite in another (and one of those was in adjacent topics on the same talk page). Strangely, and by one of those odd coincidences, I was able to add to that list just yesterday when I found that this very editor was insisting that another editor cited not only the exact page number in a reference for every claim that he had added to an article, but the section and paragraph number as well. As I posted to your own talk page, I (hope I) made it clear that I was not entirely supportive of the template, but understood why it had been placed where it is. If you, or anyone else, can provide a better template that attempts to achieve the objectives, then go ahead and substitute it.

I am afraid that I disagree with your opinion that a vague blanket reference is acceptable to cover a paragraph or section of individual claims. As I (and others) have stated: this makes it impossible to determine what has actually been cited and what is unreferenced (especially given this editor's recent attempts to add material supposedly covered by this blanket reference, but otherwise unreferenced - and the admins agreed). At the risk of providing ammunition: as far as I am concerned, any claim that is not followed by a specific citation supporting it is unreferenced and can be deleted in accordance with WP:VERIFY which states quite clearly, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source". I note that CombatWombat42 has made a start.

The claims that the subject references directly follow are not (in my opinion) dubious, so I do not see that that tag would be appropriate. Assuming that the editor concerned has the Swart reference to hand, what would be so difficult about providing the exact page numbers for every claim as required by WP:VERIFY? Apart, that is, from his own bloody mindedness. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

1. It is a specific source. It is a book. The pages given are from the chapter, "Caving Gear" and section "Lighting". It is seven pages in which large portions of the pages have illustrations or photos. Nothing more is needed. Per WP:PROVEIT, "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). (emphasis mine)
2. It is citing a reliable source. WP:VERIFY does NOT say specific source, only reliable source directly supporting The book is reliable and it is directly supporting. Don't use words that aren't in a quote.
3. You have a problem with an editor in which you throw out unsubstantiated claims. You say the references are not dubious. If anybody had the book in front of them, it would be extremely easy to verify the references with the page range given, thus one can easily verify.

Sorry, but MOS does not back up your claims. The reference is reliable, directly supporting and is specifying a section of seven pages. It would be easily verifiable. Your issue is with the editor. This is about a problem between editors. I consider this matter now closed. Bgwhite (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: You do not have the right to close a discussion no matter how right you may believe yourself to be. Especially one where you are totally missing the point. The editor concerned regards the citation as covering every claim in the section. This includes the ones that are patently wrong. That same editor then hides behind the vague citation when he made this edit, claiming that it was cited. The reality is that no one can tell what is really cited (let alone accurate) and what is not. The fact that he cannot do this was taken to WP:AN3 and he was specifically told that he cannot use a blanket cite (so the admins believe that both he and you are wrong).

This editor really does have a very long history of tendentious editing and deliberately including false information. You can read more about it here. And the associated talk page is a rivetting read as well. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes I can close it. I close out my involvement. This is about the tag, not the editor. You are having issues with the editor. Bring up something about the editor from 2012 does squat. If you think the reference is invalid or bad, then take another route. Again, this is about the tag and the tag does not belong on the references. Bgwhite (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I suspected a sock the very moment that you joined the edit war so conveniently close to your other account Wtshymanski being told to back off. Your continued reverting against consensus but mainly the characteristics of that post confirmed it for me. You have far too much in common with Wtshymanski for you not to be him. SPI case raised. Oh, and your editing history shows the exact same characteristics as well. 85.255.234.85 (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

85.255.234.85, Bgwhite, you are both WP:EDITWARing, fucking stop it, seriously, its annoying as hell. I don't even know what you are arguing about but it sure seems silly to argue about some tags instead of just improving the content or the sources. It is stupid to even mention how many batteries are used by a product this generic or where the band goes. Wikipeida is about the content, not the stupid, petty-ass argument you two seem to be having. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

CombatWombat42, I talked on this page. Another long-time editor agreed. Things are settled except for the DieSwartzPunkt. DieSwartzPunkt has problems with the editor adding the content and that is not a reason to remove tags. Removing sourced material is also not the way to go to settle an edit war. Your tone is also not appropriate. Your username suits you well. I'm reverting as it goes against consensus reached on this page and for removing sourced material.

I don't respont to people who don't sign their posts. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Egads, people do forget to sign names, me included. Bgwhite (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Good content or Conformance to WP:V?

I made this [[1]] change because the argument being held on this page is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever seen. I absolutely removed a source that was being argued about and appears to be causing more conflict than it is worth, additionally it appears to me that it is basically an opinion piece by one man with a specific interest (caving). I propose that under WP:IAR(policy) and WP:SKYISBLUE(essay) we re-write this article to not include mundane details and improve the damn content.

I can go out on amazon and find thousands of headlamps [[2]] each with a different design when it comes to batteries, controls and light sources. To mention them all would either be full of WP:weaselwords or be a list that is of inappropriate length for this article. We are all smart and the WP:THESKYISBLUE so why are people edit warring over this?

I use words some may consider "bad" for effect. This is a really fucking retarded argument you are all having and I can think of no better way to try to make you all realize this than using "bad" words. If you are all going to act like simpletons, I will use the language of simpletons. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not respond to people who are rude and level insults. I've had to put up with DieSwartzPunkt's sockpuppetry and threats. Atleast they were civil. btw... caving/mining is the primary purpose for lamps attached to one's head. Bgwhite (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That's twice you have resorted to this abuse and unfounded allegations. At least this time you actually identified who you believe I am a sockpuppet of since it has not previously been stated. I am taking this to WP:ANI. 212.183.140.26 (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Camping, biking, night hiking, house work, skiing, running, are all applications of headlamps that are totally ignored by the source used [3] [4]. CombatWombat42 (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say only purpose, but primary purpose. They are being ignored, but that doesn't mean removing content, it means content should be added. Before batteries, 99% of all use was for mining. The article is a mess and needs help. But nothing is really caving specific in the description section, only the source. I seen nothing caving specific in what is being sourced. Bgwhite (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)