User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2010/December

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Headbomb. 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.

Patience

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hey there, I just want to thank you for your patience and understanding regarding a disagreement we had. I know you're frustrated, but I'm relatively new to how things are done on Wikipedia. Just trying to help! Remember this whenever you deal with less expert people! I know I've a lot to learn. — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 04:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Also I just found this article on dispute resolution. I'm sure you're already aware of it, but it can still be useful; you might link newer users to that page if you encounter other editor disagreements of the kind, it might save some people a lot of trouble. — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 04:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! Regarding the wiki book for Frank Zappa

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Nothing = 0?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, Headbomb. I noticed you removed a citation request I added to the Baryogenesis article. I've asked a question in response at Talk:Baryogenesis#Nothing = 0?—please respond there if you can clear things up. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

PediaPress

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

(this is a duplicate message to an email) Hey Headbomb, I was just wondering if you know when you'll be able to review my Book posting on your userpage (for the PediaPress coupon). I was hoping to use the coupon for a Christmas order (for which they advise ordering before December 6th). If you don't have time to do it before then, just let me know and I'll go ahead and order it now. No problem either way. Thanks, --Padraic 14:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A plethora of well-meaning but inappropriate interventions

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I've just reverted Architectural Education to its longer and more accurate title. There are many other interventions that you appear to have made in the last 24 hours relating to architecture where considerable thought has been given by others (including me from time to time) to titling, categorisation etc. I don't have time to revert them all now (and I would need to discover how to do it) but they clearly need it. If your interventions were done by machine (for it does not appear to have been the result of a qualitative assessment) may I please ask you to get it to back out and leave all as before, which was suitable? (The retitling of Wikibooks in the same subject area appears not to be automatic. Are you a UK architect with experience and knowledge of the subject? Please discuss. I suggest that retitling specialist books which tend to be the editorial work of one person, seems to me to be an intellectual trespass and close on insulting.) Salisian (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see what's insulting about turning this into this. As for "intellectual trespass", all i have to say about it is this, taken from the edit window: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Insulting is telling a long-term established editor who has a lot of experience with Books on Wikipedia that he should blanket revert all of the edits he's made in a subject area that interests you. What's insulting is reverting an explained and justified edit that improved the book based on an imagined existence of intellectual property on Wikipedia. What would be in your best interest, Mr. Salisbury, is if you took a break from the area of architecture and spent a few minutes reading over WP:OWN. After that, you might want to read over WP:HOW so that you have a better understanding of the project you're working on and how exactly it operates. Lara 21:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The attempts to alter the long-standing sub-category and book title "Architects Registration in the United Kingdom" appear maladroit. The category appears to have been created for a specific purpose, and that must be self-evident to any discerning reader with editorial aptitude who has looked at the principal articles and books within the category (clearly indicated as such in the table of contents of the book as sent to press, a printed copy of which this writer has seen).

The unscholarly or superficiality of Headbomb's contribution here is shown by his failure to observe that certain architects had been singled out for mention in the original because they had played a significant part in the narrative being described, for example Professor Budden who had been the author of the article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1929, a critical juncture in the lead up to the legislation of the 1930's. Of course, anyone is free and even invited to take articles and arrange them with whatever titles and chapter headings is suited to their chosen purpose (and Lexigator appears to be one who has done just that in making a number of other books). But disparaging remarks about others' work in fields of which we know little are usually better avoided.

For the benefit (and for avoidance) of any doubt, in this subcategory is a set of interconnected articles which had been designed to serve the particular public information purpose signified by its name (narrow and specialist but involving issues which have been of concern to legislators and policy-makers and others in the UK for many years, and now also of interest to the authorities of the EU). It is unlikely to be of much interest further afield, except to persons seeking to enter UK from abroad and to practise there as an architect.

It should be obvious that a book created by an editor with the specific intent of focusing on these articles is not suited to being misappropriated in order to turn them into a featureless booklet on a subject about which (according to the evidence he publicises about himself ) Headbomb has little or no particular expertise. If the start he has made induces others more suited to make an interesting book (which is likely to be of quite a different character and style from the one Headbomb has been getting to work on), well and good. A long unclassified list of architects is hopelessly outside the scope of the category, and would need much editing to be of use as a readable narrative or as a reference book. Efforts of this kind may be better deployed in other ways.

It is also noted that the "book" which Headbomb has actually used as a basis for creating a new one to his own liking (in a field to which he is admittedly a stranger rather than a discerning guide) is one which the originating editor appears to have abandoned in the course of improving the content, but the title which Headbomb is now using is the subject-matter of certain books which have already been sent to press, and Headbomb (who is claiming expertise as an experienced editor of another class and style of works) will doubtless agree that it would be better for him to use a distinctly different title for the new book he is seeking to create, or at least start for others to complete.

This contributor (further noting Headbomb's riposte to the kindly attempt on the part of Mr Salisbury to deter Headbomb from digging more deeply into a hole, in a field to which he came as a stranger) concludes by mentioning that, while he is aware of the rubric about alterations by others which Headbomb has cited, he has to point out that, as with all alterations to existing Wikipedia work, it is intended to promote improvements not defacements (See WP:HOW - anyone can edit any unprotected page, and improve articles). Headbomb's editing of the early "Pelvis Bay" version is without doubt an improvement. But a later version (without that subtitle) has been sent to press, and it is respectfully advised that the common interest would be better served if Headbomb would choose a distinctive and more appropriate title for the new book for which he has lately made himself responsible: and when completed may it turn out well, and reach a wider readership than the specialist one to which Lexigator's has been directed. But Headbomb is also advised, in the common interest, to leave the category page as he found it and is requested to arrange that. Plasmon (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you've just come back from several months break to post this, perhaps you have time to summarize. Thanks, Lara 22:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, put away the thesaurus. You're trying so hard I'm not even sure exactly what you're saying. Headbomb's edits, so far as I can tell, have been improvements. Based on your own comments (those I can parse, anyway), disparaging comments regarding other's work is best avoided, so perhaps you should also avoid being a hypocrite. Unless you have some diffs that point to Headbomb disparaging anyone's work (aside from improving upon it), your comments only apply to you and yours.

Now, for the matter of specific edits you take issue with: as opposed to blanket whining about a "plethora of well-intentioned edits" that you've acknowledged improved, in at least some cases, the books being edited; you either need to go to the relevant talk pages to discuss the issue or post some diffs here. Because so far, there's a lot of complaining, but very little in the area of examples of the problem. Lara 22:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Heads up for Lara: "A civilization which leaves so large a number of its participants unsatisfied and drives them into revolt neither has nor deserves the prospect of a lasting existence" (taken from her user page). Heads up for Headbomb: "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument" (taken from his user page). Salisian (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up that... I have a quote... on my user page... or something. I mean, I put it there, so... yea. Since you've mastered copy/pasting, maybe you can go copy and paste some urls for edits that you believe Headbomb made that were inappropriate. I mean, ya know, to help move the argument along... with Headbomb... the one you apparently just called ignorant. Lara 03:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Speed of light FAC

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated speed of light for FAC. As a major contributor, please leave your 2cents on the review page.TimothyRias (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Button

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Button has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

AWB cleanup

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed this change: do not clean up filenames. The filename File:KasnÃ¤s aerial photograph.jpg seems to be a result of utf8/latin1 encoding confusion, but it is still the filename. --LPfi (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing cn-tags

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Headbomb, please explain this unexplained revert. I had left a message at User_talk:Wdjunkin. Do you think that was inappropriate? DVdm (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a rather obvious/common knowledge things that the boundaries between each field of science aren't well defined. Chemistry is, at the fundamental level, physics. Where does chemistry start? Where does it end? This requires no citation. The article on the demarcation problem (see also boundary-work cover this in some detail, hence the link. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I notice now that you clarified with a wikilink, so you actually did not undo my edit. Perhaps you could (or should) have used an edit summary like "Clarified common knowledge statement with wikilink", in stead of "Undid revision 401936199 by DVdm". By the way, I know it's obvious and common knowledge, but apparently someone didn't and had put the tag there for a reason. Anyway... no big deal. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Graphic Lab

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! You posted a request at the Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop a while ago, and no one has taken that request yet. The reason might be that the correct place to post requests related to pixel images is the Graphic Lab/Photography workshop, where you'll find most editors willing to work on them, while editors at the Illustration workshop are usually working on vector graphics (SVG files etc.). So I moved your request to the Photography workshop. Hopefully that will help. Regards. -- Orionist ★ talk 13:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Better a late notice than never. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Alerts

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have seen you tinkering on the AA pages this week. Is it about to come back on line?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's in trial. See the BRFA. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

AWB

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Many thanks for running this on the medical pages. Could you fix more of the infoboxes on medical pages? Also another change I would like to see is the reduction of refs from being over many lines to being over a single line. Thanks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have about another 400 infoboxes ({{Infobox disease}}) to fix. Concerning the multiline vs single referencing, it isn't really doable (AWB logic for this would be rather complex). Also multiline referencing offer several advantages over their single-line counterpart. For one, they are much cleaner, and are much easier to read, which facilitates checking if there is missing information, misformatting, etc... Some editors disagree, but collapsing references is something that will very very often cause anger. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You would think with one of the editing program like WikiEd you could set the ref presentation to the way you wish to view it. As people seem split some love it one way other another we could make everyone happy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's possible to display them like you want, but never bothered to look for how. Probably most people didn't either. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have asked at WikiEd regarding this a while back. No one really though this was needed. Which makes one think that people would not really care if the refs where over one line instead of many. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:DERM:MA

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help, and there is still a lot of potential for many new stubs/redirects. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not at all. The only thing I know about it is that it's related to the study of skin and skin diseases, that some people have skin cancers, and that there are dermatology journals out there. I'm just cleaning up random infoboxes (as you probably have seen me clean up infobox disease). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass vs. matter

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I do not understand your aim. You want "matter" to be defined as "leptons and quarks" (spin-1/2 paricles with rest mass), but you resist pointing out that such things are not conserved (except in the formal way of giving antiparticles negative lepton numbers and so on-- but that's nothing more than a trick: a positron and an electron are two particles to our usual sense of the word "particle", they aren't "zero particles" because their lepton numbers add to zero). You can't simply define matter as that which has mass and volume, because there's no evidence that quarks and leptons have volume, and there are a lot of things that have mass (photons, fields, kinetic energy) that are not matter by your definition. So why not deal with this in the article LEDE, if your aim is to differentiate all this? I tried to do that, and you reverted me. Okay, so YOU do it. I'm not wrong. It's perfectly valid to point out that while mass is conserved (by any definition) and energy is conserved, matter is NOT. Matter is some odd subset of mass and energy, that various people have tried to carve out, with varying degrees of success. So say that. S B H arris 22:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not want matter to be defined as Q&L, matter has several definitions, applicable to different fields, the Q&L one is one of several [essentially the culmination of the "matter as building blocks" viewpoint], and this one is used in particle physics. Mass is not conserved (energy is), and whether matter is a matter of debate and also depends on your definition of matter. And the lead does tackle this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The mass of any closed system is conserved over time, as seen by any given observer (or in any given inertial frame). The invariant mass is conserved. The relativistic mass is conserved. These are the only definitions of mass I know of in special relativity (in general relativity the curvature of space time can cause energy not to be conserved unless you change your defintions of energy, so this doesn't count). Not changing over time, is what we MEAN by "conserved." The mass of a system is conserved over time in the same way its momentum and its energy are. Give me an example of a situation in which it is not. I am at a loss as to what kind of mass it is that you think is NOT conserved. Put a closed system on a scale. Is there any change can happen to the system that will make its mass change, and the scale reading change? No. You can remove energy from such a system, and it's mass will change, but the energy you remove has the missing mass, and mass is conserved. Since mass is energy/c^2 (so long as you're careful to match kinds of energy with kinds of mass), the conservation of one thing requires the conservation of the other. S B H arris 22:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Rest mass, obviously, why would be be speaking of anything else?

E^{2}=p^{2}c^{2}+m_{0}^{2}c^{4}

If you want an example, there's no better one than pair annihilation [
e⁻
(m₀ = 0.511 MeV/c²) +
e⁺
(m₀ = 0.511 MeV/c²) → 2
γ
(m₀ = 0 MeV/c²), for example].

We've already had this discussion last year BTW. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

We did have this conversation, and I thought we'd agreed. The "rest mass" of a system (what you weigh if the system is on scales) is conserved. That mass is generally not the sum of the rest masses of things inside the system, however, so it's not surprising that this sum is not conserved-- but then I never said it was. That sum is not a proper mass. It's merely the number you get if you chase each particle in the system to get into its rest frame, measure its mass in that frame, then go off after the next particle, changing observer frames each time. Since it's a measure that involves multiple observers, it's not a good candidate for a conservation law.

When you point out that two particles that have rest mass can annihilate into two particles that do not have rest mass, all you're saying is that the "conserved mass quantity" is not found by adding rest masses up, but rather by calculating the total mass of the system, which is the system invariant mass. The sum of rest energies is not conserved, either, but that doesn't mean energy is not conserved-- it just means that rest energies are not a proper thing to sum. So your example proves nothing.

Now, you can sum total energies of things in a system to get the system total energy, and THAT is a measure that is conserved. But by the same token, you can sum relativistic masses of things in a system, and get a total "relativitic mass," and this relativistic mass is also conserved.

When I ask what kind of mass you want to talk about and you say "Rest mass, obviously, why would [we] be speaking of anything else?" the answer is that there are other kinds of mass, and relativistic mass is one of them. It's a concept invented by Tolman to make E = mc^2 always true, and to make "masses" sum up like energies do in relativity, and actually BE conserved in the same sumation way as total energy is. But one must be careful (as I said above) to always specify the type of mass you're talking about. Invariant mass is conserved over time, but it's not the sum of individual invariant masses. Relativistic mass is also conserved over time, in interactions, when seen from any given frame (although its value is frame dependent, unlike invariant mass), and it can be found by summing individual relativistic masses of system parts, so long as the single observer stays in the same frame, throughout.

In summary, mass is conserved! If you insist on using an equation to get "mass" of a system that actually is incorrect (m = Σ rest masses), then this quantity resulting from this bad equation is not conserved, but the fault there is in using an incorrect equation to find mass, not due to the fact that mass actually changes. If you use the correct equations to calculate them, both relativistic mass and invariant mass do NOT change. S B H arris 01:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I speak of apples, you speak of oranges. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really. My mass is your mass. We all measure "mass" with a scale, and in such cases where the net momentum of what we weigh is zero, all types of masses are equal. They have inertia. They create gravity. That mass is conserved. No reaction on your scale will change it. If you ever measure less of it, it's because it has moved off your scale somehow, and no other reason. If you find out where it has gone, you'll also find that the missing part is creating weight, gravity, and inertia THERE. What else would "conservation" mean? You can't get rid of it.

Incidentally, the idea that the lepton+quark definition of matter has something to do with "building blocks" is a very funny way of thinking of building blocks. 98% of the mass of matter if not from the leptons and quarks in it, but from other stuff (bosons and kinetic energy). If I had a house that was 98% brick and 2% mortar, I certainly wouldn't be regarding the mortar as the house's "building blocks." I think it's ridiculous to regard anything that makes up a minority of the mass of something, as its major "building block." All quarks and leptons are, are particles you can't get rid of without employing their antiparticles. So they act as a kind of stabilizing "ash" that you can't burn. Indeed the bit of mortar that keeps everything from just falling apart. S B H arris 01:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year's

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi HB, my dear brother, have a Happy New Year's and let us remain as brothers! Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)