User talk:Headbomb: Difference between revisions

Welcome to my talkpage! Click here to leave me a new message at the bottom of my talk page. If I leave you a message on your talk page, please reply there (I usually watch a user talk page for 3 days at least). You can use {{talkback}} to get my attention if I seem to not have noticed your reply, but please reply where I left the message. Likewise if you leave me a message, I will reply here, and will use {{talkback}} to get your attention if you seem to not have noticed my reply. Please use an appropriate level of indentation. Headbomb

18 November 2024 News and notes: Open letter to WMF about court case breaks one thousand signatures, big arb case declined, U4C begins accepting cases In the media: Summons issued for Wikipedia editors by Indian court, "Gaza genocide" RfC close in news, old admin Gwern now big AI guy, and a "spectrum of reluctance" over Australian place names Recent research: SPINACH: AI help for asking Wikidata "challenging real-world questions" News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports: FY 2023–2024 Traffic report: Well, let us share with you our knowledge, about the electoral college Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

On "Beyond the standard model":

The term "etc." in the intro is unnecessary, as there are no other situations where the theories break down. Besides, no "etc." should appear in an encyclopedia.

If the introduction starts with "deficiencies", it should continue with "deficiencies", not switch to "problems".

In physics, a "theory" is a correct description of nature. Thus "candidate theory" is better (best would be "candidate description") for unproven ideas.

I guess we have different ideas on what quality of wording is. I started twice to improve this article, which is full of false statements and really bad explanations, and twice the changes were reverted. I wish you all the best work for improving this really low-quality article. I will stop doing it.

You can see how I improved the others articles I worked on. And of course, you can revert all my edits there as well.

		The Featured Sound Main Page Proposal Voter Barnstar
		I was truly humbled by the overwhelming community support for the recent proposal to place featured sounds on the main page. The proposal closed on Tuesday with 57 people in support and only 2 in opposition. It should take a few weeks for everything to get coded and tested, and once that is done the community will be presented with a mock up to assess on aesthetic appeal. Finally, I invite all of you to participate in the featured sounds process itself. Whether you're a performer, an uploader, or just come across a sound file you find top quality, and that meets the featured sound criteria, you can nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Featured sounds is also looking for people to help assess candidates (also at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates.) Thanks again for such a strong showing of support, and I hope to see you at featured sounds in the future. Sven Manguard Wha? Adam Cuerden (talk) (X! · talk)

Headbomb, your insistence on Answers.com as a source for this article is misguided, since there is available scholarly literature which you choose to ignore. Furthermore, you seem to have mis-quoted the definition provided in Answers.com and substituted your own. As such, your conception of it appears to have conflated working hypothesis with formal hypothesis by arguing that working hypothesis "is provisionally accepted when no alternatives are available." This is not the case. Even your own chosen source states that working hypothesis is "a suggested explanation of a group of facts or phenomena provisionally accepted as a basis for further investigation and testing." Specifically note that this definition emphasizes that working hypothesis are a basis for further explanation, and state nothing of acceptance after alternatives are rejected. T.Whetsell (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An interview for WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is scheduled for next week's WikiProject Report in the Signpost. SMasters had originally planned to write the article but he has been offline all week and I'm afraid something may have happened to him in real life. If I write some interview questions regarding the project, will you be available to answer them this weekend? I know it's short notice, but I'd like to keep up our schedule if possible, and you seem to be the most active and qualified editor at the project. Let me know if you'd be interested. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I should be able to do that. Fire away! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Wikipedia-Books for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding hyphens and dashes, editors are not supposed to be moving articles between dashes and hyphens at the moment. I'd suggest posting an "oops" somewhere before you get dragged to WP:AE... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR. These moves have nothing to do with the ARBCOM mess anyway. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess I'll get a-dragging, then. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]