User talk:Headbomb

User	Talk	Archives	My work	Sandbox	Resources	News	Stats	Misc.

---

18 December 2017   Special report: Women in Red World Contest wrap-up Blog: Close encounters of the Wikipedia kind Featured content: Featured content to finish 2017 In the media: Stolen seagulls, public domain primates and more Arbitration report: Last case of 2017: Mister Wiki editors Gallery: Wiki loving Interview: Interview with Charlesjsharp, regular contributor of Wikipedia's Featured Pictures Recent research: French medical articles have "high rate of veracity" Technology report: Your wish lists and more Wikimedia tech Traffic report: Notable heroes and bad guys Humour: On their way to the WMF Incubator Single page Book Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

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 <[email protected]> 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)