User talk:Headbomb

Jump to navigation Jump to search
User Talk Archives My work Sandbox Resources News Stats

Error in the Spanish Flu article[edit]

Hello, I see that you have recently edited the Spanish Flu article and hoped you can make an edit for me, since it's semi-protected. In the paragraph "Etymologies" it says the following: "This lack of scientific answers lead the Sierra Leone Weekly News (Freetown) to suggest a biblical framing in July 1918, using an interrogative from Exodus 16 in ancient Hebrew:[a] "One thing is for certain—the doctors are at present flabbergasted; and we suggest that rather than calling the disease influenza they should for the present until they have it in hand, say Man hu—'What is it?'"

The thing is, Man hu does not mean "What is it?" It means "it is Man." Man or manna, was kind of an nondescript food that the Israelites ate in the dessert, so it makes sense that it would be a good placeholder for a name for the flu, since it also was nondescript. You could translate it as "whatdoyoucallit" or "thingamajig." Exodus 16:15.

I realize the Sierra Leone Weekly News quote may be accurate, but I thought I'd add this piece because correct information is what wikipedia is all about!

Thanks so much, Leora Koller-Fox

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4800:14f0:e99f:7e24:a732:cc54 (talkcontribs)

BTW, the place to put these comments and edit requests is at Talk:Spanish flu so that everyone can chip in on whether or not the proposed changes are acceptable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]

User:Headbomb/My work/Books[edit]

This is now filled with redlinks. Are you going to delete/fix this? Just passing by... ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Haven't decided what I'm going to do with it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]


Huh, normally we include RfCs for source reliability or deprecation into the Policy and guidelines category (see the current RfC for Business Insider for instance) but I think you may be right it's an improper category. Do you think Politics, government, and law or Media, the arts, and architecture would be more appropriate categories for the CounterPunch RfC? Thanks! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Media maybe? It's just not changing policy. A new sourcing category might be relevant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
The UPSD tool is incredibly useful. Thanks for making it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png For moving Biomaterials Science (Journal) to Biomaterials Science, I found the link of Biomaterials Science journal was not active in List of Royal Society of Chemistry journals. So I changed it accordingly. Rahul SomanDiscussions - contribs 22:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yup, the updated link was good, but the page was just at the wrong location to begin with, so overall it's a win-win. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]


I am sorry to bother you, but you know I am worthless with technical things. I fear that once again some major change has happened in formatting of refs? The last time, you helped me clean up errors that occurred when they decided to remove the ref=harv parameter, but this time, I don't even know what the issue is. I just converted all the sourcing in Elena Arizmendi Mejía's article to work it up to GA. Every single source says "Harv error: linked from CITEREFBeltrán2010" (obviously with the last part varying per author and date). There do not appear to be any errors in the sfn citations nor in the references, but what do I know? As this is the way I routinely format, I do not want to have yet another huge referencing issue. Can you explain what's going on and either fix it, or help me to fix it? SusunW (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@SusunW: should be fixed. The issue was that the references were in a further reading section, and that's usually a sign that should move those to a proper references section. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you so much. I truly appreciate your assistance and patience with helping me. I am also really, really happy to know that it isn't some completely new technical thing I have to learn and was easily fixed. :) SusunW (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Always happy to help. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]