User talk:Headbomb

User	Talk	Archives	My work	Sandbox	Resources	News	Stats

---

Change references?

Hello Headbomb, I noticed your recent edits at Taxonomy of Protista. Are there any reasons I should know to prefer that reference format instead of Template:Cite Q? — Snoteleks (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

First, Cite Q is a blight on the world, making it nearly impossible to fix, cleanup and maintain citations so they are consistent between one another. They also prevent bots from improving them.

For example, in [1], you can't edit Wikidata to flag the DOI as a free-DOI. Most citations also follow a "Last, First" name order, whereas Wikidata's often follow a "First Last" name order. And many many other things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I see... is this a common opinion among editors? I thought it was very convenient because of its easy usage, since it is a centralized system — Snoteleks (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

See the note at the top of {{Cite Q}}: "Until the matter of transcluding Wikidata on Wikipedia is resolved (most likely with a huge and contentious RFC) usage of this template should be extremely vetted to ensure that all of the transcluded information is accurate."

There is convenience in Cite Q, if you're OK with citations with minor inconsistencies. But the more you want to polish things, the more Cite Q gets in the way because if you edit Cite Q to be in one style for one article, it messes up all the other articles using a different style for the same citation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I see... I think I'll stop using it then. I agree so far. — Snoteleks (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Sun FAR

I have nominated Sun for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 750h+ 01:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverted your revision of my edit

Hey there, I see that you have done a lot on here and I have not, therefore a little hello from my side if I allready have the gall to just revert your reversal.

I am now here asking you why you would have reverted my edit? www.technology.matthey.com is a dead link, which is the only reason I started editing the page. Further, over half the sources in the article are plain wrong, which is what I have started to ameliorate as well.

Thank you for your input, I am looking forward to your response! OnlyAQuestionOfTime (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Then fix the dead links, i.e. [2]. Don't remove valid sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

ISSN error?

Sorry to bother you again with a technical issue, but you know I have no idea how to fix it. On my draft for Grünberg I am getting an error message on the ISSN, which I cannot figure out. You can see it in the journal on p 2 and in worldcat, so I can't figure out what to do about the error message. Can you help? SusunW (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@SusunW: Long story short, ISSN 0140-7340 does not follow the standard rules of an ISSN. The ISSN should be ISSN 0140-7341, but that's not what some bureaucrat decided to rubber stamp a while back. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Honest to pete, I cannot figure out how you know this stuff. I believe you just have magic. Thanks so much for your help. SusunW (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Magic. And loads of Ms Vickies chips. But also it's in the documentation (see Help:CS1#ATAWM). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

LOL. Next time I'll send you some chips. I am sure there will be a next time because those help pages are completely baffling to me. I appreciate you. SusunW (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Asian Journal of Chemical Sciences

Dear Headbomb! You removed a peer-revied reference from humic substance wikipedia article.

You are not right! That is an ordinary journal article. It was published in Asian Journal of Chemical Sciences and you can even read the names of the referees:

https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/76978

That was a serous element analytical investigation, you should restore that reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sci1972 (talk • contribs)

This refers to this edit, and I stand by it. Asian Journal of Chemical Sciences is journal from the well-known predatory publisher Sciencedomain International. It is not a reliable source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Sciences edits

Headbomb, I have previously disclosed my working relationship with Frontiers and that I am making edits with the knowledge of my colleagues. If you're insisting on use of the specific COI tag for all edits, we can discuss that in terms of parity with all other edits to similar scholarly journal pages. But the edits themselves should remain for their factual accuracy. Happy to discuss further. Thank you! Tomciav (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

As explained to you both on the warning and at WP:JWG#COI, you are required by policy (see WP:PAID) to have these tags.

You can discuss your proposed edits on the article's talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Headbomb, who are the "both"? I'm the only party working on behalf of Frontiers. Randykitty has yet to disclose their potential conflicts.

As for use of the COI tag — it is indeed the letter of the law. But it's neither used nor enforced consistently across all pages for academic journals. So I'll need to see the community moderate its zeal for selective edits before I annotate every edit with a COI. A public disclosure on the article Talk page should suffice.

All that said, I respectfully request you roll back the page to my edits from a few hours ago. If you'd like to discuss offline I'm tom.ciavarella [at] frontiersin [dot] org Tomciav (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Both refers to "on the warning and at WP:JWG#COI" (there was a typo). RK doesn't have a COI.

As for So I'll need to see the community moderate its zeal for selective edits before I annotate every edit with a COI. , but don't be surprised when you end up blocked.

As for I respectfully request you roll back the page to my edits from a few hours ago. Simply put, no. Your edits are promotional and do not improve the page. If you disagree, you can take it to the talk page, where such discussions belong. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)