User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2018/August

New to Wikipedia curious about bots.
Hey there. I found you thanks to Category:Wikipedia bot operators with the help of the live help chat on IRC. I am a 3rd year computer science student, and was told in passing that Wikipedia is a great place to complete a few programming projects, as well as help a really great cause.

I just joined Wikipedia, and I am overwhelmed by the amount of policies there are to navigate. I am excited though because this looks like a great place to volunteer (with other things besides bots). Regarding creating a bot, I feel I have the skill set (programming, regex, etc); what I don't understand is Wikipedia. I have no particular interests besides programming, but am really willing to help out anywhere until I understand more.

That leads me to three questions:

Where would you, as someone who makes bots for Wikipedia, suggest someone like me gets started? Also, how much experience do you need before you can start working on bots? Finally, Is there somewhere I can go to get a mentor-type person (preferably that has created a bot) to help guide me along this process?

Thanks for your time. I am a little bit overwhelmed, but excited at the possibilities.

Kadane (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, normally (exceptions do exist), we ask bot operators to get a few regular edits on the site (articles, talk pages, WikiProject pages, etc...) so they can get a feel for what Wikipedia is, get familiar with the editing process, and run into a couple of its written and unwritten rules and norms. So my advice is do that. Join a WikiProject on a topic that you like (it doesn't have to be computer science, it could be anything that you enjoy on your own times, like fashion, videogames, cars, physics, etc.) And then find an article, improve it. And find another one, and improve that one too. Fix typos, add citations, expand content with your knowledge (backed with citations)! It's all very daunting at first, but screwing up in good faith is encouraged.


 * As for being mentored on bots specifically, the go-to places for bot-related discussions is the bot noticeboard (WP:BOTN), and you can see the type of work that people request at WP:BOTREQ. Other must-read pages would be the bot overview/policy pages at WP:BOTS/WP:BOTPOL. However, everyone will tell you to get some wiki experience before tackling bots. No only will that teach you a lot, but you'll also be able to ask for specific things "I saw [thing1], but wouldn't it be better if [thing1] was instead like [thing2] because [reasons]?" and then get advice for specific situations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I am going to join the computer science Wikiproject. I already found an article I want to improve through the page you linked, but I have to do some research first. I also added the Bot Noticeboard and the request page to my watchlist. Thanks so much for helping me figure out how to get my feet wet. See ya around! Kadane (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Your BRFA #4
Your BRFA (Bots/Requests for approval/CitationCleanerBot 4) has been approved for trial --- yada yada yada.. — xaosflux  Talk 02:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 02:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books/tabs
This appears to have a missing trailing DIV... Please provide BALANCED code, or an appropriate footer. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Current Opinion (Current Drugs) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Current Opinion (Current Drugs) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Current Opinion (Current Drugs) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JBL (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Journal of Historical Review
Hi, anything entered on the line "peer reviewed =" is displayed twice, except if you enter "yes"... In fact, the only parameter it should accept is "No" (and then a case can be made that it's a magazine rather than an academic journal). Anyway, something seems to be amiss with this line of the template. Please have a look. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

JCW-Crapwatch-Warning
It was entertaining to notice JCW-Crapwatch-Warning and I had to make sure it was only used in project space. I resisted the urge to add a quackery parody image in it. — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yuppers, it's basically a warning for the WP:CRAPWATCH, which is currently in development (the list of crap to be compiled is at WP:CRAPWATCH/SETUP). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to see it. Doug Weller  talk 15:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Astrophysics Data System
Hi, indexing in the ADS is being used to argue for the notbaility of the Journal of Open Source Software. As you are familiar with the ADS, do you think that it is a selective index in the sense of NJournals? --Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Archive 3. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So I askked that question already once before. I completely forgot about that... :-) Your memory is better than mine... Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Username
I wanna give ya a barnstar for your username! I love that username! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.192.59.73 (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, you can select one from WP:BARNSTAR if you wish. I do love my username as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

edit summaries
I know we expanded the wordcount for edit sums. If your edit sum is ever more than 10 words think twice. In my mind you lose credibility when copying your entire comment and signature tildes to the edit sum, and that hurts the point you're trying to make. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't care, take care. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Your reply
In other words, you're further proving that WP:OWN is bullshit with a reply/edit summary like this, which screams "stay away from 'my' page", while you continue to pass the buck. This helps to explain why I have little time for Wikipedia these days, namely 24/7 Wikipedians viewing the rest of us as existing only to feed them. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If you have a problem with Help, my article got nominated for deletion!, then the place to discuss it is at Wikipedia talk:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!. You were told this multiple times, either act on it or go away and stop wasting people's time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

alt approach to template
FYI Template_talk:Draft_article NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Re Laser Swords and SYNTH
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_presumed I claim that the addition to the page doesn't fall under synthesis because it doesn't advance a new thesis, rather it restates precisely the consequences of the original proposition:

"What cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating"

All we are doing is applying this principle to itself. The "what SYNTH is not" page makes it very clear that summarizing the logical consequences of already existing material (e.g. performing a calculation) doesn't constitute WP:SYNTH For further reading please consult the page on criticism of logical positivism (of which the Laser Sword is an example:) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Critics "Even philosophers disagreeing among themselves on which direction general epistemology ought to take, as well as on philosophy of science, agreed that the logical empiricist program was untenable, and it became viewed as self-contradictory" Contradiction is a consequence of logic, not of synthesized knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.133.56 (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "All we are doing is applying this principle to itself." and that is exactly what WP:SYNTH is about. Take it to Talk:Mike Alder if you want to debate this, and give everyone a chance to opine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Typesetting
Hi. You are absolutely right about typesetting. I had previously spent some time figuring out how to change the fonts because I got tired of confusing l, I, and 1. And then while writing this I realized that although I fixed the issue of l vs I, still had the problem of l (L) vs 1 (one). I then proceeded to do some more research and although the font "Andalé mono" looked fine, it didn't come with the Firefox I'm using so I settled with "Lucida console", which seems to be ok, although tbh I prefer proportional fonts. Do you have some suggestions? Thinker78 (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said on my userpage, I personally use DejaVu Sans, which I find rather nice. Or at least I did at one point. I recall Calibri being nice as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I also find Bitstream Vera Sans nice personally. — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Your recent edit
I thought about doing this myself but technically the journal's former name was "Seminars in Cell Biology" and "Seminars in Developmental Biology" was just merged into it (at least that's what the ScienceDirect page indicates: ). But I guess it's close enough to count as a "former name" of the journal. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk  18:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Asia topics
I tried to add the following to the bottom of this template (in its sandbox), but it did not work.

Do you know how to add this? — Eli355 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I requested this change at template talk:asia topic, and was told to make the proposed edit to the sandbox. — Eli355 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 00:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * you had the right idea, you were just inserting that after the wrong set of. Cheers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks — Eli355 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Could you make these bold, so they stand out? — Eli355 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 16:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Synth-pop genre warring by Moonsun
Hello, I have a feeling that moonsun is going to keep changing the subgenre of Synth-pop constantly. Could you watch the page for this please, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreakyBoy (talk • contribs) 14:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Really not interested in watching someone else's edit war. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)