User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2019/April

Signpost wording
I don't think it's better. But, what others think is probably more important than what I think. Thank you for working on this. MPS1992 (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , well, it's pretty close to your version, just with fewer commas and also instead of equally (which is a change in meaning in Smallbones' words). If he wants to go with equally instead of also, that's fine by me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "also" is extremely clumsy in this context. I often edit Signpost articles, but I can't claim to have much significant involvement in the output, so I will leave it to those who do. I am sure that at least some people will be unhappy with the editorial regardless of what words are used, but none of us gain any satisfaction from that, I'm sure. MPS1992 (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, one rule of copy editing is to not change the meaning without consent of the author. The previous wording presented two ideas, both, according to the author, with merits, without taking a stance on which side, if any, was more valid. Adding the word equally makes at stance on which side is more valid than the other, so that goes beyond copy-editing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't at any point suggest that I was copy-editing, so no such "rules" apply in this case. The author of the piece has thanked me for previous changes I've made to it, so I think you are over-reaching a little here. MPS1992 (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Good to see you eventually caught the reason for that title - the top article is Us, hence "Us and Them" (I even left other parts of the lyrics in the opening blurb). I only didn't know about using the last lines of the song ("For want of the price of tea and a slice\The old man died") in the death entry, so I went for another song in that album. igordebraga ≠ 05:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My puzzlement was mostly the lack of a very deep connection. There's Us, but no Them, so you have half a pun in there, and if you don't get the reference, it makes it seem that the pun is we're only Wikipedian men, instead of we're only Wikipedian men. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: Signpost module
Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Signpost/aliases&oldid=prev&diff=890736395

I believe you have it right.

I put in a couple of day's worth of work a few years ago generating a tag ontology and going through the Signpost archives to tag old stories using that ontology. I don't think that ontology sees much use now, however. I think you're better off building that sidebar box by searching for and tagging articles manually. Hope that helps. Res Mar 22:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's what was doing, but it was acting weird in places, and was trying to make sense of it. I'm still not 100% on it, but I've tracked down some of the weirdness to Mr. Stradivarius' script being in need of an update. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Izzy the Frenchie
The bot made some changes on this page. And left TMZ and on the main page. The bot moved Brides Magazine to a link under TMZ and left on the main page with a link to Brides, not TMZ and changed Brides Magazine to just brides without a magazine link. It will not let me change the edits due to my lack of experience. How can we stop this bot from doing this odd edits? And how can we get it corrected?

(BlaineParker (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC))
 * Uh? What bot? Do you have diffs? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, you mean this. Seems a case of malformed input. The bot did not expect . That's an easy enough fix. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the whole citations on that page were generally malformed. I fixed them now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Template:Philosophy-of-language-key-terms
Template:Philosophy-of-language-key-terms, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Philosophy-of-language-key-terms and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Template:Philosophy-of-language-key-terms during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Ip sock
Headbomb, the Chicago based IP editor I reverted is a sock of indef'ed editor HughD. I removed the edit per EVADE. , is familiar with this sock editor. Springee (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

BRFAs
Hi. Thanks for taking over the arbitration report. I was wondering if I could also trouble you to take a look at my open BRFAs? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not much time on my hands for the next few days. Ping me again on or after April 1st if no one took a look at things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you take a look? Thanks so much, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I took a look at some of them. Some of the open BRFAs are massive, so I need to read more about it to make any call there. The duplicated category has my moral support, but I'm recused from that one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I finished the task 15 you approved, and was hoping that #13 could be trialed with the examples at the bottom. Thanks so much, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I said, they are long BRFAs and I need to do some reading before tackling them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't have much time on-wiki until this afternoon (UTC) at the earliest, so no rush. Thanks again, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the CE of the from the archives page. Do you think you can take a look at a brfa? (Sorry to keep bothering you) --DannyS712 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just back from a bit of traveling, spent the last 24 hours or so with a friend. Right now I have polishing some of the Signpost-related templates and its technical fiddly bits for the rest of the night, but I should have time to look at some BRFAs tomorrow. Feel free to comment at WT:NEWSROOM about the new preloaded forms (they're not finished yet, but I'm hoping to finish most of them by tonight) and the draft helper. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I've seen the work you put into the signpost templates - its going to make coordination a lot easier. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

subst belongs inside the curly brackets
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Globalize/North_America&diff=prev&oldid=891088440], subst belongs inside the curly brackets  and not before. I have fixed all the Template:Globalize subpage nominations. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting my question from Village Pump (Technical)
Please keep the discussion there, since others may be more able to help than I can. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Mouse Genome listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mouse Genome. Since you had some involvement with the Mouse Genome redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Citing (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Mobile versions
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the mobile version of WP a hot topic in that many editors dislike it? Do you know if anything is being done to make it easier to edit using the mobile version or is there an easy way to switch to the desktop version? Atsme Talk 📧 15:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't personally have much love for the mobile version, and don't know many who do, but I'm no expert on the topic. I'm sure there are efforts to make things better, but like anything it takes time to get there.
 * As for how to switch to the desktop version, usually you just have to scroll to the bottom of a page and there's a link there. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Rationale for removal of previous edit on ʻOumuamua page?
&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

RetractionBot
You might be interested to know that I've just filed the BRFA for version 1 of RetractionBot - Bots/Requests for approval/RetractionBot! It's only looking at a set of Crossref DOIs right now - with it only being my second bot I wanted to get some more eyes on it and have that first run approved, and then I'll dive back in and take a look at incorporating PubMed data too. Sam Walton (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Update
Hello again. The thread on Doc James's user talk is now archived. So here I am to explain what happened next.

I spent time last week on coding up Beall's list, as much as is possible, on Wikidata. The main result is at d:User:Charles_Matthews/Focus list and journal queries. The SPARQL query directly below can now be used to search the ScienceSource working list (focus list), and see what comes up.

The publishers involved are Baishideng Publishing Group, Bentham Science Publishers, Frontiers Media, Impact Journals LLC, and Pulsus Group. Well, what I actually did first was to go over around 80 journals without statement of publisher, most of which were published by or for medical societies of various kinds. For Impact Journals, and Canadian Center of Science and Education, I then set up as items on Wikidata so that they could be used to filter. When I add more to the focus list, shortly, I expect to see more suspect publishers.

So you mentioned Bentham before. Baishideng, per the Wikipedia article, is trying to clean up its act. Frontiers Media likewise. Pulsus is in the shadow of its takeover by OMICS. Impact Journals — is there any reason to dispute Beall's verdict?

There is clearly a time dimension in some cases. It is quite possible to treat articles in the Pulsus journals as OK up to the takeover, for example. This is getting fancy, but the same principle could be applied to DOAJ approval dates for whitelisting too. While it wouldn't hurt too much to exclude all articles from these publishers, code that has a more precise rationale for exclusion and inclusion is doing a better job, and raising the right kinds of issue in so doing.

Do you have comments? What you said last time did prompt me to do work, adding to the project. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

a bot that automatically identifies if scientific references are supported, contradicted, or mentioned.
Hi Headbomb!

I came across this tweet (https://twitter.com/samwalton9/status/1120267906762334209) and after doing some digging came across your name and work in the bot approval group.

I am the co-founder of scite.ai, a new platform that aims to make science more reliable by classifying citations as supporting, contradicting, or just mentioning using a deep learning model. In short, allowing anyone to see how an article has been cited.

I would like to create a bot that shows if scientific articles on Wikipedia are supported or contradicted, similar to the approach with retracted articles but wanted to know if you thought such a bot would be approved.

Would love to know your thoughts on this!

Thanks! Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdiogenes86 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My thoughts is its going to be *insanely* hard to train a neural net to determine if any piece of information in Wikipedia is supported or not by a certain reference. You're welcomed to try, but I don't foresee such a bot editing articles anytime soon. It might have a better chance producing reports of things that have a good likelyhood of being false, so encouraged human review, but even there training the network will be very difficult. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And if the bot is simply reading Wikipedia for an external project, there's not much issue. You might want a WP:BOTFLAG to have higher API limits, but you are likely better off downloading database dumps.&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think my original message was clear enough. Effectively, I would like say if scientific citations in wikipedia are supported or not but not the page itself, which would indeed be exceedingly difficult! To give you an example, for citation #50 in this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala), I would like to show the high-level information from our scite with a link to our open report (https://scite.ai/reports/association-between-amygdala-hyperactivity-to-gVamGz). That make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdiogenes86 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still not very clear on what exactly it is you want to achieve. Taking that example, I agree that, in principle, a neural net might be able to determine if something like like
 * or
 * Is supported by
 * What is unclear to me is exactly what you want to bot to do, and where. When you write " I would like to show the high-level information from our scite with a link to our open report" that's very unclear to me. If it involves doing something at https://scite.ai, then I don't really see any issue with that. If it involves putting stuff in wikipedia articles, for readers to see, then there is a much higher threshold to cross, and I don't foresee that such bot would be approved unless the AI network was incredibly mature, and extensively trained, similar to User:ClueBot NG. If the idea is to have a page like User:SciAi Bot/Report (or similar, like WP:SOURCEWATCH) where you output results to be used by cleanup minded editors, then that shouldn't be much of an issue. If you want general feedback on how to train the AI network, I'm really no expert there, but I'd suggest contacting the User:Cluebot NG people, since it's one of the most successful AI Network bot I know of. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Is supported by
 * What is unclear to me is exactly what you want to bot to do, and where. When you write " I would like to show the high-level information from our scite with a link to our open report" that's very unclear to me. If it involves doing something at https://scite.ai, then I don't really see any issue with that. If it involves putting stuff in wikipedia articles, for readers to see, then there is a much higher threshold to cross, and I don't foresee that such bot would be approved unless the AI network was incredibly mature, and extensively trained, similar to User:ClueBot NG. If the idea is to have a page like User:SciAi Bot/Report (or similar, like WP:SOURCEWATCH) where you output results to be used by cleanup minded editors, then that shouldn't be much of an issue. If you want general feedback on how to train the AI network, I'm really no expert there, but I'd suggest contacting the User:Cluebot NG people, since it's one of the most successful AI Network bot I know of. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What is unclear to me is exactly what you want to bot to do, and where. When you write " I would like to show the high-level information from our scite with a link to our open report" that's very unclear to me. If it involves doing something at https://scite.ai, then I don't really see any issue with that. If it involves putting stuff in wikipedia articles, for readers to see, then there is a much higher threshold to cross, and I don't foresee that such bot would be approved unless the AI network was incredibly mature, and extensively trained, similar to User:ClueBot NG. If the idea is to have a page like User:SciAi Bot/Report (or similar, like WP:SOURCEWATCH) where you output results to be used by cleanup minded editors, then that shouldn't be much of an issue. If you want general feedback on how to train the AI network, I'm really no expert there, but I'd suggest contacting the User:Cluebot NG people, since it's one of the most successful AI Network bot I know of. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@headbomb, sorry for my poor formatting here, obviously new to actually editing Wikipedia. I would like to add information to wikipedia references so it looks something like the following:


 * citations: supporting= 15 contradicting = 2 | scite = https://scite.ai/reports/association-between-amygdala-hyperactivity-to-gVamGz |

I think it could be presented better than that but that is roughly the idea.

I would also say it could be used as you describe for editors, which would actually be really helpful at making sure retracted citations are never added in the first place! Our approach is basically Shepardizing but for science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard%27s_Citations).
 * I don't see that getting much support as q general thing. However, there would likely be a lot of interest in a WP:GADGET of some kind. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Jdiogenes86. Has a paper about scite.ai been formally published anywhere? EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi User:EdJohnston! We have not published any technical details but the following papers and op-ed are relevant and describe our approach and background.

https://thewinnower.com/papers/1-the-r-factor-a-measure-of-scientific-veracity https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/172940v1 https://www.statnews.com/2018/12/13/solving-fake-news-problem-science/ https://thegeyser.substack.com/p/interview-josh-nicholson-sciteai https://medium.com/scite/super-powers-for-researchers-9e6c93ef459d — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdiogenes86 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about Case 1 of KadaneBot 3 BRFA
Hey Headbomb! Finals are wrapping up and I have some time to figure out implementation details for Case 1 on Bots/Requests for approval/KadaneBot 3. Specifically, I am trying to figure out the best way to decide if an article should be tagged. The list of all articles that have the form Foo (bar) and redirect to a non-disambiguation page is at User:KadaneBot/Task3/Case_1. Furthermore, edits can be found by genus by following  (For example User:KadaneBot/Task3/Edits/cricketer/Case 1). These are old but most should still apply.

There are pages that fit the description above and still should not be tagged. You identified the following:


 * .hack//G.U. (Volume 1: Rebirth) → .hack//G.U.
 * 112th Special Operations Signal Battalion (Airborne) → 112th Special Operations Signal Battalion
 * 104th Regiment Royal Artillery (Volunteers) → 104th Regiment Royal Artillery
 * 105th Regiment Royal Artillery (Volunteers) → 105th Regiment Royal Artillery

Can you think of any way to algorithmically identify when it is appropriate to place the tag? Or if the bot cant identify all of the appropriate articles automatically, can it identify some? I've been trying to think of a way around a manual review since it is so time consuming. Thanks for your time! Kadane (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

New message from TheSandDoctor
Hi Headbomb, just leaving you this talkback in case you haven't seen NicoV's response to your question and in case you wish to comment. Regards, The SandDoctor  Talk 23:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)