User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2019/November

???
Why are you wasting your time with edits like this? Far as I can see, you only removed the word "after" (which I think actually is functional there), and then there were a lot of unnecessary edits that don't change the output whatsoever. Here, at least, there was one (very tiny) visible change, but I've seen you do this on other journal articles where it didn't result in any visible change. I can look up the guideline, but aren't we supposed to refrain from edits that have no visible effect? It makes me have a look at the edit (because I've watchlisted this article), so it's a waste of my time, too. --Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Because I don't consider it a waste of time, made the wikilink more relevant, and that entry more standard. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's something you only see when you edit the article, then wait until you have an actual edit to do. And I do consider edits that don't produce any visible change absolutely useless and don't like them clogging up my watchlist. --Randykitty (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

BHGbot
Thanks for approving Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 4.

However, User:BHGbot doesn't have a bot flag; it was removed some years ago due to lack of use.

How do I get it back? -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * usually gets around flagging bots shortly, but you can ping any WP:CRAT I believe. Wait for the flag to do those edits. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 00:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Headbomb & Xaosflux. Vroom vroom! -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Bot help?
I am working on developing a bot, 4o4NotFound Bot. My goal is for it to help with anti-vandalism. With all your experience, would you be able to help it distinguish vandalism from legitimate information? (I am working on one of my subpages that is supposed to look vandalized,available here.)

❤️🧡💛💚💙💜Rainbow Hearts, E Super Maker (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on vandalism bots, but our current vandalism bot is User:ClueBot NG and is pretty effective. You'd likely have to build a case that yours can address things that ClueBot NG misses. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for help
RandyKitty suggested that you might be able to help me understand a message I got from a bot today. The message was from SporkBot and read as follows.

diffhist mb User:Rick Norwood/Duotrope‎23:39 +129‎ ‎SporkBot talk contribs‎ Translate and/or remove deprecated parameters per Template talk:Infobox website

I know what "deprecated" means and I know what "parameters" means, but cannot parse "deprecated parameters" in this context. Sporkbot seems to be a largely unused bot (its page says "semi-retired), which is why I do not ask this question on its talk page. The page it references, Duotrope, was deleted a long time ago. At the time, I objected to the deletion, and I'm still not happy about the deletion of a page about a tool I and many other professional writers find useful.  But why this has come up again now leaves me mystified?  Can you help me understand what Sporkbot wants me to do? Rick Norwood (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * do you have the diff? Also, in general, it's a good idea to contact the bot operator if you have a question about a specific bot. For, this is . &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * may be able to enlighten us here. It looks like that editor is working to simplify some Infobox website parameters, eliminating some undocumented and redundant parameters, for example replacing the undocumented launch date with the documented and much more usual launch_date. Sporkbot simply visited all pages using those undocumented parameters to replace them with valid, documented parameters. There is nothing further that needs to do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: Editting articles while unapproved
I’m sorry about that, I thought I was signed in as E Super Maker. I also didn’t really know how to apply to a bot block.

Sincerest apologies, E Super Maker (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Wha-
I’ve just noticed this. How in the world is your account older that the Wikipedia founder?

???, E Super Maker (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Re: Proposals?
On Randykitty’s page, you kind of insulted my interests.

E Super Maker (😲 shout) 01:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way, but I haven't insulted your interests, I pointed out that you're focusing on 'management-like' without having a much experience with how Wikipedia works. E.g.
 * Removing/adding humor tags to things that clearly should / should not have them.
 * Want to become an admin/operate a bot without knowing much about how Wikipedia works.
 * Seem to want 'recognition', for lack of a better word, from editors like Randykitty or myself.
 * None of the above is particularly egregious, but we're here to build an encyclopedia (see "A focus on encyclopedia building"). That too, should be your goal. You're, of course, free to ignore this, but if you lack encyclopedia-building experience, then you won't know what drives most editors here, or get support for most of what you're trying to do because you will simply be out of sync with the goals of the community. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Red-billed quelea
"Predatory journal" is a new concept to me, re this edit. Can you elaborate? It has taken a big bite out of an FA. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly, Biopublisher, which publishes the International Journal of Molecular Evolution and Biodiversity, is a predatory publisher (search for 'biopublisher'), which are publishers that engage in deceptive/predatory practices and do not conduct a meaningful peer-review process. Accordingly, it is an unreliable source, which should not be cited on Wikipedia. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Predatory publishers
Wondering if there is a way to warn people when they use one? I used one by mistake here Was fairly easy to replace with no predatory publishers as was all fairly basic facts. But agree we need to remove these bad actors from Wikipedia. So thanks for all your work on this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's WP:EF #891. I'm crawling for predatory DOIs and domains and making EF requests when I find them. However, the best way to automatically find unreliable sources is still WP:CITEWATCH (automated) and User:JzG/Predatory (more powerful, but needs a lot of clicking). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , this publisher is certainly questionable but on specific works it's better to read the article and trust your judgement. Good articles sometimes get published in bad places. Several articles in the usual places have referenced this article. It seems to be a mere compilatory work, so it's relatively low risk. Journals are eager to publish literature reviews because they tend to get many citations and boost the journal impact factor. Nemo 21:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Nemo_bis I am happy to see Headbomb picking these up. And am happy to change to non predatory sources when I am tricked into using one. It is unfortunate that pubmed does not pull journals that have significant concerns. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is because of PubMed Central, which includes all US government financed studies that were published OA, even if this is in a predatory journal. MEDLINE is more restrictive, so if you retrieve a reference from PubMed, check whether the journal is in MEDLINE and you're fine. --Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Jytdog
If any member of the SPI team moves your comments, do not revert the move. I closed the report and left your comments in the section you wanted them in because it wasn't worth fussing about, but please don't do that again.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well my comment was moved from section to section, so there didn't seem to be an agree-upon place for it. The 'other users' section doesn't seem to make much sense since I'm the filer, nor does the 'clerk/admin' section, since I'm not one. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to ask me why I moved your comments; you should not just revert me. Conventionally, the filer uses the first section to list puppet(s) and provide evidence. The filer can add to that section until there is a response from a clerk, another user, a CU, a patrolling admin, etc., but once there is a response, the filer should use the section for comments by other users. Otherwise, it is confusing as to the timeline: one has to look at the date/time stamps of the sigs to figure out what is going on. This is all for the benefit of those of us who are charged with making decisions as to the merits of the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weird, I was sure it was moved twice by different people. Oh well, no biggie, feel free to move again to whatever section helps you. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. You added your comments, I moved them, you moved them back. I have no interest now in putting them back to where they belonged in the first place. It's moot/closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Question about CrypTool / predatory journal
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CrypTool&type=revision&diff=927746561&oldid=923626041

Could you please explain, what are predatory journals? Who is the authority which defines what journal has this attribute? Is there an official list of such journals?

Remark: The cited article was really originally published in this journal. What alternative is there in order not to loose this source reference?

Thanks for going into more details on that. BeEs1 (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * See predatory journal. As for lists, the most famous one is https://beallslist.weebly.com/, although there are others. As for what alternatives there are, the simple fact is that these journals are not reliable sources, so we should not cite them. They are certainly not needed to verify that "CrypTool is used in schools, universities, companies and agencies for education and awareness training." &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Transactions and proceedings of the Royal Society of South Australia
Hello Headbomb,

Just letting you know that the journal title is "Transactions and proceedings of the Royal Society of South Australia" (not "Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of South Australia"). I suspect that in those days, even in titles, only the first letter of proper nouns was capitalised. Alternative titles are "Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia" and "Transactions and proceedings and report of the Royal Society of South Australia". Gderrin (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, we use title case for publications in English, regardless of how they may style themselves. See WP:MOSCAPS and also WP:JCW/Target11. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll also point out that you're linking to the biodiversitylibrary.org, which is very lax with its capitalization. Also, the title, as it appeared on the cover, as in all caps. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging IPs
Per one of your messages at the Chuck Easttom talk page: notifications don't work for IP editors per the mediawiki documentation here, and you still have to use talkback for them.

Luckily, the IP address you're talking to at the aforementioned page seems pretty attentive. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  01:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm aware yes, I still use ping so there's a clear represantion of who I'm addressing in the thread. BTW, people get a notification when IPs aren't 'notified', so this shouldn't be news to anyone. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

RfD for Academic and Scientific Publishing
Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_27

(Twinkle failed to notify for some reason, so here it goes by hand). Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Headbomb
I'm wondering why you've chosen that user name. Any explanation? - 100.14.80.135 (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I was playing Perfect Dark when I was younger and I needed a profile name, and though Headbomb sounded cool. Stuck with it since. It's fully meaningless, and could have easily been BottledFarts, HorsePizza, or BamBamYaDead. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * About seven years ago I had a dream/nightmare that my head exploded; and almost needless to say, that at that moment, I awoke to find that it wasn't for real, much like the fantasy 'worlds' which video games effort to portray. I saw your edit at Ruthenium, and wondered if there was some sort of connection.  I find your home page somewhat inspiring, but there are some things which wiki seems to be incapable of grasping, at least practically in the real world.  The five pillars are nothing more than an idol compared to the Holy Trinity, and in keeping with what Our Lord does to idolaters, wikis' failures are eternal thorns in its 'flesh'.  As such, if the world is wrong, so will wiki be, and so it is, the bright side being in the know, as such. - 100.14.80.135 (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Toshihide Maskawa
I'm a NATIVE Japanese speaker and the anon contributor 124.26. for the aricle Maskawa. My edits were from Japanese Wikipedia. Here are the sources. I can understand your feeling about my edits, but the original sources are derived from Japanese newspapers. I don't revert the article myself but hope you know they are reliable edits by a Jp-En bilingual person.
 * 学生時代から「いちゃもんの益川」と呼ばれたほどの議論好きで、違った視点や仮説を提起して議論を活性化させていた. 当時、京都大学名誉教授であった湯川秀樹にもいちゃもんをつけたが、湯川は平然と会議に消えたという.
 * 受賞後は本人の信念で、記者に意図的にへそ曲がりな応対を続けていた. 取材記者に受賞の喜びのコメントを求められたが、「（受賞は）大してうれしくない」「36年前の過去の仕事ですから」「研究者仲間が理論を実験し、あれで正解だったよ、と言ってくれるのが一番うれしい」[7]「我々は科学をやっているのであってノーベル賞を目標にやってきたのではない」[8]「（ノーベル賞は）世俗的な物」[9]など、受賞後にもかかわらず、研究者にとって純粋な学問の追究こそが目的であり、賞を得ることが目的ではない、という趣旨の発言も多く注目された.

益川敏英氏の記事を編集した者です. 内容は日本語版 Wikipedia からの引用です. 日本語話者の編集を頭ごなしに否定するとは驚きなのですが、私自身はページをリバートすることはしません. あなたの良識に任せます. - D. Sato


 * That may well be true, but WP:BLP compliance is not optional. Claims without accompanying  shouldn't normally be made, but this is especially true when making negative claims about living people. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)