User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2020/December

Discussion of guidelines for short descriptions
There’s a new proposal to add dating recommendations to the guidelines for short descriptions. Short descriptions are a prominent part of the mobile user experience, but the discussion so far has had relatively few voices. Since you are a top contributor to one or more Manual of Style pages, I thought you might be interested. Cheers —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  01:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

MDPI journal reliability
You may remember that we had a discussion about my practice of Caps and redirect bypassing in journal names, including for example, the MDPI journal Molecules, which you have gone to the trouble of making linkable, despite the fact that Wikipedia does not have an entry on the journal Molecules. I find many good reviews in MDPI journals, but the editor User:Zefr will delete any edit I make referencing MDPI journals: for example on the claim that articles in MDPI journals are unacceptable on Wikipedia (which has rank #1 as "Target/Group"). Why go to the trouble of making Molecules linkable if Wikipedia believes this is a trashy substandard journal for which any citation will be automatically deleted? --Ben Best:Talk 11:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Zefr has been told repeatedly that while MDPI is a borderline source, which will often fail WP:MEDRS, it's not PURGE-ON-SIGHT-AUTOMATICALLY-BAD awful, and that being on WP:CITEWATCH isn't a sufficient reason to remove a source. The reason for why it's on CITEWATCH may warrant removal of the source, but that's a case-by-case call. My recommendation is to take it to the talk page and get feedback at WT:MCB.&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In my experience of reading and assessing MDPI journals, a persistent common thread among them all is "leap-of-faith" interpretation and exaggeration of lab (usually in vitro) results being treated as semi-factual for in vivo anti-disease evidence, much like the sample gives above, as advised previously for pterostilbene here. When I see a journal publishing garbage like that, my first question is "how would good journal editors allow such misinformation into their publication?" (answer: CITEWATCH journals have weak or no editorial rigor, and authors may be paying the journal for publication, as for MDPI), and a second question is "would that article ever see publication in a rigorous journal?" (answer: no, it would be rejected). This Benbest edit, for example, is in a paragraph citing PNAS and NEJM sources - certainly more trustworthy for editorial review - and the title of the Molecules article, Nrf2 Signaling Pathway and Its Role in Inflammation, is borne out for its leap-of-faith exaggeration in its content revealed in that article. Bottom line: MDPI journals are a flashing red light for scrutiny and doubt: reverting an edit that uses them is a message to the original editor like Benbest to work harder for better WP:MEDRS sources for the encyclopedia. We are not here to reinterpret and rewrite journal articles that may have not been accepted for publication by a journal with rigor, WP:NOTJOURNAL #6. Zefr (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have restored the deletion by Zefr with new edits using three non-MDPI-journal reviews for the one MDPI-journal review that motivated Zefr's deletion. It was not hard finding other reviews to justify my new edits, because they were based on solid science, as was the MDPI journal article I originally used for citation. I don't think that discussion on a TALK page would have gotten very far when Zefr is justifying his disparagement of the MDPI article based on the title Nrf2 Signaling Pathway and Its Role in Inflammation. How could it be possible to have a productive discussion against Zefr's assertion that it is self-evident truth that the title discredits the scientific merit of the article? --Ben Best:Talk 17:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Frontiers Media
I wanted to discuss, with the intent of understanding not in anger, about the roll back. Of note, I only removed peer reviewed in the main title and descriptor. Information about the review process and controversy remains in full.

My reasoning is we want to be clear to the new academic, student, or whomever, that there needs to be some thought before deciding whether to submit to this journal. Why? Aside from personal judgements about the journal, I agrue that we have a classic type1v2error probability, which is a riddiculus but more informative way of saying 'er on the side of caution, low, slow, eh?'.

To explain, in a way that is all tok representative of my personality, imagine an RA, Tommy procrastinated and now has until EOD to show his PI proof of submission. So, he decides to submit and pay for publishing at this venue. Tommy was in a rush, but did gleam the wiki - more acurrately - read the small wiki badge on the side of their Google results. Unfortunately poor Tommy should have checked with his academic integrity office at his institution or spoken with the university doctorate technical librarian. Now Tommy is stuck due to the financial terrorism of the profitable university system prevausive in many places world wide. Poor soul is stuck having paid $10k out of pocket and reprimanded for vanity publishing.

The End. Rinarene (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Frontiers is peer-reviewed. It may be crappy peer-review, but it is nonetheless peer-reviewed, and has been certified as such by organizations like the OASPA. If poor Tommy can't make his way to the second paragraph of the article, he's only got himself to blame. If you want to continue this discussion, use the article's talk page. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
A joyful now and a well-remembered experience. Merry Christmas to you and your family.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!


Empire AS  Talk ! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2024 and tomorrow will be . Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive . This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Empire AS  Talk ! 18:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!


Tahaaleem Talk— is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2020 and tomorrow will be 2021. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2021. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Tahaaleem Talk 18:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)