User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2020/January

Language Coaching
This article is not supported by Predatory journals - it was but it is not - I have removed those references. The table features in a book, there are no other references. I will now take out any of the information related to the journals in question.

As for information cut and paste from a website - what information are you referring to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyh28 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Copying a table from a book (and a self-published book at that) is just as much a copyright violation. Likewise for the World Journal of Education, it is a predatory journal. Since you don't seem to be willing to get consensus for your changes, and abide by our policies, I have requested that the article is permanently protected. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Bothered by this
Hi ,

I'm kind of troubled by the mass deletion proposals going on at under-attended TfD whereby a plethora of wikibreak templates are being proposed for deletion. Some of them I'm personally OK with deleting, but others, no. Why all the focus on deleting wikibreak templates all of the sudden?

So, just notifying you, neutrally, as an interested editor of templates, redirects, and the like to the discussions.

Cheers,

--Doug Mehus T · C  21:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

PeerJ preprints are discontinued
Hi Headbomb

You reverted my edit here with a link to PeerJ, however on their own blog they announced that they will discontinue the preprint server: https://peerj.com/blog/post/115284881747/peerj-preprints-to-stop-accepting-new-preprints-sep-30-2019/ so I dont think it makes sense to mention PeerJ in the article on biorxiv since they are now doing completely different things. I think we should mention other servers, such as arxiv and ChemRxiv. Best hroest 19:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * even if it's discontinued, they're still a good see also addition. No objection to mentioning other preprint servers in addition to PeerJ Preprints that aren't already mentioned in the article however. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Why are you persistently corrupting citations?
I have just reverted your mass edit of citations at Hilina Slump, the latest of many edits [aside from the edit-warring] you keep making that, while making some needed corrections, also do considerable "miscorrection". I think we have various issues to resolve. E.g.:

1) Why do you keep re-casting USGS Professional Paper titles as chapters? For all that they are in a numbered series, they are not chapters in that series. (And many of them have chapters.) Such edits also cause a "" error; are you oblivious to that?

2) Why do you keep replacing {citation} templates with {cite} templates? You have not cited any reason for that, it is contrary to the established citation style for this article (and therefore violates WP:CITEVAR), and breaks the short-cite linkage to the full citations.

3) Why do you gratuitously break the citation template formatting? While you could argue that formatting is not covered by citevar (haven't we had this discussion before?), yet there is NO REASON to corrupt it, and there is good reason to have a regular format that aids in ensuring correct citations.

4) And (noting on-going edits) why are you edit-warring about this? &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , 1) I haven't? 2) I haven't? 3) I haven't? 4) I haven't? Do review . You'll find that none of what you're accusing me of is true. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I was going to add a P.S., but you're running somewhat ahead of me. I see that your current edits are more restrained, and respect some of my complaints. Thank you, and on that basis I will take your edits as not edit-warring.  But there are still issues.


 * Re your several "haven't?"s: huh? Are you denying, or merely unclear? Your edit of  demonstrates several of my points. E.g., at line 181 you did change "title=" to "chapter=" (as you have done in various edits in other articles), which generated a red "Missing" error for Clague & Sherrod 2014 that is not found in the previous version (of 20 Jan). You also replaced "&#123;&#123;citation" with "&#123;&#123;cite" at lines 200, 239, 252, and 571. As to corrupting the formating: at line 181, you inserted the "journal=" field between first1= and last2=, and at various locations concatenated lines. QED, and what is it you do not understand re "true"?


 * If (per your subsequent edits) you are undertaking to not do those kinds of changes henceforth, fine, I don't require justification of abandoned usage. Hopefully we can work out some of the other little issues, okay? &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see much point in debating an edit I don't stand by. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:CERN experiments
The reason I moved the various lists from the category "CERN experiments"->"CERN" was that I inserted some additional text on top of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CERN_experiments featuring the same lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibliophilen (talk • contribs)


 * That still does should not influence the categorization of experiment articles into non-experiment categories. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)