User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2020/March

Canterbury and Whitstable Railway RDT
Hi, could you add the relevant code to show an interchange between Whitstable and Tankerton and Tankerton Halt stations on the Canterbury and Whitstable Railway RDT please? Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what that would even be. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Needs the HUB icons adding, similar to Robertsbridge / Robertsbridge Junction on Kent and East Sussex Railway. Mjroots (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you ask on the template's talk page, or at WP:TRAINS or whatever WikiProject is used to deal with these things. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

API access to unreliable.json
Hi, I've been working on some tools that can use your json data, and now I'm trying to access that through the wikiepdia API. I can do this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=parse&format=json&smaxage=0&page=User%3AHeadbomb%2Funreliable.json&prop=wikitext&formatversion=2

but I wonder if there's a better way. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks, Vexations (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * none. I have no idea how to use .json files, and I don't even have any idea of if what's in that file in the correct structure. It's also woefully underdeveloped and completely not ready to be used by anyone. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , no worries, I'm just using it as a prototype; it's definitely not for production. Vexations (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't need the wikipedia API to access a JSON file. The API parses the page as if it were wikitext, not as if it's JSON.
 * You can simply use action=raw: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AHeadbomb%2Funreliable.json&action=raw&ctype=text/json The &ctype=text/json at the end may or may not be needed, depending on what you're using to make the HTTP request. This file has a pretty poor structure, though. See also User%3ASD0001%2Funreliable.json, which is a tad better. SD0001 (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's an excellent tip, thanks! The complexity didn't bother me so much, because I just wanted to make sure my code could handle that kind of file, so it was a nice exercise getting it to work. Vexations (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * any progress on making the script use a JSON file? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry was busy for a bit over the last couple of weeks. Backlogged with other work right now. Maybe will give it a go this Sunday. SD0001 (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry was busy for a bit over the last couple of weeks. Backlogged with other work right now. Maybe will give it a go this Sunday. SD0001 (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

BRFA
Thanks for your promptness with the BRFA! Now, do I need to do something to get the bot flagged? SD0001 (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * usually gets around to flagging those pretty quickly. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 22:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! SD0001 (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This
This made me laugh. Thanks for posting it.

BTW, I'm posting here rather than on your mw user talk page, because it's a red link, and I don't know if you have reached a point of tolerance with Flow there. That community prefers that Flow boards be the automatic/default choice, but if you don't want Flow for your own user talk page there, any admin there can switch it for you. If you want plain wikitext for your user page, feel free to ping me, I'll find someone to do it for you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Gotta have a few laughs every now and then eh? Concerning flow, I think it's hot garbage that's suitable for forums more than Wikis. Really what would fix flow is the ability to edit the source and re-organize things. It'd be entirely fine if there was some validation that disallowed things that would break flow, but the inability to edit someone else's comment (to fix syntax/links/etc), or re-order discussion is really not great. But otherwise, whatever, I'm not on the mediawiki wiki enough to really care.
 * You might be interested in this, btw. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a great link.
 * Of course you can edit someone else's comment. How else do you think I fixed the formatting on your first post?   MediaWiki.org is configured so that IPs can't do it, but you can edit anyone's posts.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I figured it's because you're an admin over there. The interface is so weird it's hard to make any sense of it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin anywhere. The Edit button is in the ••• menu for each comment.
 * Speaking of unfamiliar interfaces, would you mind testing https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisatrice:Whatamidoing_(WMF)?dtenable=1 for me? Just reply to any (time-stamped) message, and let me know what you think of it.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * that just seems like the regular interface with a beige skin slapped onto it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you see "Reply" in blue after each timestamp?
 * There shouldn't be any beige. When's the last time you checked your prefs over there?  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a "Répondre" link which I didn't notice before, yes. This is what I see. When you click on those there's a box that appears below. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're set for MonoBook, and apparently they've set their MonoBook talk pages to yellowy-beige. It looks a little strange to me, but I guess they like it.  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Headbomb/unreliable.js
Hey, I was wondering if I could copy your script and modfie it to add my own stuff to it. I would give credit of course.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 15:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. This is Wikipedia, everything save fair use content is re-useable through CC-BY-SA. However, before forking, if it fits in the scope of the current script, and makes sense, it might also be simpler to simply update my script than have you update your script every time I update mine. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , heh, okay, I will keep that in mind. I know that I would be allowed, just though it would be nice to ask.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 15:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Only thing I'd appreciate beyond basic attribution that you have a backlink somewhere, so Special:WhatLinksHere shows your script, if you decide to mark a fork. What did you want to add (or modify), out of curiousity? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I added some of the stuff on Paraxidice's list of fakenews/blackhatSEO/etc sites, Her list is quite big,  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 16:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like something that could be added to my script, rather than forked. Do you have the list? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , ask her about it, its updated alot, and I am thinking it might be beter as an addon for it. she just forked my fork, so guess we will see where it goes.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 16:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably better as an add-on then. Simply keep the structure, but throw out my list of sources. Or I can easily add sources upon request, and have everyone benefit from it (my preferred option). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , its User:Praxidicae. I just suck at spelling  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 16:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up
”This does nothing” improves my understanding as I move from novice to apprentices editor. So much to learn, —¿philoserf? (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * see Article_alerts/Subscribing for what options are supported by the bot. But there's also no issue with the current subscription as far as I can tell. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Your recommended script
I installed in, but didn't see any results at first (which, of course, is a good thing).

Then I looked at this edit, and saw it in action.

Thanks. S Philbrick (Talk)  11:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you can see the journal has a current IF of 8.699 (and not 28+), according to . Wiley doesn't lie about the IF of its journals, but of course it's best to use Journal Citation Reports as a source for this. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Pipes on the left...
Thanx for the ce on American Criminal Justice Association–Lambda Alpha Epsilon. I need to get back to it. As you can probably tell, I copied the template from another article. That had the pipes on the right. I've always wondered whether pipes on the left is a standard somewhere. I prefer it if I'm building from scratch, but just wondering at what level of policy...Naraht (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pipes on the left is the unofficial standard, yes. Pipes on the right is leftover from old times that basically spreads from copy-paste to copy-paste. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Me4NOH

 * Check it out User talk:JonRichfield. I just dont want to humiliate the editor because he seems like such a good contributor.  I guess it'll blow over. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Fine structure constant
Could you clarify why you reverted revision ? Why is lowbar preferred over planck constant? For whom does it render as intended? It doesn't look like the planck constant when it renders for me. --Jartine (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Compare 4&pi;&epsilon;0ℏcα with 4&pi;&epsilon;0ħcα. The first does not render as it should in most character sets, namely here it is italicized and serifed when the rest isn't. Same for something like E = ℎ&nu; [the unicode planck constant symbol] vs E = h&nu; [regular lowercase h]). Special characters are almost never used for this reason and others related to accessibility, character support, etc.... Those are leftovers from the 1980s and 1990s when special characters were preferable to lessen the number of supported characters needed. The most common case of this is now using a proper &amp;mu; instead of the old &amp;micro; in &mu;m, or subscript tags for 2 instead of the unicode ², or °C instead of the unicode ℃. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Has The UNICODE Consortium published any statements to this effect? Is this written as a Wikipedia editing guideline? Reading UNICODE Technical Report 25, I get the impression they're pretty committed to their mathematical character planes. They absolutely address the things you mentioned. For example, you mentioned italicized rendering intent. UNICODE has alternate "mathematical" encodings for that very purpose, e.g. 4𝜋ε₀𝑐𝑎. They were intended to retain sufficient appearance regardless of things like CSS stylization. UNICODE is orthogonal to platform rendering magic, since text is designed to work in more places than PDF files and Chrome. Wikipedia values are to help make information as free as possible. I like being able to copy and paste math. There's no statistical evidence that UNICODE isn't portable. I recommended Planck constant for Wikipedia earlier in the most conservative way possible. I checked and it was defined way back in 1993 w/ UNICODE v1.3. \hbar might be good for LaTeX but H with stroke isn't the same thing and is "used in Maltese and in Tunisian Arabic". UNICODE defined U+210F and U+210E explicitly for Planck. Let's use them. --Jartine (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, let's not, for the reason said above. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Edit Progress
Hello,

I'm the author of that article about progress you deemed published by a predatory journal and therefore excluded from the page about progress. When I published the paper, in 2016, the journal charged no fees, it went through a normal peer-review process, which if you'd like I can show you the edits that were necessary in order to be accepted. Also, your rule is that if it makes Wikipedia better, the main idea is keeping the information up. So please, do you really think it is not a contribution?

I believe the paper is a contribution and the journal itself isn't predatory - if you look up, it has very few published articles in the specific journal of "Current Research in Psychology" and normally they do have decent quality.

Therefore I'd like to undo your edit, but before we could discuss to see if I can convince you I was just trying to provide decent, valuable information to a subject.

190.15.53.172 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Rhubble
 * I'm afraid you'll have to be a bit more specific about what Wikipedia article that was, but Science Publications is a well-known predatory publisher, listed on both Beall's list and I believe Cabell's blacklist as well. See also and . Current Research in Psychology is also, as far as I can tell, indexed in no bibliographic databases of any reputation (like Scopus or Web of Science's core indices), and this generally does not meet our requirement for reliable sourcing.
 * This is, sadly, immaterial of the quality of your scholarship because of where it was published, unless it's been cited many many times in reliable publications. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

No, it hasn't been widely cited elsewhere. The phrase you deleted is simply:

Recently the idea of progress has been generalized to psychology, being related with the concept of a goal, that is, progress is understood as "what counts as a means of advancing towards the end result of a given defined goal."

Which is I believe good scholarship and not promotional at all. I'd like to ask you to read the paper, found at https://thescipub.com/pdf/10.3844/crpsp.2016.12.15, you'll realize it was scholarship done in good faith, published at the time without any cost, went through normal peer-review. I have no idea if the publisher itself acts in an improper manner now or acted then, I'm just really sad to find my work summarly dismissed by your script. Any chance I could undo your change, I do not think it hurts Wikipedia at all. You could check the journal itself instead of the publisher to see if you find work that should be disregarded...

Thanks for your time....

190.15.53.172 (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Rhubble
 * Again, it doesn't matter if it's "good scholarship", or is promotional or not, the fact is the source simply cannot be depended on because Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources. We do not conduct our own analysis of the scholarship. The publication is not reputable, therefore we do not cite it. I perfectly understand that it may not feel great for you to have your work dismissed like this, but the people who you should be angry at are Science Publications, and those who advised you to publish there. If you are lucky, you might be able to retract the publication from CRP and republish it elsewhere. Then it might become citable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * An alternative here is simply to cite a different source. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

Well, since it hasn't been cited by news outlets, I could simply let the phrase alone without any proper citation until someone mentions it in some reputable place I suppose? I don't care much about identification, just want my contribution to be out there for people to read.

Someone in Iran cited it, but I suppose I can't really count on something not in English either.

That or I could add it to a pre-print repository such as viXra, which accepts social science stuff, then cite it from there.... I don't know. What would you recommend me? Sorry to spend your time on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.15.53.172 (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, viXra... there's another place you don't want your work to be on. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I'll try to send to a more reputable pre-print archive then, such as https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv, would that work out? If you allow me, I'll just undo your edit but take out the reference to thescipub. I'm just a foolish victim of this lame system, it seems.

Would that be ok for you? Just the phrase, no reference for now.

190.15.53.172 (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Rhubble
 * That can certainly be done to improve the visibility of your work the academic world, SocArxiv definitely being a place where social researchers would browse more than viXra, possibly with a note that you are distancing yourself from CRP/Science Publications. But as far as Wikipedia is concerned, that would not fix the issue of reliability, since SocArxiv doesn't conduct peer review. Again, I'm not saying your work isn't good, I'm just saying that it's not currently citable on Wikipedia. To take a more extreme example, on viXra, you'll find things like this. In the words of Nobelist Gerard 't Hooft "When a paper is published in viXra, it is usually a sign that it is not likely to contain acceptable results. It may, but the odds against that are considerable." This also applies to pretty much every predatory publisher out there too. Not every venue is as bad as say, International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology. But that's the problem with those venues. We can't trust them, and everything they touch become suspect. A social science scholar would have the ability to critically evaluate a work published in an unreputable venue, and decide for themselves if they want to cite it or not. Wikipedia, sadly, doesn't. Which really does suck for honest scholars that have gotten duped by them.
 * If the sentence is restored, it should at minimum be restored with a tag next to it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

Ok I'll restore the sentence with a citation needed for now, will try to put in the archive and will try to do more due diligence before publishing. It's just I was young, I'm still young, and did the work myself, with no experienced academic directing me, ended up screwing up as I'm starting to be aware.

Thanks for your time a lot, you've been very understanding and a great help.

Cheers,

190.15.53.172 (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Rhubble
 * No worries. This is sadly a story that happened too often, especially when predatory journals really took of circa 2010. You might also try to publish a reworked/updated version of the article in another journal. Some journals might accept a re-publication, with their own review process, if you retract the original (or try to retract without success, but explain your attempts). But this is just my personal speculation at this point. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your revert!
Hello Headbomb, Thank you for your revert on Carbon nanotube. In the future I would highly recommend leaving a warning on the user's talk page so continued vandalism can be easily punished for, as the person you reverted continued to vandalize the page. Enabling Twinkle is a huge help, and the template you should use is {{subst:uw-vandalism1}, but with an extra squiggly bracket at the end, follow by four tilde's (~) to add a signature. Also make sure the warning is under a section on the talk page, not the user page, and the section is labeled with the month and the year. It is not required, and any help reverting clear vandalism is always appreciated, however the extra step to add a warning would be appreciated tenfold. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Evan99m (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Headbomb/unreliable
Why is everything pink?..... CAPTAIN MEDUSA  talk  17:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've updated some things, but it seems there's something that broke. Currently investigating, but I'll be undoing the recent changes in the meantime. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, It's fixed now.  CAPTAIN MEDUSA   talk  18:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure there's much to be done about this, but your script makes a mess of one of the comments in Articles for deletion/Gérard Gertoux (3rd nomination) (because the comment includes inline links to bad sources listed in the article). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, not really a mess. It just points out that at least one of those sources is bad, in this case Lulu.com. So if you had an argument like "Keep, Breitbart [link] shows this person was important to organizing the theft of children to distribute in PizzaGate", you would know to discount the argument. But here it's Delete, based on publishing in blacklisted sources. Which can also be useful to know. But yeah, it's also not perfectly ideal either. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Edit filter noticeboard
You are invited to join the discussion at Edit filter noticeboard. CAPTAIN MEDUSA  talk  18:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)