User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2021/March

Nomination for deletion of Template:WIR-28
Template:WIR-28 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WIR-23
Template:WIR-23 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI
Village_pump_(proposals)-- Moxy - 14:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Predatory journal spam
From our discussions at Module talk:JCW I infer you understand these things. I noticed a dispute (see history and talk at Conspiracy theory) about whether certain edits were citation spam, most of which have been reverted. What about diff which is tagged "use of predatory open access journal"? Is there a straight forward way of working out if that user's contributions are focused on predatory journal spam? Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what your question is, but if you install WP:UPSD, you should have problematic citations highlighted. This should make it easier to see that the section is sourced to a SCIRP journal (awful), and to preprints. Those are definitely not reliable sources. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you reverted the edit in my diff above. I suspected it needed reversion but haven't a clue. I'll note the script. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Stem rust
Hello again Headbomb. I noticed at [[Stem rust ]] continued violation of  [[WP:Requests for arbitration/Sortan ]], with the same stealthy edit summaries. I tried to talk to you about this at [[ Rhynchophorus ferrugineus ]] and yet you stopped responding and just continued, edit warring at [[ Boran cattle] ]. I would like you to cut this out. As I said at R.f., the existence of publisher (and issn, if you're onto that too) can be debated at [[Template talk:Cite journal ]]. This is not the way to do that. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What in the world are you talking about? This is hot garbage introduced by the visual editor or whatever. Publishers are not required information, and should be omitted. Especially not plastering pointless Elsevier BV pr American Physical Society (APS) to dozens of journal citations. No style guide recommends that. Likewise for mixing journal names and abbreviation. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Predatory journal
Hi, you removed a reference from white meat with the edit summary "predatory source".

a) What evidence do you have that Animal Frontiers is predatory? It is apparently the official journal of several reputable professional societies. and is published by a very reputable press (Oxford).

b) The real issue isn't whether the journal is "predatory" in the sense of requiring publication fees, but whether it has high editorial standards. What evidence do you have that Animal Frontiers has low standards?

c) To clear, the statement supported by the reference ("The use of the terms “white”, “red”, “light” and “dark” in reference to meat may have different meanings and implications based on the context.") is anodyne and essentially content-free, so I wonder why it's there at all....

Just trying to understand what your point about "predatory source" is. --Macrakis (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't removed Animal Frontiers? I removed Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology from Sciencedomain International, and Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances from Medwell. Both infamous predatory publishers. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weird. I could swear you had deleted everything from "The use of the terms..." to the end of the Animal Frontiers ref. I wonder how I messed up. Sorry about that! --Macrakis (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Not sure why, but thanks! &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Erwin Skroudungger
If the correctness of the name isn't relevant, why then are these names (including the wrong one) in the article??? It just shows that you and/or the writer of the article have no talent for languages. I'm sorry to say that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitus~nlwiki (talk • contribs)
 * These are not 'wrong names', they are common variants found because ö is an unusual character for English speakers, and was extremely uncommon in the typewriter era. Unlike "Erwin Skroudungger" which is entirely made up. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Cite style
Please be so kind as to respect WP:CITEVAR in the future.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh? You'll have to be more specific here. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about this, it's exactly the same style. What's been added is links to the citations, including a fix in how editors were declared. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're changing a variation of Chicago style to Harv. It doesn't matter what it displays like, you've added code where there wasn't any before.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's utter nonsense. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @, I fail to see how HB is in the wrong here. Celestina007 (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that's precisely the point of WP:CITEVAR (for once). It's in Chicago, using a template makes it not Chicago, and you didn't ask on the talk page first -> WP:CITEVAR vio. SV66 is correct to ask you not to do that. Izno (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * feel free to continue this at Talk:Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe on purpose, but you didn't put an tag on that discussion, so it's not listed. — Goszei (talk)  20:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch, thanks. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)