User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2023/July

Reliable sources
Perhaps you can help me with reliable sources. My comments are here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Glass. Do you know who I should contact about these sources? TwoScars (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Replied there. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Gravity Research Foundation
Its history is what I thought it was. It was founded by Roger Babson to do research into anti-gravity shielding or other comparable means of messing with gravity. That leaves questions as to how prestigious any award by the foundation is. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * My impression from the Wikipedia article is that it started at as a nutter's dream, but became more legitimate over time after Babson died.
 * And remains an utterly inconsequential organization with comparable prestige to a popular student bar or some minor local association. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Rerunning my bot trial
Last week's report is nearly complete, and I fixed all of the issues from my previous run. I am going to run the bot without editing to make sure that there are no more issues to be addressed. I would like to do a full trial run with editing after the new report is finished and transcluded, and I wanted to make sure that that is okay with you. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 19:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * If the bot's not editing, you can pretty much do whatever you want. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I will be doing an edit run after the new report comes out. I am going to do non-editing run before the report comes out. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 19:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Then that'll be your trial. Post the results in the BRFA. If you need more, another extension can be given at that time. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

AAlertBot: Updating article alerts failure
AAlertBot's task "Updating article alerts" failed to run per the configuration specified at Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 edits in the last 1 day, whereas at least 10 were expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the notify parameter from the template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:All WikiProject Women in Green pages
Hello, Headbomb,

This category is still showing up on Empty Categories list as needing to be tagged. The correct code to put on the page to get it ommitted from these lists is. The tag should be orange. Liz Read! Talk! 08:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Predatory Reports wording
Regarding the revert edition, their official website has changed their terminology in solidarity and to reflect their values. I'm not going to fight over a simple edit, and I'm not the best to make it grammatically sound, but I'm leaving the references in case you think the article could be changed.



Arthurfragoso (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Ignorant writing
For example: "I'd like for people to put ...". Go to hell. Tony (talk)  04:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Unlike your "do the hard work of collecting these for you and giving you..." Anyway, see you at AN since you can't be civil. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Headbomb, I agree with you that Tony1 should not be writing this at all on your page. There is no excuse that justifies such a rant. I would hope Tony apologises for this comment. I deeply admire Tony's contributions, but uncivil behaviour is unacceptable here. If the AN thread doesn't lead anywhere (seems so), and if Tony1 doesn't apologise or retract his comment, I would strongly recommend taking this to ArbCom. Tony1's editorial contributions are so deeply embedded in the community that there would be too many editors ready to come to his defense, including me. But like I said, at this juncture, either he retracts, or apologises, or there should be some strong sanction against him to ensure he realises that one can't just say such stuff and walk off. Thanks, Lourdes  09:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, well, all of that bullshit aside, but
I am enjoying Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-01/Tips and tricks so far. I do have one concern, though. Perhaps this is just me being a curmudgeon, and it doesn't matter, but all of the RSP-highlighting scripts should come with enormous and disclaimers that RSP is made up: i.e. it's not a policy or a guideline and doesn't carry the force of such. In fact, conversations that are referenced by the RSP table as "reliable" or "no consensus" span a dizzying variety of solidity; some are the result of giant hundred-person RfCs and some are the result of one person opening a thread and a second person saying "Uh, seems legit I guess".

My concern is that wide adoption of highlighter scripts threatens to make this problem even worse than it already is: unlike the RSP table, they don't even give you the option of a link to the RSN discussions. The idea that source reliability can and should be reduced from a complex interdependent evaluation of statements and publications to a universal "yes/no/maybe" seems destructive. Anyway, I am sure that you're aware of this whole discourse, so I do not want to make you sit through an hour long cranky and ineloquent lecture about it, but I think that there should be something in the article about that. What do you think? jp×g 22:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I can figure something a bit more explicit than the current 'there are caveats, so read those first', I'm sure. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Added some closing remarks. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Bot trial ready
Sorry for pinging you, but I will not be able to respond from this Sunday until the next one and I'd prefer to do my next bot trial before then.

I have fixed the cosmetic issue with the collapse parameter and have added placement scores to the bot's edits. I believe and hope that the next trial will be my last, but I'm not sure if I can redo it right away or if I have to have your permission to do it. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 19:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yup, just undo that page and re-run the bot on it. If you feel there needs to be more trial than that, let me know. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Offsite writing about dodgy journals
See here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Very Nice! I'll have more thoughts on it later, but very nice.&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, IEEE
I don't see what the typo (misspelling) is in Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, IEEE. Is this an actual name or former name of a magazine? I noticed this after I re-created Engineering in Medicine as a former name redirect which was flagged by Category:Infobox journals with missing former name redirects after having been deleted per Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7. wbm1058 (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see that the former article was turned into a redirect. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The name is "IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine", not "Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, IEEE" &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

First time a journal is cited on Wikipedia
Hi Headbomb, great work with the JCW project - really impressive to see everything! I'm wondering if there is a page or report of some kind to see when a journal is cited for the first time by Wikipedia. Such as a new journal established this year's first time being cited here, or when an old journal finally get's its first citation at Wikipedia? That way we can keep track of when new fringe journals start being used as references, or when a new journal has been established to keep an eye on if they are notable for their own article (we currently do not have any journals established later than 2021 as their own article). Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * AFAICT, there's no way to track that. I suppose you could always download every wikipedia dump and inspect them for whatever journal interests you (or browse the history of WP:JCW), but that would require massive amounts of processing and storage (or manual hunting). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, you might want to keep an eye out for the next issue of the signpost. There's going to be a piece about JCW in it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See also this old thread for why 2021 might be the latest year we have journals on. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm yeah, I could try and do a "difference match" between each version of JCW and see which new doi's has been introduced since last time, but that would be pretty massive undertaking. Gonna have a think about it still...
 * I saw the upcoming issue - really interesting! I decided however to wait to read the entire thing until the publication :) Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

N&N
I apologize for making substantial edits after your copyedit; I had gotten to writing some of the substance later than I had wanted. Are you able to give these contributions a quick look-over? — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * No worries, if it makes for a better article, write as much as you want. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)