User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2017/October

Thanks

The MOS may need to follow its own advice, but I need to learn to read. Thanks Headbomb :) 124.189.204.203 (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

ISO 4 journal abbreviations

Hello Headbomb, since I see you just corrected me about Antiquity (thanks for that by the way), maybe you can help me understand how these ISO 4 abbreviations work. Should the abbreviation field of {{Infobox journal}} always be filled in? And if so do we always go with what the link in the template says, or should we look for a reliable source to verify? I ask because in my field (archaeology) journal titles generally aren't ever abbreviated, so I've been following the template's prompts to fill it in with abbreviations which probably haven't ever actually been used in practice, which I wasn't sure was the right thing to do. Thanks! – Joe (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: In case of Antiquity the title is a single word (in general a single word plus articles and prepositions), so the ISO 4 rules say that this word should not be abbreviated (like The Lancet or Nature (journal)). In general the rules are pretty simple, as sketched below the automated tool and as in the full text of the standard. Usually the ISO 4 standard is unambiguous, so there's no need for reliable sources or anything. The ISO 4 should be used in the infobox even if general practice is very different, I presume the goal was to apply some standard uniformly for all journals (a really noteworthy abbreviation can be noted in the article lead, I'd say, preferably with a reference). When a title like Antiquity is left unchanged by ISO 4, then I would also fill the field, since it is still "the" ISO 4 abbreviation. Tokenzero (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

separate page for Monographs?

Hi, I've been sprucing up Western North American Naturalist. I talked to one of the editors of the journal, and she thought the monographs should get their own page because they have a different ISSN. I noticed that the monographs redirect to the journal's page (Monographs of the Western North American Naturalist). Do you have an opinion if the monographs should have their own page? thanks Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

My gut instinct is that the monograph series isn't independently notable. I could be wrong though. If the monograph series passes WP:NJOURNALS own its own, it could qualify for a standalone article, but having different ISSNs usually isn't a good enough reason. See for example Journal of the National Cancer Institute where we treat both the monograph/main series in one article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

thanks! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC

There is no reason why a general discussion about the header of the RfC and changes made to it should go after the proposals instead of before it; there is even less reason to allow one editor to change the header after voting at the proposals has started, but not to allow others to add a pargaragraph or subsection directly below it discussing this change and its effect on the validity of the RfC. Please leave the way this RfC has organically grown well alone. Fram (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I prefer Headbomb's version - a big "THE FOLLOWING SECTION CONTAINS COMMENTS DISRUPTIVELY INSERTED INTO THE HEAD OF THIS RFC WAAAAAH" at the top of the RfC spells out to me "this is a drama-fuelled cesspit - avoid like the plague". I assume we want to get reasoned feedback, not frighten away people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That shouting title was added by the editor most opposed to the changes to "his" RfC, edits by me and BMK had standard section headings. Promoting the removal of these sections because the one editor most opposing these sections added a scary shouty header above it is rewarding the addition of such headers. If the shouting scares you, change it to standard capitalization. Fram (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

In response to your drama-making about what is, at best, minor corrections. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course, arguing for the unban of someone who was incorrectly accused of socking on 2013 is of course nearly the same as arguing for the unban of somone who was socking disruptively for years after his ban, deliberately avoided checkuser by waiting a few months with the sock after the ban started, and again waited a few months after the sock was blocked to resume editing with the original account, and who has never admitted to this socking (and even "forgot" to mention it to the one proposing the unban). This is "at best" a "minor correction"? Oh wait, you are the editor who just happened to give Betacommand a barnstar as well, yep, a totally neutral party to patrol this RfC. Fram (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

None of that is any sort of 'correction' to the RFC, and there are plenty of links to ARBCOM cases to show what Betacommand did, or why he got banned in the first place. The RFC isn't looking to re-litigate past behaviour, it's to advise on what to do on a go forward basis. The only 'correction', if you can call it that, is what transpired with respect to 'the plan' Betacommand was supposed to send to ARBCOM, and that is a pretty damned minor issue as far as this RFC is concerned. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You can only have an idea of how to go "forward" if you have a thorough understanding of what happened in the past. That's not "relitigating past behaviour". That you don't care what happened since the ban is your problem, but arguing that getting an overview of what happened prior to and since a ban decision is not important in an unban discussion is just weird. Fram (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

And now you start removing comments made by others as well[1]? Who do you think you are and what do you think you are actually doing? Fram (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You're the one that asked me to remove those comments. You don't get to complain when I gave you exactly what you wanted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Learn to read. I did not ask for your edit, not "exactly", not even remotely. How did this removal of one line from a comment "restore the header to its state at the start of the RfC"? Fram (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The header wasn't there when the comments were made, so now it's not there either. If the section is where it belongs [in the discussion section], that disclaimer/comment is also completely pointless, as the problem it warns against are no longer problems. If you meant something different, then it's you who has to learn how to write. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

"The header wasn't then when the comments were made"; yep, obviously it's me who has to learn how to write. I don't get how you believe that removing that one line has any relation to an edit summary asking to either leave the RfC alone (which you clearly don't intend to do) or to restore the header back to how it was "at the start of the RfC". Or do you somehow believe that "Header" = "Shouty line added by Guy Macon"? No idea why you would call that a header (or why you would think I would call that a header), but it's the only somewhat logical explanation I now see for your action. Fram (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Going by the normal meaning of "header", this would refer to "RfC: Advisory RfC concerning Betacommand". This has been unchanged since the start of the RfC. So since that's not what you mean, I'm only left to guess what that could possibly refer to. Since you complained about others changing "headers", then the only thing I can see it pertaining to is the header comment made by Guy Macon. But again, this is apparently not what you meant. So learn either learn to write and convey your thoughts in a clear manner, or learn to live with people not being able to understand you despite their best efforts to do so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Header = everything before the first subheader. The lead, the intro, everything written originally before the subheader "proposals". If that wasn't clear, you can always ask instead of claiming that you did exactly what I wanted by removing some random comment I never even complained about. That comment was never changed, and I would not ask to put something back the way it was at the start of the RfC if I simply meant "remove it". Fram (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I was getting annoyed (could you tell? ;-) ) and shouldn 't have said "learn to read", sorry. Fram (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: Apology accepted, no biggie. Let's stick to the issues shall we? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

ArXiv vs. published version

Hi Headbomb,

In this edit you updated a citation template to an arXiv citation. In fact the article in question has been published: The dynamics of Pythagorean triples. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 360 (2008), 6045-6064. I hate mucking around with citation templates, but I thought you might be interested.

Best, JBL (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: If it's been published, then feel feel to update it to a {{cite journal}}! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice job on this! --JBL (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

AEE?

In answers your RfC you like WP:AEE, but it's a redlink.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

RfA, and yes. See the deletion logs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Espionage

Please could you add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Espionage/Article alerts}} to your Article alerts bot? The banner is {{WikiProject Espionage}}. thanks Dysklyver 23:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: Sure, I'll use the default settings. Feel free to tweak them. It'll run tomorrow morning. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

ISO 4 bot run

The bot finished adding/recategorizing ISO 4 redirects (2800 redirects, so ~1400 pages affected, of which roughly half were just categorizing existing redirects). Hopefully Category:Articles with missing ISO_4 redirects should decrease by ~700 (hard to say, as the category does not update despite purges). The bot also produces a list of unusual redirects that may need fixing.

The current list of mismatches is here. The first 50 with your templates detecting the current state of redirects is here. When the bot is indeed right, one should fix the infobox abbreviation, and remove {{R from ISO 4}} from the erroneous abbreviation redirects. Otherwise the bot will detect and list them as suspicious, but it cannot fix them automatically, since many such redirects are valid ISO 4 from former titles. On the other hand the new redirects can be done automatically by just running the bot again. Tokenzero (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tokenzero:, I gave the category a hard purge with a series of null edits, and seems there's about 515 left. Good job! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I gave User:TokenzeroBot/ISO 4 unusual a good cleanup too. Rerunning the report would be useful. Also, I'd make a BRFA for those reports (it'll be speedy approved), this way the bot flag can be made permanent.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tokenzero: - Gave it another round of cleanup. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Ran it again now. At the moment I'm a bit too busy to do any maintenance other than running it again (and the code needs some cleanup, otherwise I'll forget myself how that spaghetti works way before the bot flag expires :) ). Tokenzero (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your contribution to the project. I did not notice the RFA. I would have !voted for you. Magioladitis (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: BRFA? Or RFA? Either way, thanks.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Post RFA stuff

How to lose an RFA and win a barnstar without really trying to do either

		The Original Barnstar
		You don't need validation from those people. You never did. Keep up the good work writing the encyclopedia... 8. Can you describe, in your own words, what "discretionary sanctions" are and how they work? A: From my experience, I'd describe them as holy 'thou shall nots' issued on high by ARBCOM to deal with the worst shit shows of Wikipedia, giving licenses to admins to rain down holy fire issue blocks and bans on offenders without remorse as they see fit. As for the technicalities behind them, and how they work, I can't say I'm particularly interested in dealing with them given the drama that goes with them. I quite suspect how they work varies with the exact sanction. If I ever felt the need to apply such discretionary sanctions, I'd certainly read up on them before hand so I didn't fuck up on procedure, or forget to give prior warnings, or whatever else is involved/required before invoking sanctions. Carrite (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are a good editor, even if 'your own words' were the catalyst for unfortunate RfA doom.

Dysklyver 13:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Can't think of anything to say just that I'm glad your here. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hello Headbomb, your recent RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Headbomb 4) has been closed as unsuccessful. Thank you for your volunteer efforts, and I hope to see you remain as active as ever. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Moral support

I was just about to !vote at your RfA when it closed. I'm really sorry to see it went down the way it did; you didn't deserve any of that nonsense and would have made a great admin. Sometimes saying unpopular things has consequences, even when when they're true. Actually, especially when they're true. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Want to give you props on your RFA

Headbomb, I want to commend you for not withdrawing your RFA when the result was clear even days ago. Most would have withdrawn their RFA when it was clear the RFA was on a negative path (such as what I did). You decided to hold out, which I must admit, I wish I had the stomach to do during mine. Due to your RFA running its entire course, you received a substantial amount of feedback about how to make adjustments for a future RFA ... which doesn't happen for those who withdraw. Just seeing the fact that you held your own during the entirety of the RFA, even after the comment that essentially tanked the RFA ... well, I voted "neutral" in this RFA, but I could definitely see myself moving to the "support" column during your inevitable next run for the mop. So, congratulations for holding out until the end since few do that. Steel1943 (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Solidarity

I haven't really come across you before but I just had the opportunity to read the RfA. The result was complete and utter bollocks. An editor with your service and contributions deserves access to the admin tools and I can't believe that as usual community politics gets in the way and grown adults were offended by a bit of honest fucking language. The sanctimonious drivel from some editors was embarrassing. I applaud you for not wanting to waste your valuable time on petty drama boards. That would have made you a better, not worse, admin. Chin up, buddy. AusLondonder (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

A word from the nominator

This is a shame. As well as you not getting the admin tools you really need that would reduce the workload of admin bots by delegating some of them to you, and me having to put up a "not successful" entry on User:Ritchie333/RfA, I walked away from an RfA that I really hoped would pass on technical merits and not get distracted by some shenanigans on ANI. When I said, "okay that's enough", I meant that I thought you had shot yourself in the foot so much that I could not rescue the RfA from there on in. The irony is I more or less agree with what you wrote for Q8 (see the recent problems with The Rambling Man, for instance) - there was just a time and a place to say it, and centre stage at RfA isn't it. I am certain you would only use the admin tools for noncontroversial technical tasks and never ever violate WP:INVOLVED, but people like to see a polite and civil "frond end" at RfA, and that's just the way things go. It was good at least there was some support coming through at the end that was based on what originally wrote at the top. I don't really know what else to say, except I might be giving bot writing a go myself at some point, so I will probably see you around at the noticeboards there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Epilogues

Because we don't work in the same areas, I wasn't very aware of you before your RfA. I was stymied about how to express my disgust at how it was hijacked by a small highly motivated faction which delighted in casting you as the enemy of all things politically correct (their collusion evident in such things as a sudden late rash of near-identical opposes based on "temperament", for example). Your own temperament is far more balanced than theirs. Their bottom line seemed to be: he doesn't buy into our bullshit, so fie upon him! I don't know AusLondonder, but the pithy and astute assessment he posted above says a lot of what was on my mind. It would be good for the project if you had the tools. You'd wield them appropriately. The polarization and result are emblematic of What Is Wrong With Wikipedia [tm]. I will support you again if the opportunity arises. – Athaenara ✉ 11:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Account creator granted

After reviewing your request for the "accountcreator" permission, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things:

• The account creator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
• The account creator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the account creator right will result in its removal by an administrator.

If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the account creator right. Happy editing! Alex Shih (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Good luck with the edit-a-thon, and sorry about opposing your RfA. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: no biggie. Is there a way to simply override the restriction (like giving an IP/IP-range exemption for 24 hours)? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb, you can request an exemption to the cap for an IP by following the instructions listed here -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 12:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: Perfect, that will likely be simplest. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Moving HIStory/Ghosts

I intend to move "HIStory/Ghosts" to "HIStory (Michael Jackson song)", but I have to notify first per Template:GAR/link because I started the GA reassessment discussion. I posted a notice two months ago, yet I've received no response. --George Ho (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

AWB "fix" is unnecessary and breaks link

Your recent edit to the article for Wyckoff, New Jersey used AWB to "fix" a link to Time (Magazine). The "fix" is both unnecessary here and the replacement added here and elsewhere is broken. Alansohn (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed it. That was the only instance of the fix being off. I might have accidentally deleted the pipe with a stray keyboard stroke. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bouncing ball

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bouncing ball you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reyk -- Reyk (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Reyk: Awesome! I'll be looking forward to it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)