User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2017/September

North American Mycological Association

Hello Headbomb -- It's Sunday morning. I'm sober. And I am serious about about the article. It has lain fallow for six years with no secondary sources.

We demand more evidence than a self-published website for every other article. What makes this group different? I went through the same dance with New York Mycological Society. The results was new references and substantially updated information. If we don't put some more effort into the backlog of tags and inferior articles, WP will end up ... Rhadow (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow (talk · contribs) See both WP:NOTDONE and WP:BEFORE (C/D particularly). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb -- I'm sure we both want the same quality encyclopedia. I only argue that the focus needs to swing ever so slightly from from quantity to quality. Good articles, like North American Mycological Association, need to be current and referenced. That's more important than an article about every dart-thrower. Rhadow (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, WP:NOTDONE applies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

ISO 4 / WP:JOURNALS

Hi HEADBOMB, Thank you for your message yesterday informing me of the WP:JOURNALS! - I'm glad to know about it. I signed up, and will try to do a little work on the ISO 4 abbreviations, or other aspects, when I can. I had one question about adding the redirects for the ISO 4 abbreviations - I noticed that even after one has created the redirect, the flag about it continues to appear at the top of the article (i.e. "J. Soc. Hist. doesn't exist, please verify...." For example, these 3 journals: Nutrition Reviews, Food and Nutrition Bulletin, Journal of Social History. Does it require some sort of manual cleanup to get that flag to go away? Thank you! Lutzv (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lutzv: See the last instruction in Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 redirects. Specifically, you must purge the page to make the templates go away, or alternatively you can make a WP:NULL edit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Antioch Review

Hello. I'm new to editing on Wkikpedia. Can you let me know what you deleted my additions (partial list of contributors) to the Antioch Review wiki? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbbirwin (talk • contribs) 21:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jbbirwin (talk · contribs), welcome to Wikipedia. see WP:JWG#What not to include in particular. Basically, we need a reliable 3rd party source saying the contributions of these people to The Antioch Review are notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Seeking support for proposed Wikiproject Quantum Mechanics

@Headbomb: Hi, thanks for all your contributions! I'm reaching out to members of the community who might be interested in a Wikiproject dedicated to QM. The goal is to create articles which can be read and understood by laypersons but that also thoroughly present the technical details of the subject. As it stands now, too many QM articles feature ledes filled with jargon and lack introduction or overview sections.

I hope you'll support the proposal and contribute as a member when the time comes.

Thanks

Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't support such a proposal. I could support, however, adding a quantum mechanics taskforce to WP:PHYS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Judiciary of Australia

Can you please explain why you reverted my edit in Judiciary of Australia with the explanation that I should use a different template? If you look at what was done, or alternatively looked at the talk page, you would note that the citation was reverted but the template was changed. Similarly if you had any knowledge of the journal in question, you would understand that there is no volume 12 of the Federal Journal of Judicial Scholarship. Please stop engaging in non-constructive editing. Find bruce (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Find bruce: I'm going to refer you to {{cite journal}} and {{cite web}} documentation. Year goes in the year parameter, not in the work or journal parameter. Either use a template specifically designed for the format you want to display, or format the reference manually as I did here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the correct citation. It would seem we disagree as to the role of templates within wikipedia, but I will consider the matter before taking that issue up elsewhere. Find bruce (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Community sanctions

Just FYI, there are no community sanctions on me anymmore. There are only the sanctions imposed the ArbCom.the ArbCom replaced any community sanctions with others. This completes a discussion we had about community sanctions and whether they will be valid or not after the ArbCom closes. Best, Magioladitis (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware. But I'll also point out that the ARBCOM sanctions are more restrictive than the old community sanctions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I would say they are different. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

Hi, I noticed you removed the full names for parts B and C of the journal from their respective sections on this page. Why? Everymorning (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

No real need for them. I suppose it's fine in the main text, but they're really overkill in the infoboxes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request CitationCleanerBot 2

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CitationCleanerBot 2 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 23:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Nice bot

I saw User:Bibcode Bot at work, nice! I hope one day to see your expertise also on wikidata (I have just discussed very recently on wikidata about bibliometric data and items, that's why I say so).--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Most of the credit goes to User:&Delta. He's the one that could really help with Wikidata and the like. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Rcats for dotless journal redirects

About those {{R from ISO 4}}. The discussion indeed has no clear consensus, effectively ending with you insisting until Paine replied "I'll be glad to stop" and not much input from others, so I'm not sure how to resolve that now. One option is to go on as usual (without any 'dotless cats') until somebody disagrees again. Another option is to read WP:TMR:

Redirect templates are designed to be used together. For example, the redirect "Architechts" uses both {{R from misspelling}} and {{R from plural}}.

If this is taken as a guideline (should it?), then in our case both {{R from ISO 4}} and {{R from mod}} should be used (without separate 'dotless' templates or categories), if we were to take the interpretation that dotless versions are not strictly ISO-4. Does this guideline make sense, relative to how editors use rcats, or would it clutter all categories too much? (I know many tools support cat intersection, but I guess it's not always as easy). If it makes sense, I could discuss it with Paine (in particular the Millenia redirect where they removed {{R from plural}}) and if they agree, I could propose the same in the original discussion. I'm asking here because I don't want to clutter the project talk page too much nor wake the dead horse needlessly. In any case the bot can of course change that easily and run again. Tokenzero (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Dotless are ISO, so {{R from mod}} is inappropriate. I say we continue doing business as usual, and take {{R from dotless ISO 4}} to TFD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)